The single most unifying issue among Republicans, Tea Partiers and Independents is that Obamacare must be repealed. According to a recent Rasmussen poll:
Sixty percent (60%) of voters nationwide favor repeal of the recently passed health care law, including 49% who Strongly Favor repeal.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 36% oppose repeal. That figure includes 24% who are Strongly Opposed....
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans and 65% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor repeal; 56% of Democrats oppose it.
So one would assume that any Republican lawmaker with the smallest iota of sense would fully support efforts to repeal this monstrosity. Think again:
Although they’ve called repeatedly for repeal of the Democrats’ new health reform law, some senior Senate Republicans have not endorsed a bill that would actually do it.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), GOP Conference Chair Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Conference Vice Chair Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) have all argued that the reforms — passed in March without Republican support — will hike costs and erode services, and therefore should be scrapped. Yet they haven’t signed on to their party’s repeal proposal.
That bill — just nine words long — has been endorsed by other party leaders, including Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the minority whip, and John Cornyn (Texas), who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).
That McConnell, Alexander and Murkowski haven’t done the same, some experts say, could erode the Republicans’ election-year message that the Democrats’ health reforms will do more harm than good. . . .
I am racking my brain in an attempt to think of any logical reason the Republican Party leadership would fail to support the single most popular cause in America since canned beer. The only thing that I can come up with is that perhaps they want a bill that does not merely repeal Obamacare, but that offers a sensible and cost effective alternative. If that is in fact their desire - and I am really, really praying it is - then maintaining a cone of silence and refusing to explain their reticence only makes the Republican Party look uncoordinated, ineffective and as far removed from the type of leadership America wants and needs as the Democrats now in control of Washington. These Republicans are deeply in need of an invitation to the next Tea Party rally.
Eleven members of the Republican doctors railed against Democrats health reform plan this afternoon, demonstrating the increasingly heated and personal rhetoric surrounding the health reform bill.
Here’s the most vitriolic:
“I have three simple questions Ms Pelosi,” said Rep. [and family practice Dr.] Paul Broun, R-Ga. “Are you so arrogant that you think you know what’s best for the American people? Are you so ignorant that you are oblivious to the wishes of the American people? And are you so incompetent that you are going to ignore the Constitution of the United States, use tricks, deceptions, bald faced lies to try to ram down the throat of the American people something that they do not want and is going to be absolutely worse for their healthcare?”
My question - why haven't the right been taking this tack - and speaking with this level of passion - from the beginning. Give me one Paul Broun speech for every fifty monotone sound bites from Mitch McConnell (about whom I feel almost as much antipathy as I did for the odious Trent Lott.)
Indeed, I have long maintained that the right has suffered from not repeating its message with anywhere near enough repetition and not repeating it with utter, heartfelt passion. We finally see it from Broun, whilst the bell begins to toll 12. Now where are the rest?
And more on the canard of the "savings" reported in the CBO report from Hot Air:
This is why they’re delaying the start of the program, of course. If it kicked in right away, the decade-long estimate would obviously be well into the trillions. So they simply stalled it for four years, incurring just $17 billion in costs — or 1.8 percent of the total 10-year estimate — through 2013 so that wavering Democrats could go back to their districts and tell baldfaced lies to their constituents about the pricetag. A perfect ending to this travesty.
If Republicans where smart, they would take all the smoke and mirrors out of the health care bill - add in the Doc fix, then ask CBO to score that bill.
. . . All our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
MacBeth, Act 5 Scene 5
One could well imagine our Republican Congressmen quoting MacBeth as they ponder the fates and stare into the abyss that draws ever closer as November approaches. It is a fate that they have brought upon themselves by their choices over a period of years, straying ever farther from conservative values. The solutions are simple, their delusions phenomenal, and the leadership nonexistent. There is indeed every reason to be as pessimistic as MacBeth. __________________________________________________
About a week ago, on the eve of the third special election in a safe Republican district, House Republicans huddled to ponder their fate. We do not know what was said in the meeting but Rep. Tom Davis, coming out of the meeting, blamed Republican troubles on Bush and things such as his opposition to SCHIP – the Democratic plan to spend billions to create nationalized health care for children. And in that one event, all was summed up.
Congressional Republicans are both deaf to their constituents and delusional about the causes of their problems. If there is a single Republican who thinks emulating the left and embracing SCHIP or some other huge new socialist program is the way forward for the Republican party, they are insane. What in God’s name is wrong with these people? Bush certainly has to take a major share of responsibility for all of the above problems, but let there be no doubt that our Congressional Republicans and the RNC all shoulder an equal share of the blame.
That said, November does not have to be the rout it portends. Victor Davis Hanson took the time to remind our misguided elected leaders about the key issues of a conservative plank. Suffice it to say, there were no surprises. But it really is even simpler than that. Republicans have two key national issues they can run on and win. The first, the pocket book issue, is the price at the pump. The second is national security. But they will only win on those issues if they accomplish two prerequisites. One, they need to embrace fiscal responsibility like it was just written on stone tablets by fingers of flame emanating out of a burning bush. Two, they need to adopt an effective communications strategy.
The engine of our economy and our modern lives is energy, whether it come from oil or some other form. The prices of everything we buy are effected by it. If it now costs three times more to get an orange from California to a market in Baltimore, that cost gets passed on to the consumer. The people hurt the most by high oil and gas prices are those who can afford it the least.
The cost of oil is determined by supply and demand, not the oil companies, not Opec (other than OPEC regulates how much oil they supply - still, OPEC has not really pinched the supply since the '70's.) It should not be hard to explain the basic concepts of supply and demand to the American people. Nor should it be hard to explain that every attempt to drill for oil in the U.S. and off our coastline has been stopped by Democrats. We have China taking oil from the sea floor 70 miles off our coast line, yet we cannot get that oil and use it to reduce our prices compliments of Democratic obstructionism. Indeed, that should be the concluding sentence to every speech given by a Republican between now and November, much like in days long past Cato ended every speech calling for the destruction of Carthage. And when Democrats such as Speaker Pelosi say all Republican's want to do is "veto and drill," there should be a line of Republicans heading towards microphones to announce that they just heard Nancy Pelosi make the first honest and accurate remark she has made during her tenure as speaker.
Over the past 30 years, Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida, drilling off of the east coast, west coast, the Alaskan coast and ANWR. Within the past month, the Democrats have voted against even allowing exploration of oil-shale formations in Colorado and Utah. Democrats are wedded to radical environmentalists who could care less about this nation’s economic development, nor for that matter, the effect of oil prices on Joe Sixpack. Indeed, the cleanest, greenest and cheapest form of energy is nuclear, yet there our Democrats have also placed roadblocks that prevent any new nuclear plants being built.
The Democrats have yet to propose a plan that will add one drop of oil to American pumps. Not one. This is utterly insane. Indeed, Democrats propose the opposite. Oil company profits get ploughed back into exploration as well as R&D. Yet the Democrats have proposed a plan to strip oil companies of their profits and to sue OPEC, two moves that could not be more suicidal. The energy argument should be a supremely easy one for conservatives to win – if they communicate it effectively.
All of this speaks of a complete lack of any understanding of the nature of Iran’s theocracy, its violent and virulent history since its inception, its refusal to moderate, the amount of blood on the theocrat's hands, and the theocracy's role in insuring that there is no peace in the Middle East. It ignores the the extensive diplomatic efforts made by the U.S. and the EU over the past decades to establish relations with Iran and convince it to moderate its course - all of which have been for naught. It is also is suicidally delusional about the danger Iran pose's while they are enriching uranium and creating other by-products of the fuel cycle that can be used in terrorist acts.
And it seems Obama does not care that Iran is in the midst of a proxy war against both the U.S. and the Iraqi government. I have outlined the threat posed by Iran on several occasions, including here and here. Add to this that Obama wants to pull defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq – a move that really would strengthen Iran – and that he believes both Hamas and Hezbollah, both proxies of Iran, have "legitimate grievances." What you have is a Presidential candidate who is so fundamentally flawed and weak on national security as to be dangerous.
Those two issues, more than any other, are winners for the Republican Party on the national level. That said, it all matters for naught unless Republicans in Congress embrace fiscal discipline – including renunciation of earmarks and out of control spending. That requires both leadership and discipline which our Congressional Republicans do not have. Mitch McConnell has done all he could to scuttle earmark reform, and John Boehner in the House has not led on this issue at all. And just a few days ago, Republicans joined with Democrats to pass a bloated, veto-proof Farm Bill that is an utter atrocity. Fiscal discipline is one of the three long poles in the conservative tent – which means it's non-negotiable with the base. Republicans lost in 2006 because of their lack of any fiscal discipline. And it is doubtful that the base will listen to any arguments until this gets fixed on a national level.
And then there is the final issue, lack of an effective communications strategy. The silence from our elected Republicans on every issue is deafening. Democrats under Clinton perfected the art of immediately responding to any and every Republican attack with multiple speakers responding through multiple outlets. And it’s a practice they have continued through this day. A shining example is the President’s speech the other day in Irsrael, wherein he spoke of the dangers of appeasement. Within hours of that speech, you had Obama and at least six other Democrats in the news responding to the President. Some of their responses were outrageous. Obama himself relied wholly on nothing but rhetorical devices to preclude any debate. Rahm Emanuel, for his part, attacked the President by saying that "politics stops at the water’s edge." The hypocrisy of that statement was jarring, given the historical roots of that phrase. Yet with only one exception, not a single elected Republican pointed out either the hypocrisy or the artifice of the Democrats, nor discussed whether Obama's proposed meeting with Iran was suicidally naive. Indeed, over the past several days, the only Republican in the news responding to this tsunami from the left is McCain.
This is one incident out of thousands over the past decade where Democrats have won the battle of communications by issuing unanswered attacks which they then repeat ad infinitum. They have, by sheer repetition regularly managed to turn non-sequiters into accepted fact. For instance, how many people now believe Bush lied about WMD in Iraq or that he twisted intelligence in his "sixteen words" speech. Neither of these claims have substance, but they have been repeated so often and so loudly by the left, and with so little response and no outrage on the right, that they have become accepted as fact by many, if not the majority of Americans.
I realize the MSM is in the left’s pocket, but to concede the echo chamber is simply ludicrous. Indeed, Republicans need to be responding with twice the energy and number precisely because of the incredible MSM bias. Moreover, to allow the Democrats to repeat untruths or half truths without responding with cold outrage shows a party that lacks any leadership - let alone confidence in their message. Indeed, I firmly believe that if the RNC or the Republican leadership in Congress took a much more proactive stance in responding in at least equal number to each and every attack, the party would not be fighting a rearguard action for its very existence today.
Unfortunately, I do not believe the current Republican leadership cable of meeting the prerequisites of either embracing fiscal discipline or challenging in the communications battle. To the contrary, for this iteration of Republicans, I think the words of MacBeth to be right on target. "All our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death." We are in for a long ride on the right, compliments of electing fiscally irresponsible and incompetent Republicans over the past decade.
Update: One hundred and three Republicans House members just joined with Democrats to pass an "energy bill" that gives no energy but attacks oil companies and asks the Justice Dept. to sue OPEC. Both the bill and Republicans voting for it are utterly suicidal. Those Republicans voting for this bill are trying to emulate the left to save their skins. They are cowards and fools moving in precisely the wrong direction. Let the massacre commence.
The Farm Bill has always been problematic. Agricultural policy in America is a patchwork of protectionism, payoffs and pork that skews production and marks the worst of democratic government. And this year's Farm Bill is a particularly egregious example of that policy. But worse is that it will pass into law with the support of not only the Republican party, but the leadership of our Congressional Republicans. Everything that is wrong with today's Republican Party is summed up in the story of how this bill attained a veto proof majority and relief from the ban on earmarks. ________________________________________________________
This from Robert Novack today in the Washington Post:
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, 38 and having served less than five terms, did not leap over a dozen of his seniors to become the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee by bashing GOP leaders. But an angry Ryan delivered unscripted remarks on the House floor last Wednesday as the farm bill neared passage: "This bill is an absence of leadership. This bill shows we are not leading."
Ryan's fellow reformer Jeff Flake of Arizona, 45 and in his fourth term, is less cautious about defying the leadership and has been kept off key committees. On Wednesday, he said of a $300 billion bill that raises farm subsidies and is filled with non-farm pork, "Sometimes, here in Washington, we tend to drink our own bath water and believe our own press releases."
A bill that raises spending 44 percent above last year's level has been approved by a majority of both Senate and House Republicans, dooming any chance of sustaining President Bush's promised veto. . . .
George W. Bush was just as ambivalent. In 2002, he signed a massive farm bill. But with Democrats now in control of Congress, Bush preaches the old-time religion. Addressing the House Republican caucus behind closed doors at the White House on May 7, he disclosed that he would veto the farm bill, then implied it was all right if members "voted their districts" -- that is, if the "aggies" supported the bill. This message was pressed on his colleagues by Rep. Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee.
. . . There was never any hope [of sustaining a vetor] in the Senate, where Republican leader Mitch McConnell not only supported the farm bill but also earmarked a tax provision benefiting horse farms in his state of Kentucky. But in the House, Republican leader John Boehner always has been anti-pork, even if he's been passive about exhorting other Republicans to follow his example.
On May 9, Flake sent Boehner a candid letter: "We need more than individual members of the Republican leadership to state their opposition to the bill. We need the leadership to use its good offices to explain the importance of sustaining the president's veto as opposed to advising members to 'vote their districts.' " Last Tuesday, waiting four days before responding, Boehner rejected the "vote their districts" escape for House Republicans: "I believe they should also vote their consciences, and cast their votes in a manner consistent with the small government principles upon which our party was founded." Boehner took the floor Wednesday to speak against the bill.
But nobody cracked the party whip. On the contrary, Minority Whip Roy Blunt voted for the bill. So did Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam, who was seen whipping for passage. House Republicans voted 100 to 91 to approve the bill (with only 15 Democrats opposed), assuring a veto override. Similarly, in the Senate, 35 Republicans voted for the bill. Only 13 Republicans voted no, and the only Democrats opposing it were Rhode Island's two senators.
That did not conclude the dismal Republican performance for the week, as lawmakers raced out Thursday for their usual long weekend. Seventeen pork-minded Republican senators gave the Democratic leadership necessary support to waive from the farm bill the brand-new ban of earmarks on a bill that had cleared both houses. . . .
Read the entire article. This is just sheer insanity.
Congressional earmarks are perhaps the most emblamatic symbol of corruption and out of control spending by our government. Republican Presidential nominee John McCain has taken a clear and fiscally conservative stand against earmarks, promising not to sign a single bill with earmarks. Republicans lost the 2006 election in large measure because of their profligate spending and embrace of earmarks. So how idiotic is it that our Republican caucus is now going to break with McCain on his call for ending earmarks?
Some things make you step back and wonder just how out of touch our leadership is in Washington. In both the House and the Senate, the Republican leadership talks about fiscal responsibility, but their actions tell another story entirely - one that suggests that they are fitting comfortably into their role as a minority party. This a few weeks ago from Instapundit on the problems in the House:
House Minority Leader John Boehner and his colleagues among the GOP leadership shanked one this week on the earmarks issue. A GOP slot opened up on the House Appropriations Committee, which signs off on the pet projects of lawmakers. If Boehner and company were serious about ending the earmark culture, which has badly undermined the credibility of Congress, they had a perfect man to fill the vacancy: Jeff Flake of Arizona. He has introduced more amendments to strike earmarks than any other member of the House, and putting him on the appropriations panel would have shown that the GOP was no longer just talking about earmark reform. Instead, Boehner and company settled on Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama.
Read the post here. Rep. Bonner is highly porcine. And in the Republican Senate, things are worse. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell - himself a heavy feeder at the earmark trough - is providing something far less than stellar leadership on this issue. This from the Hill explains the situation:
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) may return to Capitol Hill this month to support an amendment imposing a one-year ban on earmarks, a move that could set up a divisive clash within the GOP caucus.
McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has long broken with most of Congress, including the Senate Republican leadership, in seeking an end to the practice of inserting line items in spending bills for parochial projects. . . .
“I absolutely would support such an amendment – and abolish [earmarks] altogether,” McCain said, according to the Red State blog. “As I’ve said, I will veto any earmark project that comes across my desk.”
McCain is highlighting his opposition to earmarks as a way to appease conservatives skeptical of his candidacy because of other issues, such as his support for a legalization program for illegal immigrants and campaign finance restrictions and his initial opposition to President Bush’s tax cuts. On the stump, he has criticized his Democratic opponents, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), for individually securing almost $4 million and $100 million, respectively, for pet projects in the fiscal 2008 spending legislation enacted in December.
McCain, who secured no pet projects in the recent spending law, calls them a waste of taxpayer dollars.
“I really can’t tell you, traveling and campaigning now for many months, how dispirited the Bridge to Nowhere or earmark and pork-barrel spending was to our Republican base,” he said on this week's conference call. “We lost in 2006 not because of Iraq but because spending got out of control.”
. . . A McConnell aide said the Republican leader probably wouldn’t take a position on the DeMint measure until after the GOP task force issues its recommendations. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, McConnell secured $126 million in individual earmarks in the recently enacted spending law; his deputy and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl earmarked $2 million; the third-ranking Senate Republican leader, Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), inserted $6 million individually; GOP Policy Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) racked up almost $42 million in projects; and Conference Vice Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) got $14 million.
If McCain returns and lobbies his members to support an amendment that the leadership opposes, it could test rank-and-file members to support either their nominee or their Senate leaders.
“McCain is a Senate reformer who’s locked horns with our leadership for years,” a GOP aide said. “But now he’s our nominee and the old bulls will have to decide if their pork is more important than our party’s future.”
Read the article here. As Bluegrass Roots puts it:
So Mitch McConnell has a choice: (1) continue his campaign strategy of bragging about how how pork and government waste he can bring to KY in order to secure support for himself, or (2) go with "conservative" principles and end earmarks for the sake of John McCain and the Republican Party.
But when it comes to Mitch McConnell, one thing should be certain: the only thing he cares about is himself and his own power. McConnell does not have any principle and will do whatever is necessary for himself. So, as the GOP aide said in the story, Mitch indeed will have to "decide if (his) pork is more important than (his) party’s future."
Don't hold your breath folks, I can tell you how this story ends.
Read the post here. If Republicans succeed in recapturing either the Senate, the House, or the Presidency, it will be on the strength of John McCain's national security credentials and his very principled position to reform our government. It will be over the kicking and screaming of our current tin-eared Congressional Republican leadership. This really will be a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party. As Ed Morrisey states:
A vote for fiscal responsibility will put McCain in conflict with the GOP? The party won’t back McCain on earmarks, even though his improbable come-from-behind victory for the party’s nomination shows exactly how seriously the Republican voters take fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability?
This shows the deafness that comes from living within the Beltway for too long. If the Republicans didn’t lose in 2006 because of Iraq, nor because of profligate spending, nor because of corruption generated from the nexus of political contributions and earmarking, exactly why do these geniuses think they’re in the minority? Misaligned stars in the firmament? Not only did the voters send a message on corruption, they had it delivered by FedEx with two signatures and a return receipt. Yet the survivors of 2006 somehow think that fiscal responsibility doesn’t matter.
Read the post here. This tin ear among our Congressional Republican leadership is setting up a battle that they cannot possibly win in the long run and that can only do untold damage to the conservative cause.
Posts
