The Bosque Boys

I disagree that a politician (Bush or Kerry) whose only move is to attack is "amazing." I think it is kind of depressing.

Of course, though I'm no historian, I know that American politics have been based largely on slander and unrelenting personal attacks. That doesn't make it right.

What is amazing is that people who believe in small government, states' rights, and a strong national defense are still so emotionally invested in a guy who has bloated the government, extended federal power ruthlessly, and is leading our military to another humiliating but inevitable withdrawal from a fruitless foreign adventure.

Shouldn't we be trying for something better than Bush or Kerry? And if we are trying for that, why keep cheerleading for a status quo (in either party) which is clearly so unprincipled, but have maintained power precisely because of their "amazing" powers of personal attack?

Bush is not on the ballot, neither this year nor in 2008. So I don't see much of an "emotional investment."

As for his alleged "ruthless extension of federal power," you must be joking. And isn't this the very sort of "attack" rhetoric you just assailed?

"Shouldn't we be trying for something better than Bush or Kerry? And if we are trying for that, why keep cheerleading for a status quo (in either party) which is clearly so unprincipled . . . ." This all sounds very well and good, Gossenius, but at the end of the day when we step into the voting booth we must vote for someone. We are historically an overwhelmingly two-party system, but you seem to be implying that a vote for either a Democrat or a Republican is a vote for the status quo? Are Ned Lamont and Bernie Sanders the only "pure" candidates in your book? Tell me, how should I vote down here in Tampa, Florida if I really want to "speak truth to power" with the rest of you? I'm all ears.

In my field, criminal law, the extension of federal power has been striking-- well beyond the realm of anti-terror legislation. Further, the feds' fighting in court initiatives passed by majorities in California and Oregon is the opposite of proper federalism.

As for hoping for something better, what I mean isn't leaving the two-party system, but expecting more within it. Bush has betrayed the principles he articulates. Kerry, who sets himself out as compassionate and an environmentalist, seems to be neither. They get away with by attacking the other side. That doesn't seem to be working.

I don't care who you vote for. My problem is with the process as a whole, and the best example of what is wrong (and has always been wrong) comes out in the heat of an election, so this is a good time to talk about that, too.

For clarification:

When I said "attack," I meant that in a tactical sense. I meant to convey aggressive action as opposed to passivity or staying silent (the "out of sight/out of mind" strategy).

Of course, the answer to Gossenius's original query is that "small government" is not on the ballot. I am interested to see what we do in the aftermath of this election. The process of reform within the major parties is cumbersome. Another alternative may be the ultimate solution.

I agree that we are at a crossroads.

On the other hand, it is not all that surprising to see traditional-GOP voters horrified at the prospect of all the usual Democratic Party suspects preparing to reclaim power.

As for myself, rationally, I think that the GOP losing power is exactly what we need. Emotionally, I cannot root for the restoration of the Democratic establishment.

Farmer, you've written several times to the effect that a loss in 06 would be good for the Republicans. I agree. I also want a healthy Democratic Party. Would a loss in 06 help them. I am not so sure: the losses in the last decade seem only to have made more and more Dems shrill and even more narrow-minded. I am convinced, however, that a Democratic win in 06 will confirm the Dems in some of their worst habits of mind and behavior.

Michael Novak is predicting a Republican victory Nov 7. I think he partly is engaged in wishful thinking, but, does make a few good points. Especially on turnout in a nonpresidential year. http://article.nationalrevi...

Essay from REASON Mag in favor of a GOP loss for reasons of smaller government: http://www.reasonmag.com/ne...

As for the Gardener's question, in short, I firmly believe that the Democratic Party is in trouble and in need of reform. I intend to write, after this election, on the lethal confluence of problems that threaten the Democratic Party--and how they can address them.

To the point, winning this election will not really help them in the long view. Winning, as you say, often confirms bad habits.

If only our American candidates could be more like the politicians in Westen Europe who brought such success:

http://crookedtimber.org/20...

Win or lose, some Republicans are already pressing for major changes
By Susan Crabtree

Win or lose next week, the GOP needs some serious soul-searching, according to several rank-and-file House Republicans who already are arguing in favor of a post-Election Day leadership shake-up.

With just days before voters decide Republicans’ fate, most lawmakers contacted for this article are focused on last-minute campaign and get-out-the-vote efforts and won’t talk about post-election strategy.

Others, however, believe that change — be it in policy, process, or leadership matters —as soon as possible is the only way House Republicans can climb out of the rut they’ve been stuck in this cycle.

“If we lose the majority, I think it ought to be a clean sweep — a fresh start,” Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said about the GOP leadership team.

He worries that if the GOP keeps even a fragile hold on its majority, the conference will stick with the same leadership course with only minor changes. This, in turn, will mean continuing to put too much emphasis on trying to keep the majority by handing out earmarks to vulnerable members and special favors to certain groups instead of standing for principles such as fiscal restraint.

Recent conference calls with GOP leaders have done nothing to calm his fears. “When you get on these conference calls … there’s not much of a ‘Mea culpa on what we’ve done wrong and here’s what we’re going to do,’ ” he said.

Even GOP lawmakers reluctant to discuss anything past Nov. 7 are preparing for a leadership scramble next week.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has indicated that she would like to run for the GOP conference chair, a key communications position now held by Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), who is in the toughest reelection fight of her life. In the last month, Blackburn has hit the talk show circuit to press the GOP’s case to voters, appearing on about 20 national TV shows, according to her spokesman.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), the conference vice chairman and a contender for the full chairmanship, has also hit the media circuit to speak out for Republican candidates. He also gave at least $365,000 from his campaign committee alone to the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to a recent Federal Election Commission report.

Kingston doesn’t want to discuss leadership contests, and sticks to the GOP election script that Democrats would raise taxes if they retake control. But he concedes that Republicans need to make critical policy changes after the election, win or lose.

House Republicans must provide more oversight hearings on the war in Iraq and do more to end the nation’s addiction to oil by developing viable energy alternatives. “We’ve got to provide better energy solutions,” he said.

Flake is well known for fighting his leaders, especially against earmarks, but he also places some blame for GOP’s poor standing on himself for failing to speak out more strongly at key times.

Flake said he deeply regrets not standing up and criticizing GOP leaders’ decision early last year to purge the ethics committee of its Republican members after the panel admonished former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) for the third time for ethics violations.

“The rank-and-file members, myself included, should have stood up and screamed,” he said. “Its just another indication that we’re not policing our own and it goes to the whole earmarking culture [that led to the imprisonment of former Rep.] Duke Cunningham [R-Calif.].”

If the ethics committee had been up and running last year when GOP leaders first heard about inappropriate emails former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) sent to a page, members would have been able to refer it to the panel for investigation. Democrats, at the time, were protesting the purge of GOP members and were refusing to meet the new Republicans on the committee.

“You can blame the Democrats, but we certainly gave them a reason to do what they did,” Flake said. “We simply didn’t have an ethics committee process that worked at a time when we needed it … I feel badly that I didn’t say anything and neither did other members … it’s a pox on all of us.”

Other members would only speak anonymously of a growing desire within the conference to change at least some of its leaders no matter what happens next week.

“There’s a heightened sense that there needs to be a different approach — a refocusing of our priorities,” one lawmaker noted. “There is a lot of frustration.”

When asked, several GOP sources said they believed that Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) could announce his departure whether Republicans maintain the majority or not, although most believe it is more likely if Republicans lose.