Columnist.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The army of newly elected Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives will be arriving here this coming week. They've already capsized the proverbial political apple cart. Now they're ready to change the nation, or so they say. But they're about to encounter the stark realities of life in the nation's capital. I'm optimistic about their policy goals and their determination to change the way the House operates. But their bright-eyed good intentions need to be checked with this warning: Serving in Congress is like attending the endless, wretched traveling show that most of us know as Cirque du Soleil.
Here's both my qualifier and my bona fides for the opinion that follows: I earned my Republican stripes working for a GOP U.S. senator, for Ronald Reagan's first successful presidential campaign and for Newt Gingrich. Since those days, I've occasionally branched out and suggested some policy or position that doesn't reflexively mirror some bedrock conservative outlook. Often some readers of this column, whom I deeply respect and appreciate, will call me out for this or that view by dismissing me as a "RINO" -- a "Republican in Name Only."
Make no mistake. President Obama's support for an extension of the Bush tax cuts is born out of the reality that his re-election is now less than two years away, and by the minute he is losing those independent voters who voted for him in 2008. But you know the old saw: Sometimes you have to dance with the ones who brung you to the dance. The president is stuck waltzing about with a Democratic House and Senate whose members learned nothing from the November elections.
I am amazed when I hear not just liberal Democrats but also some Republicans being suckered into the belief that "the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers, these millionaires and billionaires" should see their tax rates rise. It is class warfare, yes. More importantly, it is not true!
As the week unfolded, it appeared that the last days of the lame-duck session of Congress might well end in gridlock. Many issues had been left to the last days, but certainly the biggest issue was whether the so-called "Bush tax cuts" would be extended for not only the "middle class," but for those fabulously wealthy individuals who have the audacity to earn more than $250,000 a year -- the "wealthy."
It was the dumbest thing the Democratic members of the U. S. House could have done. And it is already jeopardizing the chances of President Obama to reverse the fortunes of himself and his party. "It" was making Nancy Pelosi the minority leader of the House, and thus the head of what is now an even more liberal delegation of lawmakers.
I'll give President Obama a bit of credit for signaling that he will abandon temporarily one aspect of his crazy economic philosophy, best termed "Obamanomics. " It appears the president will at least allow the George W. Bush tax cuts to remain in place for some additional period of time. That's a smart move for him because everything else both the administration and the Federal Reserve are doing or considering appear to be setting us up for another economic disaster.
Those who've followed this column over the years know that when President Obama was first elected, I tried valiantly to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believed for the best that his promise of "change" would be an exercise in moderation and sound judgment. But that didn't happen, and this past week's elections were a comprehensive rebuke of the first two years of his presidency. What amazed me most was his press conference following the elections. The White House press corps finally found the courage to ask some tough questions. And the president? He seemed not to comprehend -- or at least not to acknowledge -- the message the American people had just sent him, courtesy of a resounding electoral defeat for Democrats nationwide.
I didn't set out in life to be the CEO of a company that conducts public opinion polls. Heck, I stunk at math back in school. And polls are all about numbers.
A generation ago, the national Republican Party was under the command of the late Lee Atwater. With its personal-political attacks on opponents, the GOP back then knew how to play the roughest brand of political warfare anyone could remember.
I was campaign chair for Newt Gingrich in 1994, when the Republicans won control of the U.S. House. Many today don't recall that the '94 victory was the pot boiling over only after simmering and simmering somewhat beneath the surface for a long while. It wasn't until the last week before the election -- maybe even the last 72 hours -- that it became clear the Democrats would finally lose the House.
I must admit that I was taken aback when I recently watched an interview conducted by Christiane Amanpour, the new host of ABC-TV's "This Week," the long-running political talk show that airs on Sunday mornings. She was questioning Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Is Obama throwing Pelosi and Reid under the bus? Yes, this column is a real exercise in cynicism. But in the world of politics and its big-boy nastiness, it's entirely possible that's it's true, nevertheless.
Amazing. President Barack Obama's Democratic Party keeps plummeting in the generic polls that measure Americans' party preferences. Yet the president has taken what looks like nothing less than a calculated move to assure the destruction of Democratic rule in Congress, all supposedly in the name of getting the nation moving again.
Mainstream media were taken aback when television and radio talk show host Glenn Beck recently hosted a rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The throng of people assembled to celebrate and hear more about religious and civic values than about partisan politics.
I was among the last pollsters and pundits to buy into the notion that 2010 could be a reprise of 1994, when Republicans abruptly took control of a U.S. House of Representatives that had seemed irreversibly controlled by the Democrats. Now, I'm starting to see signs that even the U.S. Senate could go GOP this year. What has changed to suggest this?
Some weeks ago, I received a handwritten note from an old friend. Back in the days when I had served in elective office, and when I chaired Newt Gingrich's campaigns, this man had always been there for me. He put up campaign signs and raised money for me. He even allowed me to act as Gingrich campaign treasurer by putting my name on some of Newt's financial disclosure forms. He did so knowing that if we screwed up somehow, he could go to jail.
To conjure a feeling of happier times, I recently went to a concert given by rock legend Tom Petty. It was hard not to notice that his band is called the "Heartbreakers." Read on, and I'll detail the point in a way many of you will identify with.
