If you haven’t yet listened to Glenn and Helen’s podcast interviews with RNC Chair Ken Mehlman and Michael Barone, you ought to. Particularly in the first half, they demonstrated a textbook example of tough but not hostile questioning.
Mehlman’s focusing on this year’s election about the only way the GOP can – that the decision this fall ought not to just be a referendum on the Bush administration, but a choice between the Democratic agenda and the Republican agenda. Sure, right now the Republican base is furious over immigration and spending, independents are glum about Iraq and gas prices, and Democrats are livid about – well, just about everything. But will the first two groups get what they want under Speaker Pelosi & Chairman Kennedy?
Mehlman notes the frustration in the GOP base, he says, “it’s not enough to say to voters what we’re doing, we’ve got to produce results.” He touts the extension of the investment tax cuts, beats the drum for making them permanent, and says congressional Republicans have to get a budget passed and hold the line on spending.
Glenn called the argument that the Democrats would be worse “potent” but added that it may be losing its potency. He assesses Mehlman as having “a tough job, and he’s doing it about as well as he can.” Dr. Helen seems skeptical; clearly she wants to see more accomplishments.
(I kind of like the way Glenn and Helen just deal with Mehlman’s phone cutting out and having to pick up the second half of the interview later, and a cell phone ringing in the background during the interview with Barone. It’s almost like live television!)
The Barone interview focuses a great deal on the possibility of a third party. Barone says it would require a very well-known person to start it up and establish its face. I remain skeptical that any third party will last long in American politics. We saw it with Perot – a third party starts to gain ground by promising a focus on an issue that the two major parties have ignored. (For Perot, it was the deficit, and a sense that Washington had become elitist, arrogant and out of touch.) Once this third party wins some races, both parties recognize the problem and start addressing their concerns (the GOP’s anti-establishment tone in 1994, Clinton’s touting balanced budgets in his 1996 race).
If stopping illegal immigration is demonstrated to be an issue that sways voters and gets them to the polls – and more powerfully than other issues – then you will see both parties tripping over themselves to court that constituency. The problem is, the reaction to Pete Wilson's referendum in California in the mid-90s convinced many politicians that cracking down on illegal immigration alienates more voters than it pleases.
By the way, put me down as one of those guys who cannot comprehend the argument that conservatives ought to sit out this election to “punish” the GOP so that they’ll “learn a lesson” and get better/more conservative in the future.
To advocates of this position, I must respectfully ask… are you out of your flippin’ mind?
By what logic does a constituency become more influential and powerful by becoming less active, and demonstrating less capability to turn out the vote and influence elections?
Let’s say Congressman Tom Tancredo represents your views on illegal immigration. You’re angry at the GOP leadership for not espousing his positions; you’ve concluded that they don’t listen to him. Do you really think the ball will get moved in your direction by throwing the party that has Tancredo out, and replacing it with the party that doesn’t have a Tancredo figure in it at all?
Do you really think a Democratic Congress will get tough on illegal immigration? Yes, Howard Dean has said, “The first thing we want is tough border control.” He’s also talked out of another orifice about gay marriage on the 700 Club and blamed conservative Supreme Court justices for Kelo vs. New London when the four most conservative ones voted against it. (For that matter, you’re a conservative. Why the heck are you listening to and trusting Howard Dean?)
Or let’s say you’re unhappy about high federal spending. Your solution is to give Congress to Democrats, who have a long and well-established reputation for flinty tightfistedness on public spending and an ironclad commitment to spending taxpayer’s dollars wisely… oh, that’s right, they don’t! To deal with a Republican Congress that spends too much and a Republican President who won’t veto enough, your solution is to replace them with a Democratic Congress almost guaranteed to spend more, coupled with the President that doesn’t veto enough. How is that a win?
Yes, let’s punish the GOP for too much pork and earmarks by dis-empowering the Tom Coburns, John McCains, and pork-busting GOP House members. Sen. Robert Byrd will get a handle on this once he’s chairman of the appropriations committee!
And that's not even getting to the topics where conservatives are happier with President Bush. What kind of Justice is likely to get on the Supreme Court between January 2007 and January 2009 if Democrats control the Senate? The John Roberts and Sam Alito kind, or the David Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor kind?
What kind of foreign policy statements do you expect from Democratic Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi, or Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Biden, and majority committee members John Kerry, Russ Feingold, and Barbara Boxer? How about “President Ahmedinjiad, we can work this out”? “Mr. Zarqawi, you can have Iraq, because we’re outta there”? “Kofi Annan, you're doing a heck of a job!”
How big a fan of impeachment are you, since the rage of the left-wing blogs will drive Pelosi and Judiciary Chairman John Conyers to try to simultaneously impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney?
Yes, yes, I know the “I’m going to not vote, that’ll show ‘em” crowd is very, very angry. They also appear to be very, very under the influence of mind-altering drugs.
