Sometime after the 2008 elections, I took my my sort of “corner of an eye” interest in the doings of Ron Paul’s supporters in various state Republican Party.  I took them to be the genesis of the “Tea Party”, though — in truth — they were rather superceded.

My repetitive line has become “But I thought the Tea Party was all about Fiscal Issues” with one cultural tone coming through after another. 

As one shifts through the 60 plus new Republican -critters, and shift out the “Tea Party” core of the lot, it’s worth looking about on where this new “Tea Party” force will bring pressure on the incoming Congress.

Co-founder Mark Meckler tried to pre-empt expectations among the faithful that Washington would shrink and the federal deficit would close overnight, instead alluding to a “forty-year plan” that the group was busy working out with its members. The plan, according to Meckler, was a highway with four lanes, only one of which was explicitly political. The other three were educational, judicial and cultural.

“All civilizations and empires have fallen because their cultures became decadent,” Meckler said. “We need to lift up conservative culture, family values and wholesome things by supporting conservative musicians, writers, artists and producers.”

As far as immediate steps, however, the group’s other co-founder, Jenny Beth Martin, announced that the Patriots would be hosting a freshman orientation, to which they were inviting incoming legislators of both parties. “If they uphold our values, we’ll give them the political backing to stand up to insiders in Washington,” Martin said. “If they don’t pay attention to that pressure, we’ll be back in two years to do it all over again and get people who will do it right.”

They’re going to save America by encouraging everyone to listen to Kid Rock and Pat Boone!

I’m reading the comments in the Oregonian “oregon live” articles on Jon Kitzhaber’s victory over — what’s his name?  His name is fading from my memory, not really being much of a basketball fan or anyone with enough wealth to be managed.  (Dear Republicans:  You would have won with Alan Alby, who — you know — has a record of some sort that could be compared and contrasted with the “dreaded” record of Kitzhaber).    I fairly quickly realize what a mistake it is to read the comments section of the online Oregonian.  We have accusations of voter theft, the Oregonian throwing the election, demands to know why the Urban counties take so long to count, rumblings about the power of Multnomah County against the Rural hinterlands with suggestion that something needs to be done to break this imbalance (maybe a county electoral college?), and…
… “Only Property Owners should have the right to vote, as they’re the only ones with skin the game.”
I see this line from time to time.  It’s a doozy, really.  Well, the last Republican Presidential Administration knew that encouraging home ownership was the way to build a Republican Majority — though, it was too bad he either had in mind home “ownership”, or didn’t know to stear it away from the shores of Speculative Bubbles.  But I doubt that was what the commenter is thinking about.

Reading the comments on Ezra Klein’s blog, I see a recurring line accusing him of being anti-Democratic and believing in “jamming unpopular legislation” and “manipulating legislative rules” to that end, questioning why pushing this or that bill would”exact political punishment”?  A curiously democratic feignt working against the anti-democratic impulse seen with figuring out worrying about the threat of the masses voting themselves welfare.

Never mind, the people are fickle and conflicted about what they want with their governing institutions.  The Independents are the worst of the lot, not apt to take in a long contour of events.  But roughly speaking, a President has two years to get some policy changes in effect, and then two years to .  Then his second term sucks.

Health Care?

I’d also note that the decision to pursue a comprehensive plan was as much a GOP choice as a Democratic choice. Numerous Democrats in the Senate were desperate for bipartisan cover and only mildly committed to comprehensive reform. If any Republican Senators had put a deal on the table, almost any deal at all, however puny, at least one of those Democrats would have jumped at it. But Republicans were following Mitch McConnell’s astute analysis that any bill with bipartisan support would become popular, and thus that withholding bipartisan support would hurt the Democrats but not Republicans. Republicans persistently followed an all-or-nothing strategy, and Democrats took all.

Which is to say, if Douthat is correct about his political premises, both parties had to choose between politics and policy. Democrats could have minimized their losses at the cost of sacrificing the health reform they wanted. Or Republicans could have minimized the scope of health care reform, at the cost of minimizing their potential wave. Democrats chose the best policy, and Republicans chose the best politics. I’m happy with the choice. Mitch McConnell won his election, and Democrats won health care reform. The latter is going to around a lot longer than the former.

Your comments:

The question is not if but how. What hurt the popularity of health care reform and by implication the president was not that it happened, but that weirdos like Ben nelson and Blanche Lincoln decided to use this as an opportunity to exercise their power as the rump of the senate majority, slow it down, hold out for silly deals, etc.
not sure what Obama could have done about that, but I think that was the problem.
on the bright side, if we were going to lose some senate dems, Lincoln was not such a bad person to see go.

AND

Bill Clinton tried to do healthcare, failed, and lost the House (and Senate). Obama tried to do healthcare, succeeded, and lost the House. Clinton is today considered a pretty adept politician, but his political skills didn’t help him keep Congress in Dem hands, and he wasn’t even staring down 10% unemployment at the time. Actually getting healthcare, yet losing the House, seems preferable to not getting healthcare, yet losing the House and Senate.

Meantime, link taken from Andrew Sullivan again:
Had congressional Republicans taken pragmatic steps on health reform between 1994 and 2008, PPACA wouldn’t have happened. President Bush’s reform of the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance alone would have made a significant difference, as would his plan for giving the states greater control over Medicaid. If you believe that the 111th Congress made many bad calls, Republicans in previous years deserve much of the blame. Major policy shifts are rare. But when it rains, it pours,” – Reihan Salam, NRO

Something similar might be said about Financial Reform, which — anyone railing against?

Those magical first two years of the Bush Administration, Bush’s domestic policy achievement was the Tax Cut.
Boehner and McConnell bring the suck.

Last night, in the wake of another landslide, incoming Speaker John Boehner sent a very different message: “While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it’s the president who sets the agenda for our government.”

The president? You’ve just been handed 60 House seats by voters disgusted with the president, and you’re deferring to him?

It’s good that to see their Political Strategy is laid out so transparently.

By the way, on the old line about “Hasn’t been another 9/11 under Bush’s watch”…

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 4th, 2010 at 1:55 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.