Senate

One of the toughest things in business is to truly cut costs without hurting the business when you do it. There are two parts to that. First is finding a way to cut costs in one area without causing costs to increase ‘downstream'. A lot of times a cost decrease in one area merely pops up somewhere else.

It is very difficult to get cost cuts to show up on the bottom line. The second part of the problem is to cut costs without hurting the operation or delivering a worse product to your customers. This is really hard! To cut costs without hurting the business or the customer requires a great deal of experience and talent. All good business people know this.

Which brings me to my concern with what Washington now wants to do with Health care. They claim they want to cut costs, add customers and not hurt the product. And the politicians and the bureaucrats will figure out how to do this. No one in Las Vegas would take that bet, but the politicians want the American people to make that bet - and the stakes are the lives of our citizens and the economic future of our children. And by the way, it is a bet that they won't make for themselves or for their families. Let's not let them do this to us!

 Also posted at Tom Ganley For Senate.

follow me on Twitter@tomganley

To become a fan of Tom Ganley on Facebook click here

.Go to Tom Ganley For Senate to learn more.

This morning's Politico had an article about the potential political situation in which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be up for re-election while his son Rory will be running for Governor (if he makes it through the primary).

If this happens, the Rory Reid campaign will do the following:  

"Rory Reid campaign manager David Chase Cohen, who served as Barack Obama’s Nevada state director in the 2008 presidential caucus, wouldn’t say exactly how the campaign planned to distinguish between the two Reids. But he was quick to point out that the campaign would highlight the importance of local — as opposed to federal — governance." 

This campaign could give small government supporters the perfect opportunity to show local, regional or even voters accross the country the different roles that the federal government should play versus the role of state governments. 

One of the overlooked downsides to the electoral wipeout the Republican Party has endured in the past two election cycles is how those elections have drastically shrunk the amount of Republicans who are nationally prominent.  Without the Presidency, and the loss of Governors, Senators, and Representatives, there aren't very many potential leaders left among Republicans.  Also, even the most loyal party man surely isn't enamored with every Republican elected official.  What you hear these days is a cry wondering where Republican leadership is.  Debates about who is the "leader" of the Republican Party are distracting at this point, but there seems to be a paucity of those who could even be in the discussion.  Republicans have a short bench problem, which hurts their ability to have national leadership in Congress, in the states, and in the future, in the White House.

Governors

In the 1990s, Republican Governors (along with some big city mayors) were instrumental in making public policy changes that would eventually be successful at the national level.  Part of the reason why Bush's 2000 campaign was successful was because he made himself the custodian of the achievements that Tommy Thompson, John Engler, Rudy Giuliani, and even Bush as Governor achieved.

There are 22 Republican Governors at the moment.  What is more distressing is how few innovative leaders there are among Republican Governors.  Many Republican Governors are governors of small Plains or Rocky Mountain States that are invisible on a national stage.  There is surprising vitality in New England with three GOP governors, but they are generally too moderate for the national Republican Party.  Two standouts who deserve some national attention are John Hoeven from North Dakota and Donald Carcieri of Rhode Island.  Hoeven was reelected last year with 74 percent of the vote when McCain only received 53 percent.  National Republicans have begged him to challenge the state's two Democratic Senators.  Carcieri somehow managed to be elected twice as an actual conservative in one of the most liberal states in the country.  Neither is of Presidential timber, but they could be excellent future Senatorial candidates or national Republican voices.

Some Governors have been failures (Schwarzenegger), some are good for their state but too moderate nationally (other New England governors, perhaps Crist), some have just been installed in the past year, and at least one is too busy in Argentina to be taken seriously.  I would say there is a handful of top tier Republican Governors at this point.  Bobby Jindal, by his own acknowledgment, is too green to make any moves yet.  John Huntsman is certainly a formidable figure, but he also is a more long-term hope considering he will be Ambassador to China for the next few years.  Haley Barbour has generally been a successful Governor of Mississippi and could fill the Southern slot in a primary.  Tim Pawlenty has been a rare blue state Republican in recent years.  I think he is likely to be a 2012 candidate and would be considered a top contender if he ran.  The crown jewel, in my opinion, is Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana.  He's probably the best Republican politican in America right now.  Earning nearly 60 percent of the vote last year when Obama won Indiana indicates he has some crossover appeal.  He claims that he is not interested in seeking higher office, which is a real shame.

Senators

Republicans have lost 15 Senate seats in the past three years.  This attrition clears out opportunites for Republicans to come up with national leaders.  The 40 Republicans left are bereft of national figures.  McConnell is a master floor manager but no national spokesman.  McCain is a real leader, but his national campaign days are over.  The GOP caucus is dominated by Southern good ol' boys and small state senators.  Guys from Wyoming or Idaho won't find national traction and the good ol' boys are better vote jockeys than communicators.

I would say the following Senators are, or could be, good national leaders for Republicans: John Kyl, Judd Gregg, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, John Thune, and Bob Corker.  Coburn and DeMint already are good conservative voices in the Senate, but would never be Presidential material.  Kyl does a good job on Judiciary, but is somewhat in the shadow of McCain.  To my mind Gregg has been the most articulate Senator in the past year, but he always indicates that he wants to retire.  Corker is still a freshman, but was the point man for GOP efforts on the car bailouts.  Thune is also a freshman, but is the youngest Republican Senator by a mile.  There are virtually no 2012 Presidential candidates in the Senate.  I believe this is why Ensign was trying to run for President before his affair was disclosed.  Of the entire Republican Senatorial membership, I could only see Thune having a serious campaign in 2012.

Others

Members of the House of Representatives are not national leaders (Speaker of the House exempted).  Impressive Representatives like Paul Ryan and Mike Pence would need to become Senators or Governors to have a real shot at the Presidency.  If Jack Kemp couldn't win the nomination from the House, then I don't think any non-Speaker would be able to.

Of course, there are still the retired political figures and those who were candidates last time.  Romney seems a near lock to run again and would have to be considered the frontrunner.  Huckabee will never be President, but he may run, especially if no Southerner is in the race.  I think Palin's resignation indicates she won't run in 2012, but she still is young and already has a big national following.  I don't think we'll see another Wesley Clark/Fred Thompson fantasy candidate next time.

Conclusion

The Republican bench is very thin at this point.  If you are looking towards 2012, I would predict right now the only serious candidates who will run are Romney, Pawlenty, and Barbour.  Daniels would certainly be in that grouping if he decided to run.  Sure, you would get the Tom Tancredos of the world running no shot campaigns, but those candidacies are irrelevant.  I think beyond 2012 Jindal, Huntsman, Thune, and perhaps Palin 2.0 would be serious Presidential candidates.  There really is a leadership vacuum in the Republican Party right now.  A smart, ambitious Republican could certainly find an easy path to the top.

Jon Henke made a post a few days ago, that was maybe a bit short on substance, but nevertheless made his point. Republicans have not done very well in the world of public opinion concerning their criticisms of Judge Sotomayor. While I agree that Judge Sotomayor has said some unfortunate things, the way that some of the comments by Gingrich, Rush, Steele, and others have come across have not helped our case. I made some responses to Henke's post on why I thought that these individuals were being given a microphone. However, what was even worse than the failure of those perceived to be leaders on our side to effectively criticize Judge Sotomayor were the comments made in response to Henke's post. Here, I respond to Henke's call for Republicans to "grow up" in a meaningful and constructive way with how I would go about questioning Judge Sotomayor as a Republican Senator on the Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Bannon: Good morning Judge Sotomayor. Allow me to be one of the first to welcome you and you're lovely family here to the Senate. As you know from your distinguished career, but for the folks watching on CSPAN or Youtube or on the nightly news, we are here today because of the Senate's role under Article II of the Federal Constitution to give advise and consent to the President when he should have the opportunity to appoint a nominee to the Supreme Court. It is one of our many functions as a check on the two other branches of government,  the Executive, in the form of the President and the Judiciary, in the form of the Supreme Court.

As is the case with most likely all of the Supreme Court nominees that the Senate gets to question, your credentials are impeccable. So much such that I will only briefly review them to acknowledge to all paying attention that you are most definitely qualified on paper to sit on the Supreme Court. Princeton Undergrad and Harvard law,  ultimately culminating in a Judgeship on the 2nd Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and nominated by the President to sit on the highest court in the land. Your achievements stand as accomplishments to be proud of and let us hope that you are placed as a role model for those outstanding achievements in the lives of all of our young.

Judge, there is a lot going on outside right now. The newspapers and other media are paying attention. Right, left, up down, crisscross are all paying attention and have been screaming ever since you were nominated. In fact the entire world is most likely paying attention, but you know what Judge, I want to bore them to death. I want to sit here, just two people, a United States Senator and a United States Judge, and have a scholarly conversation about that great founding document of ours, the Constitution of the United States, only with the realization that the points that are made in our scholarly conversation can indeed be very exciting and have real world effects despite sounding like we are up in the clouds. Do you think we can do that Judge?

Judge Sotomayor: Of course, Senator Bannon.

Sen. Bannon: Good Judge, then lets get right to it and lets get the main thing that has been causing all of that screaming and manuevering out there, and lets get it out of the way and then lets move on to bore everyone. Judge Sotomayor, Do you believe that the Constitution of the United States is colorblind?

Judge Sotomayor will then answer the question but no matter what she answers we should just let it go. Either she will hang herself and say that the Constitution is not colorblind or else we will look like we are badgering her about a petty issue.  I say we should move on, because there are a number of other Constitutional questions that I will outline below that are much more important than whether a Judge thinks Latina women are better than White men, because Judge Sotomayor will practically speaking never be able to rule that Latina women are better than White men in any form whatsoever.

Other Questions I would ask Judge Sotomayor: (Note: It is her failure to answer these questions that I would press her on. Here we are treating her as any other normal nominee, questioning her judicial philosophy on things likely to come before the court, not getting in a battle about race with the first Latina woman every nominated to the Supreme Court).

1. Does the dormant commerce clause exist? If so, please explain how you would approach a case dealing with the dormant commerce clause.

2. Can you please discuss your take on Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, specifically addressing Justice Jackson's 3 part  concurring opinion?

3. Can you discuss your view of the 10th Amendment's role in the Constitution?

4. Can you please discuss your take on the caselaw leading up the decision in Kelo v. New London? (Notice that I did not ask her view on this case, because she will give the "its an issue likely to come before the court" response. But there would be no reason not to discuss the two important cases that were cited in Kelo).

5. Do you believe that Miranda rights are Constitutional rights?

6. Can you please give us your definition of Pornography? (Tie this into some statement about how more and more children are preyed upon because of online predators, etc.)

7. Could you please give us your opinion of the standards the court must look at in determining whether enough has been met under rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

8. Can you please discuss the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and how you would have applied it if you had been on the bench when Korematsu came to the Court?

9. Ought international law be used in interpreting the Constitution of the United States?

10. Does the Constitution permit the legislature to strip the United States Supreme Court of jurisdiction over an issue?

Note: Most of these questions are not particularly hot buttoned topics and, if they are, they are certainly not framed that way. Secondly, for most of these questions, the standard "non-answer, answer" would not only be unacceptable to the right, but would likely be unacceptable to the left as well. These are the types of questions, for a myriad of reasons, a judicial nominee would have to provide some type of answer to, or else there could be a case made to the majority of the American people that there was a valid reason to vote against her/him. 

Republicans need more of the intellectual policy wonk types representing the Right, and it seems to me that Rob Portman is one of the more impressive Republican politicians. As Chris Cilliza said, Portman is one of the "rare breed of politician who is equally conversant -- and skilled -- at policy and politics."   We should encourage that.

Naturally, the Left prefers to discourage it, so they're rolling out the BS against Portman early. 

This is how a lot of the upcoming House and Senate races will go.  The mud and innuendo will be flung online, and the Left will attempt to define Republicans early at the grassroots digital media level where the Left generally has a substantial infrastructure advantage.

For much of the build up to the 2008 Democratic primaries, the consensus among political oddsmakers, pollsters, and politicos (myself included) was that Hillary Clinton was virtually a shoo-in to win the Democratic nomination. After all, the Clintons were the most powerful name in the Democratic Party, and as a result the Democratic machine fought tooth and nail to ensure Clinton’s victory. However, after the Iowa caucus, it became clear that Barack Obama — the junior Senator from Illinois with less than a full term of experience under his belt — would provide some serious competition for the nomination. In the end, the Democratic machine backing Clinton was pitted against the grassroots who supported Obama, and a fairly incredible phenomenon in politics happened: the grassroots won!

The ongoing Senate race in Florida between Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist presents the Republicans with the very same narrative. Crist has received the endorsement of the NRSC, while a large portion of the GOP grassroots and netroots has expressed an outpouring of disdain for the endorsement and are fighting to elect Rubio (or at least for the NRSC to remain neutral in the race). Although not quite at the Presidential level, this is very much the GOP’s version of Obama vs. Clinton.

Of course, the important question here then is, “Who ultimately controls the GOP, the grassroots or the machine?” — and obviously, the only way to answer this question is to see how the race turns out.

(Personally, I’ll be pulling for the grassroots. If you feel the same way, you can donate to Marco Rubio here.)

Unless you've been living in a cave or something, you've heard that Charlie Crist is running for the U.S. Senate from Florida.

This is supposed to be great news. No credible Democrat will now run. And this will save the national party from investing lots of money in holding a seat in a swing state. The logic is impeccable. 

Except for the fact that with Crist out of state politics, it's open season on the Florida Governor's mansion. And holding on there is far from a sure thing, with old warhorse Bill McCullom the likely GOP nominee going up against much buzzed about Dem CFO Alex Sink. 

We might say that the Governorship of Florida is not Washington's problem -- except this is the same sort of short-term DC-centered thinking that gives us establishment favorites inimical to the grassroots. The GOP's revival will not come from Washington or from the Senate. It will come from the states. From an overarching party balance sheet perspective, we need to evaluate the potential loss of the Florida statehouse before stating whether Crist's move is a good thing. 

Florida is one of the few places left with a thriving Republican state party and multiple plausible statewide officeholders waiting in the wings. I would not have minded a competitive Republican primary between Connie Mack and Marco Rubio -- because either could win the seat -- combined with a safe Crist re-elect. The conservative legislature in Tallahassee has largely restrained Crist from enacting Obamaism in Florida. 

On the one hand, I'm glad that candidate recruitment seems to be going pretty darn well in the Senate. However, my antennae stand on end when these recruits are plucked from useful and key positions in the states, because those officeholders are strategically more important to party revival. The class of 1994 was packed with Newt Gingrich/GOPAC recruits from the late '80s for mayors, county commissioners, and state legislatures. Ultimately, we'll be able to tell more stories about successful Republican governance if we can point to a few jurisdictions we actually control, rather than being a slightly more effective opposition on Capitol Hill. 

One of my lesser known traits is that I’m a huge Trekkie (and I don’t say “huge” lightly). However, the Star Trek universe had recently been undergoing a pretty substantial collapse, culminating in the closing of Star Trek: The Experience in Las Vegas. Desperately trying to revive the franchise, Paramount Pictures contacted J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman to create a film that would appeal to a wider audience than the typical Star Trek movie — in essence, entirely rebooting the franchise. One of my concerns as a fanboy was that doing this would substantially change the franchise from Gene Roddenberry’s original vision. Judging by the success of Star Trek so far and the overwhelmingly positive reviews the movie has received from both critics and viewers (it is now #62 on IMDB’s top 250 movie list), the reboot has successfully achieved its goal of widespread appeal. And although there were a number of deviations from the days of Roddenberry in the new film, I was able to reconcile these deviations with the fact that the franchise was in dire need of change to regain the widespread appeal that was necessary to keep it alive.

Now how does all of this relate to politics?  Well, after the devastating 2008 elections, many of those on the right (myself included) believed that things couldn’t get much worse. After all, President-elect Obama had just won in a decisive landslide, and Republicans lost 8 seats in the Senate and 21 in the House. The Democrats outpaced Republicans in virtually every area, and the only glimmer of hope Republicans could hold onto for the next two years was the knowledge that Republicans would be able to filibuster Obama’s most radical plans in the Senate. Today, even this looks incredibly unlikely with Senator Specter switching sides and the reality setting in that comedian-turned-politician Al Franken will likely be the next Senator from Minnesota. For a while I felt cautiously optimistic about the 2010 elections — the energy of Rebuild the Party and similar movements to rebuild the GOP was profound, conservatives seemed to be on the brink of a rightroots movement, Michael Steele took over the reigns at the RNC, and Joseph Cao achieved enormous electoral victory while Jim Tedisco seemed poised to win in NY’s 20th. However, much has changed since those developments, and it seems that Republicans are not on the best track to turn the tide in 2010, let alone in 2012 or beyond. Indeed, although a turnaround is possible, the clock is ticking, and like the Star Trek franchise, the only way that the GOP can turn things around is with a complete reboot.

Over at Time magazine, Michael Grunwald raises some important points about this matter. He writes:

The party’s ideas — about economic issues, social issues and just about everything else — are not popular ideas. They are extremely conservative ideas tarred by association with the extremely unpopular George W. Bush, who helped downsize the party to its extremely conservative base. A hard-right agenda of slashing taxes for the investor class, protecting marriage from gays, blocking universal health insurance and extolling the glories of waterboarding produces terrific ratings for Rush Limbaugh, but it’s not a majority agenda.

While I find much of the content of his argument biased and inaccurate, the overarching point he raises is that the issues Republicans are pursuing are not those of “a majority agenda.” Regardless of whether conservative positions on these issues are popular or unpopular, they aren’t the kind of issues that build a majority and win elections — particularly during trying economic times. This is an important point that Republicans must somehow reconcile if they wish to return to majority status. Jon Henke points out (emphasis added):

The Republican brand does not merely need a little tinkering. The Republican brand is not the victim of Democratic rhetoric and framing. The Republican brand is so bad because people accurately perceive the state of the Republican Party.

And although it is sometimes well deserved (see Arlen Specter’s vote on Obama’s stimulus package), lambasting all of our moderate Senators and Congressmen doesn’t help. One of the things I used to celebrate about the Republican Party was its diversity in ideology — something that continues to diminish with the loss of Specter, giving the Democrats the opportunity to be the ideologically ‘diverse’ party. In a two party system, you cannot build a winning coalition that encompasses only the far side of the political spectrum. The bottom line is that Republicans will likely never see another day in the majority if its electorate only supports candidates with impeccable conservative credentials, outcasting any elected officials or candidates who are near the political middle. In states such as my own (Pennsylvania) and many others in the region, a Republican candidate can only win the general election if he or she is moderate. For just one example of the impact of accepting moderates, look to the U.S. Senate — would you rather have 11 moderate Republicans in the Senate in addition to our current Senators and hold a majority, or only allow full-on conservatives and sit comfortably in the filibuster-proof minority?

The fact is that it is time for a reboot, or as Henke says, “actual, painful, reform.” The Republican Party needs to find new issues around which to coalesce, issues that appeal to mainstream Americans and are not knee-jerk reactions against the Obama administration’s plans. One thing that Republicans cannot wait for is the Democrats to fail. Meanwhile, GOP voters need to realize that moderates — who may not always be perfectly conservative — have their place in a nationally viable party. Only with these recognitions and a total overhaul of the GOP can Republicans move maximum warp speed ahead into the future.

Crossposted at NextGenGOP.

Kudos to Senator DeMint (and his bipartisan co-signers) for getting the Senate to begin publishing votes in the more accessible XML format.  A simple thing to do, sure, and yet it really did take pressure from US Senators to make it happen.

As John Wonderlich writes, "This is what transparency reform looks like. Complicated, messy, confusing, often bipartisan, often initially unsuccessful, and helpfully spurred on through public involvement. If this case serves as any example at all, we should be very encouraged about future efforts."

Senator DeMint has taken a very impressive step forward, leading a bipartisan request to the Committee on Rules and Administration (Senator Schumer and Senator Bennett), asking them to post Senate votes in XML format.  This would make vote records much more transparent and accessible to the public.  Kudos to Senator DeMint for taking the lead on this.  It will be instructive to observe how Senators Schumer and Bennett respond.  Tom Jones, Professional Staff for Senator DeMint, explains what Senator DeMint is doing. - Jon Henke

The Senate has been referred to as the “world’s most exclusive club," a place where deals are made behind closed doors and the public having no idea what’s going on. Too often, transparency can be an after-thought and the privileges of the institution seem to trump the Americans' right to information on their elected officials.

Some reform minded Senators are working to fix these problems. They believe that the Senate can do better because the American people demand and deserve an open and transparent government. Senator DeMint is leading a bipartisan effort to shine a little more sunlight on the Senate by dragging its antiquated vote reporting system into the 21st century.

Currently the Senate posts its votes in HTML (HyperText Markup Language). In 1999, this was acceptable. But today plain HTML is the technological equivalent of a rotary telephone, adequate for a basic service but unable to perform the variety of functions modern technology now allows.

Instead of HTML, Senator DeMint is asking that votes be posted in XML (Extensible Markup Language). Without going to deep into the technology, XML would allow roll call votes in the United States Senate to be disseminated in a format that anyone can download, parse, disseminate, and distribute in any form they see fit. By having an authoritative XML stream provided by the Senate, application developers could build databases that could overlay different types of data onto Senate votes, public interest groups could match up policy background with votes, or any of a hundred other possible applications. The result would not be merely some whiz-bang technology, but rather a better informed electorate.

Unfortunately with the current HTML formatting, the best we can hope for is that outside groups successfully “scrape” the Senate webpage for votes and repackage the data on their website. This forces the public to either pay for the information from other websites or to rely on data which can be prone to errors. Such basic democratic information, how elected officials vote on important issues, should be available in the most transparent format, free and accessible to all Americans.

Many assume the lack of modernization is simply characteristic of an institution with a very un-modern image. Unfortunately, there is evidence that the difficulty in acquiring voting information is not just an oversight, but may be an intentional effort by Senators to keep their votes hidden from nationwide scrutiny.

In years past, employees of the Senate have asked to be allowed to post the Senate votes in XML, but the Rules Committee has curiously refused. The previous webmaster at the Senate explained the prohibition on XML posting this way, “The Rules Committee has always contended that Senators want to provide their voting records to their constituents themselves.” That's Washington-speak for allowing Senators to spin their votes rather than allowing others easier access to the information.

Reform-minded Senators believe Americans should be allowed to draw their own conclusions. Burying this important information with technology shouldn’t be an option.

Below is the text of a letter Senator DeMint and a bipartisan coalition of senators has sent to the new chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator Charles Schumer, asking him to make this simple change that could help make "the world's most exclusive club" also one of the most transparent as well.