Should the Republican Party endorse the concept of universal coverage in health insurance? No, of course not.

To insist upon guaranteed universal healthcare for every living person in America is to insist that healthcare is a universal right, which it is certainly not. If it were, then all Americans (especially conservatives) would be moved by the Declaration of Independence—which reminds us that government was instituted to “secure these rights”—to demand nothing less than socialized medicine. But, once again, it’s not.

Begging the main question also invites a brief reflection on (among other items already covered in this symposium) the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, and American conservatism and liberalism. It will help to explain why the right should not champion—or necessarily deride—the concept of universal care.

In general, the GOP is the party of liberty; the Democrats are, more or less, the party of equality. Freedom is our alpha value, fairness is theirs. It is the conservative movement’s deep commitment to human freedom and the conditions that preserve it that animates and binds Republicans. Thus, we wholeheartedly endorse the idea of equality of opportunity as strongly as we oppose forced equality of outcome.

But when conservatives frequently and proudly brandish the GOP as the party of small government, they are actually a bit mistaken. After all, the United States government is very, very large and is (rightfully) not challenged by conservatives with the animus of say, libertarians or anarchists. It would be far more accurate for the right to describe themselves as defenders of limited government.

This truth requires Republicans to fulfill two roles. First, the right must be a firewall, standing athwart the flames of liberalism yelling, “Too big,” “Too expensive,” “Too intrusive,” or simply, “No!” The second role is that of superior manager, commanding restraint and demonstrating expertise where the left would otherwise parade excess and clumsiness. Either function can be achieved even while out of power or in the minority ranks. In the current healthcare debate, the right can and must serve both.

Conservatives are right to totally oppose the public option, which even the left admits is an inevitable road to a single payer system, which itself is an outright affront to free enterprise, the Constitution, and much more. David Frum recently called it our “line in the sand” which, now judging from the chatter here in Washington, appears unlikely to be crossed. Thus, now on the brink of the collapse of President Obama’s health care hopes, Republicans must responsibly rise to the occasion.

We on the right can still win the healthcare debate, and we can do so without retreating from all that we stand for. Getting behind a co-ops plan is one such way to do this. The left’s attack on the free market (via the public option) would be averted, and our values would indeed be the major foundation of a plan that exhibits conservative openness toward powerful but principled government aid.

Whether a health insurance co-ops plan ala Romneycare in Massachusetts materializes and is able to pass through Congress remains to be seen. But if it does, it will be because conservatives chose to be proactive in defense of the free market, a primary obligation, of which scratching for universal coverage is not.

To read other contributions to this symposium, click here.

In politics, knowing what your opposition thinks and says about you and your team is critical. But listening to what they’re saying about their own side can sometimes be even more telling.

In the latest issue of Rolling Stone, Michael Moore insists that Barack Obama’s ambitions are much farther left than he lets on. Thus, the President has been deliberately lying to us about everything from healthcare reform to the war on terror. But contrary to the Bush years, when perceived presidential deceit evoked liberal rage and a film to go with it, Moore adoringly approves of what he now sees as a necessary “rope-a-dope strategy” to advance his side’s cause.

The interview, part of a larger round table discussion also including Paul Krugman and David Gergen, asks the “three leading political observers” to analyze and discuss the first six months of the Obama presidency. The most startling perspective Moore provides is in regard to the current health care debate:

I take all of the things that make me nervous about the decisions that Obama has made, and I look and them through that lens – that it’s some kind of master plan. It’s like his continued support of a government-run option for health care. If a true public option is enacted – and Obama knows this – it will eventually bring about a single-payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won’t be able to compete with a government plan and make the profits they want to make. At some point most of them will probably have to bow out of the business.

Moore’s frankness even earns praise from the far more temperate David Gergen:

I’m glad to have someone of Michael Moore’s honesty say that the public option on health care is, in fact, designed to be a pathway to a single-payer system. Because the Democrats have essentially said, “That’s not true.”

Moore’s view of Obama on Iraq is similar. While the Fahrenheit 9/11 director demands “more than a truth commission… a serious criminal investigation” into the Bush administration’s supposed “lying to convince Congress to back an invasion of another country that did nothing to us,” he also tells the magazine:

Look, this guy [Barack Obama] is a very good basketball player – he fakes right and goes left. He says he’s going to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq. But I would be shocked if, three years from now, there are 50,000 troops in Iraq. He says these things to keep the wolves away from the door, and it works. The other side seems to buy it. That’s why I admire his craftiness here.

“Same with Afghanistan,” he claims. While adding, “I don’t think there was a reason for the war” because “the Taliban are not an invading force – they are citizens of Afghanistan” and therefore “it is up to the citizens of Afghanistan whether they want to be oppressed,” he makes clear:

When [Obama] said he was going to send in 20,000 new troops, I thought, “He’s again trying to create this illusion so that the opposition will be kept at bay.“

(Remember: When the far left thought “Bush lied”—about WMDs, remember?—they cried for impeachment. But for Obama, it’s just a matter of admirably creating crafty illusions in order to trick his pesky opposition into silence and submission. Consider it liberalism by any means necessary.)

The way Moore sees it, even when it comes to serious national security issues like prosecuting terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, “I think he gets the opposition to shut up by telling them what they want to hear.” Indefinite detention? “’Indefinitely’ for Obama,” he says, “might mean ‘two more months.’”

Overall score from Moore?

I would give him an A if my theory about the rope-a-dope strategy he has employed turns out to be right. If I’m wrong about that, then I’ll have to mark it down to a C-minus. Right now, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Eventually, Gergen confronts the filmmaker about the openness of his “fakes right, moves left” rhetoric and asks, “Isn’t that the same critique the Republicans have been making about the president for some time?” Moore bluntly responds:

Yeah, and nobody will listen to them! I feel sorry for them. They think they know what he’s doing and they try to point it out, but Obama just acts all innocent and says, “No, I’m not doing that.” I probably shouldn’t be saying this, but I’m counting on the fact that Republicans won’t be reading this in Rolling Stone.

Team America’s “giant socialist weasel” counted wrong.

Back in 2004, the idea that “Bush lied” begat plenty of fits, a film, and much more from the far left. But that, of course, was when a Republican was president. Five years later, half-truths and deceit from a liberal Democratic president are not only commendable, it seems, but absolutely vital. Apparently Barack Obama’s real plans are just that unpalatable for the public to swallow.

Describing the end of the Cold War, Charles Krauthammer once proclaimed, “It ended with one of the great anti-climaxes in history. Without a shot fired, without a revolution, without so much as a press release, the Soviet Union simply gave up and disappeared.”

Such was the case with the recent war for the New York State Senate. Last week, after a month-long struggle between the Republicans and Democrats over the control of the Empire State’s upper legislative house, one side finally won and the other lost. But unlike the Cold War, the end result couldn’t have been more disappointing.

The Democratic conference, briefly ejected from power, has found its way back to majority status and unipolar leadership. The “Senate Reform Coalition,” originally composed of 30 Republicans and 2 Democrats, has collapsed, leaving the GOP back in the Senate’s minority.

The reason for disappointment is simple: On June 8, a vote for new leadership took place and 32 out of 62 senators voted to install Dean Skelos (R-Long Island) as Majority Leader and Pedro Espada Jr. (D-Bronx) as President Pro Tempore. The Democrats kicked and screamed, cut the lights and shut down internet feeds, all to obstruct the perfectly legal vote from being recorded in history. When they brought their grievance to the State Supreme Court, they were shooed away and told to work it out amongst themselves.

It seemed that the Republicans had pulled off a successful coup. Even after one of the two Democratic defectors, Hiram Monseratte of Queens, was lured home by his original party, Skelos and his colleagues were right to repeatedly insist that, whether the Democrats liked it or hated it, “June 8 happened.”

And then last Thursday happened. Pedro Espada, who was deemed public enemy No. 1 just weeks ago, was convinced to return home as well, thereby re-establishing the Democrats’ majority and, after a 10:00 p.m. floor resolution, returning them to power.

As Irene Jay Liu of the Albany Times Union put it, “After five weeks of angst, turmoil and stalemate and the repetition of ‘June 8 happened,’ it appears now that, well… it didn’t.”

Considering that New Yorkers were without a functioning Senate for more than a month, it’s pretty depressing to see that it was all for nothing. Many may feel inclined to blame the GOP for launching the coup in the first place. But in reality, the whole saga was more about Espada and Monseratte and their vainglorious flirtations with opposing parties just so they could “neuter” fellow Democrat Malcolm Smith. And even that remains debatable.

As the New York Senate at long last returns to business today, here’s what’s new:

• “A new, new Democratic leadership team,” as Jimmy Vielkind calls it, including: Smith as Senate President (through December), Espada as Senate Majority Leader, Jeff Klein as Deputy Majority Leader, Carl Kruger as Finance Committee Chairman, and John Sampson as “conference leader.”
• Speaking of leadership, Skelos will likely remain Minority Leader despite the unraveling of his coup. It’s widely believed that Skelos did all that he could do to preserve the leadership change and is not to blame for Espada’s re-defection.
• Mayoral control of schools will be taken up.
• Gay marriage won’t be.
• Expect a review and possible restructuring of the Senate’s “oppressive” rules so that future dysfunction can be altogether avoided and peace restored for good.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that once again, the Democratic Party is in complete control of New York’s government, all but three NY congressional seats and, of course, both its U.S. Senate seats. With great, unchecked power comes even greater responsibility, especially when disasters, economic or otherwise, refuse to mitigate. In any event, the GOP should be standing on guard.

While most New Yorkers spent the Fourth of July holiday with family and friends, every member of the state Senate was hauled back into the Capitol for yet another special session to figure out yet another solution to the ongoing Senate leadership crisis. While dysfunction continues, upstate New York suffers disproportionally.

My home district’s state senator, Roy McDonald (R-Saratoga Springs), published an excellent piece in the area’s Saratogian newspaper yesterday, laying out the ramifications of the Senate power-struggle for upstate New Yorkers in particular:

A good place to start would be the day the standstill began. Downstate Senate leadership was prepared to send $90 million into New York City, while rationing a meager $8 million to the communities across upstate New York.

…

At a time when transparency and accountability were key, downstate leadership allowed for the most secretive and closed door budget process that anybody has ever seen. What they passed directly hurt our communities, from health care to school funding and much more. Upstate was left out, plain and simple.

…

The real tragedy is that it has turned into a conflict of upstate versus downstate — we have become David and they have become Goliath. We’re realizing that it’s difficult to survive in the shadow of Goliath, and in the current system, nearly impossible to coexist. Star tax rebate checks have been eliminated, hurting upstate. But at the same time, downstate representatives forced the legislature to pass a Mass Transit Authority (MTA) bailout, sending billions downstate to prevent minimal fee increases for those traveling on the subway system.

In Saratoga Springs and Saratoga County, they stole right out of our pockets, taking $3.3 million and $1.1 million from city and county VLT funding, respectively. In Rensselaer County, the budget slashed funding for the Van Rensselaer Manor nursing home in the amount of $1.5 million. These amounts are only the tip of the iceberg. Tax and fee increases, coupled with funding cuts for programs, came at the worst time for upstate New York taxpayers, while property taxes were not addressed at all.

Senator McDonald, it should be noted, is merely being diplomatic when he refers to “downstate Senate leadership.” This, of course, is but a euphemism for “the Democrats.” And he is right to call them out. His allegations, shared by many upstaters, against the pre-June 8 coup Democrat-controlled state government are legitimate, and include but are not limited to:

• Imposing $2,350 in new taxes on middle class families
• Eliminating STAR Rebate Checks Averaging $200-400 per home
• Taxing upstaters’ Electric and Utility Bills
• Increasing spending by $12 billion
• Passing a disastrous MTA Subway System bailout
• Reneging on their promises to reform the operation of the Legislature
• Refusing to allow a public budget process
• Hurting New York businesses by imposing new fees and taxes
• Failing to act on the Power for Jobs program
• Ignoring the Agricultural Community
• Refusing to provide openness and transparency within the legislative process
• Allocating approximately $8 billion in discretionary spending for 3 New York City leaders

The ongoing New York Senate crisis has produced more than the superficial side-effect of an embarrassing circus facade to the rest of the country; it’s also driving a wedge (as if it was needed) between upstate and downstate (mainly New York City).

There’s a lot going on in upstate New York right now: a special election for the 23rd district’s congressional seat, an imminent visit by Vice President Biden to tout the economic stimulus package, a major address by Governor Paterson this evening (probably to appoint a Lt. Governor, further disturbing the Senate), and even reports from the Democratic gang of four (or sometimes five) that the entire Senate power struggle will resolved this Thursday.

Beneath it all, the entire Empire State has been severely demoralized by a stagnant legislature, a clumsy and ineffective governor, and persistent economic hardship exacerbated, according to The Wall Street Journal, by “progressive ideas” and leadership. It’s not surprising that they’re comparing Albany to Sacramento and Trenton—it’s that bad.

Bottom line: New York, especially upstate, is holding out for a hero. Paging Rudy Giuliani.

The statement, deeply cynical and wholly inappropriate, along with the rationale behind it, deserves further examination. Listen to it for yourself here.

Here’s a partial transcription of what Waxman told host Andrea Mitchell:

So far, this Congress — since Obama became President — the Republicans have said no to an economic stimulus bill, they’re saying no to a global warming bill… They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They’re rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Republicans doubt the whole science of global warming, even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don’t want to believe it.

Let’s be clear: One of the same guys from the same party that not long ago suffered a near-panic attack at the prospect of American victory in Iraq is actually trying to call out the GOP for putting politics before, well, patriotism. As the saying goes, you just can’t make this stuff up.

Waxman did more than bestow new meaning upon the phrase, “People in glass houses shouldn’t cast stones.” As strange and irreverent as it may seem, Waxman actually confirmed just how much global warming may be to the left what Islamist terrorism is to the right, and probably still most Americans.  As Paul Krugman put it in Sunday’s New York Times:

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Still skeptical? Let’s reexamine Waxman’s own words. A simple swap of environmental-speak for war on terror talk and an interchange of party names offers a more precise illustration of his inadvertent irony. Here’s what a conservative Republican easily could have said just two short years ago:

So far, this Congress — since they became the majority — the Democrats have said no to the troop surge, they’re saying no to a war funding bill… They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Republicans. They’re rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global terrorism. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Democrats doubt the whole success of the surge, even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don’t want to believe it.

See the comparison? In Waxman & Krugman’s world, global warming, not Islamofascism, is “the existential threat” that demands urgent, dramatic, status quo-changing action. All who oppose or even slightly disagree with them are, according to Krugman, committing “betrayal” and “a form of treason — treason against the planet.”

(Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard rightly points out that, according to leftwing criteria, more Americans are actually traitors as opposed to… I guess we’ll call them “patriots of the world.”)

Bottom line: Nobody ought to be “rooting against the country,” ever, for any reason at all. The reasons are too obvious to even list. And in a way, Waxman et al are at least right to be on the lookout for snakes in the garden. However, his accusation was both wrongly directed and poorly applied. By lumping well-meaning Republicans in Congress with certain talking head types, Waxman completely rejects the serious arguments being made against cap and trade, not to mention the merits of various alternatives to the bill. (Such immense criticism will likely, hopefully lead to the bill’s demise in the Senate.) All things considered, who’s really doing the disservice to the country?

In recent years, many on the right have called out their fellow Americans — whether they’ve been Democratic leaders, the far left, Limbaugh, or even the paleocons — for openly craving the present administration’s failure. Such a selfish desire is downright vulgar in our modern, decent democracy and deserves to be condemned. Many on the left, however, have consistently been missing the mark.

In Waxman’s recent episode, legitimate concern was mistaken for callous sedition, quite possibly because he (like Krugman and others) truly believes global warming is a more deadly threat than radical Islam. In his world, regrettably, basic policy skepticism is “treason” and the largest tax on the middle class in more than a decade, in the words of another Democrat, is “patriotic.”

To begin, the bipartisan “Senate Reform Coalition” established last Monday is no longer the majority caucus (or even all that bipartisan). One of the two Democrats that had defected to the GOP’s coalition, Queens Senator Hiram Monserrate (the one who slashed his girlfriend), has been wooed back home. The sides are now evenly split, 31-31, without a lieutenant governor to break a tie.

In other words: because of one man’s frantic indecision, the New York State Senate is now suffering worse gridlock than Times Square at rush hour. However, it’s worth keeping in mind that this week’s public enemy was last week’s celebrity.

Between Monday 6/8 and Monday 6/15, Sen. Monserrate was arguably the most important man in New York. The other Democratic defector, Pedro Espada, Jr. of the Bronx, was openly appreciative of his new role as Senate Pro Tempore and clearly had no ambition of undoing his switch. Monserrate was different. Thus, the Democrats and the GOP were forced to spend an entire week sucking up to one of the sleaziest men in the Empire State. After all the panic-driven lobbying, personal phone calls, private meetings and Lord-knows-what-else, Monserrate jumped ship for the second time in seven days.

Monserrate’s reason for re-defection is twofold. First, the main source of his personal aggravation with the Democrats, Senator Malcolm Smith, is no longer their conference leader. Smith has been replaced by Senator John Sampson from Brooklyn, who publicly called Monserrate “my brother” earlier this week. (Last week, Smith’s spokesman called him “a thug.”) Second, it’s widely assumed that the Democrats convinced Monserrate that even if he escapes his felony charge, his career wouldn’t live past 2010 after siding with the Republicans. Only with the Democrats’ full support could Monserrate defeat or deter a primary challenge. It was an offer he couldn’t refuse.

Nevertheless, the remarriage of Senator Monserrate and the Democratic caucus is one of convenience and nothing more, mostly on the part of the latter. The Politcker’s Jimmy Vielkind sums up the Democrats’ attitude perfectly: “We’ll take your vote, Hiram, but don’t look for a hug.” Senator Liz Krueger went on the record to state, “We basically were trapped in our need to get to 31-31 at this point in time.” The coup had handed them sour lemons, Kruger implied, “I think we’re making lemonade.”

But even with an equal number of members as the Senate Reform Coalition, the Democrats are still confined to minority party status after the events of 6/8. After all, the vote to install new leadership can’t be erased from history or simply undone by enough loud protests or empty legal challenges, which the Democrats seemed to be relying upon. Remember, this is the same caucus that, on the day of the coup, adjourned without a vote, sprinted out of the Senate chamber, turned off the lights, and cut the live internet feed in hopes of thwarting the imminent reality of their overthrow. The law, however, has thus far thwarted them.

This past Tuesday, state Supreme Court Justice Thomas McNamara finally dismissed a ridiculous lawsuit desperately filed by Malcolm Smith seeking to retain his Majority Leader status. Smith had hoped to re-empower himself and his party with the stroke of a judge’s pen. In truth, McNamara’s decision deserves two cheers.

On the one hand, McNamara exercised remarkable judicial restraint by refusing to intrude into what he called “the inner workings of a coequal branch of government.” Thus, the 32-30 vote for new leadership that took place on 6/8 was left unscathed and Smith was denied a title-by-decree. Republican Sen. Dean Skelos, the newly elected Majority Leader, rightly retains his claim to the title, for now, and so does Espada as Senate Pro Tem.

On the other hand, McNamara’s decision puts the entire matter back into the hands of the dueling Senate conferences whose debate has regressed to a junior high ruckus over who gets to sit on student council. The Democrats are stubbornly refusing to even recognize the legitimacy of Skelos or Espada’s leadership roles, which are historically held by the same individual. The Republicans have been trying to hold session, but haven’t been able to attract more than 31 Senators to do so.

In an effort to end the stalemate that moderate Democratic Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. recently called “worse than ever,” each side has produced its own “power-sharing agreement” to bring the crisis to an end. See the Republican and Democratic proposals for yourself.

Capitol Confidential covers the Democrats’ idea:

Senate Democrats proposed a power-sharing plan to Senate Republicans that would include the following provisions:

1. On session days, rotate the position of temporary president between two the parties on a daily basis.
2. The floor leader from the opposition party would preside with opposing temporary president “to provide better balance.”
3. A bipartisan committee of 6 senators, three from each party, to set the session agenda.

PolitickerNY sums the GOP plan:

The Republican proposal would last until 2011. It would leave Republican leader Dean Skelos in the majority leader post and State Senator Pedro Espada Jr., a Democrat, as president pro tempore.

The two would jointly publish an active list of bills, but any member could move to have a bill they sponsored put on the next active list if “a majority of members present and voting agree.”

Further, “any bill on the calendar may be considered on the net active list upon the presentation of a petition signed by the majority of the members elected to the Senate.

(For Sen. Sampson’s plan, see here. He may be alright after all!)

Predictably, neither side has acquiesced. Instead, tensions are rising sharply, especially as the Democrats focus their animosity at Espada, who they seriously, vengefully wish to keep from serving as Senate president.

Yesterday, at 12:29 p.m, GOP and Democratic Senators headed to a meeting in the Capitol. What negotiations, if any, would have come of it remained to be seen. As Majority Leader Skelos put it, “We’re going to have a conversation. That’s it.”

At 1:13 p.m., according to Capitol Confidential, the meeting came to an end after the Democrats walked out:

The Democrats said little as they pushed past reporters.
Klein said there was “no agreement.”
Sampson said, “We’re still negotiating.”

Stay tuned. But get comfortable. The return of the New York Senate may take a while.

The Democrats were just about to approve (or so they thought) the state’s annual pork barrel spending resolution, according to the Albany Times Union, “in which they took the lions share of money.” Just then, Sen. Tom Libous (R-Binghamton) stood up to demand a vote on a measure that will affect the course of New York politics for some time to come. The motion at hand was simple but stunning: the immediate election of new Senate leadership to reflect the startling new majority caucus, including now-“independent Democrats” Hiram Monserrate of Queens and Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx.

Then the chaos ensued. Presiding Senator Neil Breslin (D-Albany) awkwardly tried his best to stop the motion from being passed and a roll call from even being cast. He even attempted to adjourn the Senate without concurrence from the floor. Eventually, Libous threatened to have Breslin removed from the dais by security lest he refuse to relinquish the chair that would no longer be his. See the drama unfold here and here.

As flustered Democrats stormed out of the Chamber, hoping (assumingly) to invalidate the impending vote for new leadership by their absence, one of the Democratic Senators pulled the light switch. It wasn’t the Republicans, however, that were left in the dark. The New York Times reports:

Asked by a reporter what was occurring, Senator Malcolm A. Smith, leader of the Senate Democrats who was huddled in the hall with his staff, responded, “I’m trying to find out right now.”

A spokesman for Mr. Smith, who lost the titles of majority leader and Senate president in the shakeup, issued a statement later saying that Democrats would challenge the vote, but it was not clear that they had grounds to do so.

There was no ground to stand on. Sen Smith arguably already knew this, since he was visibly playing nice before the evening news cameras as he kept referring to Espada and Monserrate as “my friends and colleagues.” Perhaps Smith should have said something to his spokesman Austin Shafran, who referred to Espada and Monserrate as “a thug and a thief” just a little while earlier in the evening. Whoops!

Smith’s office also released a statement that he in fact was still Majority Leader. But that was just nonsense on the part of the Democrats. Yes, they were outraged. Yes, they were deeply offended and downright embarrassed. But all the talk of legal challenges to the Republicans’ parliamentary coup d’état yesterday honestly has made them look just plain ridiculous. The Times sums David Paterson’s juvenile reaction in a sentence:

The governor also said “I will not allow this,” but then conceded that there was nothing he could do to stop it.

Indeed. In perhaps the wildest day in Albany since former Gov. Eliot Spitzer was outed as “client no. 9,” the New York Democratic Party was once again badly burned. Last time, at least they could say that an unpopular governor has been hoisted off their shoulders. This silver lining is harder to find this time around. After barely five months in charge, the NY Senate Democrats are back in the Minority ranks where, before January, they spent the past 40 years.

By the end of the exciting episode, Senator Dean Skelos (R-Long Island) was once again sworn in as new Senate Majority Leader while Espada was officially made President Pro Tem, just a heartbeat away from the Governorship.

The events that transpired yesterday will beget serious consequences and inquiries:

• Who was the mastermind behind the revolt? That would be Tom Golisano, billionaire political activist from Rochester and three-time candidate for governor, who has taken up the cause of “making Albany more open” and curtailing Democratic legislation that he considers anti-business. Shortly after the power switch, Skelos appeared before the press with Golisano and thanked him publicly for his organizational efforts. According to the Times Union, “he began the process of pushing for change two months ago.”
• Why did Espada and Monserrate defect? They were already part of the moderate “gang of four” (with Sens. Carl Kruger and Ruben Diaz Sr.) that had grown quite disgruntled with Sen. Smith’s leadership and behavior in the budget process, and deplored both Smith and Paterson’s push for gay marriage. Both downstate Democrats were ripe for the picking, and according to one Republican staffer in the Capitol, “Golisano got to them, and they seized the opportunity.”
• What is the future of gay marriage in New York? According to several Democrats I’ve spoken with: “It’s dead.”
• What does the future hold for Espada and Monserrate? Nothing promising. Both come from districts where elections are generally decided in the Democratic primary. They’ll most likely lose their seats in 2010—if they make it that far. Monserrate is currently facing battery charges for slashing his girlfriend with a broken bottle last year. According to another report, “Espada is being investigated by the attorney general’s office for his role in a health care agency.” If either is convicted, they’ll be removed from office instantly.
• What does the revolt mean for Albany? In the short term, there is going to be a return to massive gridlock, especially in light of the current huge budgetary fiscal situation. In the long run, it might strengthen Paterson’s hand in dealing with the State Assembly and the unions for a more moderate fiscal approach. According to one Democrat, this means “more job cuts, less taxes, which is what I think he wants, but can’t get.”
• What does the revolt mean for 2010? One Republican staffer told me about an expected “domino effect” that will directly affect the imminent special election in NY-23. Now that Senate Democrats are in the minority, upstate Democratic Senator Darrel Aubertine may very well go ahead and run for the McHugh’s old congressional seat. He’s been reportedly mixed about running, but now that he’s in minority rule and likely to face cuts in his budget and staff, there’s a good chance that he’ll take the plunge for Congress. Aubertine won his Senate seat in a super-tight election and has already been placed in the GOP’s crosshairs.
• What about the 2010 census? As one Democratic source told me, “If the Dems control both branches, the NY GOP is royally ****** because the demographic chickens will come home to roost with the loss of population upstate and growth downstate. The GOP base in the Senate and upstate will be gone.” I’m told every Republican office is extremely mindful of this. A worst case scenario could destroy the GOP in New York.
• Any more surprises on the way? Many on both sides of the aisle are wondering whether we’ve seen the last of the party swaps or if more moderates are in the wings and thinking about switching. One Democrat from the Capitol Region told me that “there were 6 other moderates who weren’t there for the vote and who might switch if the incentives are right.” We’ll have to wait and see.

I know that New York City is the city that never sleeps. But Albany, for good and ill, never ceases to amaze.

In last week’s Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery presented Reagan the Republican who used his “unfailingly gracious tone” to bring the right, the middle, and remnants of the old left into what he saw as a must-be big tent Republican Party. In the June 1 Wall Street Journal, Richard Brookhiser reminded us of Buckley the Conservative who employed the same weapon to do just the opposite. Instead of party recruitment, Buckley used his brainpower as a battery to energize the magnetic pull of conservatism so that more Americans were attracted to the movement, regardless of which party they belonged to.

Ronald Reagan, “unlike William F. Buckley, who urged his followers to shout ‘stop!’ to the onrushing currents of history,” Emery reminds us, “thought history would be on his side.”  Buckley, whom Brookhiser says “helped create the climate of opinion in which Ronald Reagan was elected president,” was unsure of such inevitability. Thus, both men’s immediate priorities were demonstrably different.

Whereas Reagan yearned for a robust and powerful Republican Party, Buckley was interested in nurturing a sacred and safely fortressed conservative movement. Emery’s Reagan wished to use a strongly populated GOP to torpedo his conservative message into the halls of the federal government. Brookhiser’s Buckley focused on keeping an increasingly popular American conservatism alive and pure by staying on the lookout for imposters or moderates, and thereby preventing its host party from fatal infection.

Both Reagan and Buckley were conservatives. Both were Republicans who had at least the general wellbeing of their party in mind. And they each shared the common goal of deterring and defeating what had come to be known as modern liberalism. But, according to Emery and Brookhiser, their ways of going about doing so (and thus the models they’re asking us to emulate) were quite different.

In Emery’s piece, “Reagan in Opposition,” she details how Reagan refused to campaign for Jeffery Bell, his former aide “who mounted a conservative primary challenge in the 1978 midterms to Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey.” Reagan’s reasoning was similar to that of President Bush when he supported Sen. Lincoln Chafee over his far more conservative primary opponent in 2006: Party first. (Sen. Case lost to Bell, but Reagan was somewhat vindicated when Bell eventually lost to former Sen. Bill Bradley.)

In his column, “Bill Buckley and the Future of Conservatism,” Brookhiser recalls how Buckley “was married to the GOP, but … never expected it to be faithful to his ideas, and … fought it when it strayed.” Such was the case when he challenged Republican John Lindsay for Mayor of New York in 1965 as a candidate for the state’s independent Conservative Party. Buckley “went even further in party disloyalty” when he backed a liberal Democrat named Joe Lieberman in a 1988 Connecticut Senate race over the even more liberal Lowell Weicker, the Republican incumbent, helping cost Lowell the seat.

Clearly, we’re told, Reagan and Buckley viewed the relationship between the GOP and the conservative movement in different lights.  Reagan “was a conservative and a Republican,” writes Emery, “who understood the two roles of a movement and party, and how the two roles can converge.” However, she also claims that Reagan “understood that the Republican Party has no obligation to present the conservative movement with a nominee to its liking.” This starkly contrasts Buckley’s position, which Brookhiser summed in no uncertain terms: “The party should, as much as possible, support the movement, not the other way around.”

Two conservative icons, two different arguments to contemplate.

Assuming these recent analyses of Reagan and Buckley are faithful to the men’s actual political outlooks, the conflict of which example to follow back to prominence can appear daunting. Nevertheless, middle ground can be found.

Emery’s piece (subtitled, “The Lessons of 1977”) brings us back to times like today, after the 1976 election when, as Robert Novak put it, the “long descent of the Republican Party into irrelevance, defeat, and perhaps eventual disappearance” was becoming a (foolishly) accepted reality. In the face of a liberal Democratic majority in Washington and a country swollen with malaise, there stood Reagan—sunny, bright, and ardently right—using his words and wit to tug the American center towards his side of the yard.

Through his lecture circuit, columns, and radio broadcasts, Reagan sought to “reframe conservatism in his own image” and make the Republican Party its home. In order to do so he needed to shake the dead skin of Nixon and Ford off the GOP and cloak it the antique armor of happier warriors like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. A former FDR/Truman Democrat himself, Reagan believed a party that reflected his view of America and his ideology could and would become a national party.

Buckley’s belief was equally confident and ambitious. Brookhiser describes his early postwar political vision:

The new president, Dwight Eisenhower, despite his conservative instincts, was unwilling to pick ideological fights. … Germany, Japan and (it seemed) the Depression had been beaten by great collective efforts. The world had moved into a new era, and conservatives should recognize the fact.

Buckley would have none of it. He wanted a conservatism that stood for capitalism and freedom. The Cold War required another great mobilization, which Buckley supported wholeheartedly, but he would not lose sight of his individualistic goals.

Both Reagan and Buckley eventually got what they wanted: a national conservative Republican Party. Thanks to that entity, the Cold War ended in America’s favor and a new conservative consensus was solidified at home. Ultimately, their different approaches to their party and their movement did not matter as much as their similar tactics in winning over the hearts and minds they needed to turn their dream into a reality. It was the common method with which they fought for their common cause as political minorities that eventually lifted them atop the tidal wave that hurled them into majority rule.

According to Emery, Reagan “was optimistic, inclusive, positive, disciplined, and focused on large issues.” So was Buckley. According to Brookhiser, “Buckley thought it was possible to change climates of opinion, he knew it was futile to try to change certain facts about human nature… He was always trying to apply those great principles [first articulated by Burke] to the problems of the day.” So did Reagan.

Thus, it was Reagan’s willingness to allow anyone—ex-Democrats, moderates, single issue voters—into the Republican fold that made the party grow. But these new voters had to be at least comfortable with the GOP’s foundational philosophy if they were going to be pulling its lever in the voting booth. Thus, it was Buckley’s tolerance for an evolving conservatism that enabled the Republican Party to wrap itself around the conservative movement and remain palatable to voters for a generation.

Neither man ever “opposed for the sake of opposing.” They always maintained a certain “tone of voice” with which they offered their alternatives, often “bringing in large blocs of ex-Democrats” in the process. Reagan, like Buckley, “understood that his role was less to attack than to persuade,” especially as a candidate for higher office.  Thanks to the maturity and civility of both men, the GOP and the conservative movement benefited exponentially.

But Reagan’s unique “tone of voice” and Buckley’s “hyperarticulate defense of ideas” were not entirely what gave conservatives their time in the sun. Ultimately, the right came to respect and appreciate the need for the Republican Party as the only real means to advance their goals. Despite Buckley’s “turbulent relationship” with the GOP, Brookhiser argues, he still “never believed in trying to replace it with a new national party.” Wisely, Emery says, Reagan “rebuilt the Republican Party around [the conservative movement], as a large and a national force.” Overall, the movement and the party, with full focus on their common adversary, more or less told one another, “I’ll have your back if you got mine.” Majority status awaited them.

Those days are now over. Reagan and Buckley are gone and the Republican Party hasn’t had the uncomfortable relationship it now seems to have with the conservative movement since long before 1980. It doesn’t have to be like this.

Now back in minority status, many conservative activists are antsy and distrustful. Yes, much of their anxiety is understandable. But there lays a risk that their angst will only damage the GOP and prolong its time in the political wilderness. Such will be the case if certain conservatives (and you know which ones) keep telling themselves that party purity is more important than a party victory.

The time to be frank is now. A selfish “take it or leave it” attitude by the base of the conservative movement towards the Republican Party is nothing less than a gift to the Democratic Party. Conservatives should not tell themselves, “Well, as long as it’s Republicans the voters hate, we’re fine!” Nor should they believe for one minute that “protest-voting” (which I witnessed far too much of here in DC last fall) is noble or commendable. All those who voted for Bob Barr to “stick it to the Republicans” because “John McCain wasn’t a real conservative” didn’t “teach the party a lesson.” They simply voted for a lunatic and helped Barack Obama.

All successful relationships require commitment and effort from both sides. Emery is right when she says that “the conservative movement has the obligation to lay out its case in so convincing a manner that it persuades most Republicans, most independents, and even some Democrats to follow its banner.” Living in a happy bubble is unacceptable. Meanwhile, Brookhiser reminds us that Buckley was in fact not a “complete ideologue” and ultimately understood that “the political vehicle of a late 20th century conservative movement was bound to be the Republican Party.”

The same goes for the 21st century. The days of disgruntled conservatives treating the GOP as little more than a quaint political organism to be considered for electoral use each November but free to threaten afterwards must end now. The purity tests and RINO hunting should cease and desist; the name of the game should be convincing others, not convicting our own. The common legacy of Reagan and Buckley would be honored, and those Americans wishing for a Washington without Obama would be grateful.

Matthew Yglesias is right to point out that post-census redistricting in 2010 will eliminate at least one of New York’s 29 seats, possibly more. Like all majorities, the Democrats would guarantee that their own party reaps the benefits.

But Republicans should not get too anxious. McHugh’s district, NY-23, is not NY-20. Unlike many of his upstate colleagues, McHugh easily survived the upstate Democratic sweeps of ‘06 and ‘08. Since arriving to Congress in 1992, he won reelection with heavy percentages each time, including in our tougher recent years: 70.7% in 2004, 63.1% in 2006, and 65.3% in 2008. Back in 2002, the Democrats didn’t even put up a challenger for the seat. Now, however, they’ll definitely seek to squeeze out another upstate upset since Obama actually won NY-23 last fall by two more points than he did in NY-20.

Politico and others report that Robert Taub, McHugh’s chief of staff, “is likely to be an early frontrunner for the Republican nomination.” If so, he’ll definitely get it. I can’t really see NY state senator Joseph Griffo, another interested candidate, beating a McHugh-backed Taub in a primary.

Better we have someone like McHugh as Army secretary: In Congress he’s been a staunch defender of the war on terror and an advocate for a muscular foreign policy. When he spoke at a recent conference for the newly formed Foreign Policy Initiative, he demonstrated a very strong command of the details of the situation in Afghanistan and articulated his support for Obama’s troop surge to save the country. A memorable moment came when McHugh told the audience:

By recognizing that we have to rebuild both our military and civilian capabilities and capacities both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, by recognizing we have to reengage our ISAF and NATO partners in hopefully more productive ways and on and on and on, I can only say to the President: Sounds good to me, boss.

Well, now McHugh will really be calling Obama “boss.” And unlike another recent Obama nominee I can think of, there is virtually nothing controversial about McHugh. He’ll make a very good Army Secretary.

As for the two likely Democratic challengers to McHugh’s New York seat — state senators Darrel Aubertine and David Valesky — both won their current seats by thin margins in hotly contested races. A victory by either one of them in the special election would not be much appreciated by the state Senate Democratic caucus. As The Albany Times Union put it:

A run by either Senate Democrat, however, could prove risky for Senate Democrats, who currently control the chamber by a narrow 32-to-30 margin. The loss of a single seat to the GOP would result in an evenly split chamber — with no sitting lieutenant governor to break a tie.

Nevertheless, Republicans shouldn’t be focusing on the state legislature. They should be focused on retaining John McHugh’s seat in Congress. Like the race in NY-20 just a couple months ago, it’s theirs to lose.

Now that former New York Rep. Rick Lazio is seeking to run for Governor of New York, the question is not whom he’ll face in the general—unless something seismic occurs this year, that’s going to be Andrew Cuomo. The real question is who may stop him in a potential GOP primary. Thus, countless New Yorkers from both parties have been asking themselves, “Will Rudy run?”

At the New York GOP’s Annual State Dinner last month, Newt Gingrich admonished the Republicans in attendance to “start running against Cuomo.” The reason is obvious and well known. With a dismal 19% approval rating, Governor David Paterson is increasingly irrelevant and intensely unlikely to remain in office past January 1, 2011. The recent Marist poll explains New Yorkers’ icy feelings: 68% disapprove of his “handling of the economic crisis,” 71% disagree that he’s “changing Albany for the better,” and only 34% believe he “represents all regions of the state.”

In many ways, David Paterson is now in worse shape with his state than George W. Bush was with his country in the final months of his presidency. But unlike for Bush, Paterson’s party and its other members in New York don’t seem to be taking a hit. Despite the Governor’s unpopularity on Election Day, the Democrats still took over the state Senate for the first time in 40 years. Just last month, now-Rep. Scott Murphy trumped Jim Tedisco for now-Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s old congressional seat. And most recently, a Siena poll revealed that Cuomo, the state’s popular Attorney General who crushes Paterson in a hypothetic primary match-up by 53 points, would potentially beat Rudy Giuliani by 53 to 39 percent.

A lot can change between now and 2010, but a lot can stay the same too. If another year of taxes and budget cuts is what awaits New York, then the state’s voters may end up coming around to hate the whole currently unchecked Democratic Party and not just its SNL-prone messenger. More angry unions, jilted party allies, and divisive votes in the legislature would only put the party’s retentive power in greater jeopardy.

Looking to such a future, Rick Lazio, currently a JPMorgan Chase lobbyist best known for his run against Hillary Clinton for Senator in 2000, has again stepped up to the plate. The New York Daily News reports that he will launch a fundraising committee to begin raising much-needed money as early as next week.

I remember hearing Lazio speak in a relatively close-knit setting last April. He charmed an entire room of young Republican activists who had flocked to upstate New York to dine with him at a conference in Saratoga Springs. He’s likable, energetic, and conservative — very conservative. He’s a great voice for the GOP and even the conservative movement, but as a candidate for statewide office in New York during the Age of Obama, I have my concerns. As Professor Robert Turner (a common source for state/local political analysis at Skidmore College) put it, “I know conservatives really like him… [but] he doesn’t seem like the kind of candidate who can attract independents or moderates. Maybe he’s changed.” We’ll have to see.

So far, Lazio has the vocal support of Mike Long, Chairman of the New York State Conservative Party. Meanwhile, however, many Republicans throughout the state are still waiting for a candidate who can better match Cuomo’s name recognition, political resources, and fundraising capability. That candidate, of course, is Rudy Giuliani. New York State GOP Chairman Joe Mondello has given him until this fall to decide whether he wants to run or not. The sooner the Democrats are faced with a single party-backed opponent, the better.

Almost ten years ago, Lazio replaced a cancer-stricken Giuliani in a bid for higher office — and lost. Nearly a decade later, many on the New York right are hoping to see Rudy step up and take Rick’s place — and score a severely needed win. The only question now is: Will Rudy run?