« From U. of Nevada: Teaching Hate | Main | Try to Picture It »

From Northwestern: A Blueprint for Victory in 2006

How the GOP Can Defend Its Majority

 

By Guy Benson

 

The prevailing conventional wisdom in Washington informs us that Republicans don’t stand a chance in the upcoming Congressional elections. It suggests that the country is mired in high oil prices, war, and is generally headed in the wrong direction. Poll after poll indicates that Americans are fed up with their leadership, slapping President Bush with record-low approval ratings—and ranking Congress even lower. This widespread exasperation, we’re told, will take its toll on the party in power, and there’s little that can be done to turn the tide.

I, for one, believe that the election is too far off to write any political obituaries quite yet, and that a Republican party armed with a comprehensive agenda could hold the line, or perhaps even gain seats, come November. This is not to say that such a feat will be easy. It won’t. But Republicans have one major advantage in the upcoming political fight that must not be underestimated: An opposition party wholly devoid of ideas, principles, and dynamic leaders. The Democrats’ 2006 campaign platform is virtually non-existent. After all, who really needs ideas when a litany of juvenile taunts will suffice? “Culture of corruption!” they scream, downplaying their own dirty laundry all the while – apparently unbothered by their own duplicity. “Bush is Incompetent!” they repeatedly bellow, yet prove themselves incapable of even establishing their own consistent talking points. “We can do better!” they insist—but how? They offer no roadmap to change; only empty slogans, and relentless attacks on their competition.

Yet if President Bush, Senator Frist, and Representative Boehner are truly serious about maintaining Republican control of both Congressional chambers, they cannot merely cross their fingers and hope that Democrats will dig their own grave. The American people are craving responsible leadership, and Republicans need to prove that they deserve to retain their majority. Here’s how I believe they can do just that:

1) Take the lead on meaningful immigration reform: Republicans must emphasize the need for strict border enforcement while constantly highlighting the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. They should sponsor legislation that emphasizes securing our southern border first, and dealing with the millions of illegal aliens already living here only after we’ve stopped the bleeding. It would be helpful to express tentative support for a guest worker program, but make effective border enforcement a pre-requisite for additional reforms.

2) Defend the war in Iraq. It seems that far too many politicians who were once avid supporters of the Iraq policy have slunk into the artificial safety of silence on this issue. Winning the peace in Iraq is crucial to both our national security and to our government’s credibility in the eyes of other outlaw regimes. President Bush’s personal integrity is also on the line, and Republicans must rally behind him and remind the American people of why we were right to go into Iraq. They can begin by pointing out the mounting evidence against Saddam’s regime vis-à-vis illegal weapons programs and ties to terrorism. The mainstream press isn’t reporting information that may help vindicate the president, so it’s critical for conservatives to counter the lies and demagoguery the Left has been peddling for the last two years.

In addition, if we’re to believe certain reports, the world may hear the verdict in Hussein’s crimes against humanity trial in early August, which would present a natural opportunity to remind the public that removing him from power was sound policy. It also goes without saying that supporters of the war must take it upon themselves to discuss the positive developments in Iraq because the media have once again shown themselves to be totally derelict in their duty to report the truth.

3) Challenge Democrats head-on regarding the terrorist surveillance program about which they’ve been moaning. Senator Russ Feingold – a Democratic Presidential hopeful – has suggested censuring the president over the program, which many Democrats have called illegal. Force them to actually explain their opposition, rather than just professing “grave concerns” about it. If monitoring terrorists’ phone calls troubles them so deeply, make them tell us why, and what alternative they propose that will keep our citizens safer. They can’t.

We heard from Osama bin Laden over the weekend. Iran’s rhetoric is increasingly bellicose. The world is a dangerous place, and Democrats’ propensity to place partisanship over security makes them unworthy of the responsibility of protecting the American people at this point in our history.

4) Forge ahead with President Bush’s judicial appointments in the Senate. Terrance Boyle and Brett Kavanaugh, to name a few, are qualified jurists whose nominations are being unfairly blocked for purely political reasons. Force Democrats to deploy Teddy Kennedy and Chuck Schumer to hold annoying daily press conferences aimed at placating the NARAL crowd. Let them once again attempt (and fail) to rationalize their party’s bald-faced obstruction. Their hysterical rhetoric will remind the public that Liberals are committed to promoting an activist judiciary, intent on upholding the unmitigated “right” to abortion-on-demand, and changing the definition of marriage. The appointment of responsible conservatives to our nation’s courts may end up being one of this president’s greatest legacies.

5) Deflect some of the inevitable criticism over rising gas prices by floating the prospect of drilling in Alaska. Admittedly, this would be pure political theater because any responsible economist will tell you that no single actor (i.e. the President) can drastically affect the international supply and demand patterns for a product like crude oil, but Americans will demand answers nonetheless. If Democrats can convince the public that they’re being gouged at the pump, and that the Republican majority is doing nothing to “stop it,” the GOP will pay at the polls. By raising the ANWR project again, Republicans may be able to turn the tables by making Democrats squirm a bit. If Republicans are offering a solution to increase our domestic oil supply, Democrats will look silly and out-of-touch when they rush to the defense of Alaska’s beleaguered caribou population. No matter what the strategy, Republicans simply cannot ignore this issue. If Americans are preoccupied with high gas prices, attempts to (rightfully) talk up the booming economy will fall on deaf ears.

Over the last six years, Republicans have fought valiantly to establish a majority in Washington. Meanwhile, the Democrats have become the party of “no,” and do not represent a serious alternative. However, their incessant attacks against this White House – which are frequently aided by an agenda-driven press – have landed a few body blows, and Republicans need to fight back. Now is not the time to get lazy and comfortable inside the Beltway. Politicians who do so often find themselves on the outside looking in on Election Day.

Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 11:43AM by Registered Commenter- in | Comments5 Comments

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (5)

I just want to point out that George W. is not, in fact, receiving "record-low approval ratings." The latest poll results put Bush somewhere between 32% and 39%, depending on who is polling. Source: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
While these numbers are admittedly low, they are pretty much right in the range of the last few presidents' lows. Consider the following table:
Presidential Approval Ratings, 1953-1999
Source: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KVD/is_1_3/ai_109025096/pg_15

President Average (%) High (%) Low (%)

Kennedy 70 83 56
Eisenhower 65 79 48
Bush 61 89 29
Johnson 55 79 35
Clinton 54 73 37
Reagan 53 65 35
Nixon 49 67 24
Ford 47 71 37
Carter 45 74 28

Obviously, only so much can be made of this, and there are still a couple of years left to see how things go. It bothers me when people make such accusations, however, without statistical backing.

(By the way, I apologize for the messiness of this table. The comments section did not want to work well with me. Follow the link and it will look much better, plus you'll find more interesting information.)
April 25, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCody Beckman
As a point of clarification, I was referring to an all-time low for this particular President. Thanks for the historical data, though...interesting stuff.

But no matter how you slice it, Bush is not very popular right now.
April 26, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterGuy Benson
Aha, now that makes more sense. My apologies.
April 26, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCody Beckman
From my end, there is no question that you're right in a certain regard; the Democrats have no concrete policy, and they will end up hurting themselves if they don't develop one promptly.

Picky point, "ANWAR" is a former President of Egypt. "ANWR" is the name of the wildlife refuge. Also, that effort would be a mere political one. Most credible sources don't believe there to be more than six months worth of oil in Alaska--certainly not enough to substantially decrease our dependence on foreign oil. There are other ways, but our administration seems to have a one-track mind when it comes to pushing for ANWR (e.g. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11317). Also, it's worth noting that the administration is giving oil companies big breaks to drive up prices for their own benefit (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/atf/cf/{65464111-BB20-4C7D-B1C9-0B033DD31B63}/oil_profits.pdf). That last pieve is long but worth the read.

Also, Republicans with their nasty "blue-slip" prcedure that led to the vacancy crisis of Clinton's presidency have no grounds to criticize Dems for ideological opposition to Presidential nominees. Everyone from John Rutledge--for his opposition to the Jay Treaty--to Robert Bork (for, well, being a bigot) has been opposed for political reasons. That line of reasoning is a cheap shot and fails to note that the same techniques were employed by Republicans, themselves.

As for Iraq, well, this conversation's almost not worth having because we're simply not going to convince each other. But I think that between the debacle that is Plame and the surfacing of documents last summer like the Downing Street Memo, Dems should have enough grounds on which to criticize the legitimacy of the war. Also, Republicans will be accused of the very flip-flopping that they so deplore if they, now, return to the President's side on this issue.

Final point, the problem of domestic surveillance is oversimplified by partisans on both sides of the debate. Somebody--maybe David Ignatius--summed up my position nicely by contending that surveillance, in itself, does not represent a significant evil if carried out properly (that is, uninvasively; no repeat of Vietnam-era/Civil Rights period illegality). There are sacrifices, within reason, that we must be willing to make for the sake of national security. But false and evasive conversations with the Senate and the decision to skirt the FISA courts do not represent an acceptable way to initiate a program of any nature. It is the illegality of the measure that Democrats ought to criticize.

Best,
Rebecca
April 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterRebecca
Rebecca,

Thanks for the heads-up on the ANWR mistake. We'll correct it.

As for your other points, there are some important distinctions to be made--

-On judges, yes...both sides have employed obstructionist tactics in the past, but the latest mutation of obstruction by Democrats is unprecedented. These nominees are majority supported...and would easily pass an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. Some of these filibustered nominees even have limited Democratic support. They've made it out of a GOP-controlled committee and are ready to be voted upon, yet they're being extra-Constitutionally blocked by a cabal of Liberals. This represents tyranny of the minority, and flies in the face of what the founders had in mind. In fact, if you read the Federalist Papers, some of the founders (most notably, James Madison) advocated that a 2/3 majority would be needed to REJECT a judicial nominee. Democrats are trying to create new rules as they go along, implementing what amounts to a super majority requirement (60 votes) just to allow an up-or-down vote on a majority-supported candidate. This is wrong, and Republicans would be doing the right thing (and energizing the demoralized base) by fighting back.

-If you are still replying upon "Plamegate"--which has revealed Mr and Mrs. Wilson to be liars and frauds--as a source of opposition to the Iraq policy, you may be right to suggest that it's a wate of time to try to convince you of anything regarding Iraq. You cling to the Downign Street Memo, yet seem to dismiss the new, damning documents I linked in my piece.

-On the terrorist wiretaps, leaders of both parties were regulalry briefed on the program. It was revisited and re-evaulated by the DOJ on a regular basis. Liberals complained that the Bush Administration did too little to connect the dots before 9-11, and now whine that they're going too far, and stripping away our rights. Never mind that these are international calls...facts get discarded in this whole process. Bush simply can't win with some people.

This president needs to more articulately defend his policies. Tony Snow will really help in this regard, I believe. Americans support the wiretap program, they support conservative courts, and they can (again) be convinced that Iraq was the right thing to do if we're able to raise the positive news over the din of pessimism spewing from the Left.
April 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterGuy Benson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.