31 posts tagged “g.o.p.”

POST UPDATED BELOW

G.O.P. RNC Chairman Michael Steele thinks that the Republicans have turned the corner.

''The era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over,'' he said. ''We have turned the corner. No more looking in the rearview mirror. From this point forward, we will focus all of our energies on winning the future.''

Hmmmm. When exactly did you turn this corner Mr. Chairman? Was it when you lost the special election in a Republican district? Or when a Senator recently switched parties? Or when the elected leadership presented a "budget" with no numbers? Or when not content to call the Democrats the "Democrat Party" you consider calling them the "Nationalist Socialist Democrat Party"?

This man is so delusional its funny and his political party is a joke.

Meanwhile, while Steele is busy fighting for his job, Obama continues to flex his power. He's convinced not one, but two New York Democrats to step out of a potential primary fight with Sen. Gillibrand.

Yeah, I'm thinking the ball is still in Obama's court and that magical corner Michael Steele is looking for is a long way away.

UPDATED

This post on Boing Boing reminded me of the OTHER stupid that Michael Steele said this week: that same-sex marriage will hurt small businesses by increasing what owners have to pay in healthcare and other benefits.

Let's put aside how stupid it is to oppose same-sex marriage while bringing attention to the fact that a lot of people don't have healthcare in this country. That is dumb, but as Olberman points out, Steele is also ignoring how many small buisnesses will get work when all of thse gay couples are allowed to marry. He enumerates this (citing sources, because that's what we do on this side (yes, I'm talkin' to you Ken)) and concludes that SSM would create $16 billion in economic activity. 

How does Steele still have his job?

The passing of Jack Kemp yesterday reminded me why I find any debate over raising taxes on the rich absurd.

But before I launch into that, I'd like to say that Jack Kemp was a fine American and a great Republican who should have gotten the Veep nod over Quayle in 1988. His commitment to fiscal responsibility at a time when no one was talking about it coupled with his belief that government could and should act to help the poor and undeserved underserved minorities made him an honorable politician (in my opinion).

What inspired this post was a line about Kemp's trademark cause from his obituary in the Times:

Soon he immersed himself in the case for tax cuts...When he debated the subject on the House floor, he cited studies on the money supply, the experience of Britain and Sweden, and the impact of past tax cuts in the United States. He persuaded his House colleagues to bring the idea to a vote in 1977 and three times more, in 1978. Each time they sought to reduce taxes across the board, starting with the 70 percent marginal rate, which was then imposed on the highest incomes. They lost each time — once by only five votes — but they had an election issue.

Eventually Kemp's efforts won the day and in 1981 Congress passed the Kemp-Roth bill which lowered the highest marginal tax rate from 70% to 50% over three years. Having found a key issue, the G.O.P. would continue to run (and win) on a platform of lower taxes for the next 25 plus years. Even today the party's main talking point is that Obama's budget "taxes too much, borrows too much and spends too much".

Here's the problem: the fact that Kemp was so good at what he did means that the issue of "high taxes", especially on the rich, is largely now moot. I think Kemp had a great point in the 70s and 80s. 70% and 50% are oppressively high marginal tax rates and it's good that we lowered them. But now, outside of the "Tea Party" crowds, most Americans think that the amount they pay in taxes is fair, and they overwhelmingly support higher taxes on the rich.

What's more, there are so many loop-holes in the tax code that someone like Warren Buffet can have a lower tax rate than his secretary.

The problem is not the tax rates. When you consider that the richest nation on earth the has some of the lowest taxes in the developed world, you realize that the rates are just fine (even with Obama's paltry proposed increase on the top marginal rate). The problem is the complexity of the code. This is a fact that Bush started to pick up on in his second term, but he had no political capital left to address it.

The Democrats would be wise to take up on this issue and try to make it a response to the Tea Party crowd. Simplify the process and move us closer to a flat tax while keeping the code progressive. As with Kemp's crusade in the 70s, it can be done and it should be done.

I am going to try and leave this subject behind after today, but I just read two commentaries in Slate that fit with my initial and follow-up thoughts on Specter's defection and what it means for the G.O.P.

What I'm most interested in is how this looks through the lens of history. These two pieces also look at it from that angle.

Bruce Reed picks up on two key points, first that there was a time when it was the Democrats who had a tainted brand:

In the same way that 25 years ago the South soured on the national Democratic brand and spurred a mass of party defections, the Republican brand has now gone south in the Northeast and will not soon recover.

And second that without the "middle ground" a political party will remain fringe:

Specter left the GOP because it abandoned the sensible center and stopped trying to be a Big Tent, thanks to conservative activists who were bound and determined to send moderates like him packing, no matter how much it hurt their party's interests. The object lesson is clear: Setting out to purge your party of independent thinkers won't make it stronger, but it will drive off enough independents to make your party smaller.

Finally he warns that Democrats are doomed to repeat Republican mistakes if they listen to the Progressive wing that is seeking to push moderates out.

David Greenburg reaches way back to the famous party switch of New York City Mayor John Lindsay in 1971 but points out that the Democrats of 1971 looked a lot like the G.O.P. of 2001:

As far back as the 1960s, even as Lindsay and other liberals were bolting the GOP, the Democrats' troubles seemed far graver—as white Southerners, Catholics, and blue-collar workers left the party in droves. This trend became a full-blown crisis in 1980 when Democratic votes helped elect Ronald Reagan and a Republican Congress, making the "Reagan Democrats" the demographic group of the decade.   

And he goes out to echo a point that I made, namely that it was the G.O.P. moderates who gave the party power in the Senate during the ‘80s:

Although conservatives scored a momentous victory in 1980, the Republican Party's liberal wing survived. Paradoxically, the GOP's majority status allowed moderates and even liberals to remain viable within it—giving some substance to what Specter claimed, with only minor exaggeration, amounted to a "Reagan Big Tent." When you're winning, it's easy to share the electoral wealth.

Indeed, and when you are losing it is easy to retrench, which seems to be exactly what is happening.

If the G.O.P. of 2008 is indeed similar to the Democratic Party of 1980 then this may be a long walk in the wilderness.

As Obama celebrates Day 100 with a town hall, a presser, a new Democratic Senator and House Member, and a newly passed budget, the G.O.P. is left sitting in the corner wondering WTF.

Again, smarter people than I continue to deconstruct this:

• The New York Times covers the debate that is raging inside the party (big tent or stick to our guns?).
• Slate talks about how the next 100 days will be even worse for the G.O.P. now that they have no political clout to speak of.
  
• Olympia Snowe pens an op-ed and points out that ten years ago the Republicans were close to a 60 seat majority but lost big in 2000. She also laments that the party didn't really learn from the Jim Jeffords departure.

Indeed, Jeffords was the second "canary in the coal mine", the first being Lowell Weicker. And the Republicans did then what many have done this week: cried "good ridance" and said "we're better off without 'em."

But as I pointed out earlier, they are not better off without 'em. In fact, without 'em is right where they are now: an opposition party with almost no power to speak of and little agreement on how to turn it around.

What the current, strident G.O.P. forgets is that without the "RINOs" they cannot hold a majority in the Senate. Nor can the Democrats hold the chamber without moderate "Blue Dog" members. Look at the list of Senators from any given year. The margin of power greatly rests with the Senators in the middle.

Yesterday I listed six moderates from the 97th Congress ('81-'83). Just for fun I looked at another Republican majority: the 104th Congress ('95-'97). These two are good cases because they both began after landslide election years for Republicans.

In '81 the G.O.P. held 53 seats. So the six moderates I listed were the margin of power. And in '95 they had 53 seats again. And once again I can name you at least six moderates in that Senate (Chafee, Specter, Jeffords, Hatfield, Kassebaum, and Snowe). And there is your margin of power.

Just as the Democrats cannot ignore the Blue Dogs, the Republicans cannot dismiss the RINOs and expect to be anything but a fringe party in this country. When the Democrats moved too far to the left in the 70s and 80s they found themselves on the outside looking in. Now the Republicans are too far to the right and find themselves in the same situation.

People argue that America is essentially a center-right nation, but I disagree. America is essentially a pragmatic and moderate country, so whichever party can attract more voters from the the center is the one generally calling the shots.

I have to say that I was completely blindsided by today's news that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was switching parties. It seems that the old ties and loyalty that have kept him in the G.O.P. for all these years were not enough this time.

Of course I have read more than a few takes on this development by people much smarter than I am:

• Nate Silver does the math (of course) and figures out that when members of Congress switch parties their voting records do indeed change.
  
• John Dickerson points out that as a Democrat, Specter will be less inclined to stand with the G.O.P. on filibusters. So while he may not vote with the Dems. all the time, he will be much less likely to be an obstructionist.
  
• And on Room for Debate, Glenn Greenwald points out that no matter what Micheal Steele (does he still have a job?) says, Specter stood with his party more often than not. 

Specter a "liberal"? For crying out loud, Bush actively campaigned for him in during the 2004 Senate primary and that's likely the reason he won a narrow victory.

To me this event is just the latest evidence that the party I once belonged to no longer exists. The "moderate" Republican is dead and the party is in a self perpetuating inward spin to far right extremism (Nate calls this the Republican Death Spiral).

Consider some of the Republicans that Specter served with as a Freshman Senator in the 97th Congress: Lowell Weiker, John Chafee, Nancy Kassebaum, Mark Hatfield, Bob Packwood (personal flaws aside, he was a decent Senator) and Warren Rudman. They were all moderate Republicans and not a one of them would be in the party today because there is no room for them.

In his press conference following the announcement Specter was candid that his likely primary battle against former Congressman and former Club for Growth head Pat Toomey drove this decision:

“I’m not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate, not prepared to have that record decided by that jury,” he declared in a rather defiant tone at the conference.

One has to wonder if Specter watched the Tea Parties last week and thought "holy s**t, these are the crazy people who control my fate."

If the right is dominated by people who believe outrageous conspiracy theories like "FEMA is setting up concentration camps", "Obama is not American (and he's gay)", "Swine Flu was manufactured to get the HHS nominee appointed" and "the Humane Society is a front for gun control activists", (thanks to A Mistake for the last two links) where is a moderate (or even slightly moderate) Republican left to go?

When Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh are essentially leading the party, then it doesn't need need anyone's help being marginalize.

Please nominate Newt for President in 2012.

Pretty please? With sugar on top?

After all, the last two times you nominated an old(er) party standard-bearer it worked out just great.

[Post inspired by this article.]

Jim Tedisco has conceded (via AOA).The new Congressman for New York's 20th District will be Democrat Scott Murphy.

A few weeks back I started tracking the evolution of the vote count during the recanvasing. Due to different disputes of absentee ballots (and various court rulings on those disputes) the count has changed almost daily, and ofter twice a day, since election night. Since I am kind of a political geek, I thought it deserved a chart, take a look:

The current count is Murphy 80,420 to Tedisco 80,021, a 399 vote margin. I am sure it will change before the vote is certified, but none the less it seems to be over. And guess what? Nate Silver called this one, not once, but three times.

Congratulations to Rep. Murphy. Thank goodness this one is over.

So, does Michael Steele start writing his resignation letter now?

An NRCC campaign ad for the NY-20th Congressional race (via Capitol Confidential):

I have to say I think that the Republicans have reached a new low here. First of all there is the fact that Scott Murphy is right, the death penalty is a difficult issue and the work of groups like The Innocence Project have shown that there are tons of cases where the wrong people are sentenced to death.
 

Personally I have always been disturbed by the finality of the death penalty. For example, we will never know what motivated Timothy McVeigh because he can never tell us. Where others involved in his horrendous crime? Would he ever denounced his crimes and given us more details on why he planted that bomb? Is it possible that the events of September 11, 2001 (exactly three months after he was put to death) would have changed his perspective? We will never know because he is dead.  

But lets put all that aside. Lets assume that the system works and that some crimes are so terrible that the death penalty is warranted. Lets just look at this add for what it is: hackneyed political fear mongering. Haven't we moved beyond this? Hasn't our discourse evolved just a bit in the last eight years? Apparently not. These are the same despicable tactics that the G.O.P. used in 2002 to defeat an honorable man like Max Cleland.

Now, Scott Murphy is no Max Cleland, but he is a decent man and has a point. He made it badly, and he was called out on it by a political pinhead who went right to the terrorist card, but he has a point. It is a complex issue and one that I personally wish we would stop taking so lightly (especially since we stand alone in the developed world on this one).

I feel bad for Jim Tedisco. He is a respectable politician, but he has allowed his campaign to be taken over by the worst elements of the G.O.P. No wonder the latest poll (PDF) shows that people perceive his campaign as too negative.

In other "how screwed up is New York State" news: the Governor finally spoke and acted like a bit of a jerk when asked why he's gone back to "Three Men in a Room" (who still don't have a budget).

So we have a totally f-ed up Congressional race, a Governor who can't govern and the budget will likely be printed at midnight on Sunday to be put to a vote on Tuesday (without anyone having read it).

Vermont is looking good right now. Hell, Massachusetts is looking good right now.  

I really just have a brief comment on the G.O.P. "budget" (PDF) that was unveiled yesterday. For the full story you can check out coverage on The Hotline (every link you could ever want).

The bottom line: it's not a budget, its an 18 page document that serves up a sound bite, "the President's plan spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much." As sound bites go its not that bad (beats "drill baby drill"), but I think that a budget is suppose to have some, what are they called, ummmm...oh right, numbers.

But an actual plan does not seem to be that important. According to John Boehner "It's just a bunch of numbers." YES, that's the whole POINT!

Why go through all of this just for a sound bite? Well apparently there was disagreement about rolling out this "blueprint" yesterday. But I think they rushed because they see the clock running out on this discussion. The G.O.P. was planning on Democratic infighting to buy them another week to get their numbers together.

Oh boy. The G.O.P. is in real trouble if they can't even pull together a cohesive budget plan.

In local news, Democrat Scott Murphy leads Republican Jim Tedisco by 4 points in the final poll before Tuesday's election. This is the G.O.P.'s race to lose and they are doing a really good job of screwing it up. Look for all hell to break loose if Murphy is elected.

Well, at least they'll have a sound bite.

"Democrat Party" Decrier Rips Admin for "Childish" Limbaugh Strategy

Much like Sean Quinn I've been "meaning to write about this for a while". Unlike Sean Quinn I do not have a White House Press Pass and am not a professional blogger. Nor would I have provided as much context or thoughtful analysis. So I recommend you read his post (it's long, but worth it).

Essentially Quinn picks apart the GOP habit of using the term "Democrat Party" as a political epithet and calls out this practice for what it is: childish schoolyard name calling. From his post:

[D]enying another person or group basic respect means that once the epithet escapes a Republican’s lips, he or she can’t complain when no respect is returned....If your behavior choice is a playground tactic, why should my behavior choice be to listen to what you say in whatever else is coming out of your mouth? You won’t agree to my name. I am supposed to take anything you say seriously? Couples therapists know a thing or two about this one. Respect is a threshold condition for listening.

Well put.