Will we see a battle for the GOP's soul?

Is the GOP the party of the white working class traditionalists, or a modern business-friendly party? Is it for crony capitalism where everyone gets a piece, or for small government?

This has been a big question ever since Reagan pretended that he was for small government, but never followed through. So many Republicans since then have winked and lied to the electorate about being for small guvmint, and the lie has taken root with conservative talk radio and the non-elites who think they are now the heart of the GOP.

First contender - Louie Gohmert

Maybe we will see the answer to this question in the next few years. Some of the Tea Party types are again hopeful that they can overthrow the business/establishment GOP leaders, as Louie Gohmert challenges John Boehner for leadership in the House.

To most people, Louie Gohmert is the embarrassing fool who talks about the dangers of letting gays (with their strength-sapping sex-same massage techniques) in the military. He probably denies evolution, and doesn't think that we should have freedom of religion for non-Judeochristians. I don't know that Gohmert espouses these religious views, but it would be all of the same piece if he did.

However, to some people, Louie Gohmert "is a good conservative- he’s been on Hannity a number of times." Wow, to some people, Louie Gohmert isn't a laughingstock! Who would have thunk it?

Nonetheless, it's highly unlikely that Gohmert will prevail as he tries to win the speakership. The true conservatives will probably be thwarted by the establishment yet again.

Weightier contender - Jeb Bush

The bigger contest will be for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. Jeb Bush looks like he's going to run, and he isn't going to pretend to be more conservative than he is. He's sitting out an anti-immigrant conference (or at least that's the spin from the liberal MSM).

If Jeb Bush can blatantly run as a moderately conservative Republican and win the nomination, that will say a lot about the GOP. It will be a repudiation of the trope of 'true conservatism,' meaning the conservatism that desires to roll back almost everything since the 1960's. It would be a boon to rationality for this kind of conservatism to be defeated because this conservatism is chock-full of contradictions. They can't decide whether they are for or against Medicare, for or against Social Security. Many lie to themselves about how the government actually spends our tax dollars. They imagine that they are taxed heavily and benefit lightly while deadbeats make out like bandits. They refuse to see how they (or Granny) are actually the huge beneficiaries of taxation.

It would be great if Jeb Bush would run as a conservative who looks at the budget and tells the truth about it. It's good whenever any politician in any party does that. I don't know that Jeb Bush will do this, and I'm not counting on it, but maybe he'll get closer to this than any other GOP politician. And it could be that his wing of the party, including business people who regularly look at balance sheets, will be ready to hear that kind of message.

I keenly hope for this, but not because I believe in Jeb Bush or because I'm tired of the Dems. I hope for a heavyweight in either party who will run a campaign based on hard numbers instead of inflated hopes and vaguely sketched proposals. What would Americans do if someone confronted them with the truth? That would be a telling experience!

Image: rackjite.com

Extra. Another bozo running against Boehner: Ted Yoho.

Update 1/7/15. I have to chuckle about how the conservative media caters to (or lies to) their audience. These guys don't have the numbers, but their media outlets never tell them that hard truth. Here's just one example:

"I am tired of all this big talk from all these people who keep losing. And losing. And losing. They talk this big game, but they still haven’t defunded Obamacare. They still haven’t gutted the Environmental Protection Agency or shut down the Education Department. Call me a bad loser, but it is well past time for these people to shut up all their talk and start winning." 

Even in his rant against big talk, the author still doesn't acknowledge that the policies don't have the support at the ballot box.

Moderating forces and their opposite, Part 2

Democrats moderated after their losing streak in the 60's through the 80's, which included their very wild 60's. The motivating force came from not wanting to lose so many elections, not from the idea that moderation was inherently better. However, many Dems might have started questioning how far the Great Society and welfare state could or would go under the liberal aegis, and they may not have liked what they saw. So a bunch of Dems set up the Democratic Leadership Council. They had a lot of success, with Bill Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, and then the presidency as a 'third way' New Democrat.

No Moderation in the GOP 

The GOP haven't had a moderating period for 35 years, except for a brief period when Bush was campaigning in 2000. He acted like he cared about the environment, but promptly dropped that. He did care about education, but his proposals were always tinged with partisan jabs against teacher unions, who are strong Democratic supporters.

After eight years of Bush as president, suddenly the farthest right component of the GOP realized that he was too moderate and they hadn't gotten what they wanted. They disavowed Bush and became even more hard-core.

Free Rein to Go Left among the Dems

The GOP's pivot to the right allowed the Dems to end their moderation jag. They shifted to the left (though they didn't become more extreme than they were in the 70's). Leaders were no longer claiming to be 'New Democrats.' Nancy Pelosi, the House leader and a big fundraiser for the party, is not from the DLC group but is instead one of founders of the House Progressive Caucus. The DLC disbanded in 2011, but hadn't had much influence since 2000. I'm not sure why, but the driving force and probably the money machine among Dems has been on the progressive side.

The sad consequence of this is that no party right now is trying to be moderate. All this is playing out against a backdrop of the parties becoming more ideologically polarized, rather than being coalitions.

There may not be forces that can correct this. The GOP has managed to fight off the most extreme Tea Partyers, but they certainly haven't become more moderate after their rightward turn in 2008, when their House members at first rejected legislation necessary to stabilize the banks and the economy. Many are still vehemently against TARP and the stimulus, even though these programs were successful in preventing a full blown depression.

If there are moderating forces working in the Democratic party, they aren't apparent to an observer like me. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are still the heads of their respective caucuses. Dems aren't forming new groups to spearhead a centrist message of responsible budget trimming and cost controls for entitlement programs. I wonder whether they need to lose the presidency before that happens. If so, the Dems will end up losing a great deal. 

What's At Stake

If the Dems lose the presidency, the GOP will most likely also have the majority in the House and Senate too. What, aside from Democratic filibusters, will keep the GOP from legislating a lot of their program? The GOP might be able to slice up Obamacare so that it no longer provides access to health insurance for anyone who's hard to insure (older, pre-existing conditions, women of child-bearing age, etc.). The GOP can also remove the Democratic-favored cost-control measures and substitute their own measures--a Medicare voucher system. That will probably lead to a class-based healthcare system for elders rather than the current one which is fairly equal. 

However, if the GOP remains true to form, their first move will be passing tax cuts that benefit the wealthy and that also massively inflate the deficit. If the GOP goes for tax cuts, I don't think they'll attach a sunset clause this time, so the tax cuts will last until the Dems finally win back the White House, House and Senate. How hard will it be to undo what happens in the next few years? Isn't that a good reason to be moderate  now?

Which trajectory will we take?

Image: spaceweather.com

Extra. Part 1 here.

Moderating forces and their opposites

I'm a moderate and I want a moderate political party. Why isn't there one I can join, goddammit?

I asked this question on a recent 'question day' that Jonathan Bernstein hosted. His answer is that forces within a political party are more often centrifugal (fleeing the center and moving toward one side). People get involved in parties because they really want a particular policy on an important issue. They are passionate, and they pull the party that way. The non-passionate aren't involved, don't vote in primaries, and show up only at the end--at the general election. Then the moderates are disappointed with the choices, but they weren't involved in earlier decision-making, so maybe they shouldn't be complaining.

It's true. I'm a member of a political party, but I'm not exerting myself in an attempt to pull the party in my direction. I suppose I shouldn't complain, but I still will. Maybe I'll start thinking about how to get involved in my party and push them in my direction.

Luckily, there are moderating forces that act on parties. Hooray!!! Nate Silver writes that parties become more moderate in their candidate selections after they've lost a few too many election. Yes, they wise up, stop listening to those passionate wackos, and choose someone less frightening to the center. Why does it take a bunch of losses? Why are the lessons unlearned after a few wins? I don't unlearn lessons.

Or maybe I do... Perhaps, when things are going well, I forget some of those humbling lessons, like not to be troll, or don't overestimate my value to my employer.

Perhaps I'm starting to understand why parties are the way they are. But I still object.

Image: apod.nl

Short: Moderates aren't just roadkill

One commenter told me a few years ago that I'd have to pick a side. He used a metaphor of a hapless person trying to walk the center line of a street. People in the middle don't get anywhere, and are very likely to be run over by the travelers on either side of the road.

Well, this is partially true. I get attacked by both right and left out on the comment threads. (I also dish out to both sides, so it's fair that I get incoming too.) However, I've got lots of company on that center line. From this Atlantic article:

"Moderates wrestle with, and often reject, what they see as the false either/or ideological choices that define modern politics..."

The article is full of compliments for moderates, which isn't surprising because it seems to be mostly a PR piece from a moderate lobby group within the Democratic Party. How long will it be until this group is roadkill?

Image: galleryhip.com

Short: Why I'm writing more about the GOP

I struggle to write about the Democratic side of the political equation lately. Their positions and proposals are so stale that I just roll my eyes and shut down: sure, more spending on education! Too bad we haven't figured out how to reduce our $800 billion deficit a little bit more before we add on a few wishlist items.

The latest disappointment: Senator Tom Harkin, an unreformed tax-and-spend liberal, is repeating that the government doesn't have "a spending problem." Almost all Dems wisely stopped saying that in August 2011, but some are trotting it back out. With nearly $3T in spending each year, $17T in debt, and a bumper crop of retirees on the way, we absolutely have a spending problem that we better do something about. (By the way, this news item came to my attention via the conservative blogosphere. MSM FAIL, again.) I don't know when I'll hear something realistic from a Democrat again. Maybe when they finally propose a budget that can get 51 votes in the Senate, then they'll return to fiscal reality. Obviously I'm not holding my breath.

The GOP, at least some of them, are grappling with budgets and electoral fallout. They're the ones who acknowledge that the sequester will happen.

It's glaringly obvious that either of the political parties can lose sight of reality and start believing that their spin is truth. The Dems went from triple crown winner in 2008 to half-lame handicapped donkey in 2010. The GOP got punished in 2012. Won't someone learn from these last three years? If you go too far from  sensible, centrist policies, the American electorate is ready to slap you down. Please, dammit, learn this!

Image: epicureanddealmaker.blogspot.com

The absence of coherent Obama criticism

I spend way too much time reading politics on the internet, but it certainly has broadened my thinking. I especially like the comments since there are a wider range of ideas, some wonderfully unfiltered. There are trolls too, but I occasional learn something from them.

One commenter was complaining that there are no Dems criticizing Obama from the right. That's a good point. Where are the Dems who are urging Obama to be more conservative, particularly more fiscally conservative?

I tried to remember any, and I couldn't. So I called my friend Google, who provided only one on-topic link to Dems criticizing Obama, though it's possible that both Google and I overlooked some. Here is the criticism, dating from April 2011:

The push-back has come in recent days from Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) ... and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)... Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told constituents during the Easter recess that he would not vote to lift the debt limit without a "real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction."

Perhaps the deal of August 2011 blunted most of the criticism. It's also likely there are fewer moderate and conservative Democrats to apply the pressure. Kent Conrad chose not to run for reelection in 2012, but Joe Manchin and Mark Pryor are still in the Senate. Maybe the Dems have circled the wagons. That would make sense, especially in an election year, if you can get your sprawling party to do it.

Well, something is lost when there isn't criticism from the center. One trollish commenter pointed out that Bill Clinton "should have been criticizing Obama as an irresponsible big spender." You know, I find this believable, especially if it is softened somewhat. I can imagine Clinton thinking that we need to trim some of the federal safety net programs, encouraging people to be more independent, and states to experiment with ways to save money on Medicaid and similar programs. Obama has done the opposite, pushing food stamp and Medicaid sign-ups. (Bush had a program to encourage food stamp sign-ups too.)

So why isn't there more criticism of Obama from the center, or from the right side of the Democratic party? I don't know, but maybe the reasonable criticism was and is drowned out by the over-the-top criticism from outside the party. For example, Gingrich called Obama "the food stamp president," which has unpalatable racial tinges. Others who call Obama "a muslim, ...liar, a socialist, an idiot, a communist, the anti-christ,... evil (list courtesy Google auto-completion) do more damage to themselves and the GOP than to Obama.

Even Romney, who tried to be non-crazy in his charges, couldn't make criticism stick. I think there's a lesson here. You have to be credible in your criticism and not overreach, or you bring doubt onto your whole message. You can't say that Obama has ruined the economy, or it's all his fault the recovery is so weak, without a strong argument to support it. The majority just didn't believe it, and the GOP looked partisan, foolish, and dishonest.

Come on, let's have better quality in Obama criticism. We need it.

Image: teapartytribune.com

Obama's budget dilemma

Obama has a constitutional requirement to submit a budget. It makes sense, but I didn't realize this was a constitutional requirement. [Correction, it's not a constitutional requirement--see comments below.]

So many times the budgets have been DOA (dead on arrival), so they didn't matter. The budgets were ridiculed, often well-deserved, and the real deals were worked out as continuing resolutions (CR). We've been funding our federal spending with continuing resolutions are several years in a row, and we've probably done that before under other presidents too. Big deal, what's the difference, meh...

This time the GOP is trying to make this budget matter. Their new stance is that the budget has to be something that can pass, so it will have to include enough cuts to satisfy the GOP-controlled House, and Obama will have to name the cuts.

Last year Obama offered a ridiculous, partisan budget which didn't receive a single vote (if that right-wing talking point is true). By the way, it didn't matter because the debt ceiling deal of August 2011 had settled the spending questions: there was going to be a CR describing the federal expenditures for 2012. It was settled, minor squabbles aside.

Obama's Challenge

So, this year Obama has to decide:

• Is he going to present another partisan budget that goes nowhere, or
• Is he going to present a real budget that can be the basis of negotiations?

I don't know which Obama is going to choose. I can tell you one thing, though, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the second/better option. Obama has disappointed when it comes to forward thinking.

Equal Opportunity Challenge

It's really too bad. I believe that the first party that develops a reasonable budget wins big for being realistic and credible leaders. They have a great chance to guide our governmental focus for the next generation. Yet no one is leaping up to do it out of fear of  'owning the cuts' and taking the backlash.

I don't think that's what will happen. The backlash won't land on the reasonable, it will land on the most unreasonable. The Dems won the 2012 election because they negotiated in 2011, and they showed that they were ready and willing to settle on a reasonable compromise. In the 2012 campaign, they sounded like they weren't going to reverse that compromise in 2013 if reelected.

The Republicans have yet to show that they will negotiate. They end up in negotiation, but too late, only after the Dems show they won't simply capitulate. It's no wonder the GOP didn't win the presidency. Who wants to give too much power to people like that?

So, Mr. Obama, please recognize that you can take that big step and grab the mantle of a reasonable, clear-thinking leader. You'll never have a better chance to do this, because, ha!, you've already been reelected. Do it. Lead on this one.

(Still not holding my breath. It's less than a 50% chance. Lots of room to be pleasantly surprised,  though.)

Hasn't happened yet. Will it?

Image: leadershipspirit.wordpress.com

The silver lining of the continued stalemate

...in three words: NO SOCIAL ENGINEERING.

No Democratic social engineering. No Republican social engineering. No big tax cuts blowing holes in the budget. No expensive new programs blowing holes in the budget.

What we'll have is minimal change in government. Gone is the ability to engage in any large-scale expensive wars. There won't be any half trillion dollar jobs program/stimulus. We'll have an incremental austerity because there aren't the votes for raising spending. We won't have huge spending cuts because there aren't the votes for that either.

We can probably remain in this state for quite a while. After all, what are the pressing national or international issues that require a major change? Our budget deficit is the biggest one I can think of. If the international financial systems go into another meltdown, that will be another, but it's not happening now. Neither is it clear that any regulation the US could pass would prevent it.

If this is an end to meddling government, I'm for it. If it's simply a vacation from meddling government, I'll take that too. However, I don't forget that huge government programs of yesteryear are cushioning the problems of today. We have programs that aid the elderly and sick, that protect our borders and international trade, that educate the next generation. I'm fine with stopping the fixing for a while, letting things settle, and see what, if any, pressing issues arise in a few years. Maybe there won't be big issues, maybe there will. Perhaps the best thing is to wait and see.

Tell me the truth--wouldn't you love a break from changes for a while too?

 Let's all give it a rest.

Image: wallpapersonweb.com

Lessons learned from the fiscal cliff

Prepare for a surprise. I'm not going say again how blind the GOP was to the situation, and they should wake up. I'm not going to check in on reactions. Instead, I'm going to reflect.

Obama was not gracious in victory, though he wasn't triumphant either, as some in the GOP claimed. The GOP has no right to criticize Obama's manners, which are 100 times better than the average GOP politician when he talks about Obama or other Democrats. Nonetheless, more thanks and more humility would have been appropriate.

A pretty good deal

There are many things I like about deal. Obama gave the GOP a good-sized fig leaf, and didn't go for as much "soaking the rich" as his left flank wanted. Obama held to his $400K number even though he could have tried to pull back to $250K. That is good.

Obama reportedly wanted a year delay in the sequester, but let it go for the realistic 2 months. That is good.
 
The government won't take a 55% bite out of estates, or any bite out of smaller estates. That is good. It is also balanced. Obama is living by his oath of a balanced approach, even if it costs him the votes of the most  liberal senators and he loses some from his loudest cheering section.

The next battle

I like the tone that Obama set in these negotiations. He didn't let the GOP's veto power intimidate him. If they had remained unreasonable, he wouldn't have caved. He would have let the tax increases happen. That is reinforcing the idea that actions will have their consequences, and the grown-ups aren't going to shield the children from learning their lessons.

Obama is taking a tough love approach. He has clearly put his marker down: the rest of the fiscal negotiations this year aren't going to be over-the-top partisan fights. I suspect he'll know what his best/final offer will be, and he won't go any further. Sometime (no link, alas) I heard him quote 2/3 spending cuts to 1/3 revenue increases. I think that's what he'll stick to.

In some ways, knowing someone's final number is good. But in running the US government, the idea that there is a non-negotiable final number--that may not work. The toll on the country may be huge while we're waiting for one side to cave to the other side's final offer.

Into uncharted territory

Obama  is also insisting on balance. This is trickier. If Obama is saying that there won't be anymore cut-only deals, he is taking a surprisingly tough line. This would still be new territory for Republicans if they have to vote for increases to a current tax rate.

On the flip side, pushing tax increases is very dangerous for the Dems. It plays into the stereotype that Dems don't know how to restrain spending or cut back--that they have only one response, which is to raise taxes. The Democrats have yet to show that they can trim spending in anymore than a marginal way. Since the bulk of the cuts associated with the 2011 debt ceiling fight haven't yet taken effect, real belt-tightening still hasn't happened. This country wants to try a decent dose of cuts, so let's do it.

A man with a plan

For the first time since the loss of the supermajority in the Senate in 2009, Obama seems to have a solid plan. If you look at the plans of the Dems and the GOP since the 2008 election, it's a mostly pitiful collection:

• Dems 2009 - Pass as much of our wishlist as possible.
• GOP 2009 - Non-cooperation with Dem program.
• Dem 2010 - Lost the 60 votes in the Senate, what now?
• GOP 2010 - Block everything and complain incessantly that the economy still sucks.
• Dem 2011 - Oh shit, no House anymore. Negotiate so that the GOP gets only half of what they want.
• GOP 2011 - Pass the GOP program in the House and cram it down the Dems' throats.
• Dems 2012 - Campaign on a milder (balanced) Dem platform. Don't look crazy.
• GOP 2012 - Campaign on a full GOP platform.

Obama's current plan is an extension of the campaign platform--Don't be crazy. Moderation. Balance. However, he has added resolve to stick to moderation. I don't know what the current GOP plan is. I don't think the GOP knows either.

I like Obama's position. There are lots of pointless arguments I could've avoided if only I'd stood my ground on a reasonable plan and said no to whining and demands.

However, it's important to remember resolve doesn't work if you're resolved to do something nuts. It can work for Obama because he has a solid program--a balanced approach to the fiscal problems of this country. If he moves too far to the left, leaving the center where he is right now, then his plan won't work.

The downside of Obama's plan

I'm not at all certain Obama will be able to enforce his doctrine that deficit reduction will be balanced from this point forward. Within the next two months, Obama and the GOP have to figure out two big issues:

• Implement the sequester as is, or change the terms, which will probably mean moving the cuts around.
• Raise the debt ceiling again.

The GOP is sure to demand more cuts. I don't know how Obama will handle that. If he pushes for additional tax increases, I think he will fail. It's too soon for more taxes.

However, if he can show that the 2011 deal, this recent tax deal, and an early-2013 deal taken together are balanced, then he may prevail. So far, this is what I think he's trying to do. He talks about the big numbers in the deals: $1.2 trillion in cuts, $600 billion in revenue.

These numbers are good landmarks, but there is another big number. The current projected deficit for 2013 is $970 billion [CBO projection, but with fewer revenue increases]. That's too large. We need to reduce the deficit faster, but it's not clear how we can do so. We can try to trim some more spending, but that has proved very difficult. More revenue increases are also unlikely. I think we're going to hope that the economy picks up and reduces the deficit that way. Maybe it will. We are due for an upturn.

My plan would be to implement the planned spending cuts or an equivalent starting no later than March, and then reassess in June as to whether we need to enact additional cuts/revenue increases to lower the deficit. Kick the can, hope for the best, and have a firm date for the next move. That's not the worst plan ever. Sigh. Good thing I'm not president.
 

Best of luck, Mr. President

Image: foxnews.com

Interesting context:

• Obama's speeches on the tax deal: before the deal, after passage.
• Who lost their cool in the negotiations: Boehner and Reid. Cool cats: Obama, Biden, McConnell.
• Wall Street Journal's spit-and-bile reaction.
• Rational conservative reaction.
• My go-to conservatives (HotAir).
• Liberals complaining - I'm too jaded to google for that.

Update 1/6/13. The fig leaf is still generous, but the revenue is probably higher because people between $250-450K are having their deductions limited. That can hurt more than a rate increase, but it's also one way to limit tax avoidance.

The coming GOP narrative

The election is finally close, so I will get an answer to two burning questions.

1. (The obvious one) Who will be the next president?
2. What will Republicans/conservatives say if Romney wins or almost wins because he went decidedly moderate in the final weeks of the campaign?

I'm not going to predict what the GOP will say since I have no idea. Those aren't shoes I've walked in, so I have no instinct for such matters. However, I'm keenly interested. Expect at least one follow-up post.

Update 11/25/12. This is where I post the follow-up. Short answer: There's no such thing as "almost win" in their analysis, so my question isn't answered.

A sensible endorsement of Romney

The Des Moines Register has the best rationale for voting for Romney that I've read. Some of their arguments:

• Romney has made rebuilding the economy his No. 1 campaign priority — and rightly so.
• [Obama's] best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House.
• Romney had to tack to the right during the primary season. Since then, he has recalibrated his campaign to focus on his concern for the middle class, and that is believable if ...

The editorial has a mostly accurate critique on Obama's shortcomings. It isn't nearly as strong on its critique of Romney--they are giving him a generous benefit-of-the-doubt. The editors accept Romney's five-point economic plan at face value, which is an abdication of their responsibility to drill down and see if the plan holds up.

I can't be that generous to Romney. He owes his nomination to his fairly hard-right positions. If Romney becomes president there will be little holding him to his late arrival to moderation, and many Republicans pushing him to the right. I'm not going to take that chance. The argument that a nearly 50-50 Senate will be enough to keep him moderate is weak and could fray in the next election.

As I've said before, I'd prefer sworn enemies among the Dems and Repubs forced to negotiate than take my chances with one party rule. It still looks like the least risky scenario. So that's my endorsement of Obama--he's not great, but it's less of a risk.

Hat tip: Meep

Image: desmoinesregister.com

What's good about the new Romney

As Romney surged in the polls, I focused on the problems with him. That's unbalanced and unfair, so this post is a corrective. (I have noted some pluses along with the criticism.)

Romney's debate performance definitely resonated with some non-aligned voters. Here's what I think worked for him:

• Not dogmatic that tax cuts will bring on growth. Lowering taxes wasn't a focus at all, but it could be a byproduct of a growing economy. The focus is growing the economy, but not through government spending, which also grows the deficit.
• Acknowedging that some of the goals of Obamacare were important, such as health coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
• The sense that he wants to trim government down, both the spending and the regulation, but in well-considered ways. He's not ideologically opposed to either government or regulation, but it has to be practical and helpful, not massive and suffocating.
• Staying clear of that culture wars stuff about people being on the plantation, declining morality, no one taking responsibility anymore.

 He planned it this way?

Another big question is whether Romney's surge was due to incredible luck or incredible strategy. He was certainly lucky that Obama was wooden in the debate, but Romney deserves credit for throwing Obama off-balance. That was brilliant.

Despite his shift in emphasis to more moderate stands, Romney hasn't lost support from the conservative media. That was a real hat-trick, because they've been leery of him for the entire campaign. Here is an analysis of Romney's timing from a thoughtful, observant conservative:

So why didn’t Romney shake his Etch-a-sketch, or make his “pivot” to the center, earlier in the campaign? The answer is that after many months of being viewed with suspicion by primary voters, he couldn’t afford to depress Republican enthusiasm in what was shaping up to be a base election.

If Romney had attempted a “Sister Souljah” moment during the summer, conservatives would have bludgeoned him for months leading up to the election. If he had done it at the Republican National Convention, he would have turned off party loyalists at the precise moment they were paying closest attention.

Now Romney is subtly signaling he’s not an ideologue at a time when even conservatives fear he could lose. And when it helped him win the first debate, the right was happier about his strong performance than they were concerned about any coming betrayals. It may be risky, but Romney didn’t have many choices.

The author sees what Romney's doing and still isn't angry at him. Frankly, that's a realistic view because at this point, it's Romney or another four years of Obama. That's a no-brainer for anyone who's close to being a conservative. But we also know that many political decisions are emotional, rather than logical. Has Romney managed to win the conservative hearts? That would be amazing.

Image: copy of a copy

P.S. Have you noticed how I'm not writing about Obama at all? It's all Romney all the time. The major reason is that the media coverage is as superficial as ever--still no policy analysis. Sigh.

Romney shuns the right flank of his party?

Romney was sounding like a level-headed moderate in the debate last week. His conservative supporters, far from panicking, rejoiced, though more over his strength and steadiness than over the content of what he said. Let's just review a few things he said:

• On individual income taxes: "We ought to bring the tax rates down... But in order for us not to lose revenue, have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions, so that we keep taking in the same money..."
• On taxes for high-income folks: "But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy."
• On tax cuts and the deficit: "My number-one principle is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit."
• On cutting government workers: "'ll make government more efficient and to cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way."
• On education funding: "All right, I'm not going to cut education funding. I don't have any plan to cut education funding and -- and grants that go to people going to college."
• On the spending cuts he'd make: Obamacare and PBS and programs such as Medicaid "that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level." Medicaid is the only such program that he mentioned, but it's big.

Consider the conservative orthodoxies that he didn't talk about:

• The 20% tax rate reduction that is still on his campaign website.
• Tax reduction on "job-creators."
• Lower deficits than Obama's been running.
• Cutting off all funding of Planned Parenthood.
• Cutting as many lazy, overpaid federal bureaucrats as possible.
• Outlawing abortion.

These orthodoxies he did affirm:

• Strengthen the military.
• No tax increases.
• Repeal Obamacare.
• Obama doesn't know how to turn around the economy.
• Taking $716 billion from Medicare was horrible.

Romney the moderate?

If Romney is able to turn around his campaign on this platform, he won't owe very much to the right flank of his party since he will have won based on a much more moderate version of GOP conservatism.

That doesn't mean that the GOP right flank will acknowledge this change or the debt that they would owe the more moderate Romney should he win. It also doesn't mean that Romney will govern this way once in office. Bush, "the compassionate conservative" changed almost immediately. Obama couldn't or didn't enforce the transparency and bipartisanship he promised.

Romney's change in tone during the debate doesn't guarantee anything. The only real change is a change in possibility-- Romney has shown that moderation has some power to influence opinion. Actual governing is much trickier, as every president finds out.

Romney 5.0: No longer the severe conservative

Image: washingtontimes.com

Just to be clear, I used to think Romney was a moderate, but not after the entire primary season and this summer. I am thoroughly disabused of that thought. He's no moderate by ideals, but he plays one when it's opportune.

Short: Conservatives love the new Romney

This reaction piece to the Wednesday night debate struck me as the most perceptive critique:

Conservatives Will Love Moderate Mitt as Long as He's Winning -- Atlantic Wire

Mitt can abandon some of the positions he espoused to win the nomination, but that doesn't matter as long as he kicks Obama's ass in the debates. The debates have been cherished opportunity that conservatives have have been anticipating for the entire primary and campaign season. I've read thousands of comments declaring that this or that candidate would absolutely murder Obama, or drive a stake through his socialist heart in the debates. Commenters declared that about Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, but especially Newt Gingrich.

To everyone's amazement, it was Romney delivering those sweet jabs and hard right punches. The Atlantic article covers the bases, with more "before-and-after" quotes than I'd research. It's a good read. However, I don't trust the word of the too-biased Atlantic Wire, so I did a bit of research at HotAir.

Out of the first 100 or so comments, only one person noticed the lack of conservative bedrock in what Romney said:

I didn’t hear any of these things from Romney last night:
- “Government as a whole is too big.” To be fair, I did hear “Parts of government are too big.”
- “Taxes are too high.” Romney was all about “revenue-neutrality” and “soaking the rich by taking away their deductions and only their deductions”.
- “We need to make sure a sizable majority, or at least a majority, of income-earners pay at least some income tax.” -- HotAir comment

So, in the primary for the GOP nomination, moderation is poison. In these debates, however, you can be moderate so long as you still make Obama look bad.

Hot damn, I know how to attack Obama really well--my one, two punch, for example. Can I be a conservative hero too?

Image: wakeupblackamerica.blogspot.com

Awkward admission: I haven't watched the debate yet. A new assignment at work is eating too many of my waking hours. Watching the debate on my to-do list for the weekend, and I'll probably post an impression.

The end of candidate moderation

Is this the first  presidential campaign where we don't see any candidate moderating his position for the general election? It appears that way to me.

In 2008, McCain became a bit more conservative, but Obama didn't become more liberal. In this election, it seems that neither Obama nor Romney have moderated their positions. Of course, from my moderate viewpoint, this development sucks.

Why isn't this truism operating in this election? My guess is that neither party feels that moderation has been a net positive for them. The Republicans blame moderation and accommodation with those dang liberals for the ballooning deficits during the Bush presidency (and they ignore minor stuff like the wars and tax cuts). The Democrats found out that moderation didn't bring the Republicans to the bargaining table or voters to the polls in the midterm elections. Moderation just hasn't had a good track record for the last, oh, 12 years.

I stick with moderation because... uh, temperament... because zealots are a bunch of wackos who spout extremely stupid arguments? That's probably close to the truth. I can't bear to be a zipperhead repeating idiotic talking points and trying to make facts fit the preconceived argument. I'll leave that to everyone else in the US if I have to, and be a lonely moderate banging on my keyboard and waiting to see if these zealots make as big a mess as I think they will. Sigh.