GOP moderates not as endangered as we thought?

With all the rhetoric we've been hearing from conservative activists/tea partiers about kicking the RINOs out of the Republican Party, you would expect a purge in the GOP to be on the horizon. However, an article was recently published in the LA Times that points out that despite the far right's best efforts, moderates are still here - and they are making a comeback.

This is to be expected. You can't expect arch-conservatives to represent moderate/swing districts and states and feel electorally safe. With the 2010 midterms coming up soon, we can expect these moderate districts to bring in even more moderate Republicans. This is why I wasn't really sweating Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. As has been pointed out, he has a reputation as a liberal Republican (hence his vote for that jobs bill).

Two thirds of Americans want Congress to continue working on HCR bill

Even better, they place more blame on Republicans for the stalemate:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans want Congress to keep trying to pass a health care reform bill, according to a new national poll.

The ABC News/Washington Post survey released Tuesday afternoon also indicates that the public spreads the blame when it comes to a lack of bipartisanship in the nation's capital.

Fifty-eight percent of people questioned in the poll say that congressional Republicans aren't doing enough to seek compromise with President Barack Obama on important issues, with 44 percent feeling that Obama is doing too little to forge compromise with the GOP.

The survey indicates that 56 percent of independent voters say congressional Republicans aren't doing enough to try and work with the president and Democrats in Congress. Half of independents see the president as too unwilling to compromise and 28 percent feel both parties are not doing enough when it comes to bipartisanship.

According to the poll, 63 percent of Americans think federal lawmakers should keep trying to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan, including 88 percent of Democrats questioned, 56 percent of independents and 42 percent of Republicans. Fifty-five percent of Republicans feel Congress should give up on health care reform.

Wow! So will the GOP keep chanting, "Kill the bill!"? It looks like the White House push to paint the GOP as obstructionists is actually working!

Seriously? Conservative bloggers oppose HCR summit in order to protest WH stagecraft.

President Obama has invited the Republicans over to the White House for a health care summit. This comes after a.) the president has rightfully been criticized for not keeping his promise regarding televising the health care proceedings, and b.) his laying down of the law on House Republicans at their retreat a few weeks ago.

Well, of course, Republicans will attend because they don't want to appear obstructionist. However, methinks that some conservative bloggers smell a trap. Of course, they will never admit it.

See Michelle Malkin's post today (no, not the one where she somehow encourages her readers to honor the memory of Rep. Murtha while at the same time taking pot-shots at him over his comments regarding the Haditha incident). I'm talking about the one where she gets hyped up over Obama's use of stagecraft (or "Kabuki theatre," as she calls it) and then uses that as an excuse for the Republicans not to attend the health care summit:

Republicans should feel zero obligation to participate in yet another White House health care dog-and-pony show:

Just say no.

If Obama really wants to learn about GOP health care reform plans, he can look them up online, where they have been for months.

...Obama has enough human stage props to feed his ego and advance his agenda.

Republicans should not be a party to it.

You see, Mrs. Malkin believes that Republicans should boycott the summit out of principle, because Republicans should never support the use of stagecraft. Oh wait...

NYT: Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights [May 16, 2003]

Officials of past Democratic and Republican administrations marvel at how the White House does not seem to miss an opportunity to showcase Mr. Bush in dramatic and perfectly lighted settings. It is all by design: the White House has stocked its communications operation with people from network television who have expertise in lighting, camera angles and the importance of backdrops.

On Tuesday, at a speech promoting his economic plan in Indianapolis, White House aides went so far as to ask people in the crowd behind Mr. Bush to take off their ties, WISH-TV in Indianapolis reported, so they would look more like the ordinary folk the president said would benefit from his tax cut.

"They understand the visual as well as anybody ever has," said Michael K. Deaver, Ronald Reagan's chief image maker. "They watched what we did, they watched the mistakes of Bush I, they watched how Clinton kind of stumbled into it, and they've taken it to an art form."

But Michelle Malkin is right, dammit. I mean, come on. Obama's so over the top that he might as well appear on top of an aircraft carrier in a flight suit with an ironic, patriotic banner hanging in the background.... oh... wait... that's right. That's already been done. But I just can't seem to remember which party that president belonged to.

Anyway... Obama is just so egotistical, that he might as well just give a speech at Mount Rushmore and strategically sequester photographers in an area where they are practically forced to get a shot of his profile aligning with the stone visages of his predecessors. Oh wait...

Malkin has been screaming about "Kabuki theatre" for months, and criticized Obama town hall events as staged and filled with plants. Of course she never criticized Bush for his "carefully choreographed" rallies:

The Bush campaign carefully limited admission to such events, including "town hall" meetings where Bush answered questions from the audience. Tickets were required for all events, and they were limited to the party faithful. Priority was given to those who had actually worked for the campaign (whether it be volunteering at a phone bank or just putting up a Bush sign in their lawn), and at some rallies those admitted had to sign an affidavit that they supported the president in order to get in." [Pika and Maltese, pg 410, The Politics of the Presidency, 6th ed]

Maybe Mrs. Malkin should own up to the fact that she doesn't want the GOP to get laughed at again. We know that the president can hold his own in front of over a hundred Republicans on their own turf. Just imagine how ridiculous they could be made to look when they are guests at the White House.

They can complain about stagecraft all they want, but at the end of the day this comes down to the issue of ideas. The Republicans have a complete paucity of them. In fact, they only have one: do nothing. Oh sure, they talk about tort reform and tax credits, and buying insurance across state lines. However, we know that if they were in power they would enact none of those proposals because in reality, they prefer status quo. In a majority of instances, that is all that conservatism is. Defense of the status quo.

I wouldn't wait around for conservatives to acknowledge this.

The GOP is obsessed with purity

It will come back to bite them in the ass, but NPR is reporting that the Republican National Committee has adopted a rule denying financial support to candidates who don't support the core beliefs of the party. Still no word on whether an RNC Un-Republican Activities Committee will be established.

It's less strict than a competing plan drawn up by some GOP activists. The so-called "purity test", named in honor of President Reagan, demanded Republican candidates support eight of 10 points on a variety of issues from abortion to immigration to get money and win Republican endorsements.

An about-face of GOP strategy towards Obama?

There has been a recent shift that has left me confused, and a bit suspicious. Maybe a couple of you have noticed it too.

During the past week and a half, I've noticed a shift in the rhetoric that Republicans are using towards the president. Whereas for the past year they have been carpet-bombing the president, they now seem to be struggling to restrain their criticism. They are also backing away from divisive tea party activists. Could they have finally realized that the American people don't want an opposition that just says "no" and a couple of standard lines about socialism? A couple of recent events make me think so.

News came this week that Marsha Blackburn has backed out of the Tea Party convention being held here in Nashville. A few days before that, Michelle Bachmann backed out. Ostensibly, the reason was their uneasiness about the organizer's decision make a profit off the convention. With all due respect to these congresswomen, do you really think that they care about how the money is coming into this thing, or what the money is going to be used for? We've known about the exorbitant price of the tickets for weeks. We've known about the organizer's profit motive for a long time as well. Why suddenly back out now, when they have known about the money issues for a long time? Are they coming to realize that rallying with the fringe elements that support the tea parties could anger a large swath of independent voters? Rep. Blackburn's decision to back out is especially striking, given that she occupies one of the safest seats in Tennessee. In fact, she won in 2008 with 68% of the vote. Franklinites adore her, as do those who live in the exurbs around Memphis. Is she actually worried about how participating in the event will make her look to her constituents (many of whom are likely to attend)? I can only conclude that she knows something that the rest of us do not. She might have been encouraged to forgo the event because it would reflect poorly on the rest of the House GOP.

Besides backing out of fringe events, did you notice the show of decorum that the Republicans put on during Obama's address? According to reports, Republican leaders pleaded with their members to muffle overt criticism of the president. They tried their best, but couldn't keep themselves from laugh out loud at the president when it was politically convenient to do so. However, just knowing that a.) GOP leadership urged respect and b.) members actually attempted to do so, says a lot - especially when compared to last fall's "You Lie" moment and straight up booing of the president.

The impetus of this entire post, however, was what happened today. A couple of weeks ago, the House GOP invited the president to speak at their retreat. Obama accepted. Watching the footage, the Republicans go way out of their way to be deferential, and are prefacing their questions with, "with all due respect," fumbling over their words, and generally just trying to show that they aren't complete assholes. It was all, "thank you, Mr. President," "You have a beautiful family, Mr. President," etc. No doubt the purpose of the event was to show that the GOP had at least made some sort of effort to work with the president.

This apparent tactical switch cannot be analyzed without putting it within the context of the 2010 elections. Last year was a great opportunity for the GOP and astroturf group to really get their base riled up. They certainly did that. Now they are coming to realize that the elected officials exploiting the Tea Party movement aren't exactly what independent voters want to lead their government. Republicans want to project an image of a party that not only can say "no" to Obama, but also has ideas and solutions to actually govern in the case that they (god forbid) take back Congress. I guess they have been noticing the polling data that shows that while the public is pretty down on the Democrats, that isn't translating into love for Republicans. The memory of six years worth of united Republican government is too fresh in the minds of voters. They need to do something to show that they are actually trying to remedy America's maladies.

Yet though they've just recently adopted this slightly more cordial approach, the things that transpired at today's retreat may result in a tweaking of their strategy. If you've been paying attention, you'll notice that the event was televised (at the insistence of Obama). Obama also agreed to take questions from Republicans after he made a short speech. Republicans were hesitant to televise it, but probably expected that they would be able to make the president look like a buffoon since they had the home court advantage.

What actually happened was quite different. After speaking for about twenty minutes, Obama took questions from Republican congressmen for over an hour. He was remarkably candid. He spoke plainly. He calmly stated his disappointment with the tactics of their party. He refuted their talking points. The result? He was kicking so much GOP ass that Fox News decided to stop broadcasting the event.

Given the fact that the president laid the intellectual smack-down on the right, Republicans are likely to shy away from hosting more of these events in the future. They know their ideas are tired and have already been tried and failed. They know Obama is a masterful debater. Giving the president a public forum to criticize them is not a good PR strategy.

Essentially, the Republicans are left with a dilemma. They need to show America that they know how to work with the president to find solutions, but without making themselves vulnerable to (very) damaging criticism. They need to show America that they don't really embrace all the hooey of the tea party attendees, but at the same time they don't want their base to feel like they've been left hanging.

On top off all that - and I hope this is true: they just might find themselves up against a president who is finally more engaged and looking for a fight.

Politico pimps John Thune as potential GOP presidential contender

This is the first time I've heard anyone talk about Sen. Thune's presidential prospects:

With resurgent Republicans growing increasingly confident that President Barack Obama may yet be a political mortal in 2012, a new name is emerging as a potential presidential contender: South Dakota Sen. John Thune.

For those in the GOP who aren’t giddy about a second Mitt Romney run and aren’t sold on the viability of Tim Pawlenty, Thune represents a mainstream conservative alternative.

Tall, handsome, not yet 50 and with the sort of sunny demeanor that winning national Republicans usually possess, the former high school hoops star looks the part.

Sounds dreamy. But is he experienced enough? Does it matter?

But when pressed on the matter of Thune’s record, some of his backers effectively conceded the point by privately noting that the current occupant of the White House didn’t exactly run on a lot of experience.

“To a certain extent, he’s our version of Obama — the tall, lanky, good-looking, well-spoken senator” is how a former top party official put it.

Does "the man who beat Tom Daschle" really stand a chance? If he keeps his nose clean and tows the conservative line, why not? He could be a good candidate for the GOP.

Obama might want to beef up his secret service detail for this

Via Politico:

President Barack Obama will address House Republicans next week at their annual retreat in Baltimore, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton said Tuesday afternoon.

It’s a show of bipartisanship after a year rife with tumult in the relationship between the president and the minority in the House. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana have taken swipes at nearly every one of the White House’s priorities — ranging from sweeping health care overhaul to stimulus legislation.

RNC reluctant to throw out Steele

This is what you get for choosing a chairman based on your party's desire to show that it's diverse:

“I don’t think there is any chance he’s going to be dumped before the next election for the obvious reason,” said one of the party’s most influential strategists and a key player on presidential campaigns.

Asked why that would be, the Republican, who is not on the party committee, shot back: “You’re not going to dump the first African-American chairman. That’s the only reason. Otherwise, he’d be gone.”

This is laughable.

Apparently the GOP's "big tent" isn't so big

The RNC releases it's own Ten Commandments:

An internal discussion over whether the Republican National Committee should cease funding candidates who do not support core party principles has gone public, frustrating RNC members and reopening old wounds within a party still recuperating from a bitterly divisive recent special election.

The resolution, sponsored by Indiana national committeeman Jim Bopp, outlines 10 “key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle” that he and some of the more orthodox conservative members of the committee believe candidates should adhere to in order to receive the RNC’s support.

Among the positions: support for gun rights, support for the Defense of Marriage Act and opposition to President Barack Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package. Other key issues include support for smaller deficits and market-based solutions to health care and energy.

“RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee,” the resolution reads.

Surprisingly, the document did not include "Thou shalt not speak ill of Sarah Palin."

The good news is that the GOP is obviously continuing it's effort to marginalize moderates and independents (you know, that part of the electorate that decides elections).

RNC insurance plan covers abortion

Many private insurers cover abortions. Many conservatives are unknowingly paying premiums that cover abortions. Even the RNC's policy pays for elective abortion:

The Republican National Committee’s health insurance plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

Priceless. The RNC is completely clueless.

UPDATE Nov. 13, 2009 @ 7:38AM: Steele's fixed it. No more baby killing for RNC employees yaaaaayy

Obama's not dithering on Afghanistan

He's doing what Bush should have done in the first place:

“I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way. I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary,” Obama pledge to 3,000 marines, naval officers and their families who packed into an airplane hangar at the Naval Air Station here. “And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt. Because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, and the defined goals, as well as the equipment and support that you need to get the job done.”

You see, President Obama isn't going to make a knee-jerk decision to escalate a war just because Republicans are criticizing him and calling him "weak". What no Republican seems to have mentioned is the fact that if Obama escalates the war before the presidential runoff election on November 7th, he risks alienating a significant portion of Afghani population who will see Obama as "meddling" in their country's political process. Republicans, of course, have no problem with meddling. They did it for upwards of 7 years. What they don't seem to understand is that sometimes it hurts more than it helps.

This is the third instance in which Republicans have criticized Obama for not getting more involved in the politics of a foreign nation. There was Honduras, where Republicans wanted Obama to support the military coup of a democratically elected leader. Obama wouldn't do it. Then there was Iran, where Obama was criticized for not doing more to encourage the opposition. Why don't Republicans understand that we can't reshape every foreign nation in our image? Don't you think that Iran would have been a lot less willing to participate in nuclear talks if the Obama administration actively supported the opposition? Of course, if Republicans had their way we wouldn't even have to worry about nuclear talks. We'd just bomb the hell out of them, because might makes right and war is awesome!

But back to Afghanistan. My prediction is that you shouldn't expect a decision regarding Afghanistan to be made public until after the runoff. I want to emphasize the "made public" part of that sentence because it's highly likely that Obama has already come to a decision. He's just waiting for the presidential election fervor to calm down.

Yep, there's a Rep for that.

Found this on the Kos.

Throwing Bush Under the Bus

Sean Braisted has some astute observations about a growing trend among conservatives:

How do Conservative Republicans cope with the idea that one of their own went down as one of the least popular Presidents upon leaving office, in history? Well, that's easy...just pretend you never liked the guy in the first place. According to Nathan Moore, former President of the Davidson County Young Republicans when Bush was in office, he "was no fan of Bush, which is but one way I am daily bemused when partisans try to respond to my criticisms of Obama by saying 'Bush did it, too!'."

Yes, while there might have been some who were fooled by Bush's straight shooter, down-to-earth folksiness, Nathan was not one of them. Granted, you can be forgiven for thinking otherwise, what with him having called Bush "a candidate of vision" back in 2004 when he worked hard to see that Bush got a second term.

Let's face it, Republicans dislike Bush for one reason and one reason only...he became unpopular. He was an albatross around the GOP's neck and they viewed him to be the cause of all their problems. Of course, they tend to neglect some of the demographic problems that plague their party, such as their bleeding of support among Hispanics, even though Bush worked hard to reach out to that increasingly important constituency; work that was squandered by Congressional Republicans.

This is a dead-on analysis, and something that I've been witnessing as well. Suddenly conservatives are saying that Bush "wasn't a real conservative" because of TARP and immigration reform. You would be lucky to find anyone on the right who will admit that they supported both of Bush's election efforts. However, I remember the eight years of that administration very well. Conservatives were in lock-step with everything the Bush administration peddled. Don't let them fool you into believing that he was disliked by conservatives, because in reality they loved him.

Along with conservatives throwing bush under the bus is their increasing tendency to label themselves as "independents". Total hogwash. They would like you to believe that they are just regular Americans who are typically non-partisan but passionate about their country. They want to be able to claim that they are just like you. Taking their cues from recent party affiliation polls, they see that regular people - surprise! - greatly dislike Republicans.

Thus we now have the most curious breed of independents that I've ever seen: independents who sedulously (but furtively) support the Republican Party. That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one.

Joe "You Lie!" Wilson learns that actions have consequences

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) is learning that actions have consequences:

Proof that one man’s loss is another man’s gain: in the hours following South Carolina’s GOP Rep. Joe Wilson’s "You lie!” outburst during President Barack Obama’s joint address to Congress Wednesday evening, his 2010 Democratic opponent has raised about $100,000 from 3,000 people, according to a spokeswoman for the House Democrats’ campaign operation.

Like many people who watched the speech, I was angry about his outburst. However, as stupid as his remark was, what's more interesting is that this sort of backlash is nothing new for GOP members of Congress. Their inability to hold back their thoughts gets them in trouble time and time again. Two cases illustrate my point.

2008 - Michele Bachmann
Action: Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said the following:

I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views. That's what the American people are concerned about . . . The news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look, I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they pro-America or anti-America. I think people would love to see an expose like that.

Consequence: Liberals enraged by her comments deluged Elwyn Tinklenberg's (her Democratic opponent) campaign with donations. The race tightened significantly, but Bachmann was able to win 46.41% to 43.43%. You would think that she would have learned, but since her election she has continued to play to her wingnut base and has even said that she wants her constituents "armed and dangerous". She is a prime target for democratic activists who want to see her OUT of Congress.

2006: Sen. George Allen's "Macaca moment"
Action: Running for reelection in a close race against Jim Webb, Sen. George Allen let his ignorance show:


What Sen. Allen claimed to be unaware of was that "macaca" is a racial slur.

Consequence: The event is widely considered to have irreversibly harmed his bid for re-election, and he ends up losing.

Both of those instances should have caused the GOP to pause and reflect on how their words can inspire negative outcomes. However, as Rep. Wilson proved last night, they still haven't learned anything.

Cheney in 2012? God help us

Apparently some people actually think that Cheney would be a good GOP candidate for president in 2012.

At first, it seemed like a joke. Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto opined on Monday that -- if the 2012 election were to turn to national security -- "it's hard to think of a better candidate... than Richard B. Cheney."

But while his headline -- "Cheney for President" -- provoked guffaws in some quarters, several of the party's most well-regarded strategists and pollsters are actually taking the idea deadly seriously.

"The Republican Party needs to move forward and build on its past, not return to it," Alex Castellanos, a frequent CNN analyst and GOP messaging guru, told the Huffington Post via email. "But if the agenda turns to security, Obama is mired in a no-win mess in Afghanistan, and the Obama administration hasn't created a single job in four years after indebting the nation for generations, maybe Dick Cheney could run on a theme of 'Change'." . . .

Longtime pollster and GOP operative John McLaughlin also said he sees an opening for a Cheney candidacy premised on a hypothetical national security failure from the current White House.

A Cheney nomination "would be a serious consideration because he really has been a defender of policies that the majority of people now think are successful," McLaughlin told the Huffington Post. "Although right now a lot of people are focused on the economy, if there ever was some sort of foreign policy crisis people will look to Dick Cheney and say he had it right."

Yeah. I'm sure that people are pining for the days of the Bush administration. *roll eyes*