It Could Be His Party

Not so in the United States. Here, parties in their out-of-power years tend to slip into low-grade civil wars, with rival camps inside Washington and various warlords — er, governors — squabbling on the periphery. Not coincidentally, the parties tend to look their worst during these periods: fractious and solipsistic, intellectually confused or ideologically extreme, with opportunists grabbing for the megaphone at every opportunity.

The Republican Party has been effectively leaderless for almost six years, ever since the 2006 midterm elections made George W. Bush’s lame-duck status official. John McCain was so mistrusted by conservatives that he probably would have felt like an interim figure even if he hadn’t gone down to defeat in 2008, and after the general Republican rout that year, the party’s public image was suddenly defined more by media personalities — from Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck — than by any of its elected officials.

The Limbaugh-Beck moment passed, but the vacuum remained — and for most of his two years of campaigning, as a primary candidate and then as the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney conspicuously failed to fill it. He seemed content to take his party as he found it, and to conform rather than to lead: in the primaries because conformity was the safest way to reassure his critics, and in the general election because his campaign apparently believed that a generic Mr. Republican would be able to glide to victory in the fall.

That finally changed in the first presidential debate. In 90 prime-time minutes, the country had a glimpse of what our politics might look like if the Republican Party actually had a leader again.

What Romney executed on Wednesday night was not just a simple pivot to the center, as much of the post-debate analysis suggested. Pivot he certainly did — stressing bipartisanship and touting his record as the moderate governor of a liberal state, backing away from the more implausible spending cuts implied by his budget promises, explicitly breaking with the idea that upper-bracket tax cuts can be a self-financing free lunch.

But this wasn’t some sort of Sister Souljah moment, where Romney called out his fellow conservatives in order to curry favor with the center. Rather, what he did was clarify, elevate and translate. He clarified what kind of tax reformer he would be, by promising that revenue neutrality would take priority over sweeping cuts for the rich — a premise that plenty of Republicans are already happy to accept. He elevated an argument that’s increasingly popular among conservative wonks — that the Dodd-Frank financial reform perpetuates “too big to fail” — and used it to make a populist case against the president. And he translated the basic free-market vision to a nonideological audience, by talking more about decent jobs than heroic job creators, and more about the struggling middle class than about the supposedly persecuted John Galts.

This is the role that an effective party leader ought to play. Media fantasies notwithstanding, you can’t lead a party by repudiating its base or campaigning against its reigning ideology. But you can lead by channeling the base’s passions in a constructive direction, and by reinterpreting the party’s ideology to meet the challenges of the present day.

One debate does not such a leader make. But at the very least, the fact that Romney’s strategy worked so effectively last Wednesday — that it made him seem mainstream and appealing while also winning him plaudits from almost every sort of conservative — suggests that the Republican Party can actually be led, and that its politicians don’t have to be prisoners of talking points and groupthink.

Indeed, the party may actually be ripe for such leadership. Cut through the Kabuki narratives on the contemporary right — the grass roots versus the establishment, the True Conservatives versus the RINOs — and you’ll find that what conservatism actually stands for, issue by issue and policy by policy, is more up for grabs than at any point since the Reagan revolution.

The Reagan nostalgia, the fears of looming socialism, the paranoia about a shiftless 47 percent: They are all symptomatic of a party on the brink of transition rather than one incapable of change. Republicans seem to be clinging to the past mostly because their leaders haven’t shown them what they should stand for in the present.

The only question, as we head into the final four weeks of the campaign, is whether Mitt Romney has realized this a little bit too late.

View the original article here

Perry to GOP: I could handle Obama in debate (AP)

WASHINGTON – Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry says he may not be the best debater, but he's confident he can draw clear distinctions with President Barack Obama onstage next year.

The Texas governor is trying to reassure Republican primary voters in the wide-open nominating contest.

He says he may skip some debates with the other GOP hopefuls between now and the end of January. But he says he's "not worried a bit" about his ability to contrast his plans on the economy and foreign policy with the president's during scheduled debates in the 2012 elections.

Perry's campaign has said he'll participate in at least five more debates against his GOP rivals, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Perry tells "Fox News Sunday" that he prefers other types of campaigning.

View the original article here

Poll: Ron Paul Could Beat Obama, More Electable Than Bachmann (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | And to think all it took was Jon Stewart chastising the national media for treating Ron Paul as if he was just an annoying voice in the room. A recent Gallup Poll not only indicates that the Texas Congressman is a viable Republican candidate for the 2012 GOP nomination, but that he is also considered more electable than the only person to garner more votes (than Paul) at the Ames Straw Poll held in mid-August -- Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Although the Gallup Poll, which was released on August 22, indicated that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney had the best chance overall to defeat the incumbent Democratic president (Romney was the only Republican candidate to score better numbers than President Obama), Ron Paul polled only two points back of the President among registered voters (45 percent to 47 percent).

The margin of error for the survey was +/-4, which puts Paul within striking distance of a victory if pitted against Obama in a national election.

The interesting numbers in the poll seem to come from the party-affiliated respondents. A full 11 percent of Republican voters said they would vote for Obama if they had to choose between the two -- the highest percentage in the survey. The number, however, is offset by the number of Democrats who would defect and vote for Paul, which registered at 12 percent (also the highest percentage). Yet, among the important independent voters, those that candidates court more intensely due to their ability to shift an election (which would otherwise most likely remain fairly close and competitive along party lines), Paul also bests Obama by three points.

Minnesota Congresswoman Bachmann loses nationally to Obama by four points overall. She also loses the independent vote by six percentage points.

That makes him electable.

Back in February, when President Obama's approval ratings weren't as dismally low as they are currently and Donald Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that Ron Paul could not win a national election (Paul subsequently won the CPAC straw poll), it might have appeared that the libertarian representative who also ran for president in 2008 would have a difficult time stepping outside his base of supporters, which constantly placed him with about 10 percent of the Republican electorate in polls. And that might have continued, even after Paul finished a strong second to Bachmann in the Iowa straw poll (she won by 152 votes). However, with national attention brought on by the national media's inattention to and outright dismissal of his candidacy, Paul's campaign seems to have gained political life that it did not exhibit before.

But can his campaign sustain its newfound momentum? Paul, known to be a fiscal conservative with set views on balancing the federal budget, getting America's military out of its foreign war involvements, and reducing the size and intrusiveness of the federal government across the board, would seem to be exactly the candidate that the GOP is looking for (especially given that his political positions are at the core of the tea party movement), yet has been generally ignored by his own party. If he can gain stronger support within his own party (only 82 percent; even Bachmann fares better with 86 percent) while contenders like Bachmann and Texas governor Rick Perry continue to make gaffes and policy mistakes, he may find himself in a dead-heat tie in a race for the Republican nomination with Mitt Romney.

Still, the poll numbers do not say Ron Paul will win the GOP nomination or a general election against President Obama. But they do say he can. And that's more than could have -- or even would have -- been said by most -- especially in the national media -- just a few days ago.

View the original article here

GOP leader: Rise in unemployment rate could sink Obama (VIDEO) (The Christian Science Monitor)

Washington – The increase in the nation’s unemployment rate in June is a major moment in President Obama’s reelection campaign and comments by one of Obama’s top advisers minimizing the political effects of joblessness are “like nails on a chalkboard to voters,” a top Republican strategist says.

Ed Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, told reporters at a Monitor-sponsored breakfast Friday that recent focus groups show independent voters think unemployment “is very important, and it is personal to them as we saw in these focus groups.”

Mr. Gillespie is referring to a series of focus groups conducted among independent voters in June by Resurgent Republic. It is a Republican group aimed at shaping the debate on the role of government. Gillespie is on the board of Resurgent Republic.

RECOMMENDED: Unemployment up? Not in these four maverick cities.

The focus groups included 41 independent voters. These independents – 31 of whom voted for Obama – don’t hold the president solely responsible for the economy’s problems, but are skeptical of his leadership and spending policies. They “don’t think he has made things better,” Gillespie said.

Jobless figures released Friday morning, showing the unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent in June, are "reinforcing" data released last month which showed joblessness on the rise in May. Rising joblessness as the election draws closer “was a seminal moment in the reelection campaign,” Gillespie said. No modern president has been reelected with unemployment at its current level.

Gillespie blasted Obama confidant David Plouffe, who ran the President’s 2008 election campaign and now carries a “senior adviser” title at the White House. Mr. Plouffe spoke at a Bloomberg News breakfast on Wednesday, where he said that “the average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly job numbers.”

Instead, Plouffe said, voters will vote based on “how do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?”

Voters “know the economy is bad,” Gillespie said. “When they hear people say, like the president of the United States, 'Well, just a bump in the road' or 'Things are not that bad,' it is like nails on a chalkboard to them. And for Plouffe to say, 'Well, unemployment doesn’t really matter in terms of the president’s reelection,' that will be more nails on the chalkboard to voters.”

RECOMMENDED: Unemployment up? Not in these four maverick cities.

----

youtube

View the original article here

Bush allies could target Rick Perry’s presidential bid (The Ticket)

Perry and Bush (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Rick Perry is still weeks away from deciding whether he'll make a bid for the GOP presidential nomination, but there are already signs he might face opposition from at least one influential GOP constituency: supporters of George W. Bush.

While Perry and Bush used to be close political allies, the bad blood between the two has become legendary in Texas in recent years, dating back to when the current Texas governor was quoted questioning Bush's conservative credentials in 2007.

As the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny write today, it's a message that Perry could revive in hopes of distinguishing himself from Bush in a potential 2012 run. But the strategy could also mobilize Bush's inner circle to work against a Perry candidacy, which they are already threatening to do.

"If you're really trying to be the nominee and want to go the distance, you just don't want the former president of the United States and his people working against you," a close "associate" of Bush, who declined to be named, tells the Times.

But it's unclear if Bush allies could really derail a Perry White House bid. Their previous attempts to undermine the governor have failed. Last year, several former Bush advisers and members of the Bush family, including former President George H.W. Bush, endorsed Kay Bailey Hutchison's primary challenge to Perry in the state's governor's race. But Perry ultimately hung on, becoming the longest serving governor in the country.

Dave Carney, a Perry adviser, downplays the tensions between his boss and Bush, telling the Times, "They are in the same church, different pews."

View the original article here

Texas Gov. Rick Perry Could Be Strong GOP Presidential Contender (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The recent mass resignations of Gingrich campaign staffers have stoked speculation about a Rick Perry presidential run. Perry, the governor of Texas, once employed Gingrich's now ex-campaign manager, Rob Johnson, and now will again, reports the Blaze.

Despite being wooed by groups like a group of California legislators, Perry's official stance is that he is still "thinking about it," according to Pajamas Media, and is now busy with the special session of the Texas legislature.

If Perry should decide to run, he would enjoy certain bragging rights that few other candidates can have in this era of economic malaise. He has not only balanced a state budget while making painful cuts in the face of opposition from special interest groups, he has presided over a state that has actually increased jobs and fostered economic growth.

According to a Wall Street Journal story, Perry's Texas has added 37 percent of all net jobs in the United States since June 2009 in an era of fitful, 1.8 percent growth. Perry can point to a business-friendly regime of low taxes, low spending, and light regulation as reasons. He might even suggest that Texas' economic growth would have been even greater had it not been for President Obama's war on the oil and gas industry.

That narrative of a Perry campaign practically writes itself: "Let me do for America, what I have done for Texas." It would be a campaign based on a record of executive competence as much as it would be on conservative ideology.

Mitt Romney, still bedeviled by the disaster that is Romneycare, would be hard pressed to offer a reason why he would get the nomination and not Perry. Perry's main rivals would be Tim Pawlenty and, if she decides to get in, Sarah Palin, both of whom have sterling records as governors of their states.

If Perry were to get the nomination, he would provide a conundrum for President Obama and his people. Obama, whose failures in economic policy are manifest, will not be able to contest Perry on that field. The only recourse would be for Obama to go on the attack, accusing Perry of balancing his state budget on the backs of school children, sick people, and the elderly. That strategy has been part of the Democratic playbook for generations and there is no reason for Obama not to use it.

The problem is that a reelection campaign is generally a referendum on the record of the sitting president seeking four more years. If Obama cannot make the case that he deserves four more years to give the country the same medicine that he has given it the first four years, he will be defeated. Jimmy Carter found that out in 1980. George H. W. Bush found that out in 1992. Obama would have to convince people that he would do a better job than a President Perry (or a President Palin, President Pawlenty, or even a President Romney.) If he cannot, he is as done as a Thanksgiving turkey.

Texas resident Mark Whittington writes about state issues for the Yahoo! Contributor Network.

View the original article here

Romney could face Mich. trouble over auto bailout (AP)

LANSING, Mich. – Mitt Romney stood in front of an auto factory in his native Michigan during his 2008 presidential race and vowed to bring back jobs, a popular message that helped give him his first — and only — Republican primary victory.

He could run into a more skeptical reception this week as he makes his first campaign swing through Michigan since officially kicking off his 2012 campaign six days ago. After the election, Romney spoke out forcefully against a federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, an initiative that was seen as a matter of life or death for the companies by both parties in Michigan.

Democrats here are eager to remind voters now of Romney's position.

"I think that people who want to donate (to Romney) should be looking at, when the auto industry was asking for a donation, what he was saying," former Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm said in an interview Tuesday on MSNBC. "I think they should give him the same answer."

The auto industry bailout may be a tough issue here for any Republican in the presidential race since many GOP leaders have blasted it as an example of government fiscal irresponsibility.

Democrats, including President Barack Obama, have trumpeted the federal intervention as a triumph, stressing that the companies are now doing well after going through bankruptcy and then restructuring. Chrysler has repaid most of the $10.5 billion in taxpayer money it received. GM has paid back just over half of its $50 billion in aid and is regaining market share. Together the companies have added about 50,000 jobs nationwide. The White House says the bailout ultimately will cost taxpayers $14 billion, far less than expected.

Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams said that Romney simply argued that GM and Chrysler should go through bankruptcy without the federal bailout. "If they had done it sooner, as Mitt Romney had suggested, the taxpayers would have saved a lot of money," Williams said.

Industry officials and others argue a federal rejection would have led to liquidation and the loss of more than one million jobs nationwide.

In his Michigan appearances, Romney is expected to argue that his background as a business consultant and venture capitalist give him the skills to help reverse the job loss that has given the state a 10.2 percent unemployment rate. The message echoes one used by former computer executive Rick Snyder in his successful 2010 campaign for Michigan governor.

Some Michigan Republicans say the party's voters still feel a kinship with Romney, who grew up in Detroit, and whose father, George, led American Motors from 1954 to 1962 before becoming governor.

"His family is steeped in the history of the auto industry. The tradition is part of his family," said Mike Bishop, a Rochester attorney and former Republican leader in the Michigan Senate. Bishop said he hasn't decided who he will support for president.

His advisers have said Romney is counting heavily on winning Florida and Michigan, although neither state has yet set a date for their 2012 contests.

Democrats and anti-Romney autoworkers plan to gather Thursday outside the Livonia diner in suburban Detroit where Romney is scheduled to make an early morning campaign stop. Romney also is expected to join a round-table discussion at a Detroit business development center Thursday morning. Romney had no trouble attracting supporters to fundraisers Tuesday and Wednesday in Grand Rapids and the well-heeled Detroit suburbs of Grosse Pointe and Birmingham.

In an op-ed piece published during the debate over the bailout in late 2008, Romney argued that the auto industry was on a "suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses."

Said Granholm, Romney "put his finger up in the air, saw which way the polls were headed, and he goes after his own home state."

View the original article here