Typical...

It is so predictable. The minute a Republican actually becomes vocal and decides to fight for Republican principles a legion of status quo me-first GOP'ers begin to criticize the action. And again in predictable fashion, the criticism never comes on the record because they are too cowardly to associate their name in public with their bitter sour grapes. Rather, they use the oldest trick in the Washington playbook, the anonymous quote.

Some Republicans say the Republican Study Committee’s ongoing push to define the House GOP’s election-year message is a thinly veiled attempt by the group’s chairman, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and other members to put their political ambitions ahead of party needs.

“We should be really focused on the majority party,” said one senior GOP aide. “This is all about giving [Hensarling] the stature, given [presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen.] John McCain’s anti-earmark position, to get him nominated to a senior position in that administration. It is so obvious and he is doing it at the worst time for the Conference. None of this is helpful for anyone other than him.”

Hensarling is not known to be particularly close to McCain, but he was mentored by former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, a McCain ally who chaired the National Republican Senatorial Committee when Hensarling was executive director.

The messaging push has led to speculation about Hensarling’s ambitions should McCain win the presidency or if party losses in the House open positions in the GOP leadership. The ambitions of other top members of the RSC, including Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana and House Chief Deputy Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, have also been the subject of discussion.

This is what status quo power-hungry leadership types have been saying about reformers for years. When Mike Pence was chairman of the conservative Republican Study Group, the nasty leadership aide quotes were everywhere then too. Hensarling should look at these pathetic snipes as a badge of honor. If leadership aides weren't fabricating stories about the chairman of the RSC it would be clear that said chairman was not doing his job. Hensarling is being effective and relevant, and that pisses some people off.

They should get over it. For the good fo the Party and more importantly a nation that desperately needs some real leadership.

Cap and spend

Forget for a moment the very real argument over whether or not a so-called cap and trade bill would help the environment. Focus instead on exactly what dirty politicians in Congress are doing with this massive transfer of wealth. They are enriching themselves, while screwing the economy. The Wall Street Journal nails it:

Sponsored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner, the bill would put a cap on carbon emissions that gets lowered every year. But to ease the pain and allow for economic adjustment, the bill would dole out "allowances" under the cap that would stand for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced a package of manager's amendments that mandates total carbon reductions of 66% by 2050, while earmarking the allowances.

When cap and trade has been used in the past, such as to reduce acid rain, the allowances were usually distributed for free. A major difference this time is that the allowances will be auctioned off to covered businesses, which means imposing an upfront tax before the trade half of cap and trade even begins. It also means a gigantic revenue windfall for Congress.

Ms. Boxer expects to scoop up auction revenues of some $3.32 trillion by 2050. Yes, that's trillion. Her friends in Congress are already salivating over this new pot of gold. The way Congress works, the most vicious floor fights won't be over whether this is a useful tax to create, but over who gets what portion of the spoils. In a conference call with reporters last Thursday, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry explained that he was disturbed by the effects of global warming on "crustaceans" and so would be pursuing changes to ensure that New England lobsters benefit from some of the loot.

Of course most of the money will go to human constituencies, especially those with the most political clout. In the Boxer plan, revenues are allocated down to the last dime over the next half-century. Thus $802 billion would go for "relief" for low-income taxpayers, to offset the higher cost of lighting homes or driving cars. Ms. Boxer will judge if you earn too much to qualify.

Read it all.

Can the GOP get it together?

The Fox News Sunday panel discusses...note the bipartisan agreement that a ban on earmarks and a return to fiscal restraint is in order for the GOP.

Exactly

The Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel nails it today:

This is what Republicans haven't yet understood. Their failures in office kicked off this anger, and they remain its target. Yet they've been doing a remarkable impression of 1980s Democrats, who engaged in trivial warfare even as Ronald Reagan laid out his vision for the future.

Today's GOP spends so much time fretting about how to relive the Reagan heyday, it has failed to do him credit by laying out its own plans for today's unique challenges. It remains in hock to interest groups, running ads about sanctuary cities as Americans curse over gas prices. In a repeat of 2006, it spends more time trying to scare voters about Democrats than defining itself. It refuses to give up the earmarks that are a symbol of its worn-out reign.

1994 again...except not that way

I can't seem to keep away from these gloom and doom posts. These two choice quotes though are irresistible in that they are spot on in diagnosing the lameness of the GOP:

"This is 1994 all over again," Frank Luntz, a famed Republican communications consultant, told The Huffington Post. "I was there. I saw it firsthand. The Republicans of 2008 are behaving exactly like the Democrats of '94 and making exactly the same mistakes. It's pathetic."

Indeed it as. The Dems of 1994 were in complete denial as to their fecklessness. They proudly scoffed at the notion that Gingrich and a handful of rabblerousers would take the majority. In short, they were complacent, comfortable and they refused to acknowledge the depth of the desire of the country for change at their expense. Reverse that scenario and you are in 2008.

Luntz, to his credit has at least been trying to wake Republicans up. But the ones who control the levers of power hate him and his message as much as they love hording and consolidating power, so he has hit a wall. It is a beautiful and proper irony that their love of power is likely to be what in the end causes them to lose it.

Another GOP strategist, Craig Shirley, pinpoints the problem, "Ultimately voters want to know what a politician is going to do for them. What has happened with the Republican Party over the last eight years is that some of the consultants have decided it is too hard to define what we stand for so we are just going to paint Democrats as worse than us."

GOP loses...again, prepares for permanent minority

Maybe the third shocking loss will prove a charm in the effort to get the GOP to pull its collective head out of its rear. But don't bet on it:

A Democrat won the race for a GOP-held congressional seat in northern Mississippi yesterday, leaving the once-dominant House Republicans reeling from their third special-election defeat of the spring.

Travis Childers, a conservative Democrat who serves as Prentiss County chancery clerk, defeated Southaven Mayor Greg Davis by 54 percent to 46 percent in the race to represent Mississippi's 1st Congressional District, which both parties considered a potential bellwether for the fall elections.

Democrats said the results prove that they are poised for another round of big gains in the November general elections, and they attacked the Republican strategy of tying Democrats to Sen. Barack Obama, the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination, saying it had failed for a second time in 10 days in the Deep South. Democrat Don Cazayoux won the special election for a GOP-held House seat in Louisiana on May 3.

"No one could have imagined the tsunami that just crashed on Republicans in Mississippi," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in an interview after the victory. "There is no district that is safe for Republican candidates."

House Democrats now hold a 236 to 199 majority, up from 203 seats they controlled two years ago.

It is not as if nobody has seen this coming. The warning signs have been evident for almost three years. The pathway back to the majority is evident as well, but GOP leadership can't seem to actually lead their caucuses in that direction.

GOP must reinvent itself

The high profile GOP losses in this week's special elections has the GOP looking for answers.

"The conference was shaken by the two losses," one House GOP leadership aide told Real Clear Politics. "We just couldn't get it done." The fallout has encouraged a brewing feud between House Majority Leader John Boehner and National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Cole, two top Republicans who have spent much of the past year fighting. And while other Capitol Hill Republicans are almost unanimous in agreeing the trouble is not all Cole's fault, someone has to take the hit. "The two offices are positioning themselves to avoid blame or to lay blame," the aide said.

As I noted this week, there will be a changing of the guard post-November. It looks from the GOP aide quote above that the blame game is already amongst leadership circles is already in full effect. But lost amidst the positioning is the fact that there are answers for the here and now that the GOP should be able to see.

The Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel points out that the big GOP loss in Louisiana should have been predictable. The GOP candidate was uninspired to say the least. The GOP needs to sell a different message. What message?

Strassel points to another election that took place this week in Louisiana. This was received no attention, but its importance for the GOP could be incalculable if the message could be adopted:

The 43-year-old Republican, Steve Scalise, had pinpointed today's GOP vulnerabilities, and ran an anti-status-quo campaign. His focal point was wasteful spending, and he touted his legislation to reform Louisiana's earmark process. Another hallmark was ethics reform and his fight against public corruption. He talked up competitive private health care, lower taxes and school choice.

Republicans looking for an Obama doppelganger would have been better served by his Democratic competitor, Gilda Reed. She campaigned on immediate withdrawal from Iraq and "universal" health care. Trade came in for a bashing, as did secret ballots in union-organizing elections. Ms. Reed explained she was personally pro-life, but felt abortion needed to remain legal. Her cause became that of the liberal left, with the Daily Kos hosting an online fund-raiser on her behalf. Mr. Scalise won 75% of the vote.

This is how the GOP should redefine itself.

Preparing for a changing of the guard

On Tuesday former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sounded the alarm. In a memo to Congressional Republicans Gingrich pleaded for a change of course. Without "real change," Gingrich wrote his colleagues, the GOP was sure to suffer "real disaster" at the polls this fall.

To his credit Gingrich outlined a legitimate agenda that he believes could be a rode map to electoral success. A moratorium on earmarks, promoting nuclear energy and promoting judges who will uphold the constitution were some highlights of the conservative agenda. Absent bold action on big issues, the GOP is toast.

Yesterday a round of stories popped up about the impending disaster with speculation about who may replace the current leadership team in the House. The Politico piece described "dark clouds hovering" over the current team of Boehner, Blunt and Cole. As their prospective replacements The Politico offered Eric Cantor, Adam Putnam, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy. How Cantor and Putnam would not be tainted with the failures of the current team is beyond me. But perhaps they are far enough down on the totem pole that that can make a good argument to their colleagues that their advice was not heeded.

Interestingly no stories brought up the potential for new leadership in the Senate. If House leadership has been uninspired, Senate leadership has been downright counter productive at best, nefarious at worst. It seems to me that any significant GOP losses in November (which there will be) is a strong argument for housecleaning in both chambers.

The strongest argument for new leadership in November is being made right now. Newt Gingrich's plea has not been alone. Since the 2006 election conservative voices have been making the exact case that Gingrich did repeatedly. But the pleas have all fallen on deaf ears in leadership circles. To Boehner's credit, he has been somewhat more responsive than his Senate counterpart, but he still has lacked the courage to shake things up the way they must be.

So the continued denial of reality on the part of GOP congressional leadership should be damning in a post-2008 GOP bloodbath world.

As for Gingrich's very public scolding...I suspect this has more to do with laying the groundwork for a post-election coup than it does with actually changing course right now. Of course Gingrich would be happy if leadership took up his agenda and pushed it. But he knows full well that conservatives have been agitating within Congress for this kind of push for over a year. He also knows full well that there is zero desire within the House and Senate GOP caucuses to adopt a bold agenda. So putting the agenda out there now, along with the warning, is more about winning the argument in November.

Speaking of that argument, don't think the forces of the status quo are not preparing right now to win it as well. They will blame the Gingrich's of the world for causing division and detracting from the "message" (which has been, "we may be bad, but those evil Democrats are way worse." This doesn't exactly work in a political landscape where a generic Republican loses to a generic Democrat 55-32). They will point the finger at reformers in Congress too. All those pesky conservatives who forced the GOP to take votes on issues of conservative principle, thereby highlighting GOP abandonment of their foundational issues, will be blamed for losses.

Of course it is all insane, but they will do it.

It is imperative that conservatives be ready with their best arguments. The GOP cannot suffer through another congressional session with uninspired leadership. The Party cannot afford it. More importantly, the country cannot afford it.

On being a permanent minority Party

The feckless Republicans are still at it:

Operating outside public view, the House Democratic majority is taking extraordinary steps to maintain spending as usual while awaiting the arrival of a Democratic president. Remarkably, the supine House Republican minority hardly resists and even collaborates with its supposed adversaries.

There has been little public Republican protest over the seizure of the appropriating process by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her clique. For the second year, no appropriations bill other than defense is scheduled for passage. Instead, spending details are crafted in the speaker's office, negating President Bush's veto strategy. In a little-noticed maneuver on April 23, Pelosi won passage of a bill preventing billions from being saved through Bush administration Medicaid regulations. Despite the GOP leadership's nominal opposition, House Republicans voted 2 to 1 for higher spending.

Adding in Pelosi's unprecedented tactics in blocking the Colombian free trade agreement, she has in 16 months established herself as one of the most powerful speakers ever. The stunning aspect of Czar Nancy's rule is the degree of Republican acquiescence. Neither the loss of their House majority in 2006 after 12 years nor the prospect of more losses this November has toughened the Republicans.

More:

House Republicans had another chance last Thursday to demonstrate interest in restoring their anti-waste credentials. Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona offered a proposal to keep the individual limit on direct farm payments at the current $40,000 instead of raising it to $60,000, as the House did earlier. The state of the GOP is indicated by the fact that even though Flake's proposal failed, the 104 to 86 supporting vote by Republicans was seen as progress. Voting against it were Blunt, Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam and Republican campaign chairman Tom Cole.

Sadly, this is par for the course in Congress. It is why I keep saying their must be wholesale change in personnel. New faces with new voices need to be elected to Republican leadership. The current leadership structures within the GOP are incapable of putting forth a compelling vision for conservative governance. They are incapable because they are part and parcel with the old regimes that have been part of the corruption and complacence that the American people now overwhelmingly associate with the Republican Party.

As much as I bristle at the thought of strengthened majorities for liberal post-2008, I do think (hope is probably the better term) the GOP congressional bloodbath at the polls will provide a window of opportunity for conservative reformers to push the Party in the right direction.

Political hot potato: rising gas prices

Harry Reid is taking steps to further regulate the gas industry in the name of low gas prices:

Nevada Senator Harry Reid says it may be time for Congress to do something about soaring gas prices.

The Senate majority leader says he has directed key committee chairmen to begin assembling a package of proposals aimed at addressing the growing impact that high gasoline and other energy prices are having on the economy.

Reid declined to say what proposals are being considered. But he says the plan is to bring a package to the Senate floor before Memorial Day.

Whenever an issue gets hot, this is always the first instinct of the Democrats. Whatever package they produce, you can bet it will include major punitive actions towards energy producers while having zero positive effect on the long-term price of gas. It is always a show with these guys.

The reality of the situation is that it has been years of this kind of behavior that has produced the inflated prices we see now:

For decades, Congress has led our government into disastrous decisions by being the patsy of radical environmentalists, naysayers and prophets of doom. Recent presidents have done little to resist.

Now American consumers pay the price while politicians try to evade and shift the blame.

However, we can lower gas prices by reversing misguided federal policies, and lower food prices, too. It's all about what we learned (or should have) in Economics 101 – supply and demand.

The stifling of domestic oil and gas production and the suppression of new refineries and nuclear power plants have choked off the supplies of domestic energy, forcing us to rely on foreign oil. In the international market, we must bid against the growing energy appetites of China and India, and we're held hostage by the oil cartels of OPEC. The world market is unstable and expensive, and we shouldn't be at its mercy.

Reducing regulation is the last thing any Democrat is inclined to do. Reagan's old saying about a big government view of the economy is apt here; "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

There is another side to this coin though. Republicans in Congress are dropping the ball too. Where are the Republicans who are willing to call the Dems out on their hypocrisy? How can Nancy Pelosi demand perpetual $2.00 a gallon gas prices while also demanding we break our addiction to foreign oil and promote "green" energy? The Dems are completely inconsistent on this point yet never are called on it. Republicans should begin to hit this point while also promoting clean nuclear energy (for heaven's sake, even the Greenpeace founder now agrees with us on this issue).

We should then promote a systematic deregulation of the gas industry to provide some relief from artificially government-inflated high prices. But that does not mean prices will go back to where they were 5 or 10 years ago. And what is so terrible about prices slowly rising as long as it is determined by the market?

As market prices rise incentives for developing alternative forms of energy rise as well. This moves us closer to breaking our addiction to foreign oil, which I believe is a national security imperative.

Republicans also should be aware that rising gas prices are the only hope of moving the issue of ANWR through the Congress. Democrats who continually refuse to allow us to tap our own resources here at home while prices rise are in peril of being exposed politically.

Feeding time in Congress

Well, that didn't take long:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Get out the trough, it's feeding time. Congress has decided that an election year with recession written all over it is not the time to be giving up those job-producing ``pork'' projects bemoaned by both parties' presidential candidates.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has quietly shelved the idea of a one-year moratorium on so-called earmarks, the $18 billion or so in pet projects that lawmakers sent to their home states this year. Senators in both parties have voted to kill the idea.

The California Democrat earlier had signaled her support for the idea of including no legislative earmarks in next year's budget. She pulled back in the face of resistance by Democratic allies and after the Senate turned a thumbs-down by a resounding 71-29 vote in mid-March.

Status quo reigns.

The Senate GOP Cave In

Erick Erickson at Red State yesterday got his hands on some emails flying around the Senate this week. The long and short of it is that the emails confirmed what we knew was coming. A staffer for the Senate GOP's number three in leadership has made it clear to other Senate staff that that the leadership team is looking to push legislation that is either authored by Democrats or has a Democrat cosponsor.

In short, bipartisanship is the new buzzword in the Senate Republican cloakroom.

This morning's Roll Call confirms the Red State post. John Stanton reports:

Senate Republicans outlined a modest election-year agenda Wednesday based on the cooperative, bipartisan approach that new Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) has pushed while avoiding issues like immigration and earmark reform that have caused rifts within the party.

According to internal Conference e-mails and participants in a daylong, closed-door Conference retreat at the Library of Congress, Senate Republicans will rely largely on supporting legislation that has garnered bipartisan support regardless of who the lead sponsor is.

Bipartisanship is not in and of itself a bad thing. But the sleepy senators in the Republican Party have made the mistake of reading a poll that says the American people are tired of partisanship and concluding that they want the Republican Party to play nice with all things liberal.

As I have said before, that is a sure fire strategy for permanent minority status. If we prove that we can work with the Democrats to pass legislation (and wait until you see the actual atrocious contents of these would-be bipartisan bills) then all we have proved is that there is no need to once again bestow the majority on Republicans. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that the go-along-to-get-along crowd in the Senate could care less who is in the minority or majority, so long as business as usual in the Senate is maintained.

Thanks to the Framers and fortunately for conservatives, the House of Representatives is not as insulated as the Senate. Boehner continues to make moves, and he may over time be able to have some influence over his Senate counterparts.

But I get the impression that the Senate will continue to be unresponsive to the deep desire of the American people to see bold leadership based on principled beliefs -- not bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship. Sadly, it may take another drubbing at the polls for the old men of the Senate to wake up. Let's hope the House guys and our eventual nominee can save us from that disaster.