The best line in the piece: "Every time [activist leaders] are about to congratulate themselves on [dumping Mike Castle, leading Coons in all the polls, in favor of Christine O'Donnell], they should have to listen to three hours of Chris Coons floor speeches on their iPods." Come now, Rich; I think that's prohibited under the Geneva Convention....
I have some issues with Lowry's discussion: for instance, Charlie Crist. I'm not referring to the unprincipled politician whom couldn't handle a likely primary loss to Rubio and pandered his way to defeat in the general election as an independent candidate. Remember, at the time there was a vulnerable open Florida seat in purple-state Florida; Crist wanted to run for reelection as governor; getting a sitting or former governor to run for Senate is generally considered a coup (consider, e.g., Manchin (D-WV)). I wouldn't say it ensured the seat would remain Republican, but Democrats had an up-hill fight in an election year where the GOP had a shot at regaining control of Congress. I'm not a Florida voter but I think what really undid Crist was an ill-considered photo opp with Obama and an unprincipled eagerness for federal stimulus dollars. I remember I worried whether Rubio might be Florida's Christine O'Donnell. In this blog, I was originally supportive of Crist, but Rubio won my confidence that he was electable, and when Crist started pandering to the special interest groups like teacher unions, I was done with Crist.
But in general I would rather have half a loaf than no loaf: for example, I disagreed with some of former Senator Brown's (R-MA) votes, but is he better than "Cherokee Lizzie" Warren? Of course; he is fiscal conservative, not a "you didn't build that" ideologue.
On Mitt Romney: he was never particularly charismatic, he had an existing reputation as a flip-flopper, he had difficulties distancing himself from ObamaCare, he was perceived as elitist and out of touch; and he ran primarily on his resume and the economy.
Lowry seems to be looking for a charismatic, positive, visionary, articulate candidate, with fresh, novel approaches to problems; for example, Kemp looked at ways to address issues in public housing through tenant ownership or to increase urban development through tax-advantaged policies. The point is, we are talking not a centralized, top-down progressive government, but more of vesting individuals in their own future,
I have been saying for a long time now the GOP can't be rerunning the same platform, they need to avoid red-meat campaigns, and politicians aren't going to win popularity by cutting benefits or programs (I'm not saying we shouldn't do those things: we have to, but GOP needs to avoid being the Bad Cop, Party of No--you two people can't get married, you can't have this, you can't do that). The odd thing is the progressives are far more restrictive--you can't decide how to invest your own mandatory retirement dollars, you have to jump through hoops just to operate a simple refreshment stand in your own front yard, etc.
I am not trying to flesh out a comprehensive set of policies here, but just to give examples: what if government stipends/grants/loans were means-tested and linked to the size, of say, a child's education fund. What if payroll taxes (both employee/employer) were waived for lower hourly wages and rose on a graduated scale after a certain level, say, poverty level? What if federal staffing requirements for local operations or projects were first made available to able local residents? What if unemployment compensation included matching funds for training and/or relocation or had incentives to get a GED or finish a college degree? What if the government was able to "invest" in audited private-sector charities? What if the federal government provided opportunity scholarships (including private religious-sponsored schools) for students in at risk areas? What if the government invited private sector investment partnerships in infrastructure?
Don't get me wrong; I'm a free market guy, but even half steps for individual ownership and responsibility and delegated authority, away from the grand illusion of centralized planning and control, are movement in the right direction.
What do I see as part of a successful approach to restore sanity and competence to the Oval Office?
- Be tolerant of opposing points of view and don't sweat the small stuff. Take the issue of "gay marriage". I think Limbaugh's analysis is spot on; traditional marriage was not established over at least 6 millennia with the idea of prohibiting alternative relationships. I think the Warren denial of "separate but equal" in the Brown decision has become (in my view, without merit from a conceptual versus factual basis) an unquestioned trump card used against alternatives of domestic partnerships or civil unions. But I understand how some people might view the issue in terms of equal protection. I would remind other conservatives, that the State may change definitions by fiat, but we retain freedom of thought and religion. But as a national issue? I don't want the federal government dealing with marriage--yet another area beyond its limited scope of competence.
- More straight talk, less spin and fear-mongering: a confident, positive, constructive attitude.
- Take on the big issue of the historic failures of progressive policy. The point is, just about everything the government does and which "expert" bureaucrats "manage" is mismanaged, overpromised, and underdelivered. Bills have been passed down--but the trend has hit the demographic cliff: the larger Baby Boom generation is being succeeded by by smaller generations, not unlike the scene now playing out in Japan and Europe: do we really want to follow their lead? I would point out the biggest years of economic growth occurred when government wasn't as large a drag on the economy.
- The central question: who decides: you or the government? I think this is where the conservative/libertarian coalition will win mainstream support. Point out government solutions always cost more than they claim and you end up paying for things you don't want or need; the bureaucrat trumps those closest to the situation, for example, if you are in a government health program, your doctor is constrained in how he can treat you (e.g., you may be forced to take a less effective generic). Government may compel young people to pay more they should to subsidize the costs of older or sicker patients. Government restricts where you can send your kid to school; your property taxes are held by the ineffective local school system, use it or lose it, meaning parents have to pay twice to get a good education for their kids. Statists will even use failures in banking regulation to expand their regulatory empire; in fact, government deposit guarantees exacerbate the regulatory issue because business risk has been socialized; prudent bank management is less a consideration for the potential depositor: if the less prudent bank offers him a bit more yield...
- Be less strident and more inclusive in platforms and candidate nominations. Don't demonize the opposition, express an openness to negotiation and compromise; be respectful of alternative points of view. For example, I don't think the GOP should back away from supporting traditional marriage, but the government should not intrude on the lifestyle choices of citizens and their pursuit of happiness.
