Published in Elections

You all know that he is running for Governor, and that he is now even in polls with Strickland.  He gave a lunch talk yesterday at the Ashbrook Center to about 850 people.  To say that John Kasich's talk at the Center was well received is an understatement.  To say that it was one of the finest talks ever given by a politician is even more of an understatement.  Really.  First class.  Very impressive.  If you can spare an hour, you must listen.  He also spent about an hour in conversation  with the Scholars and it is fair to say he was equally impressive (even the Democrats said so).  If Kasich keeps this up, he will win by fifteen points.

Sean Trende poses this question as he analyzes the Virginia vote.  Very good article sent to me by a friend with a special interest in Virginia politics.  He wrote this: "The big point of the article is that Obama is in danger of losing a big chunck of the Clinton coalition, which was made up of urbanites, minorities, and liberals AND suburbanites and blue collar guys (Jacksonians).  The article claims that the Virginia results show that the trend of Jacksonians leaving the democrats is almost complete and that Obama's spending policies (stimulus, health care, etc.) are driving suburbanites back to the GOP.  If Obama loses them for the Democrats, no amount of big turnout from college liberals and minorities will make up the difference in 2010, especially in districts where they don't exist."  Also note the good maps.

Rob Portman now appears to be leading both Fisher and Brunner in the polls.  No . . . those elections last week didn't mean anything . . .

It may the case that the battle over NY-23 is not over yet: "Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.  As it turns out, neither was true."

The whole article is worth reading in part to show the chaos of vote counting, in part to show the technical complications of absentee ballots and what happens when they can come in after the day of the election (some aren't in still, and some not counted), why it's unwise to concede before knowing all the facts, why Pelosi was in a rush to swear in Owens, and what all this had to do with the big vote in the House.  Amazing stuff, actually. It is possible that Hoffman could come out ahead.

. . . that very little has changed about the fundamental opinions of the American electorate in this year of "change."  A ballot measure that was, essentially, a "people's veto" of legislation passed last spring in Maine to permit homosexual marriage passed handily.  The 53 to 47% margin outstrips even California's 52 to 48% on Prop. 8 from last year.  Proponents of homosexual marriage expected and hoped for a different outcome because, unlike similar ballot measures in other states, this one was not in response to any perceived judicial fiat.  It was a response action on the part of that branch of government closest to the people:  the legislature.

This Time article on the vote in Maine is interesting for the way it draws upon and, I'd add, also draws out some of the thinking of leading homosexual marriage activists in the wake of their defeat. For example, Mary Bonauto (the lawyer who successfully argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003 that it should strike down state prohibitions on gay marriage) told Time, "Ultimately, this is going to have to have a national resolution . . . It's about aligning promises found in the Constitution with America's laws." 

This is intelligent politics on Ms. Banauto's part.  The argument on behalf of homosexual marriage, if it means to be successful, has to be one suggesting that homosexual marriage is a fulfillment of rather than a turning away from America's promise in its Founding.  Every success of big "L" Liberalism (or Progressivism) in this country (up to and including Barack Obama's) can be traced back to public argument that embraced--or seemed to embrace--America's purpose and foundations.  Progressive have had to argue that there is something essentially American about adopting the course they advocate; that it is in keeping and of a piece with our familiar understanding of the universality of justice and equality.

But always within these attempted unions of an ever expanding "Liberalism" and the legacy of the American Founding is an inherent tension between them that threatens to bust up the match and, in the interim, serves to make Liberals very unhappy in the marriage.  The two things, it turns out, are not at equal purposes and--unless they have a very clever counselor  (perhaps like Obama--though certainly like FDR) it's fairly clear in their rhetoric to the electorate, that the partners would prefer to be divorced.  For advocates of homosexual marriage or--more generally--the broad agenda of "Liberalism," the trouble with our "abstract truth applicable to all men and all times" is that it does not expand any more than it contracts.  It simply is.  As Calvin Coolidge might have said, "it is final."  Universal human equality in our natural rights is a fact--whether it is recognized and put into force or not.  When it is simultaneously publicly pronounced and practically denied, we have the proverbial "House Divided Against Itself."  The denial of human equality in American chattel slavery was at odds with this central and animating principal of our republic in that it denied it by making slaves of men.  The homosexual lobby in America--like Progressivism more broadly considered--denies the principle by seeking to grow it.  But it wants to appear as if it is trying to protect it or live up to it.  It seeks to argue that we have a "House Divided" with respect to equality for homosexuals.  It sees no necessary limit to the good that can come of an expansion of the meaning of equality and it appeals to our generosity of spirit.  But in seeking to expand the meaning of equality, the truth is that we actually deny it.  We cannot make equality, however much we may wish it, to include things not encompassed within the natural meaning of equality.

I have to think that this, at least in part, helps to explain the natural revulsion to the idea of homosexual marriage on the part of black voters--who, of course, were a driving force in the passage of California's Prop. 8 last fall.  Left wing whispering, revealingly, would have you believe that black opposition to homosexual marriage is nothing more than a kind of retrograde or backward prejudice on the part of too many blacks. This is at once patronizing and reflective of some remarkably stupid thinking.  The majority of black voters who oppose homosexual marriage rightly sense--when they don't vividly understand--that the suggestion of a symbiotic relationship between the struggles of blacks and the struggles of the homosexual lobby in this country is an insult to their struggles and our shared American history and accomplishments on behalf of genuine equality.  It is a kind of righteous indignation--obviously felt more keenly by blacks--at the notion that the elimination of slavery and the struggle for equality before the law for black Americans is anything akin to an extension of a right to marry to homosexuals.  That was a struggle to make America live up to its stated principle, not a demand that we expand it.  Slavery was wrong from the start . . . not because we eventually grew into that opinion.  To suggest otherwise is to demean those efforts by implying that it, like this current struggle, was a mere power struggle or numbers game without any transcending universal principle of right.   

If homosexual marriage eventually passes into being and becomes an accepted part of American culture and law it will be something entirely new under our side of the sun.  It will not be an extension of America's promise to recognize the equality of all human beings.  It will be a bastardization of that promise and an attempt to undermine the true meaning of it.  To suggest otherwise is, let us be clear, to suggest that our rights are not natural or, even, necessarily permanent.  It is to suggest that they are but an outgrowth of popular sentiment or of an evolution of opinion.  It is logically (though perhaps not fully understood and certainly not clearly articulated by those who advocate on its behalf) to suggest that perhaps there was nothing inherently or fundamentally unjust about slavery.  After all, people probably just hadn't evolved enough back then.  For in a Progressive's world, persuasion is not a real possibility.  Everything is evolution--everything is subject first to hope, then to power, and then to change. 

This is why they think the problem for them today is that people just haven't "evolved" enough to recognize that homosexual marriages should be treated as equal to heterosexual marriages.  They think that if they keep at it long enough, they can "help that evolution along" (in the thuggish way they've helped other parts of "evolution" along) but they have no doubt as to the eventual outcome of their efforts.  Maine is to be commended for its unwillingness, yet, to so "evolve."

UPDATE:  Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute adds to what I say here. 

1. It was a genuinely good night for the Republicans in Virginia.  The main reason was a solid, non-stupid, unalienating candidate for governor.  It's amazing how badly the GOP just screwed up in 2006 and 2008 in the Commonwealth.  McDonald doesn't quite reach the pay grade of presidential material, but it's reassuring to see a savvy social conservative in office. 

Let's leave the TV non-thinking heads aside, and our criticism of them.  Truth is, they aren't much worth noting, even though I'm still in the habit of watching them.  Party line stuff that doesn't even come up to the level of good propaganda, says nothing teaches nothing.  And I include my side in this.  No wonder young people don't watch any of this, and ever fewer older ones do, as the ratings reveal.

The two questions are: What does VA and NJ (and NY23) mean for Obama and/or the Democratic progressive agenda, and what does this mean for the GOP both substantively and electorally over the next few election cycles? The second question can't be answered without taking a shot at the first.  Michael Barone makes some assembled numbers meaningful.  And Jonah Goldberg opines that even though Obama remains personally popular, his agenda is not (Rush Limbaugh needs to understand this perfectly honest tension within the American electorate's soul; they like the chief but not his policies; this is not the first time this has happened).  So this is certainly the end of cap and trade and probably of health care reform.  Furthermore, if the Dems don't pass some kind of health care reform, they are likely to lose at least the House in 2010 because they will have revealed that they cannot govern, even with super-majorities in Congress. Because the Dems now know this, they are likely to try to push and shove health care reform (any kind of health care reform, public option, no public option, abortion, no abortion) through within the next few weeks.  So this could be very messy.  And ironically, the GOP will have very little to do with it.  In other words, the so-called moderate Dems (especially in the House) will either decide to stop it or not.  And their decision will be based either on principle or self-preservation in 2010 election, or both.  Sometimes justice is the same as self-interest.  This will be fun to watch.

This is the official Virginia site for election returns.  I know that McDonnell has already won, but note the size of the victory and the GOP sweep of all state-wide offices by equally large percentages; of course, this may close some before the end of the night; but it looks impressive.  You can also follow the General Assembly returns by clicking here.

What was I thinking?  I cooked some salmon, with onions, mushrooms, and lots of lemon, had a couple of glasses of King Estate Pinot Gris, and then followed it with a CAO Cameroon, and then settled in to watch TV returns.  I can't tell you how dissapointed I am....Nothing, no one (on either side) doing much thinking aloud; everybody is reading day-old scraps of notes handed to them by faction leaders.  Very boring and, actually, a bit embarrassing.  Darn it.  So I am going back to reading Michael Walsh's Hostile Intent.  A rip-roaring story...plenty of bad guys, great gadgets, some women--good and bad--and the whole good world at stake and, wouldn't you know it, one good guy--"his soul an unquiet eddy, his fortune dark, and his fame doubtful"--is trying to save us all.  I hope he does.  I think he will.

As far as I can tell the best place to find the returns from the NJ vote is here.  At this moment, the Republican Christie is ahead of Corzine 55-38%, with only 5% of the votes counted.

In his USA Today column, Jonah Goldberg writes that the likely results of today's elections show that the GOP--as a party committed to ideas distinct from watered down versions of Democrat liberalism--is a concept that is not only alive and well but it is a concept that is also capable of thriving and flowering, even in today's allegedly "changed" political climate.   Moreover, it calls into question (or, rather, calls out) a good deal of the triumphalism that marked Obama's most devoted supporters in the wake of his victory a year ago.  It suggests that Obama's election was more of a "let's give these guys a chance" and less of a "let's change the entire way we do business!" kind of sentiment.  The "change" Americans believed in during the '08 election, appears to have been a lot less far reaching than Obama and his true believers might have hoped. 

In that same spirit, Paul Mirengoff today at Powerline reminds us that breathless suggestions about the meaning of today's elections--from either side--are best served with a paper bag.  Wrap around mouth and breathe.  These elections are not a referendum on Barack Obama.  Neither are they going to be an indication of a coming Republican resurgence.  What they will do is re-establish in the popular mind the political reality.  America remains a pretty evenly divided country with respect to political opinion.  Barack Obama won an election; he has not succeeded in his efforts at political conversion.  The GOP as a party distinct from Democrats and defined by a common-sense sort of center-right conservatism, is a thing that will not be rolled.  It lives to fight another day.  But it remains to be seen whether it will fight.

Mirengoff and Goldberg are both right, however, in taking appropriate good cheer from the likely GOP success of the day for the reason that it may chasten Democrats uneasy with Pelosi's and the President's proposed and sweeping reforms of the health care industry.  It is true, as Goldberg notes, that: "Democrats might like health care reform, but they like getting re-elected even more."  Human nature ain't always pretty.  But it is comforting, in a sense, to know that it can't be changed.

Because I was on the road yesterday I was able to listen to a lot CNN (should I curse XM radio, or praise it?) and was amazed how they spun the upcoming elections, especially focusing on the New York-23.  Their main point--driven home the whole day and evening--was to try to  prove the White House line that the GOP candidate "forced off the ballot" was a sign of a civil war within the party and/or already a right-wing take-over.  (This L.A. Times article is as good as any of that view.)  The fact that the Republican cnadidate was actually to the left of the Dem, made no difference in their calculations, and hardly came up in conversation.  The drumbeat is that the GOP is being taken over by the far right.  I predict that this view will not settle into the American political psyche, especially after the defeat (by moderate Dems) of health-care as currently proposed by the Democrats.

This New York Times article on Iowa and the "sense of disappointment" that has settled in regarding Obama may be more revealing of the true problem.   The Dems will lose in Virginia and NY23, and if they can't get the vote out in NJ--where Corzine has attached himself to Obama rather explictly--then Corzine will lose and today's votes will have to be seen as a referendum on the Obama administration.  This is why we don't study physics.

Dede Scozzafava, the Republican and Independence parties candidate, announced that she is suspending her campaign for the 23rd Congressional District and releasing all her supporters.  The latest Siena Poll shows Bill Owens, the Democrats' candidate and Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate, in a statistical dead heat.  Owens has support from 36 percent of likely voters, with Hoffman garnering 35 percent support. Scozzafava has support from 20 percent of those polled.

According to the latest Quinnipiac University poll Corzine pulled ahead of Republican challenger Christie for the first time: 43-38% (with Daggett at 13%).  Corzine has spent $23.6 on the race so far.

The Los Angeles Times considers how "Obama Hangover" (or Fatigue).  It is not possible to get Dems very excited this year, after the loud party last year.  It will be a low Dem turnout in state and local elections, and this almost certainly means they will lose Virginia, and possibly even New Jersey.   And Obama can't help here, even though, as CNN admits, that this is a referendum on him; he is not wildly popular.  Yet, he is gamely going back to Virginia on Tuesday to campaign for Deeds, but note that Romney is there the next day to campaign for McConnell.  Perhaps a foreshadow of 2012.

Just in case anyone is in doubt about the outcome of the Virginia governor's race, note this article from the Washington Post.  It begins: "Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election."
Perhaps even more significant, note that in this poll 31% of blacks support the Republican McDonnell.

Rich Lowry thinks well of Bob McDonnell (if polls hold up, the next governor of Virginia) and he explains why.  He compares him to Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, and thinks the two should be watched; they could re-invigorate a kind of Republicanism much needed by the GOP and the country.  I agree, but don't much like the label.

Politico identifies some of the more interesting Senate contests, including Nevada, Connecticut, California, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.  A useful list.

Both major parties lost in popular votes, but the Social Democrat virtually collapsed when the seats were distributed.  The somewhat libertarian-like FDP rose, to produce a 70's-like coalition with the Christian Democrats (no, it's not the German version of our religious right; it's hard to make comparisons with the US).  I like this display of the results, and here is another graphic depiction--just click on the tabs in the box on the Bundestagswahl.  Ignorance of German is no problem.  (It's interesting that the more liberal paper emphasizes the popular vote, the more conservative one the number of seats won, the decisive element.)

For an explanation auf englisch try the NY Times.

Each German party has its own color (as each has its particular flag).  Only recently has American politics spoken in terms of a "red" and a "blue" party.  Obama's big selling point was his 2004 convention emphasis on a "red, white, and blue America."  But we reject not only European social policy but its class-based politics as well.  That's the tired politics that put the Social Democrats at their record low level and may bring down our Democrat socialists as well.

UPDATE:  This report notes the fall of the conservative CSU and the rise of the FDP in Bavaria, changing the direction of the governing coalition. 

While Obama's poll numbers are still down, he and his party have a new concern, one that has a way of focusing politicians' attention, a drop in fundraising, huge drop, actually.  "The pair of Democratic committees tasked with raising money for House and Senate candidates -- and doing so at a time when the party holds its strongest position on Capitol Hill in a generation -- have watched their receipts plummet by a combined 20 percent."  Also, "While donations from special interest political action committees have increased, individual donors are disappearing at a rate that has alarmed party leaders: The DSCC's contributions from individuals was $18.5 million through August, a drop of $12.6 million, or nearly 40 percent, from two years earlier..."

This L.A. Times story reports on a surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: 

Andrew Busch examines the coming debate on health care by positing that there are now three options open to President Obama:  doubling down on his current course of letting things play out in Congress, re-starting the debate by making his own proposal from the White House, or suspending debate and gathering, instead, a "Blue Ribbon" and bi-partisan commission for the purpose of examining the issue in more detail.  In this smart article, Busch details the potential appeals and drawbacks for President Obama in each approach and then asks, quite rightly, what would be best for the country.  I highly recommend that you read it and find out what he says. 
    

Paul Krugman waxes nostalgic for the Nixon era, not because he likes Nixon, but because back in those days "moderate" Republicans and Democrats could come together to pass pretty much any piece of legislation that a liberal might want.  The piece would be unremarkable if not for this line: "our corporate-cash-dominated system is a relatively recent creation, dating mainly from the late 1970s."

Let's leave aside the blithe assumption that if things aren't developing as Krugman would like, it must be that evil corporations are to blame.  Surely it can't be that le Peuple, repositories of all that is virtuous, are opposed to Nancy Pelosi's health care proposals.  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he is correct.  Large corporations are not new to the United States, nor are campaign donations.  Shouldn't the fact that this "corporate-cash-dominated system" has allegedly arisen in the environment created by the Federal Election Campaign Act and, more recently, McCain-Feingold make us a just a tiny bit skeptical about campaign finance reform?  In this context, this 1995 study by Brad Smith seems more relevant than ever.

A recent poll reveals this, according to a Las Vegas paper: "It's the highest stakes ever for a Nevada election, and former boxer Sen. Harry Reid is on the ropes early. Either Republican Danny Tarkanian or Sue Lowden would knock out Reid in a general election, according to a recent poll of Nevada voters.

The results suggest the Democratic Senate majority leader will have to punch hard and often in order to retain his position as the most accomplished politician in state history, in terms of job status.

Nevadans favored Tarkanian over Reid 49 percent to 38 percent and Lowden over Reid 45 percent to 40 percent, according to the poll." .

Sen. Edward Kennedy is gravely ill with cancer. Beyond his medical problems he and his party face a political problem: If Kennedy is unable to attend Senate sessions and cast votes, the 59 other Democratic senators might be stymied if health care legislation needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. If Kennedy dies or resigns, his successor will be the winner of a special election to be held within five months of the vacancy in the Senate. No provision in Massachusetts law allows for a vacant Senate seat to be filled before that special election.

No provision in current law, that is. Before 2004, the governor would appoint someone to fill a vacant Senate seat, a procedure used by many states. The law was changed by the Democratic state legislature that year to prevent Gov. Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to the Senate in the event that John Kerry won the presidency.

Now, Kennedy has asked that the law be . . . adjusted. In a letter to the governor and legislative leaders of Massachusetts, Kennedy calls on the legislature to give the governor, no longer a Republican, the power to appoint an interim senator to serve until the special election is held. The request, according to the Boston Globe, "puts Massachusetts lawmakers in a delicate position" because "Democratic lawmakers [are] nervous about being accused of engineering a self-serving change to help their party."

Kennedy's request puts some prominent advocates of Obamacare in a delicate position, as well. Michael Tomasky, for example, says, "If Republicans were up to this sort of thing, to pass a major tax-cut bill, would I criticize it? Quite frankly, I probably would. So, as much as I want health-care reform to pass, I can't quite put my heart into defending this. . . . I'll certainly grant that changing a law that's just five years old that was changed for political reasons in the first place is not the best way to do things."

Other liberal bloggers are not so fastidious. Ethics, schmethics, according to Matthew Yglesias: "When you have a state whose state legislature is firmly and forever in the hands of one political party, the smart thing is for the legislature to be constantly changing rules based on short-term considerations. Nothing's stopping them from changing the rules back later." Ezra Klein doubles down, saying that what appears to be a delicate situation for Democrats is really a moral dilemma for Republicans, one of whom could prove that the Senate traditions of civility and comity really count for something by voting for cloture against a filibuster of health care legislation as a measure of respect to an ill or deceased Ted Kennedy: "Conversely, if not one Republican can be found who feels enough loyalty to Kennedy to make sure that his death doesn't kill the work of his life, then what are all those personal relationships and all that gentility really worth?"

The obvious question about the shoe being on the other foot - would Klein insist that a Democrat vote to pass a major GOP initiative out of respect for an absent Republican senator - is not worth the trouble of pursuing. Both Yglesias and Klein are unapologetically committed to the position that justice is the interest of the stronger. The only criterion for determining whether the game is being played fairly is whether the right side is winning. Changing the rules as often and flagrantly as necessary in order to advance its prospects is just one more egg that needs to be broken to give the country the omelets it needs.

What's interesting is that at the same time they are making Sophists' arguments for achieving political goals by any means necessary, Yglesias and Klein are lamenting the way narrow, parochial concerns prevent the pursuit of the public interest - as they, broadly and selectively, define it. Yglesias is increasingly baffled by the "cynicism and immorality displayed in big-time politics." Klein, similarly, cannot understand why he is the lone Diogenes in Washington who doesn't worry whether it's "uncouth" to contend that votes against cap-and-trade and Obamacare are "literally consigning thousands of people to death."

When the life-and-death issues are not the ones Yglesias and Klein want addressed, however, the standards of civilized discourse are suddenly retrievable and relevant, even crucial. I think it's a safe bet that neither admires the bold commitment to principle of the protesters in front of abortion clinics who scream "Baby killer" at the cars entering the parking lot, and would not sit still for a long explanation of how American law since 1973 has consigned literally millions of babies to death. Nor would either be receptive to arguments that the consequences of a suitcase nuclear bomb being detonated in Times Square or Lafayette Park are so grave that the imperative to take the actions, overseas and at home, to find and thwart terrorists will necessarily take precedence over international law and civil liberties. To talk about consigning thousands of people to death in that context would be uncouth, manipulative, hysterical and jingoist.

Yglesias and Klein are both very young guys who've become blogosphere stars, so they may not have outgrown Attention Deficit Disorder. Neither seems to notice when an argument in one post doesn't square with one they write the next day. When lamenting the craven indifference with which legislators consign literally billions of people to death by not being Dennis Kucinich, both adopt the position that the graveyards are filled with indispensable men. They shake their heads at the vain, calculating politicians who would gladly see every last organism on the planet shrivel and die if it meant they wouldn't have to cast a vote that displeased a local interest or donor, reducing their reelection prospects by a fraction.

Neither mentions, however, that Sen. Kennedy has had 16 months to solve the problem of his succession without changing Massachusetts law. He could have resigned at any point after his brain tumor was diagnosed, leaving plenty of time for a special election to designate a senator who would vote for health care reform. If yielding office for the sake of a higher principle is noble, this particular hero could have extricated his party from their current dilemma at any point. Instead, Kennedy's long Senate career is destined to be bookended by two shabby, transparent maneuvers. He was elected to the Senate seat vacated by his brother John, but only after a compliant place-holder agreed to keep it occupied until Ted turned 30 in 1962. Now, again, the protocols of even-handedness are to be sacrificed for the greater good, and the greater good is to be defined to give maximum scope for Sen. Kennedy to define and pursue his ambitions.

I did a Podcast with Andy Busch about the election. His book, Epic Journey: The 2008 Elections and American Politics was just published (co-authored with James Ceasar and John Pitney). Good book, good conversation, probably should have been longer.   

The New York congressional seat special election (held by Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand) has ended in a dead heat, with the Democrat ahead by 65 votes. It looks like the race will not be decided until after April 13. Gillibrand had won by over 20 points in November, and yet, many are claiming this a huge GOP defeat. I don't get it.

John J. Pitney, Jr. takes a long, hard look at the prospects before the GOP and does not see much that is immediately apparent as a cause for cheer. The mountain before the GOP in coming elections is daunting and Pitney cautions that the RNC chairman, Michael Steele, will have to take a very deliberate and long-term approach to the problem.

In the seven states where no GOP contender for the Senate has been successful since 2000, Pitney suggests looking to the GOP gubernatorial candidates who were successful in the last eight years. The issues that drive voters to elect governors are often different from the ones driving them to choose senators, but the fact that GOP candidates for governor could win in these states suggests that the Republican brand is not, in itself, DOA. There may be lessons these guys can offer of both a strategic and rhetorical nature.

Pitney also suggests studying the efforts of the other side. Howard Dean's controversial "50 state strategy" to rebuild party organizations that had withered now looks more like genius than insanity. The good news for the GOP is that they do not have to aim for radical transformations of the electorate. A plodding, careful, deliberate and principled chipping away at Democratic strongholds will make a big difference in electoral outcomes.

In case he is misunderstood, Pitney is careful to note that he is not suggesting capitulation on the issues that move the GOP base:

Such a strategy does not mean that Republicans must renounce the Second Amendment, embrace abortion, or endorse amnesty for illegal aliens. Indeed, it would make no sense to abandon the principles that matter to the party's most loyal supporters.

Rather, Pitney suggests, persuasion is the thing we must engage in--not capitulation, Of course, persuasion has the disadvantage of being terribly hard work--and work that is made even more hard as a result of GOP electoral and political failures. But persuasion, at least, has the virtue of possibly working--if not immediately, perhaps over time. As Pitney said, chipping away at Democratic strongholds will do more than is apparent if one only looks at the massive scale of the Democratic sweep in this last election.

The GOP cannot abandon its principles and expect victory. But neither can it dig in its heels and cross its arms with a scowl directed at those who fail to embrace her. It is time for wooing and this will take patience. As Pitney put it, we cannot give in to what now passes for popular sentiment:

. . . [b]ut Republicans do have to frame [their] principles in terms that appeal to a wider array of voters. The party cannot think of growing if it depends on a base that is shrinking.

Senator George Voinovich has decided not to run for re-election. Although I have disagreed with him from time to time, I have always thought him to be both smart and full of integrity. Folks are already lining up to replace him, including former Congressmen Rob Portman, who, it so happens is speaking at the Ashbrook Center today. If you are in the area, come by, if you have four-wheel drive!

I plan on voting early tomorrow as I will be out of the country next week. This article offers a survey of Georgia's electoral landscape. Yes, a run-off would generally favor a Republican. Yes, Sen. Chambliss is ahead in the polls (though they are probably meaningless in a low-turnout run-off). Yes, Sen. Chambliss can outspend Jim Martin, his fraternity brother challenger. And yes, the Obama organization isn't likely to be quite as effective without the President-elect at the top of the ticket. (Of course, in a low-turnout election, it doesn't have to be.)

The article partially answers my question regarding why we haven't had a visit from the President-elect. It's not that he doesn't love us or love Jim Martin, but he doesn't want to risk a very high-profile (and reasonably predictable) defeat before his Inauguration. If Jim Martin loses, it's his personal loss. If Martin loses after an Obama visit, we could ask what happened to the Obama electoral magic.

But there's another possible explanation as well, one that's just a little Barackiavellian. If the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, then the President has less leverage to move them away from their preferred position. If he "needs" a Republican vote or two (Sens. Snowe and Collins come to mind almost immediately), then he can press for the kind of compromise he wants. If the Senate leadership has less power, he has more. Whether he realizes it or not, he doesn't really want Jim Martin to win in Georgia.

I've been talking to my students in various contexts this week about the election and President-elect Obama's transition. In today's class, I asked them if they would have hesitated more about their vote if Barack Obama--their Facebook friend--had run on a platform promising to bring back the Clinton team. Some said "sure, the Clinton years were great," which they know only because CNN told them so. Others were less certain. "Where's the change," they wanted to know.

My answer was to point to the article to which I linked above: the federal-level executive experience in the Democratic Party is all linked to the Clintons. No one with any "experience" in politics would have expected anything any different. This is of course compounded by the fact that, not having served in any sort of executive office, President-elect Obama doesn't have any trusted statehouse aides to bring with him. Our bridge to the future is built with ten-year old parts.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, as I pointed out to another class where we were discussing Bk I, ch. 3 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, where Aristotle says that the young are inapt students of politics. They lack experience, he says, and tend to be ruled by their impulses (which actually characterizes most of us, including a very prominent ex-President, who spoke in Atlanta yeserday). The Obama campaign's emphasis on change--as against those who would say that "you can't do that" because "we've always done it this way" (a reflection either of tradition or nature or both)--was certainly pitched to the young. But, as I pointed out to my class--a mixture of what I've called politikids and what my politikids and I have dubbed apathetikids--Barack Obama and I are much closer in age than he is to them. Aside from a habit much less nasty than that of his Democratic predecessor, he doesn't seem to be a creature of impulse. And his choices so far seem to indicate an appropriate respect for experience. "He's one of us," I told them, pointing to myself, "not one of you."

But there is at least one reason to continue to have one's doubts about Barack Obama's judgment. The cabinet choices he has actually announced have been pretty good--though he has set Hillary Clinton up for a major embarrassment if in the end he doesn't or can't offer her the State Department portfolio--but why, in the face of this pressing economic crisis, hasn't he named a Treasury Secretary yet? Shouldn't that announcement have been among the first ones made, certainly before naming Tom Daschle Secretary of Health and Human Services? And shouldn't the Treasury Secretary in waiting be involved in all the allegedly pressing conversations that are now going on? What's going on here?

. . . now appears even more uncertain.

Here's an analyst who doesn't think Barack can get re-elected. That's because the economy going to stay really bad, and Obama doesn't really have any plan to return us to prosperity. My own view is that it's impossible to know, and the eventual return to prosperity probably won't be driven by any government plan. As NLT bloggers have often point out, FDR's plans didn't really return us to prosperity, but confidence in him grew anyway. His "positive" or policy-based landslide of 1936 dwarfed his "negative" landslide of 1932. In any case, we should hope things get better, even if Obama gets the credit.

This election was a lot like 1980 and 1932. The victories of Reagan and FDR were both repudiations of the clueless incumbent and affirmations of their personal qualities of leadership. 1936 and 1984 were ratifications of the CHANGE they were responsible for in the country's direction. Obama is clearly thinking BIG CHANGE that will be rewarded by a similarly positive reelection landslide.

For those of you who were unable to make it to last night's conversation on the election, here is a link to the podcast. Video will be available sometime next week if you'd rather wait until you can watch as you listen. Our conversation was informal but, also, brutal in its honesty about the prospects before Conservatives as we look ahead to the final week and a half of this election and, it seems, to a likely Obama Administration.

If I may offer myself and my fellow bloggers a gentle criticism, I would say that while an honest assessment of the negatives in front of us is important--it isn't important only for the sake of brutal academic honesty. Such brutal honesty is fine as far as it goes and we'd all rather be right than wrong in seeing the outlines of the political field before us. But once a brutal political fact is asserted, it is also important that we not seem to permit marinating in it or appear to be satisfied merely with nailing the diagnosis. We ought, also, to point to a prescription. Political problems require political answers and an important first step in getting to one, of course, is a more complete understanding of the nature of the problem. But we should also remember that we are talking about political consequences that will have a real impact on the lives and futures of our friends and fellow citizens (to say nothing of ourselves). Given that reality, there is also something to be said on the side of duty; duty to look beyond the problems and toward solutions.

After last night, I am more convinced than ever that the conservative political problem is at once rhetorical and intellectual in that it has failed to connect with the people in such a way as to lift them up to understand as well as love their country. The post-60s Liberal problem might be said to be a reverse of the conservative one in that it offers an understanding of America (that it is an incorrect understanding is beside the point) but it has failed--at least until, perhaps (oddly) this year, to give convincing evidence of love for country. I recognize that this is an odd thing to say, in a way. In a year when the Democrat candidate appears to have connections to questionable people who have expressed more than one variety of deep-seated contempt for America, Conservatives ought to have been able to make a convincing case that Obama did not, in fact, love his country. But this assumption misses the fact that Obama and Conservatives are talking about two completely different things when they talk of love for country. Conservatives made a mistake in thinking that it would be sufficient (to say nothing of possible) to tie Obama to the contempt of Wright, Ayers, and even Michelle.

Obama claimed not to share the sentiments of his more hate-filled associates even as he embraced them as something of a piece with the American experience; a piece of the fabric of our lives. He tells us that he loves America because he is capable of loving all things and, especially, of loving those things that he thinks can be "changed" or made to serve something called progress or--even less dogmatically--"the future." His love letter to America may, in fact, be a love letter to himself. But it should also be remembered that Obama, in embracing Wright at the same time that he distanced himself from Wright, gave every other American permission to write themselves a similarly self-indulgent love letter if only they agreed to come along and be a part of this important moment in our history.

With Obama, you are entitled to your weaknesses and to your cynical narrow interests--especially if you can put them to work for the purposes he believes will move us forward. The only thing you are not permitted to do or to be is someone who is retrograde or reactionary in Obama's view. If your own particular brand of weird opinions do not permit you to move forward with the rest of the country shouting "Yes We Can!" from on high, then you must be defeated. And Obama will not blink as he sets about defeating you. If Conservatives and Republicans fail in this election--as appears now to be the trajectory of events despite some cheering poll numbers--I believe it will be because in recent years (when, by the way, we had ample opportunity to do otherwise) we have failed. We have failed not to prove that we love our country but, rather, to give a satisfactory and compelling explanation of why we love our country.

For good or ill, it now seems clear to me that Barack Obama understands himself to be offering both an understanding of and a reason to love America. Remember that he described his "A More Perfect Union Speech"--where he addressed the question of the Reverend Wright--to be a "teaching moment." From Obama's point of view and if you share Obama's views, this was exactly the right way to understand the situation. He rightly saw the danger and, instead of seeking to mitigate it, he embraced it as he embraces all things. He made it his opportunity.

It is not sufficient to argue that his brand of "love" for America amounts to a condemnation of America as we ought to understand it. This assumes too much. People are looking for a way to understand their country and no politician today can assume that he's working from a pre-existing or deeply held understanding that is healthy at the start. Our educational system has made sure of that. So there is no way for a politician today--particularly an American politician--to speak in short hand about his love of country and putting his "country first" and expect that people will understand him as he understands himself. He is obliged to teach.

It is true that this simpler and older expression of love for America still has some massive appeal (it's not for nothing that Sarah Palin drew crowds of 60,000 + and inspired a two-week surge in the polls for McCain) but good as that was, it required a follow up--an explanation or an understanding of itself that could have been shared with the American people and would have translated itself into confidence in our ticket. People need to know that a candidate thinks he knows what he is doing and why he is doing it. They need to know that a candidate has confidence in his understanding of his purpose. This is why people think Obama is cool. He has that confidence. I think he is wrong to have that confidence because he is wrong in his understanding of America--to say nothing of the character of Americans. Unfortunately, the argument about why he is wrong has not materialized in any public way that was sufficient to our purpose. It may be--though I cannot say for certain--that this has to do with a lack of understanding about that purpose at the top of the ticket.

Having said that, however, I understand that the odds against McCain and Palin (and we don't really need to review those) were stacked heavily against them. Their instincts in responding to the onslaught from Obama and those seduced by him in the media were not entirely wrong and we should be grateful to them for the few high points in the campaign that pointed to hopeful signs on our side (including some healthy fundamentals) and, at the same time, speak volumes about the problem. That there was so much energy stirred by a young, attractive, and conservative governor from America's Western Frontier who exuded a kind of manful (yes, I understand and appreciate the irony in that term) independence is a massive fact that ought not to be forgotten as we move forward. And that a humble guy in Ohio named Joe could come closer than any politician in this election yet has done to causing Barack Obama to lose his "cool" and inspiring the hearts of the American people is also not an insignificant fact. Starting here, we might begin to build a more resonating case for ourselves as we look ahead both to the Congressional races in 2010 and, of course, for a more serious challenge in 2012.

Ken Blackwell argues that though McCain has virtually no chance of winning the black vote in this election, it speaks volumes about his seriousness and his integrity that he means to address the NAACP in Cincinnati next Wednesday. Blackwell also argues that this is no mere pointless exhibition of (correct) principle; McCain can, if he does it right, make real and important inroads with this audience. He should, at any rate, operate on the assumption that he can. If you understand the real interests of these Americans in the same way that you understand the real interests of all other Americans, the argument for voting for Obama boils down to little more than racial pride. That can be a powerful argument (particularly given our history) but this does not make it a good argument. McCain should not make the patronizing mistake of seeming to grant that it is. Blackwell offers solid advice.

In a similar vein, I'd like to reintroduce the subject of William Voegeli's fine essay in the CRB, "Civil Rights and the Conservative Movement." He was right to caution in his post about it that reading it would take a while. It's not the kind of thing you can do on the fly or after four hours in the sun by the pool with active children. It demands attention and hard thinking. If (like me) you didn't live through the period it may be an eye opener. There are a dozen things that could be said about the piece (and I hope will be said) by folks who are smarter than me, but one inescapable conclusion is a more mature understanding of why so many black voters still believe they cannot trust Republicans or conservatives. And, perhaps, there is a bit of old-fashioned American tragedy involved in that story. Do check it out.

Yours truly appears this morning in the Wall Street Journal explaining why the candidates are full of hot air when it comes to fighting global warming. If you are a glutton for punishment, you can find a more complete analysis of the matter in my latest Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, just released last week in time for Earth Day.

Now back to our regularly scheduled Obamamania programming.

UPDATE: Oops--I see Joe beats me to it. I guess I have to get up earlier.

Mark Steyn on the Demos unraveling. Very funny. And Democratic Senator Zell Miller writes this thoughtful piece showing that the Democratic Party is re-playing the 1970's. How come this guy is still a Democrat? David Broder adds his two cents on the the Democratic Party's malaise and why they are unable to give the public any idea of where they stand on pressing issues of the day and what it has to do with their Vietnam memories. Noemie Emery explains why Bush drives the Democrats crazy.

Fred Barnes has a quick glance at the competitive Senate races. They're still toss-ups. And here is Stuart Rothenberg's take on some of the open Senate seats. This is Time magazine's contribution to the discussion.

Dick Morris slams The New York Times for the recent push-poll they conducted and why it was slanted.