congress

I'm sure many people here did too.  It was a fundraising letter on behalf of the NRCC.  I"m sure you also realize that there is a lot of buzz on our side of the aisle when it comes to the 2010 elections.  In short, people are pumped up and excited about voting the Dems (and RINOs) out of office.  Republicans have a real shot at capturing back the House.

Now I know that many people here disagree with the current direction of the Republican Party generally.  But, as a practical matter, 2010 is an opportunity to take Congress in a rightward direction, and we shouldn't squander it.  This doesn't mean that we should necessarily line up and march lockstep, but we should appreciate the opportunity that arises.

So even if you think the Republican Party is too socially conservative, too beholden to business interests, too inept in its leadership - criticisms I share, BTW - I still think we owe it to our principles overall to seize upon this opportunity.  I think it would be a mistake to pout and sit out one more election.  In 2006 - yeah, the Republican Congress had lost its way.  In 2008 - yeah, McCain was a terrible candidate.  But now?  So even if we don't agree with the Republican Party in every detail, this is a big opportunity to put the brakes on our current socialist joyride.

swine flu congress oinks While the intellectual giants of democracy are engaged in spending money for bailouts , stimulus, green power and saving the planet they have ignored the most immediate threat to our lives and economy, a flu pandemic. Instead of a Manhattan Project approach to the obvious threat congress and the administration have dawdled along relying on the snail paced federal bureaucracy of Health and Human Services and Homeland Security. Two organizations really known for acting with alacrity. GAO says that in the event of the foreseen pandemic the"beds and medical supplies would be insufficient and plans to protect federal workers aren't adequate". Federal workers, what about the public. A vaccine won't be ready for several months... Why isn't there the same sense of urgency to protect the public as there was to rush through bailouts, stimulus, GM rescue etc. Get off your duffs congress and do something to speed up protection for constituents besides yourselves and government workers

... I'll be taking an August recess from this blog.  And, of course, I'll be ducking public forums and townhalls like all our Democrat representatives. 

I know, I know - you're clearly disappointed.  Let me explain: though I enjoy doing the blog, I must focus on things somewhat more urgent.  In preparation for graduate school, I am registered to take the GMAT exam in mid-September.  Many people spend months preparing for the test; I, in my typical fashion, have allowed myself only about 5 weeks.  So I'll be devoting them to pouring through test prep books and software, rather than the much more fun blogging.  Lord willing, after I rock a 700+ on the GMAT, I'll be right back here posting my political thoughts.  Until then, I'll recommend some daily reading for you:

www.realclearpolitics.com

www.nationalreview.com

www.weeklystandard.com

www.politico.com

Thanks for checking out my blog - and check back in September! 

WT

I received a copy of this request -- from UHCAN Ohio to promote government healthcare reform -- we must communicate our opposition!!!!

Request for Proposals for Targeted Media in Southwest Ohio UHCAN Ohio and the Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage is engaged in a campaign to inform the public about the importance of federal health care reform and reduce the fear that is being created by opponents of health care reform who are spreading misinformation. We are looking for a media/communications consultant who can secure for us earned media opportunities to spread a positive message on health care reform and inform the public on the many areas that are rife with confusion. Our target market is the eight counties of Adams, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, Highland and Warren. We desire to mount a media campaign over the next three months that will cross print, broadcast, cable, and internet media. We are looking for opportunities to reach a broad swath of the public and of interest groups, such as business or religious constituencies. The pace of federal health care reform efforts has dramatically accelerated since early June 2009. If meaningful health care reform is to happen two needs must be met:(1)   Voters need to remain positive about reform, even as contentious debate arises over details of reform (such as the public health insurance option and the financing of reform) and as opponents of reform undermine public support with fear mongering.(2)   Federal legislators need to hear from voters that they want to see federal action on health care this year and that they care about affordability, quality, and health care security for all Americans. For voters to remain positive about health care reform, they need to receive positive messages and reliable information that reinforces the benefits they will derive from health care reform.  Meeting the Need for Clear Messages that Reduce the Fear Being Engendered by the Opponents of Health Care Reform.  People get most of their information from broadcast, cable and internet media, as well as people (family, friends, co-workers and others) who repeat to them what they heard in the mass media. The opponents of health care reform are spending millions of dollars on persuading the public that health care reform will result in a “government takeover” and “get in between them and their doctor.” The proponents of health care reform need to find ways to gain earned media to let people know that health care reform will protect and improve their choices.  We are looking for a PR consultant local to Southwest Ohio who will secure opportunities in Southwest Ohio across media types for UHCAN Ohio and Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage staff and partners to discuss health care reform.  We need a PR consultant to secure for us these opportunities:1.      Appearances on radio talk shows2.      Appearances on “drive time” radio programs3.      Appearances on broadcast and cable TV4.      Articles in daily and weekly newspapers targeted at the general public5.      Articles in specialty newspapers, such as those targeted at religious communities or the business community6.      Connections made through social networking sites including the blogosphere Time Frame:·         This will be a three month contract taking place between August and October.  Contractor Responsibilities:·         Contractor will pitch stories and potential interviewees to the media. Contractor will identify blogs that discuss health care (among other topics) that have a readership in Southwest Ohio and refer Client to those blogs.  Client will be responsible for furnishing the person(s) to be interviewed, and for developing messaging around health care reform. Client works with a communications organization in Columbus, and has some outside technical assistance from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on messaging. Client primarily needs a consultant who has local connections and can secure media exposure.  Please submit a brief proposal to UHCAN Ohio stating(1)   Your history of securing media for small groups and not-for-profit groups(2)   Your history of handling communications that are part of a campaign(3)   Your history of working with health care professional or advocacy groups(4)   The plan you would undertake to secure significant earned media coverage in the next three months in Southwest Ohio on health care reform (including how you track media hits)(5)   Your fee. Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage is a consumer-based coalition seeking fundamental health care reform benefitting consumers. It is staffed by UHCAN Ohio. Information about UHCAN Ohio and OCHC can be found at their web sites:www.uhcanohio.orgwww.ohioconsumersforhealth.org Proposals should be submitted no later than 5 PM

After the 2002 and 2004 elections, Republicans celebrated electoral victories that many thought would put them in the position to maintain a long-term majority. In turn, Democrats pushed the panic button and began looking for ways to turn things around. Likewise, after 2006 and 2008, it was the opposite effect, with Democrats claiming a permanent majority, and Republicans looking to rebuild.

Once again, the political climate seems to be changing, this time in favor of Republicans. President Obama’s approval ratings are continuing to trend significantly downward, with the latest Rasmussen Poll even suggesting that the majority of Americans disapprove. More voters believe that the economic stimulus plan has hurt the economy than helped it. Support for the public health option continues to tumble, too.

Looking at these trends and others, Patrick Ruffini writes that a 2010 blowout is quite possible, and I really don’t disagree at all. However, I wanted to offer a word of caution in the case Republicans win (or win big) in 2010, despite the fact that I recently Tweeted the following:

No more “[Name] for President” group invites on Facebook, please. Let’s focus on winning in 2010 first and worry about 2012 after!

Such a victory in 2010 will by no means indicate that things are better for Republicans long-term. Rather, it would be the result of a number of fortunate circumstances. Just see Ruffini’s suggestions as to why Republicans should prepared for a blow out:

• The horrendous 2006 and 2008 cycles have depressed Republican totals in Congress to far below the historical mean. Though the fact that there were two successive 20+ seat losses in the House and 5+ seat losses in the Senate in the House is historically unique, collectively they equal one 1980 or 1994-style wipeout — after which Democrats finally began to recover.
• The unique confluence of youth and African American turnout for Obama padded vote totals for Congressional Democrats by about 4 points — and in a midterm — I’m sorry — those votes won’t be there. We saw this pretty clearly in the Georgia Senate runoff. In 2012, however, those voters might be back — making 2010 an opportune moment for a promising Congressional challenger to gain a foothold.
• The Democrats are now clearly responsible for everything, and trying to blame Bush and the GOP wears thinner and thinner by the day. Even if the economy recovers somewhat, and with massive job losses still on the horizon, I don’t see people feeling that recovery, let’s remember that the economy was in a clear recovery by 1994 but that didn’t help Clinton and Democrats.

The bottom line — and what Republicans cannot forget, even with a huge win in 2010 — is that these fortunate circumstances are not something around which you can build a sustainable majority. Voters aren’t always going to be ticked about the economy, the Democrats won’t always have a filibuster-proof majority, and although the “unique confluence of youth and African American turnout” may not be there in 2010, as Ruffini notes, “in 2012 … those voters might be back”. And as I’ve been writing about lately, the RNC hasn’t done a darn thing to try to win over young voters while the DNC continues to find new ways to earn their support. While these voters may not show up in 2010, in 10-15 years they will no longer be youth voters — instead, they will represent the kind of middle-aged voters that Republicans will need to turn out, both during Presidential election years and during mid-term and other off years.

So while there are many reasons to be excited about the prospects of 2010, the political climate will likely change again from 2010 to 2012, as it often does.  Although focusing on the short-term may end in positive results in 2010, Republicans still must think long-term about building a sustainable majority. Otherwise, the GOP may soon again face another 2006 or 2008 — but the next time, it may be much harder to turn around.

Crossposted from Sunlight Foundation

Reps. Baird and Culberson introduced legislation today that would shine more sunlight on the most fundamental work of Congress. Their bill, H. Res. 554, would require that all non-emergency legislation be posted online, in its final form, 72 hours before consideration. The bill is not a panacea for all that ails Congress, but if enacted, it will stave off many congressionally created debacles before they become law.

Most citizens, for example, would have supported amending the economic stimulus bill to remove the provision allowing AIG executives to receive retroactive bonuses. The average person probably would have preferred to let the judicial system work rather than have Congress give immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that participated in a controversial wiretapping scheme. Workers hoping to retire on their 401(k) investments might have liked to have some serious analysis of whether credit default swaps ought to be regulated. And just about everyone benefit from a check on questionable and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.

Here is a great example of a story that Republicans should be using to regain their credibility, instead of simply bashing Democrats.  The Republican Whip blog (of Eric Cantor) says Democrats are shutting the House GOP out of the process.

In a completely unprecedented fashion, House Democrats have used their power as the majority party to shut out floor amendments from the minority party on spending legislation. Right at the beginning of the debate, House Democrats decided to go to the Rules Committee, to report out a Structured Rule and shut the House GOP out of the process.

So, Republicans (who spent years in the majority strong-arming legislation, bending the rules and shutting out Democrats) are now upset that Democrats are abusing their power.  My sympathy is a bit limited.  However, Democrats spent those same years complaining about the Republican abuses of power, so "Republicans did stuff too!" isn't really an excuse.

This does offer a good excuse to review some Nancy Pelosi quotes from years past, though.

1. “Every person in America has a right to have his or her voice heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor…guaranteeing that the voices of all the people are heard.” - Nancy Pelosi, 2008
2. "House Republicans might have their doubts, but Minority Leader Pelosi says a Democratic majority next year would place a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship — and would offer the Republicans minority rights often denied Democrats now." - National Journal on Nancy Pelosi, 2006
3. "It's not about a defeat, it's about a decision. I certainly would not say that we can't bring things to the floor because we'll lose ... [Republicans] are afraid of ideas. That's why we can't have amendments, substitutes, and all the rest for the most part." - National Journal on Nancy Pelosi, 2006
4. "I'm a big believer in bipartisanship on so many issues. You can't address the entitlement issue, the healthcare issue, and do it in a partisan way. They are too big, they involve too many people, and they involve too much money, private and public money. You've got to do it in a way that has legitimacy." - Nancy Pelosi, 2006

Frankly, the solution is a much more granular, well-defined and transparent process that doesn't allow politicians to do the horse-trading and ad hoc deal-making that corrupts legislation so much.

At this point, both Congressional Republicans and Democrats are pretty unpopular, and the public trend is towards higher "independent" identification.  Forget bashing Democrats; Republicans need to sell the public on Republicans.   "Democrats suck" is not really a selling point for Republicans.

This issue is, again, a place where Republicans could build credibility and set themselves apart from Democrats by working with bipartisan outside groups to develop an objective, fair, accountable and rational process for legislation, abiding by it (to the extent possible) now, and making a public, written and enforceable commitment to adopt it once they regain the majority.

If Republicans are serious about both reforming the party and ensuring good governance, they could do that and do it now.  Campaign rhetoric about "fixing the problems" if they regain the majority are likely to be as empty as those from the Democrats were.

The legislative bribery happening over the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill (mentioned a few days ago) is ramping up. Democrats are pairing politically unpopular items together with the more essential items and outright earmark bribery in order to get the whole thing passed.  And now, the White House is "turning to vulnerable Republicans and telling them he can get the DCCC to "go easy" on them next year if they vote for the Supplemental tomorrow. And Eric Cantor's office is really pissed."

Sources tell me Republicans will make this vote a campaign issue for Democrats in 2010 (details below).

This puts some of the Democrats in a very difficult position (See Red State for more on that), and some of them are gradually deciding to vote no on the legislation. There is bipartisan resistance to this bill, and Jane Hamsher is doing a good job whipping the vote over at Firedoglake.  She has the current whip summary here. 

Most importantly, Hamsher notes that "Blue Dogs are scared about what might happen in conservative districts if they cast that vote for a $100 billion European bank bailout."

I can confirm that.  Earlier today, I asked a senior Republican campaign operative in Washington, DC about this bill,  I was told that, yes, "Republicans will be watching how these Members vote on the War Supplemental", and it "will be a campaign issue" for many Democrats. 

I was given a list of names they're watching closely, as well.  Suffice it to say that Congressional Democrats are going to have to sever the elements of this supplemental and vote on them individually, or else they will be handing their opponents some very potent ammunition for 2010.

A vote is not far off.   Phone calls help.  Red State has a list of legislators you can call.

I've written before about the problem of legislative collusion - the horse-trading process by which legislators bribe each other at our expense, creating de facto campaign donations for incumbents and sacrificing quality, oversight and accountability for political expedience.  Few things would do more for rational, good governance than unbundling legislation.

Today, we have a perfect illustration of the problem.  Congress is considering the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act.  This is supposed to be a bill that provides funding "for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Pandemic Flu" (PDF).  However, politicians like to use consensus bills as a trojan horse to slip in more controversial items.  So, this bill now contains billions for the IMF (globalizing the bailouts!), multi-billion dollar earmarks from Rep. Murtha (which the military says are "not needed") and other unrelated, indulgent spending.

Few of those things would get a majority vote by themselves.  But throw them all into the pot, and....

Well, actually, it's still uncertain whether it will pass.  Blue Dog Democrats realize that voting for this will be a big problem for them, come time for reelection. (Good luck running against the "He spent your money to bail out European banks" ads)

So, according to sources on the Hill, the White House has sent Rahm Emanuel to "stuff everyone with so much pork that they have to vote for the supplemental."  And the Texas delegation is "refusing to vote for the supplemental unless Obama forces Rick Perry to take the stimulus money". 

A few phone calls never hurt.  Via Red State, here is a list of Congressmen who should learn how their districts feel about this bill.

While it now appears that people around Obama are happy with the choice of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, there were reservations over this at first. Huffington Post has an excerpt about the appointment from Renegade: The Making of a President.  While I had reservations about her being appointed to this position, I reluctantly supported the decision thinking that Clinton would do less harm in such a post than in the Senate, especially as this would keep her away from health care reform. It turns out that Senate Democrats were also happy to see her out of the Senate:

Obama was under no illusion about the legacy of the long primary season. During one transition meeting, Obama said he wanted to offer Clinton the diplomatic job. “I’m really interested in pursuing this, but I know she has some hard feelings coming out of this campaign.” Emanuel and John Podesta, the former Clinton official who ran the transition, assured Obama that she was over those hard feelings now. Obama smiled and said, “Believe me. She’s not over it yet.”

His decision to offer her the job of secretary of state came surprisingly early. Well before the end of the primaries, when his staff and friends still felt hostile to her, Obama decided that Clinton possessed the qualities to carry his diplomacy to the rest of the world. “We actually thought during the primary, when we were pretty sure we were going to win, that she could end up being a very effective secretary of state,” he told me later. “I felt that she was disciplined, that she was precise, that she was smart as a whip, and that she would present a really strong image to the world…I had that mapped out.”

Recruiting and managing a team of rivals would not be easy, and Clinton came with her own set of issues. Chief among them was her campaign debt, which she wanted eliminated before she took the job of secretary of state. Would the president-elect go out and help her to do so? “I’m not begging her to take this job,” Obama told his senior aides. “If she wants it, I could help. But I’m not willing to go out in these difficult economic times to do a flashy fundraiser in California.” As it happened, plenty of people in the Senate were begging Obama to offer Clinton the job. Obama’s aides believed that many Senate Democrats thought Clinton had extended her presidential campaign far beyond the point where she had lost the election. Her negative advertising wasted Democratic money, threatened to undermine the party’s nominee, and suggested that she was disloyal to the party. They were unwilling to offer the junior New York senator a position ahead of her lowly rank, and she stood little chance of becoming majority leader. “There was a lot of encouragement from inside the Senate to get her into this job,” said one senior Obama aide. “They wanted her out of there.” …

As for controlling the uncontrollable Bill Clinton, Obama’s aides drew up a series of checks on his fundraising for both Clinton Global Initiative and his work on HIV/AIDS across the world. But they really counted on Hillary to be the ultimate safeguard - against both her husband and her own ambition. “It’s in her interests to keep him in line,” warned one senior Obama aide. Others in Obama’s inner circle said the president-elect believed Clinton needed to demonstrate that she was a team player and to shape her own career and legacy. “There are plenty who don’t trust her and think she still harbors something,” said another senior adviser. “It’s still potentially problematic down the road. Barack’s thinking on this is that it’s not in her interests to mess with us. She can’t win that fight internally and she’s smart enough that she won’t want that fight publicly.”