Obama Administration "Corrupt"?

Incoming House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darell Issa called the Obama Administration "one of the most corrupt administrations" during an interview on Fox News Sunday. 

I don't find this comment very helpful.  Are there places where Issa's Committee should poke its nose?  Absolutely.  And when they've investigated and called witnesses and heard testimony and reached conclusions--then talk smack like that.  In the absence of such investigations, Issa's words are irresponsible.

I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings

Rep. Charles Rangel appears to be reversing statements he made early last week dismissing talk of a plea bargain in his ethics probe. On Saturday, Rangel told a group of Harlem politicos that he had signed a deal on ethics charges, but that the GOP pushed for a trial. Earlier in the week, Rangel brushed aside talk of a plea deal as "English, Anglo-Saxon procedure for criminal cases."

"He said he had signed an agreement. He was ready to go, but I guess politics came into play", said Assemblyman Keith Wright (D-Manhattan) one of the leaders attending Saturday's meeting.

Yes Keith, it would appear the game is indeed afoot.

British PM Debate Features Sobriety Test

Which David Cameron appears to have failed.

Congressional Black Caucus--Shake-down Artists

Corporate money in politics is bad, bad, bad--except of course, if it is lining the pockets of the Congressional Black Caucus and its "interests" and "charities". Good on the New York Times for bringing this up.

The Gloves Come Off In California

Wool-lined at that. GOP Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina has launched this attack ad against her Republican rival Tom Campbell:

Terminator sheep? Oh brother. I think it borders on parody. But then again, these type of hysterics have played well in the past.

Tonight: The Conservative Wahoo Live! at 8PM Eastern

Join me tonight for The Conservative Wahoo Live! at 8PM (click here for the show). We'll spend a half-hour talking about Scott Brown's big win last night and other current events, then at 8:30 we'll be joined by candidate for Congress in Virginia's 5th District Michael McPadden. The 5th District is a sprawling, mainly rural district currently served by a Democrat in Congress. McPadden is running in a crowded Republican field and we'll take some time to analyze his race with him. McPadden's a Virginia Tech Hokie--but I won't let that get in the way of pleasant dialogue.

The Meaning Of Scott Brown's Victory

Scott Brown pulled off one of the biggest political upsets in recent memory last night, coming from 30 points down in September to a five point victory in a state where registered Dems outnumber registered Republicans 3 to 1. We heard a lot about Massachusetts' vaunted "Independents" last night, but let's not kid ourselves--they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Here are a few things to take away from last night's victory:

1. Candidates matter. Brown and McDonnell in Virginia are the leading edge of the Republican candidate template. They should be positive, upbeat and smart--but not beat you up with their intelligence smart. They should be a guy you'd want to have a beer with, a guy you would want in the foxhole next to you, and when it comes right down to it--they should be the kind of guy you'd want representing you in court if you were falsely accused of something.

2. Issues matter. Healthcare played a big part in this campaign, but so did national security. Coakley mouthed the Obama line, Brown not so much.

3. It's never as bad as it seems; it's never as good as it seems. Fourteen months ago we were a devastated bunch--beaten soundly and in control of no branch of government. Things looked dim, very dim. But now look at where we are--the Party is on its way back, we're gaining traction, we're electing good candidates, and the national narrative is beginning to question move closely the policies and politics of the ruling cabal. Great news, right? Everything's going our way, right? Not so fast. The Democrats STILL hold large majorities in both chambers. Let's also not forget that part of the celebrating last night was born of the Republican Party's ability to filibuster in the Senate--putting aside for a moment that a MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THERE would have voted for the Obama plan! We've got a TON of work to do--there is no rest, there is no victory lap, there is not gold medal. There is only the responsibility of leadership and it is its own reward.

4. The President is popular; he is not influential. He has no coattails, and his agenda is not nearly as popular as his aura. There is little penalty to be paid in defying him--as long as he continues on this big-government path. BUT--if he does what Clinton did and tack to the right--mere resistance will not be rewarded.

5. The President's program is unpopular--but what is our program? The Republican Party must begin to articulate a program for governance that it will implement when and if it takes back Congress. It's time for a new Contract!

Scott Brown For Senate in MA

I just chipped in $100; let's send a Conservative Wahoo message to the campaign--make sure you mention the blog if you contribute!

UPDATE: They destroyed their $500K goal--got $1.3M! And for those worried about their status as gov contractors, the following from the FEC:

Federal Government Contractors

Federal government contractors may not make contributions to influence Federal elections. For example, if you are a consultant under contract to a Federal agency, you may not contribute to Federal candidates or political committees. Or, if you are the sole proprietor of a business with a Federal government contract, you may not make contributions from personal or business funds. But, if you are merely employed by a company (or partnership) with Federal government contracts, you are permitted to make contributions from your personal funds.

David Broder and William Daley With Advice to Dems

David Broder's got an editorial in this morning's WaPost in which he recycles former Clinton Administration official (and long-time Chicago pol) William Daley's Christmas Eve editorial warning Democrats that they risk returning to the minority if they forget to take care of that which put them in the majority--the great middle. Daley cites the retirements (and recent defection) of Democratic moderates in the House (good for Daley--calling them moderates--that's what they are in a party that has swung so far left) and the venom of those on the far left who would purge the party of its remaining moderates.

As I sat nodding my head and harumphing with my coffee this morning, thinking William Daley was incredibly insightful and particularly intelligent, I was struck by how others on my side of the aisle might have read it. For some reason, I see even the most rabid, ideologically conservative reading Daley's words and nodding and harumphing like I was--yet many on the ideological right cannot see the wisdom of his advice for our own party. I'm talking about PARTY here--the organs we use to participate meaningfully in the political process that leads to governing. I'm not talking about ideology.

We can either be ideologically pure (and "right"--in all meanings of the word) and perpetually be in the minority--or we can aim at voters in the "muddled middle" and become a governing majority. This is the heart of my "Ten Principles for a Republican Renaissance. " Let's face it--this approach won George Bush two elections. Although some may quibble with how he won in 2000, we should never forget that he beat a seated Vice President who sat atop an administration that had presided over a good deal of peace and prosperity. Bush brought strong conservative credentials PLUS an emphasis on issues that appealed to the middle--remember? He was one of the first major Republican Presidential candidates to freely acknowledge a Federal role in education--nay, to embrace a Federal role in education. His "compassionate conservatism" (a bit of a sham as far as I'm concerned) appealed to voters in the middle who WANTED to be compassionate and who cheered his effort to get the government OUT OF THE WAY of private efforts to be more compassionate.

It's all fun and good to get your butts kicked in two straight elections and spend your time on ideological purification. When a party gets serious about governing, it aims at swinging swing voters to its side--and this is something we need to do in the Republican Party. That doesn't mean supporting Democrats who think it is electorally favorable to run as a Republican (Madame Scozzafava comes to mind). But it does mean looking at the totality of a candidate's positions and assessing them on a general approach to governing.

Sanford Will Keep His Job

It looks like embattled Governor Mark Sanford in South Carolina will keep his job, as the Republican-dominated (yet hardly friendly) State Legislature has voted not to impeach him. He still faces a variety of ethics charges stemming from his use of official time and resources to carry on an affair with a woman in Argentina. This has all been very sad.

I am personally biased and unable to be anything but that in this matter. Mark Sanford reached out to me to help him think differently about how to organize his staff, he provided me with superb access, and he invited me into a world in which I have a great deal of interest. In the process, we became friendly, and I thoroughly enjoyed our conversations. I will not soon forget how dedicated he was to improvement, in some cases listening without anger or delusion, to hard words about his personal management style and the need to change. Putting aside this personal aspect of the matter, I am saddened for the Republican Party and for the country that a sane voice of reason in the mounting crisis that is our addiction to debt is likely to be sidelined politically. Sanford was anti-debt when being anti-debt wasn't cool--he looked at the stimulus as the pig in a poke that it was, and he sounded the alarum that the country must move from its entitlement addiction to a position of fiscal responsibility. To be honest, I was always pretty soft on debt and the deficit--until I began listening more closely to Sanford and others explain how our mounting debt was the ticking timebomb that would lay this economy low--even lower than it has recently been. Had this most unfortunate personal failing not occurred, I would have been a huge supporter of a Sanford run for the White House, as his candidacy would have FORCED the Republican field to face a number of very hard questions. Had he run, I would very likely have sought a leave of absence from my job to join the team and do what I could to help him win.

I'm glad Mark Sanford will keep his job. I hope he keeps talking about debt and fiscal responsibility. I hope he finds personal happiness. And if there are--contrary to conventional wisdom--second acts in American politics, I'll be there with him to see how I can help.

Obama At 50%

Brother Tom invited my attention earlier today to this latest Real Clear Politics tracking poll, which averages out the approval/disapproval ratings of a number of other polls. In the latest, President Obama is at 50.1% approval and 44% disapproval.

The conversation with Tom included a discussion of the following--since the President continues to enjoy overwhelming approval within the black community--what would the President's numbers look like if Black America supported the President at something OTHER THAN the 90% plus approval he enjoys today.

I'm a history major, so my math could be way off--but with a set of presumptions that include: Black America is 12% of the general population and blacks support President Obama at 90%, I'm left with the following conclusions:

1. If Black America were only "sorta" in the tank for Obama--let's say, it supported him at 67% rather than 90%--his approval number would be 47.3%. Or put another way--hold the undecideds constant and Obama's approval and disapproval ratings would be about equal.

2. If Black America were as conflicted as the rest of the country and supported the President at about a 40% rate, his overall approval rating would be 44.1%; again, holding the undecided rate constant, this would indicate disapproval numbers in excess of approval numbers.

What does this all mean? It means the Democratic Party's got a little problem on its hands, and that is, the President's approval rating among non-black voters has plummeted in his first year in office (as there is no sign of any increase in black disapproval). This can't be racism, at least not in any sense I understand, as presumably a lot of these non-black people voted for the President in the first place. No, I think this is just the political free market at work, and the President's brand isn't selling well.

Obama Threads the Needle

I've had a night upon which my subconscious mind could feed on the President's speech, and I've come to conclude that he's done about as well as he possibly could, given the incredible and diverse interests at play in the war in Afghanistan.

1. He campaigned that Afghanistan was the central front in the war on terror. His plan announced last night is entirely consistent with that view. The anti-war crowd who will invariably rise up to oppose this will claim to have been abandoned by the President, but there's simply nothing to that. He was against the war in Iraq (and the successful surge). He's never been against the war in Afghanistan.

2. By putting a timer (18 mos) on the commitment, he's made a strategic (military) error. That said, his ability to gain the votes in his own party necessary to secure the funding for this commitment dictated the move--which is after all, a strategic (political) decision. His calculation is that the center right will support the increased effort and bitch about the conditions--but not enough to walk away from him. Additionally, he sees the center left complaining about the increased effort but applauding the conditions. The far left and the far right--neither of whom will agree with this plan (too much or too little), won't amount to much of anything.

3. By taking the time to think McChrystal's plan through--and then amending it--Obama demonstrated to the uniforms that he will not be a rubber stamp and that he will do what I believe the Founders intended the President to do--exercise leadership. McChrystal came forward with his best military advice. Ultimately, even if Obama agreed with it, he cannot fund it without Congress (the genius of our Founders, again). Therefore, Obama has to weave the strategic military and strategic political pictures together--hence--fewer troops, with a time stop.

All in all, I remain convinced that the President deserves support on this.

On Lou Dobbs' Political Aspirations

Lou Dobbs is exactly the kind of guy I don't want in politics, and I hope his quixotic musings about entering the fray are designed to support a book sale or some other business proposition.

I have two basic problems with Dobbs--his attitude and his politics.

1. Dobbs is the quintessential angry white man. I mean this from the standpoint of temperament, not politics. On the occasions in which I've paused long enough on his former show to evaluate him, I've come to see the furrowed brow, the agitated tone, the "who should we blame" approach. This man does not inspire; he does not lead; he does not evoke the "better angels" of his viewers nature. He whips them into an emotional frenzy of blame, anger, and negativity. He does a fine job of letting "us" off the hook while blaming "them"--whoever us and them may be. America does not need politicians who play to the crowd. America needs politicians who lead the crowd. Sally's fine job analyzing the 2009 Virginia Governor's race here on this blog (re)introduced us to a politician with solid conservative instincts AND a positive message of progress in Mr. McDonnell. We need more McDonnells and fewer Dobbs.

2. Dobbs is what Ross Douthat calls a "radical center populist"--you know what I call a "radical center populist? A political weather vane. Radical center populists stick their finger in the air, test what is popular with the electorate, and ride the wave. They have no fundamental, unshakable political beliefs from which enlightened policy springs. This is a particularly dangerous brand of politics, as one comes to surf the wave-tops of whatever passion is currently animating the masses without ever really moving in a substantial policy direction.

I'll not be jumping on the Lou Dobbs bandwagon, friends. Would be interested to read opposing viewpoints.