Will Cain-Gingrich debates remind us of Lincoln-Douglas?

Political debates have steadily devolved over the decades from critical discussions of important issues into soundbite showcases, where candidates struggle to belt out pithy one-liners in hopes they'll make it onto the evening news. This frustrates candidates - who feel their nuanced positions are reduced to slogans - and it frustrates voters - who feel like they're not voting for a candidate, but for a bumper sticker. So, it is exciting to see two of the major Republican candidates experimenting with a different style. Calling back to the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates which solidified Abraham Lincoln as the leader of the anti-slavery movement in the Republican party.

The long-form format of the Cain-Gingrich debate will consist of only three or four basic questions, a moderator who will try to stay out of the picture and a great deal of crossdiscussion.

The debate will focus on federal entitlement spending — on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Gingrich will be specifically required to defend his criticism — later retracted — of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to reduce a $14 trillion deficit.

Cain will be required to explain the intricacies of his “9-9-9” plan — a measure that includes a 9 percent corporate tax rate, a 9 percent personal income tax rate and a 9 percent national sales tax.

Will this work? Will it cause the fortunes of these two men to rise or fall? I have no idea. In modern America, we sometimes expect our candidates to be shrink-wrapped perfection. But it is a bold and interesting experiment, and if it can raise the tone and incrase the depth of the current cycle, I am all for it.

Will Tea Party Republicans keep their promises?

We've seen the pattern again and again. A movement arises with high ideals, gains power, gets elected, and quickly sells out its ideals in order to gain additional power. It's been seen on the Left and the Right and in the Middle. Now the question is will the Tea Party follow the same course or will they be able maintain some level of intellectual honestly? And perhaps more importantly, can they stay honest without sacrificing actual accomplishment?

Republicans campaigned coast to coast on, among other things, a promise to cut $100 billion out of the federal budget.

But now they are talking about cuts as slim as $30 billion, blaming the change on the fine print that no one read -- or if they read, did not understand.

It turns out the $100-billion figure meant $100 billion from a budget that President Barack Obama proposed, which was never passed. And now that the fiscal year is nearly half over, well, there's just no way ...

They say no War Plan survives contact with the Enemy. My guess is we should prepare for some disappointment.

Moderation is never easy

We're watching you

From here. My feelings exactly.

Congrats, and a Reality Check

Congratulations to the Republican Party (and Tea Party) on winning back the House in a historic sweep not seen in 70 years. Congratulations to the Democratic Party for holding onto the Senate, if only by a seat or two.

As all parties settle down to the business of governing, let's remember a few basic facts that will be all-too-tempting to ignore:

1. This was a HOUSECLEANING, because the People believe Congress has been ignoring their will and best interests.

2. This was NOT a mandate for every Republican idea in the hopper. It was specifically a mandate to FIX THE ECONOMY. Let's not get sidetracked onto other issues, at least until people are going back to work.

3. This was a warning to all career politicians - Left and Right - that if the major parties don't get their act together, voters are ready to embrace a Third Party (in this case the Tea Party) who offers solutions and vents their anger. We see no benefit to hanging onto historical party structures "just because".

So, please govern humbly, and be focused on the task at hand. Or else 2012 will look a lot like 2010, but without a happy ending for Republicans.

Ouch. Sadly true over the last 2 years.

Anti-Outsourcing Bill Dies

Yes, I know it is a transparent attempt to manufacture an issue right before a hostile election, but... why exactly is it a bad idea to pass a bill to limit outsourcing? After all, in an economy with millions unable to find work and thousands having given up on even looking for work, don't we want to encourage companies to keep jobs in America?

The bill included a payroll tax holiday for companies that bring jobs back from overseas, ended tax breaks for plants that shut down to go elsewhere, and blocked companies from deferring their tax bill year to year by keeping money out of the U.S.

I have no doubt that overseas workers can do good work. But this seems to be one of those rare cases where a little protectionism might go a long way.

Will Republicans be a "minor party" in Colorado?

Sometimes a bad candidate is just a bad candidate. But sometimes, it can be deadly to the future of a political party. Colorado may be teaching a hard and costly lesson.

But if Maes fails to get 10 percent of the vote on election day, his legacy won't be the U.N. bike plot warning or the tall tale of working undercover as a cop in Kansas. It will be leaving Republicans with minor party status in Colorado until 2014.

After weeks of declines in the polls, the TPM Poll Average now shows Maes coming in at 9.3%.

As The Denver Post reported back in September, minor party status means that Republicans wouldn't appear at the top of the ballot with the Democrats in 2012 and 2014. Instead, they'll be listed down with the Libertarian, Green Party and other third-party candidates.

On the upside, it would be a golden opportunity for the Constitution Party whose candidate, Tom Tancredo, could give then Major Party status.

Republican vs Democratic Strategies

From Political Grafiti.

Is Specter defection GOOD for the GOP?

Gloating democrats have made no secret of their opinion that the conversion of Arlen Specter from Red State to Blue State is the death knell of the opposition party. But some have another theory that it may be the beginning of real problems for the Democrats and President Obama.

With the likely seating of Al Franken from Minnesota, Democrats will have 60 seats in the Senate, giving Obama unambiguous governing majorities in both bodies. He’ll be responsible for everything. GOP obstructionism will go away as an issue, and Democratic defections will become the constant worry and story line. This will make it easier for GOP candidates in 2010 to ask to be elected to help restore some checks and balance in Washington -- and, meanwhile, Specter’s party change won’t likely have made much difference in getting key legislation passed or not.

It is an interesting theory, and I think more than a little true. Jim Jeffords did little to weaken GWB, in the end, and instead allowed the GOP to come together against a perceived outside threat. This may be the stimulus that Republicans need to finally rally together, and begin repairing the party from the inside-out.

Georgia ensures no filibuster-proof majority for the Democrats

Losing the presidency was like a nightmare for the Republican Party. Losing both houses of Congress was like their worst nightmare. The prospect of the Democrats also having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - effectively denying the minority party ANY vote - would have been the end of their world. But it had seemed possible with Georgia and Minnesota in the midst of runoffs and recounts respectively. But the win of Republican Saxby Chambliss has ensured that the GOP can still have a voice in the upcoming Congress. A small tiny, whiny voice. But a voice nonetheless

n the end, Martin, a 63-year-old former state lawmaker from Atlanta, wasn't able to get Obama voters back to the polls in large enough numbers to overcome the Republican advantage in Georgia, which has become an increasingly a reliable red state since 2002.
Turnout was light throughout the state Tuesday. A spokesman for Secretary of State Karen Handel predicted between 18 and 20 percent of the state's 5.75 million registered voters would cast ballots - far less than the 65 percent who voted in last month's general election.
The runoff between the former University of Georgia fraternity brothers was necessary after a three-way general election prevented any of the candidates from getting the necessary 50 percent.

Fed: Shut up, we're in charge!

If you're wondering why the Republican Party was trounced in November, don't look at Palin's wardrobe or McCain's debate performances or the GOP website. Look at this kind of idiocy coming from our appointed leaders. Can we really countenance this kind of resistance to oversight, and ignoring of checks and balances?

The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

Refusing to honor a direct requirement of a law passed by Congress is willful violation of said law. It should be a fireable offense. Mr. Bush, fire Ben Bernanke today, unless this report can be shown to be false. Or else doom your party to decades in the minority.

Rebuildtheparty.com

The national college republicans have up a new site calling for fundamental changes to the GOP, to begin recovering from the huge losses suffered this Fall. It is worth a look, if you feel the same way Ward does.

Ron Paul endorses Constitution Party Candidate

In a move which is sure to alienate some of his more Libertarian supporters - but which is surely in line with his maverick nature - Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin, presidential candidate of the Constitution Party. This can't come as a great shock to John McCain who has been trying to get the endorsement of the congressman who gained notoriety as the only GOP candidate in the primary who opposed the War in Iraq. Personally, I think the endorsement has more to do with a desire to "shake things up" and keep people guessing than with any true sense of alliance between the "Ron Paul Revolution" and the Consitution Party.

It will be interesting to see if this has any impact in the Fall. The Constitution Party was already the fastest-growing third party (much to the annoyance of the Libertarian Party, which has held the distinction of being the largest third party for a long time). But to date, it has shown little impact on the national stage.

What would an Iraqi withdrawal plan mean to the Presidential race?

Barack Obama has made a cornerstone of his campaign that he is the only candidate out there who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and who will get U.S. troops out. It has been central to his popularity among the core of the Democratic Party, and was the wedge that got the foot in the door for a rookie senator from Illinois. And, it has been a critical defining difference between Obama and John McCain.

But now it appears a formal withdrawal agreement with the Iraqi government is close. It could be signed in the next month or so, and it would put real (though tentative) end dates for U.S. combat troops and advisory troops in the country.

If such an agreement is signed, how will it impact the campaign? Will Obama see a sudden drop in popularity, as his key issue becomes moot? Will John McCain see a bump in the polls with an end to the War now in sight? Or will Hillary Clinton use it at the Democratic Convention as an argument to overturn the original delegate totals because "facts have now changed"?

What do Mod-Bloggers think the impact of such an agreement would be?

Hilarity Ensues at the House of Representatives

This is hilarious. The Democrats don't want to vote on off-shore drilling, so they recess for the August break. Some Republicans don't want to recess until there is a vote, so they've decided to keep going. So the Democrats turned off the lights and the microphones. So the Republicans kept going and one Congressman punched a bunch of buttons into the PA system until he got the right code to turn it back on. Then the lights and microphones went dead again. So the Republicans cheered and kept going and sent out a request for a bullhorn. While this started out as a good thing, I worry that it's becoming more and more of a circus and will be look on as foolishness. Still, they haven't done up a picture of the Speaker of the House wearing a diaper like the Democrats did of Newt Gingrich. Original story here, with follow ups here and here.

Adventures in political marketing

A week or two ago I posed the question "Why are Republicans uncool?".  Almost on cue the GOP launches a website that could make them more cool.  The GOP is looking for input on policy proposals.  This could be a really great people to discuss issues - even if it does end up being only Republicans on the site. As we have seen, even here on Mod-Blog where most of us are Republicans we have a fairly wide diversity of beliefs and focuses when it comes to politics.  As the article says:

The site itself has a stodgy charm to it. But at least the GOP is creating an online forum for citizens to engage with policy makers before they make policy. This could just be an empty effort whose real purposes is to collect e-mail addresses from party members to hit them up for donations. And if that’s the case, the site will soon die. But if the GOP can create an active community of people truly interested and informed about different policy options, and feed that into their platform, it could give them a real competitive advantage over the Democrats.

Here's hoping that this one works out in the positive for the GOP.

On the other side of the aisle, the Obama campaign marketers are either geniuses or nuts, I tend to favor the former rather than the latter.  The campaign is sponsoring a NASCAR car in an upcoming race.  Since it's widely known that NASCAR is most popular among red necks state voters, this could be a good way of garnering a positive look from that voting block. Again, Obama is trying to bring states and blocks into contention that have traditionally be foregone conclusions.  As much as I don't like that a Democrat is doing this, it is good that people are now being forced to think about their vote rather than simply voting for a party.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Give me a POSITIVE REASON to vote for you

It is no secret that I am not a fan of John McCain. I have posted several of the articles that make me wonder about the man. But there is something else that destroys any attempt I make to get interested in the election for his sake. He has never given me a positive reason to vote for him. Consider the last 5 e-mails I got about this election which tried to motivate me to vote for John McCain:

1. Vote McCain or else Iraq will fail.
2. Vote McCain or Iran will get a nuke.
3. Vote McCaon or taxes will go up.
4. Vote McCain or the economy will stagnate.
5. Vote McCain or abortion will never be overturned.

Not one which says "Vote McCain because he has this GREAT idea to change the world."

Let's face the facts that every reasonable American knows. If Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton, if Obama stumbles) wins the presidency, America will survive. It will even improve in some ways, because America always advances - sometimes because of politicians, sometimes in spite of them. It is no horror to have a Democrat in the White House. And there are positive effects to showing that the reins of power do not last long in one set of hands in our nation. The peaceful transfer of power may be expected in this age, but it was not long ago that it was nearly unheard-of.

Obama brings many positive reasons to vote for him: a new approach to foreign policy, a focus on economic issues, a chance for the next step in racial reconciliation. If John McCain wants to win, he needs to start bringing out the positive reasons to vote for him, as well. Otherwise, he may have convinced me NOT to vote for Obama, but he sure won't have motivated me to get out of my chair in November to bother to cast a vote for him.

Ron Paul drops out?

One wonders how this news squares with the announcement of a counter-convention to be staged by Ron Paul supporters, but apparently Dr. Paul has elected to drop out of the race officially. The move frees up campaign money to be funneled into a fund to elect Libertarian Republicans in local elections nationwide. Apparently, it will also be used to launch Ron Paul's new book "The Revolution: A Manifesto".

Personally, I can't help wondering if McCain called up Dr. Paul and had a frank talk about the problems with a counter-convention. It never made sense, other than to stoke Paul's ego. This way, John McCain can say some nice words about Paul at the convention, and maybe even let the guy give a speech outside of Prime Time. This move certainly is more in line with Paul's intention to be the Barry Goldwater of a new Conservative/Libertaian movement.

Ron Paul: "I'll throw my own convention... with blackjack... and delegates..."

Several election cycles back, I was quite enamored of Steve Forbes as a Presidential Candidate. Forbes ran to give visibility to the Flat Tax - an idea whose time has come in my opinion - and ran a tough campaign, picking up two states and a significant percentage of votes. But when Bob Dole was chosen as the nominee, he had the good grace to step back and realize that his time on the stage was done. His ideas continued to be talked about - even in the general election - but he himself knew when to bow out.

Not so Ron Paul. Dr. Paul has decided it is not enough to be given respect by the candidate - despite not having won a single state in the primary - but that he is important enough to warrant his own Convention, which will be held in the same city at the same time as the Republican Convention. He claims to not want to hurt the party, but is eager to keep his face on the evening news.

I respect Dr. Paul's tenacity, but question his methods. If the Republican Party is so antithetical to his ideals, why remain part of it? And if it is truly a party he wishes to remain a part of, why all this grandstanding? Parties exist to form power coalitions. If you're unwilling to join any coalition, do you really want to call yourself part of it?