Savage Republican

I race sailboats. One of the most satisfying views in a race is near the end when you look back and see all the competition far behind. It’s called a horizon shot. Newt Gingrich refers to horizons as he lists the seven things that the Republicans need to regain majority status (again HT to Tapscott). And the horizons that he refers to are the House and the White House. In two years, GWB retires. The entire House of Representatives faces election in two years. A two year horizon for both with completely different perspectives. And Gingrich warns that the House’s perspective had better be getting along with the voters instead of getting along with the White House.
And again, we’ll see what that perspective really is depending on who the House leadership elects tomorrow.

The title comes from “Marathon Man” where the Laurence Olivier character is asking for a sign if it’s safe to conduct business. I chose it because the vote last Tuesday was a sign to the Republicans that doesn’t seem to be taking. And I asked myself what does it take for conservatives to vote as they did? What would drive some of them, though a small but significant percentage, to vote for someone other than a Republican candidate? I came across an article by Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation giving, again, telling information about the election (the article is linked from Tapscott’s Copy Desk).Franc repeats that the Repubs lost, not conservatism. But, the telling part of the article is how conservatives voted:
“exit poll data demonstrate that self-identified conservatives who supported the Democratic House candidates made up fully 6 percent of the electorate, while liberals who gravitated to the Republican amounted to only 1.7 percent of the total. That means the “my-conservatives-for-your-liberals” trade netted a loss of 4.3 percent of the total electorate.”

And it seems that Bill Clinton caught the movement fairly accurately:
“The reason we are at this moment,” he said in a campaign speech last week, “is that [Republican leaders] do not represent faithfully the Republicans and the more conservative independents in the country.” He stretched reality a little, but not by much, when he argued that anyone who takes the conservative view on the budget, law enforcement and other issues ought to cast his or her lot with the Democrats.“ Seems that that is exactly what some conservatives did.

Now, here’s my thought: With all the warnings about a Nancy Pelosi Speaker, no constructionist judicial appointments, a weakening of national security, there were conservatives that took to voting for Democrats. Why? I posit exasperation. The Repubs were being warned in 2002 (though there is also a thought of those people who voted Repub in 2002 because of 9-11, supported GWB against Kerry, but went away by 2006). The conservatives were talking about “holding their noses” and pulling the lever for Repubs in 2004. And with no veto’s (save one), amnesty, Harriet Miers, No Child Left Behind, Mediscare Prescription Drug Plan, McCain/Feingold, the conservatives saw no out. That with all the warnings being sent to conservatives by Karl Rove and the neocons (“It will be worse with THEM”), the Repubs were ignoring all the warnings sent to them by conservatives. And so, in exasperation, the voters voted for reform,change.
And once again, there is this telling statistic: “one election-eve poll found that Americans trusted Democrats over Republicans to control spending by a remarkable 53 percent to 29 percent.“
Franc also writes: “Republican strategists, and more than a few Democrats, will undoubtedly take note of how easily legions of conservative voters switched their partisan loyalties, and will scrutinize the data for clues as to how this could have happened.” The Republican strategists will take note. The Senate has not and it looks like the House will follow suit. The Senate leadership has voted for their leadership and the House will elect their leadership tomorrow.
So much for sober reflection.
We, the voters, taught the lesson. The Senate Republican leadership didn’t learn it at all by returning Trent Lott to leadership (in a parallel move that mimics bringing out Walter Mondale to replace Paul Wellstone). Tomorrow we’ll see if the House Republicans have learned the lesson.
And if the House Republicans don’t get their act together and show they’ve learned the lesson the voters taught them, well, they have two years to practice saying “Madam President”.

And Trent Lott returns to kill the base even further.
And I’d be willing to bet that if the Senate Republicans ran White Star Line that they would put Captain Smith at the helm of RMS Olympic or HMHS Britannic .
Let’s hope and pray the House of Representatives shows a higher degree of learning ability.
Let’s hope.

I’ve seen a number of 11-07 postmortems. There is one that I’ve looked at and reviewed and recommended. The Club for Growth is an organization I’m familiar with, but I’ve not studied much. However, Pat Toomey had an article last week that was linked at Real Clear Politics . Mr Toomey cites a study (opens with Word) that the Club for Growth commissioned from Basswood Research. Basswood polled 15 Congressional Districts across the nation a few days before the election. All House seats were held by Republicans. The poll was taken by talking to likely voters (not registered voters).
The breakdown was as follows:

• Q: With which political party are you registered or affiliated?
  

A: Republican 37.6%
Democrat 40.6%
Independent 19.4%
Refused 2.4%

This falls within margin of error agreeing with conventional wisdom that the nation is evenly divided between Republican and Democrat at 40% each with 20% as independent.
The next question is where the first “Oh, oh” occurs:

• Q: Would you prefer to see the Democrats or the Republicans in control of Congress when the new Congress meets in January?
  

A: Democrats 50.8%
Republicans 36.3%
Refused 13%

And next, we have an “OH, OH!!”:

Introduction to Question: Now tell me whether you think the following phrases better describe the Republicans or the Democrats in Washington.

Q: “The Party of Big Government”

A: Republicans 39.3%
Democrats 27.9%
Both 16.3%
Neither 9.3%
Don’t know/Refused 7.4%

Q: Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The
Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose.”

A: Agree 65.8%
Strongly Agree 43.4%
Somewhat Agree 22.4%
Disagree 26.4%

Strongly Disagree 13.4%

Somewhat Disagree 13.0%

Don’t know/Refused 7.9%

This is exactly what many of us have been saying for years.We blogged, emailed, and stated that government had grown faster under the first five years under Republican control of the White House and Congress than under the full eight years with Bill Clinton. That the Repubs were not becoming Big Government Lite, that we saw Repubs as THE Big Government Party. And obviously so does everyone else except Karl Rove,GWB and the Republicans in Congress. This is what so many pundits, like Hugh Hewitt have been saying is not true. The kept proclaiming that to say that there wasn’t a dimes worth of difference between the Dems and Repubs was just wrong. Seems the electorate saw a half dollar’s worth of difference. And voted accordingly.

But here is what I find extremely interesting:
Q: The 2003 federal tax cuts lowered tax rates on capital gains and dividend income. In two years, those taxes will go up if Congress does not extend the tax cuts. Do you support extending the current lower rates on capital gains and dividends, or do you support allowing those taxes to go up?
A: Extend the tax cuts 62.1%
Allow taxes to rise
24.8%
Don’t know/Refused 13.1%

Q: The 2003 federal tax cuts lowered income tax rates across the board, cutting the lowest tax rate from 15% down to 10%, and cutting the highest tax rate from 39.6% down to 35%. In four years, those tax rates will return to their previously higher levels if Congress does not extend the tax cuts. Do you support extending the current lower income tax rates, or do you support allowing the income tax cuts to expire and let rates return to their previous higher levels?

A: Extend the tax cuts 59.1%
Allow the tax cuts to expire 26.8%
Don’t know/Refused 14.1%

Q: The 2001 federal tax cuts phased out the inheritance tax, also known as the death tax. The law is currently scheduled to completely eliminate the death tax in four years, but then it allows the death tax to return in the year 2011. Would you prefer to have the death tax permanently eliminated, or would you prefer to see the death tax brought back in 2011?

A: Permanent elimination 61.6%
Brought back in 2011 21.5%
Don’t know/Refused 16.9%

In other words, these people wanted what the Repubs had offered, but the people didn’t trust them to deliver. Even the Dems want to end the death tax. Even the Dems want permanent tax cuts. Even the Dems want tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. In other words, people want to keep more of the money they earn. And the Repubs were not trusted to deliver.

Look at the dates when the tax cuts were proposed: 2001 and 2003. And even with majorities in both houses of Congress and a Republican in the White House, the Republicans could not make those cuts permanent in three to five years.

This is one of the most eye opening surveys I’ve seen in years. And unfortunately one that proves the conservatives right. And all those people who proclaimed it was more important to get Republicans elected than to adhere to principles and a platform? Well, they were wrong, flat wrong. Miserably wrong. And they never listened. Or worse, chose to ignore.

There are post and editorials about how wonderful Senator Allen is for not putting the people through a recount and setting a great example for other politicians.

My response. Horse-Hockey!!

If anyone thinks this will change the way Democrats behave they are fooling themselves.

The is the same stupid logic that was at the heart of the Nuclear Arms movement.
“If we set a good example just get rid of our Weapons, the Soviets will!”
Horse-Hockey – If you want to win you defeat the opponent.
The Democrats want to win and they know this – Just because we want to play fair does not mean they will.

Do I think Allen should be fighting the outcome?
Maybe – Sort of like when a coach calls for a play to be reviewed on a turnover even when he knows he will lose.
It takes away some of the momentum, and also sets up the Officials to question themselves.

But the key is, if anyone thinks that 2008 will not have the Democrats calling voter fraud and recounting every ballot they lose, they are kidding themselves.

For the perfect example. Gov. Pawlenty makes a gesture talking about how he wants to work with the new DFL House and Senate. And what does the DFL, appoints the most partisan fighter they have to lead the Senate.

And peoples are surprised!

When will we learn?

It’s 1:00 a.m. on 7 November, 2006, Election Day for the mid-term elections.

I’ve started the post mortem early with politicians and some RINO’s here locally in mind. The RINO’s I have in mind are not politicians. I’ve served with them on campaigns and committees. The keep trying to impress me with their credentials hoping that I’ll accept them as conservative. That being said, they only impress me as having the very same virus as the Republicans that are now in heavy spin.

I’m starting my day after my Bible readings and meditations, with coffee, and now am listening to Laura Ingraham. And her advice to the Repubs? Don’t wait until October 1^st of an election year to start paying attention to your base. It becomes pandering at that late date. She mentioned the Harriet Miers disaster, the Dubai Ports deal, no reform of Social Security, amnesty for illegals just to name a few. Here locally we’ve got the horrible stadium deal, fees instead of taxes, ethanol/E85 subsidies, and Republican senatorial candidates running ads against the oil industry. Laura has just had on Robert Novak who has written some great articles. I read where once again I’m being warned about the Senate and judicial nominations. I remember that same carrot being held out two years ago when I joined many others to work chasing the same carrot. And was given Harriet Miers.

There are plenty of articles and blogs that have warned the Repubs that the day of reckoning was approaching. Dick Armey wrote an insightful piece as did Fred Barnes. But then, there is this piece today from the WSJ by Arthur Brooks. Brooks refers to the rightward tilt of the country. That if right versus left were a seesaw, Nancy Pelosi would be doing an air dance and a Democratic House majority would just mean that her shoes are a few inches closer to the Mother Earth that she and the other lefties try to put on God’s Eternal Throne. The gross and overarching error in the article is that Brooks assumes that Republican = conservative. He states “long-term trends are still distinctly right wing.” I’d posit that what he really means is the long term trends are less left wing. When I see the federal register still growing, tax cuts not made permanent (or at least kinda’ permanent-remember the two tier tax levels from the Reagan Presidency and where we are now?) Now, to give Brooks his due, he has a book that really proves that churchy going conservatives really are more compassionate by what they personally give, not what they vote to force others to give to horrible, disastrous and evil government programs.

P.S. 11-07-06 1:09 p.m. I voted.

I started my post mortem early yesterday morning and will post it later.
But, the quote of the night came from none other than Senator John McCain when asked to comment on the Republican losses. It absolutely should be tatooed on every Republican’s forehead.
“We came to change Washington. Washington changed us.”

Good News tonight.

So long to DeWine and So long to Chafee.

The great RINO Hunt continues.