RSS Feed MenuEarlier this year, rising Republican star Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin introduced “A Roadmap for America’s Future,” a comprehensive budget plan that would freeze most discretionary spending and includes a wide array of entitlement and tax reform measures. Liberal Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, of all people, called the proposal “daring” and gave Ryan measured praise for attempting to deal with America’s massive deficit. “[Ryan’s] proposal is among the few I’ve seen that’s willing to propose solutions in proportion to the problem,” Klein wrote. “Whether or not you like his answer, you have to give him credit for stepping up to the chalkboard.” But the roadmap has few supporters within the Republican congressional caucus and as The Atlantic noted, Ryan recently offered a blunt explanation as to why this is the case:
The GOP is running away from a realistic deficit plan because they’re afraid that it would kill their political prospects in November, Rep. Paul Ryan said at a presentation of his budget roadmap at the Brookings Institution [on July 22]. When asked why Republicans aren’t flocking to his bold government reform, Ryan responded, without hesitation: “They’re talking to their pollsters and their pollsters are saying, ‘Stay away from this, we’re going to win an election.’”
Ryan’s candid statement goes to the heart of a troubling political reality: Republicans are well-positioned to take back control of the House and possibly the Senate this fall, but have offered little to no explanation of what they actually intend to do with their newfound authority in the event of a takeover. Congressman Pete Sessions and Senator Jon Cornyn – the respective Texan heads of the party’s two congressional campaign committees – appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press on July 19. When asked by the host, David Gregory, “if Republicans do get back into power, what are they going to do?” the former could only talk vaguely of the need “to live within our means” and “make sure we read the bills.” The two fared no better as Gregory continued to press them on the potential policy agenda of a new Republican Congress:
MR. GREGORY: But, Congressman, that’s a, that’s a pretty gauzy agenda so far. I mean, what specific–what painful choices are Republicans prepared to make? Are they going to campaign on repealing health care, for instance, repealing financial regulation? Would you like to see those two things done?
REP. SESSIONS: Well, first of all, let’s go right to it. We’re going to balance the budget. We should live within our own means, and we should read the bills and work with the American people.
MR. GREGORY: How do you do it? Tell me how you do it. Name a painful choice that Republicans are prepared to say we ought to make.
REP. SESSIONS: Well, first of all, we need to make sure that as we look at all that we are spending in Washington, D.C., with, not only the, the entitlement spending but also the bigger government, we cannot afford anymore. We have to empower the free enterprise system. See, this is where…
MR. GREGORY: Congressman, these are not specifics.
–
MR. GREGORY: Senator, I’m sorry, I’m not hearing an answer here on specific–what painful choices to really deal with the deficit. Is Social Security on the table? What will Republicans do that, that, that would give them–like ‘94, there was a Contract With America. What are voters going to say, “Hey, this is what Republicans will say yes to”?
SEN. CORNYN: Well, the president has a debt commission that reports December the 1st, and I think we’d all like to see what they come back with. We’ve got three of our most outstanding members on that commission–Mike Crapo, Tom Coburn and Judd Gregg–and I–my hope is they’ll come back with a bipartisan solution to the debt and particularly entitlement reform, as you, as you mentioned. But I…
MR. GREGORY: But wait a minute, conservatives need a, a Democratic president’s debt commission to figure out what it is they want to cut?
Republican House leaders hoped the public could help develop a policy agenda by soliciting suggestions via a website: America Speaking Out. Unsurprisingly, however, the site has been hobbled by a lack of serious participants and a slew of ludicrous submissions – some probably the work of Democratic pranksters.
Thus far, most Republicans seem content to avoid laying out concrete legislative proposals and simply ride the wave of frustration and anti-government sentiment currently gripping the country to victory this November.
Sidestepping the battle of ideas is not worthy of the Republican Party and not worthy of America. “It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better,” President Teddy Roosevelt famously remarked. “The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.” Paul Ryan, at least, is in the arena. Who will join him?
abj // Jul 27, 2010 at 10:17 am
busboy33 -
No, it’s not an “invalid” way to look at it. I don’t like that word…it implies illegitimacy. While I disagree with your argument, there’s nothing illegitimate or unreasonable about it.
Yes yes, you were really loveable and everybody just didn’t understand the real cuddly you, but the fact of the matter is the Black Rookie got elected President of the United States over the Legendary War Veteran and the Hot Chick. Got elected by a seriously strong margin. During two wars. With allegations he was actually a sleeper agent terrorist bent on the utter distruction of our way of life.
And that was so 2008. I think Obama would’ve won regardless of whether Lehman collapsed (albeit much more narrowly), but the financial crisis completely discredited the incumbent party. Any Democratic nominee would’ve won, and would’ve won big (not to take anything away from Obama’s campaign operation, which was extraordinary…just sayin’).
Obama himself still retains enormous goodwill, and the enthusiasm of first-time voters, the young, and minorities. I agree that most moderates and independents aren’t angry at the administration, but they are frustrated. They do hold the Democratic Congress in very low regard, however (and yes, Congressional Republicans as well….but Republican challengers to Dem incumbents aren’t part of the Republican Congress, and can run more as outsiders).
Midterm elections are a completely different animal. Remember, 40 House Democrats hail from districts that voted for McCain in 2008 (in the worst electoral environment for Republicans in a generation, no less). Those districts are very white and very conservative, and while national polls might indicate the Democratic agenda is divisive – subtract about 10-15 points from those numbers to get an idea of how unpopular healthcare, cap and trade, etc are in those districts. Running on the Democratic agenda is simply impossible. Mark Critz, who won the Pennsylvania special election, specifically campaigned against the healthcare bill and cap and trade – which was easy, given that he had no voting record. Dem incumbents won’t have that good fortune.
In this context, running an opposition strategy makes perfect sense. As I’ve said before, the Democrats didn’t run on any ideas in 2006, and still won. As to your point about the GOP’s agenda – with a Democrat sitting in the White House and the Senate all but certain to remain under Democratic control, it’s not as if we’re in store for Bush Redux. Republican control of the House would, however, put a check on Democratic power – and, at the same time, it would force the GOP to govern.
I’m not willing to predict the GOP will win the House at this point….it’s far too early to tell. But, the national political landscape has changed dramatically since 2008, and I don’t think most voters associate their local Republican House or Senate candidate with Bush’s failed policies. Dem incumbents, obviously, will try their mightiest to make that association and make it stick, but it’s not going to be easy.
LauraNo // Jul 27, 2010 at 1:33 pm
fgtay101, may I add a few more names? Charles Johnson, Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bartlett, Michael Smerconish…
LauraNo // Jul 27, 2010 at 1:41 pm
balconesfault, those are all moderate positions regardless of party. Republicans will never find more than their approx. 29% batshit in this country who are willing to throw SS under the bus, especially since GOP is always gunning for it and it was GOP who caused the deficit GOP is now trying to use to justify throwing grammaw (and US) under. Raise contributions from you-know-who, means test against you-know-who and then let’s see where we are in 10 years. That’s a moderate position I think.
Madeline // Jul 27, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Unsurprisingly, however, the site has been hobbled by a lack of serious participants and a slew of ludicrous submissions – some probably the work of Democratic pranksters
Yeah… Democratic pranksters… lord knows if not for them the endless cascade of brilliant thoughts emanating from the GOP and its supporters would finally come to the fore.
Heh. That’s the problem with crowdsourcing. The crowd tends to have lots of crazies in it.
While I’m sure there were some wacky comments from lib trolls (anything mentioning trucknuts or Crystal Pepsi is immediately suspect), a lot of the ideas that were deemed “ludicrous” were likely made in earnest.
busboy33 // Jul 27, 2010 at 6:19 pm
@abj:
“Any Democratic nominee would’ve won, and would’ve won big”
Agreed and that was my point — Dems didn’t win so much as the GOP made absolutely sure they were going to lose. So its not that the Blues became super popular . . . but that the Reds really, really stank. Has the voting public forgotten how bad they stank? We went straight from “The economy is fine” to “Obama’s setting up death panels for grandma — bring your gun to see him!” to “sucsession!” to “Hate Obama today, Hate Obama tomorrow, hate Obama forever!”. Granted the public has the long-term memory of a meth-addicted gerbil, but IMO even they aren’t this forgetful.
Was the public happy about the Administration’s handling of the oil spill? Hell no. Unhappy enough to go back to “Heck of a job” Republicans? Is the public happy with the war’s progress and outlook? No, they are not. Unhappy enough to let “stay the course” Republicans back in the driver’s seat? Ecconomic recovery stagnant and depressing? Enough to vote for “you don’t need an unemployment handout you lazy bastard . . . you need a repeal of the million-dollar estate tax!”?
Sure , the GOP should, on paper, make significant gains. Theyt’re the challenging party, and the incumbents have had a rough road of it. I personally think the Dems have done suprisingly (to me) well given the environment and situation they were handed , but whether the bad situation is “fairly” the Dems fault is irrevelant — they WILL suffer most/all of the blame for things being bad now.
But those pro-GOP/anti-Dem currents are diluted with a LARGE dose of “hate the GOP” still in the water, and it isn’t being helped with this race-to-the-finish-line-of-stupid the Party is wallowing in.
I do think the GOP will gain seats. I also think whatever the final number is, the GOP faithful will bellow that the the tide has turned, the peoiple have spoken, etc. But personally I don’t think they’re getting control back of the House, let alone Senate, or if they do it will be damn close. I think the Dems deserve to hold onto power for this cycle, and I think they probably will, but mnot because its the rigfht result but because the GOP won’t shut the hell up for 5 minutes and let people forget how disliked they are.
@balconesfault:
I don;t think there are bright lines between “Left/FarLeft/ExtremeFarLeft/Progressive/ExtremeProgressive/etc.” divisions. Yes, mandating all Americans take 3 hours a week of Chakra Reallignment therapy is an extreme idea. Yes, making recycling a non-mandatory option is more moderate-center. But its undenaible that some items are going to appear more or less extreme to different people, and fairly so. Mandating 20% of all vehicles produced in America be electric/hybrid by 2020 — smart application of the government’s regulatory power, or socialist domination of private industry? And can you say one side is definitively wrong?
I use Left and Progressive interchangably, in the same way I use Right/FarRight/TP/ExtremeGOP interchangably. Is it, in a strictly classifactory sense, accurate? No. But IMO trying to seperate out which parts of the stew are good and nutritious and which bits are celery is a waste of time.
There ARE crazies in the party, because there are crazies in every party, because there are crazies in America. I write in sweeping generalizations, and again that is bad form on my part. But I’m going to have alot of trouble accepting that the Blue Party is Crazy-Free or Crazy-Contained as a long-term status. For the moment? Sure. No danger of a Crazy outbreak tomorrow? I’m paranoid, so I’ll stay on guard.
@Madeline:
“anything mentioning trucknuts or Crystal Pepsi is immediately suspect”
Making disparaging remarks about Crystal Pepsi just put you on the list, lady!
. . . . I’m watching you . . .