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.

Hypocrisy charge leveled against McCain

McCain can be called a lot of things, but I think hypocrite is not one of them. Nevertheless, a reporter from National Journal is trying to stir up a hypocrisy controversy that does not exist. We all know that McCain has been the leading critic of pork-barrel spending in Congress. We also all know that while the Dems are tearing themselves apart, he is on his bio-tour reintroducing himself to the American people.

Today National Journal's Hotline Blog smells a hypocrite:

John McCain has railed against earmarks in Washington and on the campaign trail, but tomorrow his week-long bio tour heads to Jacksonville's Naval Air Station Cecil Field, a big-time beneficiary of pork. Between 2001 and 2005, Cecil Field received almost $10M in earmarked funds, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

Here's the skinny:

$1M in 2005 for operation and maintenance

$1.2M in 2004 for operation and maintenance

$2.5M in 2003 for operation and maintenance

$2M in 2002 for operation and maintenance

$3M in 2001 for operation and maintenance

$215K in 2001 for an economic development initiative

One assumes that Cecil Field is somehow a part of John McCain's bio, and that -- not the fact that it has been a federal earmark recipient -- is the reason for stopping there. And given McCain's age, Cecil Field would likely not have been receiving federal earmarks at the time because the practice had yet to infect Congress.

Even if Cecil Field has absolutely nothing to do with McCain's past, he did not earmark these funds. Finally, there is hardly a military installation in this country that has not received federal earmarks. Should the would-be Commander in Chief not visit any of these facilities that house those who he wishes to command?

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.

Status quo 1, Change 0

Senate old bulls late last night successfully blocked a reform measure that would have banned earmarks for a year. The vote was a setback for reformers and more importantly the American people.

By blocking the ban, the Senate's powerful old guard scored a victory for the status quo. Those who have desired change in the way the Senate conducts business lost.

Still, all is not entirely gloomy. The fact that the measure drew the support of all three Presidential contenders is a good sign. It is a signal that the issue has arrived with the public. Of course the Senate is always the last to realize these things, so it makes sense that reformers will have to continue pushing the issue to get it through the thick skulls of senators that America wants change.

The "cooling saucer" still works in that the Senate remains the most insulated. But sometimes as in this case, it is a real pain in the rear.

The Republicans who voted "no" on this measure read off as a who's who of the Senate porkers:

Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; Domenici, N.M.; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Lugar, Ind.; Murkowski, Alaska; Roberts, Kan.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.; Wicker, Miss.

It was nice to see GOP Leader and long time appropriator Mitch McConnell vote with the reform caucus for once. But some actual leadership would be nice as well, considering the man did not say one word in favor of the measure leading up to the vote. As our hero Braveheart says, "men don't follow titles, they follow courage." But then again, this is the Senate, not the fields of Falkirk. Baby steps I guess...

(Editor's note: The picture top right depicts Reid, Durbin and Schumer. They got top billing because they were the most vocal opponents. But the GOP had plenty of their own who hated the measure as you see in the roll call above. They were just more quiet about their position leading up to the vote. Their silence was mostly because this issue -- while it has bipartisan appeal -- is more important to a vocal section of the conservative base than it is to the liberal base. GOP anti-reformers were scared to be vocal about this so they waited in the shadows, cast their vote "nay" and then slunk away. Lame. Cowardly.)

Harry Reid's dim view of the Founders

Today in the Senate is ground zero for the earmark fight we have been covering here. As the moment of truth approaches, pork-barreling politicians are pulling out the heavy guns. Check out this laughable rhetoric from the Senate's fearless leader Harry Reid:

"As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks," Reid said.

Ummmm, yeah...Somehow I have trouble seeing Adams, Jefferson and Madison get all upset about eliminating a practice that led to the excess and corruption we have come to expect from our Congress. Bridges to Nowhere, Jack Abramoff-like super lobbyists, indoor rainforests, teapot and hippie museams...yes, this is the stuff of the Founding Fathers! Ah, Harry the Patriot, Defender of First Principles standing athwart history!

Forgive me, but a Congress that produces over 15,000 earmarks totaling $17 billion in one year seems to fall quite short of Jefferson's call for a "wise and frugal government."

Even Democrats get it

Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill took to the floor today to support the conservative amendment to eliminate pork barrel spending. Her remarks are pitch perfect. Kudos to McCaskill who is sure to get some flack from big spenders in her party.



Hat tip: Andy Roth

Reid's slip betrays truth behind pork barrel spending

As you know from previous posts, the Senate this week is ground zero in the battle between reformers and pork-hoarding Senate old bulls. Legislation to stop the earmarking practice in the Senate for a year has garnered the support of all three major Presidential candidates as well as that of an unusual list of Senators.

Usually reform measures like this are rapidly swept under the rug by the old guard, but much to their dismay this one looks like it won't be so easy because of the media attention brought by the Presidential candidates.

Still, the an unholy alliance of Republican and Democrat old bulls are pulling out all the stops. Harry Reid and Dick Durbin are smugly predicting another victory for the pro-pork alliance. During a press conference yesterday however, Reid had a quite unfortunate slip of the tongue:

"I hope that senators of good will on both sides of the aisle will step forward and say, 'We have an obligation to our clients — to our constituents,'" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pleaded to his colleagues.

Uh oh...cats out of the bag Harry. It is all about the clients. In Harry's case, the "clients" are the lobbyists who ask for earmark money for certain projects on behalf of their own clients. If Harry can't deliver for his clients then the lobbyists can't deliver for theirs'. And if nobody delivers, how does Harry get his campaign coffers enriched and how do the lobbyists attract more clients and how does the status-quo broken Congress continue?

UPDATE: Much more here from Heritage's The Foundry

Now everyone hates earmarks

A bill to eliminate the practice of congressional earmarking, AKA wasteful and corrupting pork barrel spending, is all of a sudden drawing a lot of attention. John McCain pledged his support and then the levy broke.

The AP reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday joined Republican presidential candidate John McCain and a small band of GOP senators in making a run this week against the billions of dollars in home-state pet projects Congress funds each year.

Obama, locked in a head-to-head battle with Clinton for the Democratic nomination, was the first to declare through a spokesman Monday that he would support a one-year moratorium on so-called earmarks when it comes up for a vote later this week. Clinton followed shortly afterward through a spokesman.

The poobahs of pork in both parties as well as their Senate leaders suddenly found themselves on the spot after stalwartly defending lawmakers' practice of steering federal dollars to their home states.

The furious pace at which momentum is building for this measure is impressive. Old bulls in the Senate who want to maintain their right to direct tax dollars wherever they want are now in quite a pickle. Will they look sillier maintaining their position or flip flopping on something they have fought so hard to keep from coming to a vote?

This scenario is a bit like the immigration reform bill. There were many in the Senate who favored the amnesty measure, but when push came to shove the American people spoke so loudly that they had to flip their votes at the last moment on the Senate floor. Fearing a backlash, they quietly voted against amnesty and then slunk away.

It is good to know that there are still issues that matter enough to people that even entrenched old bull Senators can feel the heat.

RELATED: WSJ Editorial -- Earmark Showdown

UPDATE: Keep an eye on Andy Roth at the Club for Growth. He has been all over this issue as well as David Freddoso.

McCain the Reformer

Team McCain has to love this Novak article which pits McCain squarely against the status-quo-protecting old bulls in his party. The more people see McCain as a politician willing to break with his party, the better off he is. On this particular issue, McCain has the added bonus that he is breaking with his party in the direction of conservatives. Two-fer!