Now that Christine O’Donnell has gone down in defeat, the prognosticators on both sides of the aisle will likely start trying to seize on this as a “told you so” moment.  In an effort to help prevent conservatives falling prey to such 20/20 hindsight, I’d like to register my continuing support for her candidacy.

Some will say that Mike Castle would’ve won.  Maybe so, maybe not.  Even if he had, though, what good would that have been?  Is there really a value in electing a Republican who will vote like a Democrat anyway?  If so, why even bother having two parties?  If we follow Reagan’s advice and offer the electoral bold color differences instead of pale pastels, then we must accept that sometimes the electorate will choose to go blue instead of red.  That’s life…we win some, we lose some.  At least now when the Delaware senatorial delegation votes for some left-wing agenda, the Democrats will bear the full responsibility.  The O’Donnell nomination–and yes, her loss as well–is one more bulwark against the Obama administration being able to push through horrible statist legislation and then, when it inevitably fails, hide behind the cover of said legislation having received the Holy Grail of politics:  bipartisan support.

The only thing Christine O’Donnell lost tonight was a Senate race.  She didn’t sell her soul; And in politics, that’s quite a victory indeed.

I guess the internecine warfare has already started.  Word is, some of those oh-so-wise big wigs who brought us the wildly successful presidential campaigns of Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and John McCain are at it again.  They’ve decided Sarah Palin is the modern incarnation of perennial political bogeyman Barry Goldwater.  (Leaving aside for the moment the obvious question:  What’s so bad about a second Barry Goldwater?) Let me be one of the first to tell the smartest people in the room, “Thanks for all your concern regarding the collective ignorance of us yokels who are poised to retake the House and perhaps wrecking the delicate political consensi you so-carefully crafted over the past 12 years or so brought us the resounding victories of losing the Senate…then the House…then the Presidency, but I think we’re gonna take a stab at it on our own this time.  See you at the polls!

As what looks to be an historic mid-term shellacing of the Democrats looms, we’re already beginning to hear voices–both within and without the Republican Party–calling for “compromise” between the new Congress and the President. Many of the usual suspects in the media will take it upon themselves to “warn the Republicans” that they’d better get on board with the Obama agenda, or else they’ll be thrown out of the offices they won precisely by campaigning against said agenda.   With that in mind, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane and recall just what “compromise” means when on the lips of the Left.

Remember that magical year of 2001 when “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffords of VT decided he was done with the Republican Party and elected to declare himself an independent caucusing with the Democrats?  Despite the fact that the Democrats seized control of one branch of the Legislature without even winning an election, that didn’t stop them from becoming “the party of ‘no'” with regards to President Bush’s judicial nominees.  The power of their newfound single-vote majority was acted upon as if they had received an overwhelming electoral mandate.

Not only did the newly-Democratic Senate not seem in a particularly conciliatory mood, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) had no problem asserting his expectation that, “We expect them [i.e., the Bush Administration] to rethink, to recalibrate their political calculations when they send up nominees to us.

Fellow senator, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) seemed no more interested in compromising with Bush when he warned: “I made it clear to the White House and to the White House counsel that we are not going to be a rubber stamp.”

Following his own election to the Presidency, Obama’s talk of “changing the tone in Washington” shifted rather dramatically.  He told legislators of his own party, “Americans did not vote for the status quo–they sent us here to bring change.”

A question then, Mr. President:  If those same voters toss out the majority of your legislators in two days, will that too be a repudiation of the status quo?  Will it too be a mandate for a change of direction?

The President’s defenders, of course, will accuse me of oversimplifying the case.  (Facts and direct quotations are rather inconvenient things, aren’t they?) They will say that the President’s efforts at compromise have been far more “nuanced” (which is to say, “nonexistent”) than my analysis allows for.  Very well, perhaps we should give ear to the analysis of Democratic pollsters Doug Schoen:

Ideally [President Obama] wants bipartisanship. If that doesn’t work, ‘We won, you lost. You’re discredited. We’re not.’ That’s kind of his fallback position.

Nor was this carpe diem attitude of “now-it’s-our-turn-so-we’re-gonna-ram-through-everything-we-can” restricted to the elected politicians.  Recall this even-handed commentary from fair-and-balanced journalist, Chris Matthews:

You’re quite right, Mr. Matthews, we shouldn’t “pussyfoot” around, apologize for winning, or worry about getting along with the President.  Thank you very much for endorsing, in advance, the opposition of the newly conservative House.

The Bolt’s definition of narcissism:  Opining that your country can “absorb” a terrorist attack, but would suffer irreparable harm if your party lost the mid-term elections.

The latest rumors surrounding Rep. Mike Pence are that he is considering stepping down from his House Leadership position shortly after the mid-term elections in order to prepare for a run at either the presidency or the Indiana governorship.  Politico notes Pence, “he has made a number of high-profile stops all over the country, including most recently in Florida, Minnesota and Wisconsin.”

Mike Pence: While some argue Pence would face significant challenges in either race, it seems obvious to me that the hurdles to overcome in a presidential run are far greater than those that would face him in a gubernatorial campaign.  This is not to say, however, that Pence shouldn’t run for President.  I happen to think Pence brings some real strengths to the table.

Primary opponents are likely to argue Pence has no credibility as a fiscal conservative because he took earmarks until 2008.  This is an argument with more emotional than logical appeal.  A lot of people (myself included) who don’t really care for most of the government’s social programs nonetheless take advantage of them because the system has been set up in such a way that we currently cannot make ends meet without them.  This doesn’t mean we can’t be honest proponents for a new and better structuring of the nation’s fiscal house.  Similarly, if the best argument that can be levelled against Pence is that he took some earmarks, that seems pretty weak.  I’d want to know precisely what the nature of the earmarks were.  Was he building bridges to nowhere, or studying the mating habits of turtles…or were these earmarks that went to more productive, job-producing projects?

Furthermore, who else is going to have a stronger fiscal record than Pence? Romney passed proto-Obamacare in Massachusetts…Huckabee practiced a state-level version of Bush’s Big Government Conservatism in Arkansas…Palin was a sometime proponent of the earmarks in Alaska.  In contrast, Pence “led the unsuccessful opposition to Bush’s elephantine Medicare bill.” The only two people with “street cred” greater than Pence on fiscal matters would be Ron Paul and Mitch Daniels, both of whom are likely to have a very difficult time winning the support of the important social conservative base in the Republican Party.

While campaign funding is likely to be one of the early weaknesses of a Pence campaign, he is likely to have an advantage in the critical area of volunteer passion and enthusiasm.  As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, “Pence has come to occupy an unusual niche over the past two years. He’s one of the few Washington political leaders who’s won widespread support among tea party activists.”

While it’s vogue in some circles to argue that Republicans have to surrender ground on social issues in order to win.  (Nevermind that it’s quite an odd strategy to secure victory by completely abandoning your base.)  I tend to think that America has not so much turned against social conservatives as it has turned against fakes and opportunists.  Against people who advocate for (or against) social issues only for political gain.  Pence gives every indication of being a down-the-line conservative who both capable of and willing to fuse the social and fiscal strains of conservatism into one coherent bloc.  Consider these words from his speech at the Values Voter Summit:

Now I know some say that Republicans should stay away from such issues this year…that the American people are focused on jobs and spending and our movement would do well to stand aside, bank the win and return to fight after this fiscal and economic crisis has passed, but we do not live in a world where an American leader can just focus on our financial ledger. A political party that would govern this great nation must be able to handle more than one issue at a time. We must focus on our fiscal crisis and support our troops. We must work to create jobs and protect innocent human life…To those who say we should focus on cutting spending, I say ‘Ok, let’s start by denying all federal funding for abortion at home and abroad! Stop funding research that destroys human embryos in the name of science…We must not remain silent when great moral battles are being waged. Those who would have us ignore the battle being fought over life … have forgotten the lessons of history. As in the days of a House divided, America’s darkest moments have come when economic arguments trumped moral principles…Men and women, we must demand, here and now, that the leaders of the Republican Party stand for life” and to do so without apology.

 

Perhaps you’ve already heard of the latest brouhaha surrounding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  It seems that one of the good senator’s aides entered into a fake marriage with a Lebanese man in order to help him avoid deportation.  Media Matters–that paragon of even-handed journalism–decried Fox News (apparently for having the audacity to even report something less-than-adulatory of one of our dear leaders) by pointing out there is, “no evidence that Reid or anyone in his office had any knowledge of the investigation or the alleged wrongdoing.”

This is rather fascinating as one of the most influential Leftists in America argued less than a month ago that evidence of guilt was not necessary in order to smear people.  Just in case you’ve forgotten, here’s a clip of David Axelrod conducting the political hatchet job on that nefarious global cabal–the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.


Marco Rubio for Senate

Posted: October 26, 2010 in Uncategorized
Tags:

This is an inspiring little ad by Marco Rubio, the Republican candidate for Senate in Florida.  I don’t know if he’s the next Reagan or not…but this ad makes me think he could be.  I hope the crop of new legislators we have after next week talk (and govern) more like this.