The best advice for the GOP comes from (of all places) Canada

Andrew Coyne, frustrated limited-government Canadian conservative (up north, the government of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is engaged in a Bush-like spending spree), tries his hand at analyzing the state of the Republican Party (inspired by his former colleague David Frum, who himself was a Canadian pundit and author in the 20th Century).

Coyne gets a few facts wrong (Newt Gingrich his hardly considered a “heretic” on the right), but he does manage to cut through the pragmatist-ideologue “debate” and get to the heart of the matter (Macleans, emphasis added):

Yes, compromise is a virtue. But it is not the only virtue. Yes, you win elections by capturing the middle ground. But that does not mean, as so many seem to assume, simply moving to the middle: the truly successful politician moves the middle to him.

There is a third alternative, in other words, between the dogmatism of the GOP and the cynicism of the Conservatives (RWL note: a reference to the Harper government, see above). It consists in political entrepreneurship: neither pandering to public opinion, nor ignoring it, but persuading the public to a point of view it did not previously hold. For politics is not, in the end, simply the art of the possible. It is the art of enlarging the possible.

This is what politics is about to me as well; it is also what made Ronald Reagan who he was.  He understood it was important not just to hold the right views, but to convince others why they were the right views.  IN the years since, the GOP has seen its “wings” veer away from this in opposite directions – with the “base turnout” model focusing on energizing the like-minded at the expense of everyone else, while moderates talk about “moving to the center” in the very manner Coyne rightly refutes.

Both must be rejected; the Republican Party must stand for something, but it must also be ready not just to defend its view, but to explain them as well.  It is the latter accomplishment that, for several election cycles, has eluded nearly all Republicans, conservative and moderate alike.

Tedisco wins

Yes, I know it’s only 10:30 in the morning, and New Yorkers in the 20th district will be voting for more than 10 additional hours, but I’m sticking my neck out: Republican Jim Tedisco will win.

Why do I say that?  Three words: New York Post.  Each link has details on the crippling tax hike the Democrats agreed to impose on all New Yorkers.  Here’s Fred Dicker on the budget (second link):

The budget created by Gov. Paterson, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith is a monstrously bloated, tax-and-spend plan that, in one fell swoop, reverses a three-decade-long effort to strengthen business and prevent taxpayers from fleeing the state.

For those who don’t follow New York politics closely, the Democrats won control of the State Senate last November.  This is the first time the Democrats have had unfettered control of state government in seventy years, and in less than three months they have decided to whack New Yorkers with a massive tax hike.

The Post also noticed that New York’s labor unions (particularly the public sector ones) were hardly scratched (last link).  Big Labor in NY has its own political party (the “Working Families” Party), whose main job is to push Democrats to the left.

Guess who the WFP endorsed in the 20th?  Yup, the Democrat running against Tedisco.

So you have a bunch of Upstate New Yorkers finding out they’re going to get smacked with a huge tax-hike imposed on them by the triumvirate of state Democrats (all of whom reside in New York City) and looking for the first opportunity to vent their frustration – on the very day they have a special election.

Like I said, Tedisco wins.

“Bailouts should hurt” and the REAL danger of the GM and Chrysler ultimatums

Although Leslie Carbone is deeply disturbed about the Obama Administration’s  de facto takeover of General Motors and Chrysler (she calls them “unAmerican” – and not without justification), she also manages to hit the main reason I am less perturbed by it all:

Bail-outs should hurt. I mean really, really hurt. They should make the survival of the companies that take them less likely, not more likely (as surely federal control can accomplish). Every corporate executive and union boss, every socialist politician and pundit, responsible for the transfer of billions upon billions of hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars to loser companies should suffer, as the incompetency of government merges with their own incompetency into some kind of super-incompetency. They should never again enjoy one good night’s sleep. They should writhe. They should scream, scream deep, loud screams that echo through the decades in the ears of any would-be moral felons, who seek to rebuild failing companies on the backs of hard-working taxpayers.

As troubling as the Administration’s ham-handedness towards GM and Chrysler is, we should keep in mind that these companies owe billions of dollars to the taxpayer with no real plan for paying it back.  Even the stockholders (for whom Net Right Nation is so upset) stayed in largely on the assumption the taxpayer would reverse the market’s decision on their investment – no tears for them from this quarter.

If the president had tried this with Ford (which has refused to put itself in hock to the taxpayer), I’d be much more upset.

As far as I’m concerned, the more excruciating a bailout is – the more the firm is forced to succumb to micromanagement, the more stockholders face the abyss, etc. – the less likely future firms will try to seek shelter from the market and /or bankruptcy court.

Moreover, although the memory of this has faded with time, the Carter Administration and Congress were just as overbearing with the first Chrysler bailout in 1979 – except that it was the firm’s creditors that bore the brunt of the government mandates, rather than the firm itself.  Thirty years later . . .

If you ask me, rather than get nervous about the government acting like a concerned lender when a firm openly asks for aid, we should focus our attention on where the government does this to firms who had no choice but to take government “help” - such as numerous TARP recipients who received capital “injections” that were really eminent domain stock seizures in disguise.  If the Treasury Department gets the power it wants to “help” non-banking firms “too big to fail,” it could very well be able to “help” any firm in the country by ramming the “aid” down their throats – and then using the partial government ownership to take control of the firm.

If I’m Wells Fargo or JP Morgan Chase, I move heaven and earth to send a check to the Treasury ASAP.  In the meantime, the rest of us need to keep our eye on the prize – and let Congress know it cannot give Geithner the power he and the president want.

Otherwise, the bell that now tolls for GM and Chrysler is tolling for all of us.

The president quickly recovers on Britain

I have to hand it to the president; he easily came up with the best way to fix the ruffled feathers with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown – by reaching out to Opposition Leader David Cameron (London Telegraph):

It appears that President Barack Obama can read the pollsand see that the writing is on the wall for Gordon Brown. The White House has just confirmed that President Obama will meet David Cameron, on course to succeed Brown as Prime Minister next year, in London on Wednesday.

Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, said during a press conference call that Mr Obama’s first full day in the British capital will include bilaterals with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia and President Hu Jintao of China.

He added that there would also be “important meetings with the Right Honourable David Cameron, leader of the Conservative pary (sic), and with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II”.

Now, I’m not sure putting Cameron ahead of the queen was the wisest move, but more to the point, Obama has fundamentally changed the nature of all his previous faux pas with Brown.

As I had noted earlier, I read quite a bit of the British blogosphere (albeit almost exclusively on the right side), and the reaction over there has made it clear that Obama’s snubs of Brown - intentional or not – simply do not generate the outrage they have over here.

Yet, now, even those Brits who would be miffed at Obama’s previous actions will look at this and say, in effect, “Oh, I got it; he just can’t stand Gordon.”  Given that at least 2/3 of voters on the Isle of Britain are itching to send Brown packing, that is a perception the president can certainly afford to project.

The only problem is this: Gordon Brown will probably by PM for another year, meaning we could have more trans-Atlantic incidents for a while.  Still, so long as the British people assume or understand that Obama is just waiting Brown out (as they are), the long-term damage should be minimal to non-existent.

Big pick-up for Cuccinelli

My member of Congress – Rob Wittman – has endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General (Bearing Drift). Now, one endorsement by itself doesn’t win an election – let alone a convention nomination – but Wittman’s move is telling.

Rob Wittman is the archetype social-conservative-first Republican.  His record on spending issues has rankled this quarter on many occasions, although he did stand very, very tallin opposing TARP last year.  He is exactly the type of Republican who would normally be put off by Cuccinelli’s firm support for lower taxes and reducing government spending, and thus give John Brownlee another look.

More to the point, Rob Wittman is the kind of Republican Brownlee desperately needs.  Without the economic moderates, Brownlee has no chance of even blocking Cuccinelli on the first ballot, let alone gobbling up Dave Foster’s backers to win on the second.

Yet Wittman endorsed Cuccinelli.

Now, one could say that this was more a regional endorsement, but for two things: 1) Wittman’s base in the 1st District is the Northern Neck, which is closer to western Virginia in terms of political culture and temperament than anywhere else in the east, and 2) many leading economic-conservative Republicans in the west (Dick Mark Obenshain, Ralph Smith, and Lynn Mitchell, to name a few) also back Cuccinelli (nice catch, Brandon, and thanks).

This time last year, it was abundantly clear that Bob Marshall had the momentum in his race against Gilmore, but he had to make up a lot of ground to get to within a whisker of victory.  Brownlee (or Foster) needed a similar boost to block Cuccinelli.  Neither accomplished that.  Moreover, Cuccinelli himself has the momentum – as evidenced by Wittman’s endorsement.

I had been very hesitant to call Ken the favorite (much to the consternation of several fellow fans of his) largely because of my concern over the “pincer” movement of Brownlee and Foster.  After this, however, it’s clear to me that Brownlee or Foster will have to dramatically shift the narrative to prevent Cuccinelli from being nominated, and I don’t see that happening.

So Ken really is the favorite after all.

That was not the Teleprompter he knew

The president was out touting Orion Energy Systems – well, sort of.

Here’s what went down, according to Thomas Content (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, emphasis added):

All terrific press for Orion, except that Obama kept pronouncing the company’s name wrong, calling it OAR-ee-on.

After finishing his remarks and talking with a few people, the president returned to the microphone and said his prepared remarks led him to pronounce the firm’s name wrong.

No response yet from the teleprompter to being thrown under the bus (h/t Greg Pollowitz @ NRO – Media Blog).

Augusta BOS mitigates the damage with an equalized rate

The Augusta County Board opted to advertise a 48-cent tax rate (Waynesboro News Virginian); meaning that’s the highest they can go.  As that is also the tax-equalization rate, it means that the 2009 assessment fiasco will not mean an overall increase in taxes and spending.

While it may not seem like much, this was actually a big win for the Augustan people (led by my friend SWAC Girl).  Had they stayed silent and meekly accepted the assessments, odds are the Board would have kept the old rate of 58-cents and gone on a spending spree.  Instead, Augusta has its first equalization in over 25 years, and limited government didn’t take it on the chin.

Plenty of other counties were watching Augusta to see if a tax increase would come from this.  As Augusta is one of the most Republican counties in the Commonwealth, a tax hike here would have been a signal for supervisors and city councillors throughout Virginia that they could do the same in their jurisdictions.  That signal was not sent, and the rest of us should be grateful to the Augusta activists who stopped it from happening.

There is still the issue of the pre-bubble assessments, although from a political perspective, they may be easier to handle now.  Since the local government will notbe getting a revenue increase out of this, it no longer has “skin in the game,” as it were.  Perhaps now, the Board can take a long, hard look at the assessments – and recognize that it would be best to revert to the status quo ante.

At the very least, they should mitigate the damage by having another assessment in place for next year, and moving to a shorter cycle.  To leave property owners with a pre-bubble assessment value until 2013 would be hilarious if it wasn’t so painful.

Those of us old enough to remember when Sweden was the socialist model . . .

. . . are sure to be as shocked as I was by this juxtaposition (George Will, Washington Post):

TARP funds have, however, semi-purchased, among many other things, two automobile companies (and, last week, some of their parts suppliers), which must amaze Sweden. That unlikely tutor of America regarding capitalist common sense has said, through a Cabinet minister, that the ailing Saab automobile company is on its own: “The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories.”

Welcome to the 21st Century, where Sweden is firmly planted on our right.

One thing to remember (among many) as Congress goes off the rails on AIG

One of the more salient points offered by those who would use the tax code to confiscate bonuses from AIG and anyone else who took “bailout” money is that the banks shouldn’t have taken taxpayer money in the first place.  On balance, I agree that they shouldn’t have taken taxpayer money – although I can’t go so far as to say it justifies a punitive tax clawback.

However, John Hinderaker over at Powerline (h/t Mark Steyn @ NRO – The Corner) provides a critical reminder of something I noticed last October - more than a few banks took the “bailout” money at the point of a gun:

Wells Fargo didn’t want any TARP money, but the government forced it to take more than $5 billion worth . . .

I only now realized that I didn’t quite explain last October how a bank could be forced to take the money.  The day Paulson shifted gears and decided to use the $700 billion to buy stock in banks rather than just the “toxic assets,” any bank in America – like Wells Fargo, for example – suddenly came under the scope of the government’s eminent domain power.  If Uncle Sam wanted a piece of your bank, he could just take it and offer you “just compensation” – no matter if you steered clear of Wall Street’s bubble (which Wells Fargo largely did).

Thus did the heads of the nation’s leading banks find themselves huddled together in a room to receive a non-negotiable demand for their stock, and a whole bunch of other regulations, in exchange for money that at least a few of them never wanted in the first place.

Try to keep this in mind, dear reader, the next time your Congressman uses the power to tax in order to destroy the bonuses of several bailout “beneficiaries” (as, sadly, my member of Congress did).

Imagine it’s 2007 . . .

. . . and read this (ABC):

Towards the end of his approximately 40-minute appearance, the president talked about how he’s gotten better at bowling and has been practicing in the White House bowling alley.

He bowled a 129, the president said.

“That’s very good, Mr. President,” Leno said sarcastically.

It’s “like the Special Olympics or something,” the president said.

The outrage would be deafening.

However, it’s not 2007; it’s 2009. The president is not George W. Bush; it’s Barack Obama.  As Yuval Levin put it (NRO - The Corner), “He’s very lucky he’s not a Republican.”