Palin is admirable and wonderful in many ways. I look forward to big contributions from her as a conservative force on the national scene over the next 30 years. But her abrupt exit as Alaska governor fails the backbone test. Whether as a family move or a political gambit, it was poorly prepared and poorly presented. The seriousness, steadiness, toughness, and clarity we expect from national leaders were not evident. Gov. Palin seems suddenly cavalier toward the trust she undertook with her state in 2006 and with the nation in 2008. For the time being, in my book, she's much less a potential president. But 2012 and 2016 are a long time away. Backbone Americans will watch with keen interest to see where Sarah goes from here.
Opposition party's job: Oppose
When during a particularly bitter Parliamentary debate in 1909 the Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith denounced Conservatives for their “willful, constant, and unyielding opposition” to almost every Government policy, the Conservative leader Arthur Balfour swiftly replied, “May I remind the Prime Minister that the first duty of an opposition is to oppose and when as is now the case Government policies are reckless, feckless, and threatening permanent damage to the country that duty rises to the level of sacred obligation. “ Exactly a century later Republicans should heed the words of Balfour, rather than listen to the GOP’s weak sisters who cringe whenever the liberal media labels them as the “Party of No” and piously sheds crocodile tears at the prospect of a shrunken GOP becoming little more than a regional faction of “angry Southern white men”.
The GOP should also resist the siren song of the “realists” in their ranks whose preachments go something like this: “Look, the Democrats control everything, and Obama is hugely popular. If we don’t work constructively with Democrats on the great changes they’re planning we’ll be left out altogether.” This kind of defeatism harkens back to the bad old days of “Me Too” Republicanism (anyone remember Everett Dirksen and Charlie Halleck?) when the party motto was “We’re for everything the Democrats are for, but we can do it a little cheaper.”
To those wondering whether the GOP can really turn things around politically it is instructive to revisit the Carter Administration.
At that time the American people- greatly put off by Nixon, Watergate etc.- severely punished the GOP in two consecutive elections, and chose as President Jimmy Carter, who promised “change and the end of business as usual.” In Carter’s first year his approval ratings were much higher than Obama’s today, and Democratic majorities in the Senate (62-38) and House (292-143) were also more lopsided than today.
Despite this bleak prospect a cohesive Republican minority aided by skeptical Democrats buried Carter’s plan to enlarge welfare rolls by 50 percent, derailed his nomination of Ted Sorenson as CIA director, sidetracked his plan to withdraw troops from South Korea, and killed his proposal to create a new federal consumer advocacy agency to promote greater regulation of business.
Carter also failed in 1977 and 1978 to win passage of two bills aimed at forcing reluctant workers to join unions and severely penalizing employers who resisted. Though both passed handily in the House, the bills died in the Senate when Democrats from “right to work” states defied their leadership and joined Republicans in defeating six attempts at cloture.
Following the loss of 3 Senate, and 15 House seats in the 1978 elections things got even worse for Carter. Congress rejected his SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, forced him to increase defense spending, defeated his attempt to impose price controls on hospitals, and we all know what happened in the 1980 elections.
In the last forty years the Democrats have had three Presidents, all of whom were outsiders with little or no experience beyond their home states. All three advanced a radical agenda requiring sweeping legislation, which had the side effect of unifying and galvanizing the Republican minority.
In the case of Carter and Clinton, despite their initially high approval ratings, eventually they alienated significant numbers of their Congressional majority particularly those from the less liberal Southern, Mid-western, and Mountain states who came to see the radical agenda as a real threat to their own re-election.
Already there is abundant evidence that Obama is heading down the same road as his two Democratic predecessors. Exhibit A is the ever expanding fiasco surrounding the issue of Guantanamo which is increasingly making the Obama Administration look like an update of “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight”.
Caught between Obama’s feckless order to close Guantanamo by year’s end and Gallup Polls showing Americans overwhelmingly opposed to closing Gitmo ( 2 to 1) or accepting any detainees in the USA (3 to 1) Congressional Democrats are rapidly learning that there is absolutely no political downside to bucking a President of their own party when their constituents really dislike what he wants to do.
Rather than being defensive Republicans should be honored that once again History has anointed them as the “Party of No”. As in the past it is a role that can carry them to electoral redemption.
William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post.
Why Jack Kemp matters
By Sean Duffy In tributes since he succumbed to cancer last week, Jack Kemp has been rightfully called a statesman, patriot and visionary. The architect of a key pillar of the Reagan Revolution. But, as I look back at powerful and memorable encounters with him over the years, I remember boundless energy, constant searching for new ideas and new converts, and most of all, one hell of a guy.
Jack (and it was always "Jack", not "Congressman", or "Mr. Secretary"), preached the gospel of true hope, and the politics of the open door. He believed in the power of individuals to change and improve their lives and saw government as one partner in helping spark real opportunity, family by family.
Kemp's open door and enthusiasm for the future was, and is, a political magnet that helped sparked Republican growth and success. But some liberal observers in recent days have mistook the positive, welcoming philosophy for an absence of governing principles, or an "anything goes" view of public policy.
If you believe that, you don't know Jack.
There is a difference between a big tent with flaps, and a roof and structure, and a big tarp - a shapeless covering. To Jack, there was a right and wrong to how the American economy was to be organized, and the role government played in it.
The first time I met Jack was in 1996, when he was running for vice president. I was working for Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge doing media relations on education issues. Kemp and Bob Dole brought their campaign to Chester, an economically struggling, largely African-American community that was the home of a wide range of education reforms aimed at empowering families. Two aspects of the day still paint a vivid picture, nearly 13 years later.
First, black men and women sought out Kemp, as he did them. In Jack, they saw a leader - and a Republican - who sincerely and personally wanted them to succeed. And he offered a vision not of more of the paternalistic government programs that had already done damage to communities like Chester.
Instead, Jack's gospel was that of a helping hand that you must grasp to, in Theodore Roosevelt's phrase "make your life." Kemp believed that whether is was choosing a better school for your kids, owning your own home or starting a small business, government must open the door and give you the chance, but you must seize it. That's real freedom.
The second aspect I remember is his energy. At that visit - and I suspect throughout much of that ill-fated campaign - he seemed like a caged tiger, pacing back and forth, ready to get out.
He was standing next to me during a typical campaign small-group meeting for an elite group of supporters, and he kept saying under his breath, "Let's go. Let's go. Let's get outta here." He wanted to get outside to the rally of working-class folks with whom Republicans hadn't closed the deal yet.
When I came to Colorado to join Gov. Bill Owens" administration, I had the chance to be with Jack several times at meetings and retreats for groups he was involved with, most notably Empower America. Each time, his boundless energy, curiosity and passion for ideas was infectious.
In what was consistently a fire hose of words and ideas, he always had a new book to recommend, a new innovative thinker or emerging leader to tout, a new project to discuss. Most of all, he made us understand that in every one of God's children there exists the potential for a bright, independent and successful future.
Like many conservatives who came of age during the Reagan years, I owe much of my optimistic belief in the future to Jack Kemp, the evangelist of empowerment. He shaped my view of what it means to be a Republican who can offer real, substantive hope and opportunity to Americans, particularly to those at the bottom of the ladder.
Not every Kemp position was right or perfect. But, in the main, his ideas and his memory should provide the GOP with a real, relevant roadmap back to power. In Kemp there is a positive, practical antidote to the currently fashionable but ultimately fatally flawed wave of "government as savior" policies.
America, and particularly the Republican Party, needs more Jack Kemps. And today we miss his energy, solid ideas and infectious hope for the future. I know I do.
Sean Duffy (sean@thekenneygroup.com) is a principal at a Denver public relations firm and served as Deputy Chief of Staff to Gov. Bill Owens from 2001-2005.
Another one bites the dust
It's just a shame that a song by that title was actually more popular than Tuesday’s announcement from Senator Arlen Specter. This man just recently proclaimed he would not switch parties because it would upset the balance of power. A couple of years ago he got up in front of the Senate to announce he would sponsor a bill that would not allow Senators to switch parties during their term. So what does all this mean? Here are a few thoughts:
Once again another politician disappoints and outright lies to the public; One more reason not to trust them.
Our GOP has shown it has another member who can’t be trusted to do what he promises. All of us know without his support, the all-important 787 Billion “Economic Recovery” bill would not have been possible, and the world would be a different place today.
Let us be honest, Specter did this purely to save his own career. He most likely would have lost in the Republican primary and this was his only choice if he wanted to stay in the Senate.
Is this good or bad for the GOP?
I think it all depends on your point of view. If you are a tried and true Republican, you think they do no wrong and you will support them at all cost…..well then you probably are deeply distressed.
I happen to think it is both. If the party truly digs deep, atones for its sins, and finally stands up for itself, there is a great opportunity. What do I mean by “stands up for itself?” Well, it seems that every time the Democrats call us on the carpet about something, we just sit back and take it. We do not loudly defend our positions or even go after them when we do not like their policies. They play dirty politics, and folks, it is not our style. Sometimes you just cannot beat them if you do not have a straightforward and rational policy. It is rather obvious we need to get back to our roots, listen to Americans, stand up for what we believe, make some promises and LIVE by them. A message that is TRUE and really CONNECTS with America would be a good start.
Now for the BAD, or maybe the good. I fear if we do not get our act together quickly, our party will disintegrate. The history of political change is violent and quick. If you don’t believe me, read up on the transition from the Whigs to the Republican party before the Civil War. Or, how about how fast the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. It could happen if we are not careful. If we don’t clearly shape our positions, folks, I think it could happen before the next election in 2012.
Here is what I’d like to see us concentrate on:
** A Clear, Strong and Real Energy Policy that actually recognizes we need oil before we switch to another energy source. How about let’s go for a “Manhattan Project” to solve this problem.
** How about some REAL financial sanity.
** How about something to force our legislators to really live up to their promises. How about they have to sign a “warranty” that they actually read the bills they vote for.
** I’d go for a real and enforceable “None of the Above” on the ballot. If NOTA gets more votes, then both parties candidates are out and we have another election. Maybe they would actually do what they say!!!!
** And how about we change Election Day to April 15th. Nothing like having to vote on tax day!!! Maybe WE will actually think about what is really going on in Washington.
Bottom line: Time is running short for our party.
I do not want to see us go down into the junk heap of history as a failed experiment. I hope we can get our act together. If not we may be have to vote for the Democrats or the Common Sense party. It is important we speak to our leaders and plead with them for sanity and Common Sense.
GOP must keep defending marriage
Standing up for your principles is as important as knowing what they are. That's a key post-election lesson for Republicans. After 2008 we’ve learned that we need to know who we are and then not betray the party faithful. But that also means we must be careful to choose wisely the principles we adhere to and defend. For political expediency, and to increase the size of the tent, our political leaders condone, and some even advocate, abandoning some long-standing social principles (i.e. Log Cabin Republicans). We should take pause and carefully consider our individual action or abstaining in this area. We must be thoughtful when we stand up and take ownership of this party.
Bending with the gale of social passions is something the left is comfortable doing. Power is their only purpose and the fuel with which to feed itself more power. They abandon any principle they feel will hamper their drive for complete social power. For example, in Ben Smith’s recent blog on civil unions and marriage, he writes how in a few short years, the political correctness of gay rights has moved dramatically ‘pro’ and become more socially acceptable. He writes:
“Here's a marker of the warp-speed change in the politics of same-sex marriage: Back in 2000, Howard Dean was a gay rights hero for signing a civil union measure -- forced on him by the courts -- into law. Four years later, civil unions are the fallback for the center-right, and Vermont is considering same-sex marriage, and Dean was campaigning for it in Burlington last weekend.”
Those who are agnostic with their social principles will continue to hammer on those who are not. Why should anyone take a stand and go against the tide of social convenience? Because it matters.