No Labels starts to suck

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by . . . oh God, it kills me to have to say this . . . No Labels. Yes, after years of being one of their most passionate proponents and defenders, I’ve started to have enough. Since achieving a few successes in terms of their proposed changes to political procedure – the bipartisan seating trend at the State of the Union (SOTU) address, No Budget, No Pay – they really haven’t been doing much of anything. Or if they have, you won’t know it from their online activity.

On Twitter, the last time No Labels mentioned a procedural fix was April 23, when they tweeted an Ezra Klein piece about budget conferencing. Most of their tweets fall into one of three categories:

1. Exhortations for followers to send an online postcard to legislators, demanding that they #FixNotFight.
2. Giving credit to politicians and No Labels brass who are “Problem Solvers,” or at least quoting them.
3. Political trivia (with no prizes).

Their Facebook page is worse, especially when it comes to category #1. Their website is a bit better, with descriptions of their other procedural ideas, although those haven’t made headlines to the extent that No Budget, No Pay did. It has a section for legislation, although they don’t discuss the bills; they simply list their sponsors, always at least one Democrat and one Republican, which isn’t new. All told, No Labels has been doing the shtick for which various commentators have criticized them (at times wrongfully) from the beginning: the shtick of nothing at all.

This is what I wrote the last time I mentioned No Labels here:

Should No Labels achieve its procedural goals, it could eventually move on to identifying and funding candidates who suit their message, and perhaps even putting together a real policy shop, drafting and lobbying for the most mutually beneficial solutions for various legislative issues.

They’ve identified office-holders, and they’ve achieved a couple of procedural goals. But where are the signs that they’re expanding their infrastructure? Where is the indication that they’re becoming a truly influential nationwide movement? In Washington, No Labels is becoming this girl.

Washington’s problems are much more complicated than “fixing, not fighting.” No Labels is sticking to the most simplistic of one-liners in response. That’s not how anyone in that city gets things done; being opposed to catchphrase politics among wingers, they should be aware of that.

Step 1: Stop listening to these guys

Want to know the real reason why former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) don’t want the Republican Party to “go soft” on social issues? Because both of them have their own political action committees (PACs), and if they don’t get a return on their investments in like-minded candidates – or get as many donations to invest – they may have to consider getting real jobs. Follow the money.

I make this accusation because, even knowing how poorly they’ve performed in the past when it comes to thinking, there’s no way they can honestly believe stuff like this:

. . . Santorum . . . told Politico that the Republican party will cease to exist if it softens its stance on social issues such as same-sex marriage.

“The last two presidential elections, we had more moderate candidates, so if anything, a lot of conservatives went to the polls reluctantly or just didn’t go at all,” [Huckabee] said. “If the evangelicals had showed up, it might have made a difference.”

Isn’t that embarrassing? It’s like listening to some skeevy guy at the bar insist that the girl who just made this face at him secretly wants him and will come around when he starts hitting on other chicks. But perhaps that’s not the best simile when we’re talking about a guy who believes this. (I know I take a lot of cheap shots at him but he makes it so easy! It’s like beating up a baby!)

Santo. Huckster. Sit down. Have some pie. And listen. There’s a very simple reason why continuing to lean on evangelical voters is a bad idea. It’s because their numbers shrink by the day. Most young voters are not evangelical, and many of those who are aren’t nearly as rigorous about it as either of you, especially when it comes to the bedroom. And they’re a lot less likely to die in the next four years than your base. If you’re lucky, the generation after the next two will bring sexy back to evangelical voting. But this one? Don’t count on it.

Or you could just take it from Ken Mehlman, former Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman, who is (ahem) gay:

No smart political party, no successful company, says let’s just be satisfied with yesterday’s customers. They say how do we anticipate the needs of tomorrow’s customers consistent with who we are.

Well put, sir. You may also have pie.

So, they would do well to accept their inevitable loss, at least on consensual adult sex issues, and move on. But at no point should Santorum or Huckabee believe that social liberals want to silence them. On the contrary, they’re delighted when they speak. Not only is it hilarious, it reminds everyone who’s really on the right side of history (and culture, and politics, and law . . .).

The most egocentric identity crisis ever

Why did the Republicans lose in 2012? There are a hundred different answers to this question; mine is generally along the lines of “The party’s Neanderthals got too much press and its presidential candidate was seen as the Carlton Banks of America.” As for the answers from conservative activists, I’ll quote Brian from Massachusetts on this one:

Ahh, the group egocentricity phenomenon again. The party lost because they disappointed US. The secret to future success is to see things more like US. LMAO. Every special interest does this.

The special interests we’re looking at today as purveyors of group egocentricity are the Republican National Committee (RNC), various Tea Party groups and two groups on either side of the abortion debate:

• According to the RNC, the party has a very poor “data and digital operation” that it must improve by the midterms. They were caught off-guard by the accuracy of the Obama team’s polling and its online support.
• According to the Tea Party, the GOP lost because the RNC “failed to promote our principles.” (I don’t care if they don’t consider themselves a special interest. That’s what they are.)
• According to the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, they lost because they didn’t try to “grow and mobilize the energetic pro-life majority.”
• According to the pro-choice Planned Parenthood, they lost because “the majority of voters disagree with their agenda” on social issues.

See what Brian’s talking about when he talks about egocentricity? You can take your pick of reasons from this list; whatever validates your own preferences will do.

I won’t disagree with the RNC about polling and digital outreach, because the Democrats are better at both. Nobody will object to improvements in that area. They do object to the notion that it’s the solution to all the GOP’s problems, as they should. There’s no point in beefing up your social media if nobody wants to get social with you. The key is finding out why – and the absolute wrong way to go about finding out why is to take it from the special interests.

The right way to go about it is to eat a slice of humble pie in public. They need to admit to voters on a national scale – regional or state-by-state will skew the results – they need to be told what they’ve been doing wrong, and they’re soliciting suggestions from all voters. That may result in a lot of douchey responses from hardcore Democrats. But it’s the best way to get a comprehensive picture of what they’re up against.

To the Tea Partiers out there: I know you aren’t fond of top-down politics. This is as bottom-up as it gets, much more so than letting your PACs do the ground work.

Rand Paul’s going off again

State of the Union (SOTU) 2013 is on tomorrow evening, and as always, I’ll have my reaction up the morning after. But you’ll have more than one reaction to get through before that. Seeing as he’s the Senate Republican with the highest positive name recognition at the moment, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) will be delivering the “official” GOP response. Any guesses as to who’s delivering the unofficial GOP response? That’s right, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

Actually, it’s not really a GOP response at all. It’s a response on behalf of an interest group, from the mouth of a GOP member. You can tell because Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) were the ones to deliver the news about Rubio, whereas the political action committee (PAC) known as the Tea Party Express (we’ll call them “the Express”) delivered the news about Paul. I’d assume this annoyed Boehner and McConnell if I didn’t think they’d come to expect this sort of thing from Paul by now.

The Express is arguably the most notable of the national Tea Party organizations. Their modus operandi is to travel around the country holding rallies against laws they don’t like, and to promote and fund candidates they do like. They’ve been hailed for their comparatively high level of political sophistication, having exerted tangible influence over a number of high-profile House and Senate races.They’re not just dressing up in Revolutionary garb and waving around (fake?) muskets.

Having already gotten businessman Herman Cain and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to do this in 2012 and 2011, respectively, finding any senator to give a counter-SOTU is a testament to the Express’s success. Of course, I’ll really be impressed if they ever get a senator other than Paul; that choice was as obvious for the Express as Rubio was for GOP leadership. So here’s the question most people will ask about this: Does this represent a growing divide between establishment, multi-issue Republicans and the grassroots (once), laser-focused Tea Party?

Of course it does. We’ve been talking about that divide ever since we decided referring to the latter as “teabaggers” was rude. It hasn’t improved much since then. Here’s a more pertinent question: What does it mean when a PAC, which once could only rely on press releases and social media, can respond to something as big as the SOTU through an elected intermediary? The coziness between Paul and Co., such as the Co. is, and the Express merits plenty of wariness, to say nothing of Rep. Steve Stockman’s (R-TX) coziness with mildly deranged rocker Ted Nugent and Obama’s coziness with Apple CEO Tim Cook.

I’ve advised the GOP to be more mindful of its need to attract libertarian voters. One need not be a genuine libertarian to be in the Tea Party, but the need is the same. Their job is to give the Tea Party dissenters reasons to work for who they really work for.

Disposal Day #159: Chadash update

(If you’ve forgotten: Chadash is the Hebrew word for “renewal,” used here in reference to the Republican Party’s efforts to “modernize” its message. I’m using a lot of Hebrew vocabulary today for no real reason.)

STORY #1: She’ifa

That’s the word for “ambition,” and Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Priebus’s proposed 50-state strategy is rife with it. He wants the party to have a high-tech organizing apparatus in every state, possibly every precinct, if he’s hearkening all the way back to the Democratic National Committee’s retooling method from 2004 to 2006. He’s tired of looking at elections in terms of battleground states, as is any blogger who is tired of telling you it’s all about Florida/Ohio/Colorado/Virginia/Pennsylvania/North Carolina. (I’m sarcastically raising my hand right now.)

He’s right that being high-tech helps – the Obama campaigns have solidified that – and that a true chadash requires being relevant to people to whom you weren’t relevant before. But at least for now, he’s focusing entirely on electoral strategy and not on weaknesses in the party platform. A website he recently launched to solicit chadash ideas from the party grassroots may generate a few policy ideas. But blaming campaign infrastructure is much too easy. We’ll see if he has the guts to go deeper.

STORY #2: Gasheh

That’s the word for “stubborn,” and two of the most stubborn people in the Beltway are featured in this story: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chris “Count” Chocola (not an official nickname), head of the very conservative lobby group Club for Growth. Chocola wishes the GOP were more like Pelosi. No, really:

“I wish [GOP leaders] will take the example of the risk of leadership that . . . Pelosi provided in that debate [on Obamacare].” . . . Democrats “are more committed to their ideology and willing to suffer the consequences of actually making it reality than the Republicans are.”

Granted, I do like to see politicians of any party stand by their principles, electoral hopes be damned. But I would hope that Chocola realizes that when the facts of the implications of your ideology are not on your side, it’s best not to suffer the consequences of pursuing those implications further.

STORY 3: Shtok!

That’s the word for “Shut up!” I say that to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who isn’t happy that women will be allowed to serve in combat in the U.S. military by 2016, and intends to pursue legislation keeping a few combat positions closed off to them. He hasn’t specified any “impacts” he fears would arise from this, but if any of them sound like this, well, good luck with that chadash. That kind of mentality has no place in it.

Mr. Christie, you’d make a good third party

(To bewildered American readers: Christie is the Canadian brand name for Nabisco products, and its slogan is “Mr. Christie, you make good cookies.” . . . Well, I thought it was funny, anyway. Shut up.)

Few events in U.S. politics are more entertaining than a speech in which Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) calls out a specific person or group. When he did exactly this to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) yesterday, using words like “petty” and “selfishness” and “disgusting” and “shame,” it was an enormous gift to Christie fans across the country. He wasn’t impressed with Boehner’s refusal to hold a vote on the $60 billion Hurricane Sandy aid package, nor were multiple New Jersey and New York politicians – and he let err’body know.

Boehner has since agreed to hold two votes, one providing $9 billion to the National Flood Insurance Program and another providing $51 billion to Sandy relief specifically. That likely won’t make up for the suspected reason he cancelled Tuesday night’s vote:

Sources said the vote was put off because the GOP conference, angered over passing a fiscal-cliff bill without spending cuts, was not ready to vote on a costly emergency spending bill.

Now there’s an acceptable excuse.

As Christie’s press conference was going on, Chris from Texas and I began speculating about his future as a Republican. Unlike when he praised President Obama for his actions during and after Sandy, this speech signifies a deep divide between Christie and his party. Chris thought the Dems would salivate at the opportunity to snare him. I agreed, but doubted that Christie would want to bother with them, especially if entitlement reform and spending talks lead to more ideas being taken off the table.

What if, instead, Christie took it upon himself to start a new party? One that, like him, was fiscally responsible and (relatively speaking) socially laissez-faire? One that had no patience for political sacred cows and was all about getting the job done for as many Americans as possible? One that attracted disaffected Republicans, wobbling Democrats and maybe a few libertarians here and there? One in which Christie/Huntsman 2016 was a viable ticket? That’s the opportunity at which I’m salivating. You know you are, too.

Some pundits used Christie’s speech to surmise about the forthcoming rise of the “non-Tea Party Republicans.” A better name would be the Third Party Republicans – high-profile, well-respected pols who have retained their allegiance to the GOP so far, but are very likely to drop it if the likes of Boehner keep making the party look ridiculous. If Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) hinted at similar discontent, they could just give up all pretense and start the New Republican Party right there.

Fail to the chief (of Heritage)

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by the Heritage Foundation. As the mack daddy of modern U.S. conservative organizations, and a particularly ideology-driven one at that, there are a lot of reasons they could be featured in a column like this. (Read up on some of their women-related policy ideas in the 80s and you’ll understand my resentment.) But the reason at hand, the one that took the Beltway by storm this week, puts a cherry on top of that awful, awful sundae. They’ve picked Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) to become the new Heritage president, replacing Dr. Edwin Feulner, who has been president since 1977.

DeMint, of course, is going out with a bang, saying this of his own party:

After this last election it’s apparent that we need to do more as conservatives to convince Americans that our ideas and our policies will make their lives better. I can do that better at Heritage.

He must have a lot of faith in trickle-down politics, here exemplified by the idea that a think tank will change a movement that will change a party that will change national discourse. Having just seen his style of conservatism – the style in which you become infamous for decrying the idea of gays and cohabiting unmarried women becoming teachers – get kicked to the electoral curb, maybe he really does think Heritage is a better vehicle for him.

But in naming DeMint, Heritage is setting itself up to be marginalized for the length of his presidency. No think tank is particularly popular outside of think tank circles, but Heritage has consistently been the right-wing leader in those circles. With the conservative party of record dealing with the necessity of “modernizing” its message, one would think the rest of the conservative infrastructure would do the same, especially one with a research and legislative apparatus as wide-ranging as that of Heritage. Instead, they’re doing what cynics initially predicted the GOP would do in the event of a loss: say the exact same things voters mocked them for, only louder, more often and with less tact. That’s what DeMint represents.

And that’s assuming voters pay attention to anything Heritage puts out once Feulner vacates that office. Most Americans don’t consider think-tankers to be very interesting people. If DeMint can change that by being his typical old self, then we might be able to argue that he’s changing anything for the better of anyone, besides himself. Until then, as long as he raises money – which he will – and sticks to script, he’ll enjoy that driver until death do they part.

You do stand for liberty, right?

Today we explore #259 on the list of Demographics Who Republicans Should Stop Ignoring (DWRSSI): libertarians. Remember how excited we were about Mia Love, who ran for Congress in Utah’s 4th district? As of this writing, absentee and provisional districts have yet to be counted, but it doesn’t look good for her, even though she’s a Republican in one of the most reliably red states in the union. Libertarian candidate Jim Vein is picking up 2.6 percent of that vote so far, enough to have put Love over presumptive Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT).

If you look strictly at percentages, large-L Libertarians aren’t much of a national threat now. But if they can keep picking up enough support to split votes in tight congressional races, it won’t bode well for Republicans in the long run. Given the enduring popularity of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and his boy Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) musings about a presidential run, the Republican establishment will need to begin its effort to co-opt the libertarian message now, as a pre-emptive strike against a three-party paradigm in Washington.

Not that this would necessarily be a good thing for Americans who are tired of choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. But here in Canada, that paradigm, which includes a fourth party if you still think the Bloc Québécois counts, tends to result in much narrower party platforms and, therefore, narrower support. So the job for Republicans is, if you’ll pardon the imagery, to become a turd sandwich with extra bacon before the Democrats do.

But Republican rhetoric on things libertarians like is nothing without consistency, which they have lacked. You support fiscal conservatism? Great! Now stop spending like drunken sailors when you get into office. You support limited government? Great! Now get out of our bedrooms and our basements (where the pot is, obviously). You oppose nation-building? Great! Now stop trying to build other people’s nations.

The problem with modern Republicans is that they’ll claim to believe all of the above, but fail to articulate a good reason, assuming they have one, for bypassing those beliefs once elected. For libertarians, it always comes down to liberty. On social issues at least, Democrats have been starting to impress them, although they have more work to do, again on the pot issue. On economic and defense issues, large-L Libertarians have been making inroads. And that’s assuming they’re not so fed up with every option on the ballot that they won’t fill one out at all – definitely not a guarantee.

Republicans can still oppose everything they currently oppose while admitting government has no place restricting it. Hell, many libertarians feel that way about a lot of things. But that red line would be a big step in living up to the party’s promises of standing for the rights of the individual.

Disposal Day #148: Room for improvement

STORY #1: UNCLE!

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) really isn’t taking this election thing well, as least if you’re an Obama-hater. He said yesterday that House Republicans, under his leadership, will no longer pursue a repeal of Obamacare. They’ve already tried it over 30 times, to be spurned by the Democratic-controlled Senate every single time. With that unchanged, he’s finally deemed a 31st try unfeasible. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has given up on repealing the whole thing, but hasn’t given up on the provision requiring an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

Does this all mean House Republicans will actually try putting together an Obamacare alternative? Let’s hope not; as we discussed yesterday, that’s not a top priority. But they’ve finally developed enough empathy to figure out what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will and will not tolerate. (Ah, now they know what that’s been like for Democrats!) That’s a sign that the two parties might be able to reach some bipartisan agreements this session. It’s enough to make me want to cry.

STORY #2: Yeah, fuck you, too

I should clarify that emerging reasonableness among conservatives only applies to those holding elected office. The crazy right-wing media – seen here, here and here (the third one is really awesome if you listen to this as you read it) – hasn’t changed a bit; if anything, they’re doing what we cynics expected the congressional GOP to do and demand MOAR CONSERVATISM! Which might satisfy them and their ever-shrinking legions of Kool-Aid drinkers.

But this election should be exactly the reality smack they didn’t know they needed. The majority of the country isn’t buying what they’re selling, and unless their guy can break through that, their guy will lose. For this to come full circle, the GOP will have to do what strategist Steve Schmidt suggested: look these shrieking harpies in their cold, unfeeling eyes and say “You didn’t help us a bit. We’re done with you the way you’re done with America. Don’t like it? Go to Iran, I hear they’re pretty conservative there.”

STORY #3: ALL the proof

Still not convinced that the Republicans need single women? Planned Parenthood saw a near-perfect return on its investment in candidates; the National Rifle Association (NRA) got back less than one percent, often because the candidates in which they invested were idiots. In a primary, one candidate may be smiling and nodding at everything you say more than a smarter candidate. If you want a return on your investment, you should back the smarter one and then try to get them to smile and nod.

God, Jerusalem and man at Charlotte

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by the handling of “the God/Jerusalem thing” at the Democratic National Convention. As the delegates voted on the party platform, Republican critics piled on them for a) failing to include the word “God” anywhere in it and b) refusing to define Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which, apparently, nations other than Israel are allowed to do. How did the Democrats handle it? Did they let the issue blow away on its own? Did they tell the Republicans to butt out? Neither.

A little bit of light to shed on the Jerusalem thing. It is not internationally regarded as the capital of Israel due to disputes over who, if anyone, would control it around the time the State of Israel was formed. It’s worth noting that Israel agreed to a 1947 partition plan that would place the city under international administration – a move I have endorsed – and the Arabs rejected that plan. Of course, since then, Israel has called Jerusalem its capital. Like it or not.

The early draft of the Democratic platform said only that it should be up for Israel and Palestine to decide Jerusalem’s fate. Republicans and staunchly pro-Israel Democrats didn’t like that one. Of course, less pro-Israel Democrats really didn’t like the sudden change, nor did they like the perception that Los Angeles mayor and convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa said it was approved, despite not knowing for sure; this was a voice vote, and the voices for and against were equally loud. I’ll give the convention an extra shot of fail for thinking voice votes are a good idea.

As for the God thing, omitted in such phrases as “God-given rights,” former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) said this “suggests a party that is increasingly out of touch with the mainstream of the American people.” Apparently, the mainstream of the American people has a God quota it needs to fill every day. Or something. But for the Democrats to point that out would just create a different PR problem. Not that bending over and taking it is a particular image improvement, either. Pass the lube.

Is it any wonder that critics of the last four congressional sessions have zeroed in on Republican obstructionism? In this example at least, the Democrats don’t even have the stones to be obstructionist, much less principled yet willing to compromise. There are so-called conservative politicians in Manitoba who would call them weak.