Wake Me Up When There's An Election...Oh, Wait...

Hello to any "readers" of Bragging Writes who may still be out there. My sincere apologies for the complete and total lack of blogging for the last, well, let's not quantify it...let's just say it's been awhile!

So where have I been? Well...in a nutshell, it's really quite simple: when push comes to shove, this is a hobby and not a job, and so my job and any job-related activities must come first. But that's only part of the story. I must also admit that I seem to have misplaced my "muse". Or maybe I've realized that my muse only comes out during election years! Put differently, I find myself most inspired to write in the midst of the part of politics that I have always found most interesting -- the "horse race". Elections.

On that note, you may have heard there are a few elections today that have garnered some pretty significant national attention. In Virginia, the Gubernatorial Election has Republican Bob McDonnell facing off against Democrat Creigh Deeds. In New Jersey, incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine is up against Republican Chris Christie. And last but not least, in (way) upstate New York, near the Canadian Border, there is a race for the House of Representatives (New York 23) that now pits Conservative Party candidate -- note: not Republican Party candidate -- Doug Hoffman against Democrat Bill Owens. (The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out of the race this past weekend and subsequently endorsed the Democrat).

These three races, all quite different in many ways, also have several very interesting things in common:

• All three are states (or districts, in the case of NY-23) carried by President Obama just a year ago;
• All three are races in which President Obama and/or his White House have had significant involvement;
• All three races -- as of this writing at 6:15pm Tuesday evening -- will, in my opinion, likely be won by the Republican (or, in NY-23, Conservative) candidate.

Last year, Obama won Virginia by a margin of 53% to 46% of the vote over John McCain. The latest RealClearPolitics Average (an average of all recent polling, a.k.a. "RCP Average") has Republican McDonnell ahead of Democrat Deeds 54% to 41%. Last year, Obama won New Jersey by a margin of 57% to 42% of the vote over John McCain. The latest RCP Average has Republican Christie ahead of Democrat (and incumbent) Corzine 43% to 42%. Last year, Obama carried New York's 23rd Congressional District by a margin of 52% to 47% of the vote over John McCain. The latest poll for this race (there is no RCP Average) has Conservative Hoffman ahead of Democrat Owens 41% to 36%. The race in Virginia is a foregone conclusion -- McDonnell will win that one handily. The polls in New Jersey have fluctuated wildly over the last few weeks, and most consider this race to be extremely tight. I happen to believe, however, that Christie will win by 3 to 5 points tonight. As for NY-23, this race is just a gigantic mess. The original Republican candidate, Scozzafava, never enjoyed the backing of all national Republicans, and ultimately some notable GOP figures including Fred Thompson, Tim Pawlenty, and yes, Sarah Palin, threw their support behind Hoffman over Scozzafava. Either way, though, it looks as though Hoffman will win tonight, and while he may not be an official Republican, his victory would be a loss for the Democrats.

It's very important to note the involvement of the President and the White House in each of these races as well. Rather than try to analyze that myself, I'll leave it to a professional. John Fund of The Wall Street Journal summed it up nicely today when he wrote the following:

"It can't be said that President Obama hasn't gone all-out for Democratic candidates in the three marquee off-year elections that will be decided today.

In Virginia, Mr. Obama appeared twice for Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds. The visits only stopped a few weeks ago after Mr. Deeds began dropping in the polls, when unnamed White House aides then contributed to a front-page Washington Post story that effectively had Team Obama washing its hands of any responsibility for his likely loss.

In the wild upstate New York special election for a House seat, the White House has been deeply involved from the start. It effectively created the vacancy by enticing GOP incumbent John McHugh to become Secretary of the Army. It also helped recruit Democrat Bill Owens, a wealthy trial lawyer, and President Obama held a fundraiser in New York for him. Just yesterday the White House dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to the district to drive up turnout and lambaste Republicans as intolerant. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel also played an instrumental role over the weekend in convincing Dede Scozzafava, the now-withdrawn GOP nominee in the race, to endorse Mr. Owens rather than Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

But it's in New Jersey's governor's race that the White House footprint has been most visible and heavy. Last August, Team Obama was so worried that incumbent Governor Jon Corzine was trailing in the polls that it effectively ordered him to install top Obama political pollster Joel Benenson to mange strategy for the campaign. White House officials David Axelrod and Patrick Gaspard traveled to New Jersey to deliver the message in person to Mr. Corzine. Politico.com, citing three Corzine aides, reports that at one point the New Jersey governor even 'began to suspect that the White House was considering pushing him to step aside for another candidate -- a tactic the White House unsuccessfully tried against another northeastern Democrat in similar trouble -- New York Gov. David Paterson.'

That didn't happen, but with Mr. Benenson installed in the campaign, the White House jumped into the race with both feet. President Obama has been to New Jersey three times to rally Democrats. Sunday's visit lasted an entire day, a sharp contrast to the in-and-out stump campaigning most presidents do on behalf of candidates.

The fact is, President Obama has poured a lot more time and energy into these races than incumbent presidents usually do. At least some of his prestige and clout are on the line tonight along with the fate of his party's nominees."

And so the narrative is apparently written, right? Any Republican win tonight is a sign of trouble for Obama and the Democrats, and a Republican sweep would be a (politically) seismic event signaling a direct repudiation of Obama and the Democrats and the potential beginning of a Republican comeback, right? Well, maybe. You see, this is where I differ with many other Republicans and even with the way the headlines have already begun to be crafted by the media. Because again, as I write, I think we are looking at a Republican sweep tonight -- (assuming Hoffman is a de facto Republican in NY-23). And while I think this is certainly significant and while it would have been thought improbable six months ago and impossible twelve months ago, I don't believe the GOP should pop the champagne just yet.

In short, I think this is likely more of a rejection of Obama and Congressional Democrats than it is a sign of renewed confidence in or newfound affection for Republicans. Should my prediction hold true, I do think Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ought to be concerned. I do not, however, think that Republicans should begin licking their chops and dreaming of regaining majorities in the House and Senate next year on the way to taking back the White House in 2012.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid should be worried because of the real concerns that many of the same independent voters who put Obama in the White House now have about him and his Capital Hill cohorts -- the same independents who will likely tip these three elections away from Democrats tonight. Obama needs them to pass healthcare, and he needs them for electoral purposes both in the midterm elections next year and his own reelection in 2012. So while this should be something that raises the stress level in the West Wing, let's not go overboard. Three elections in an off-year do not signify a catastrophe for Obama and his party by any means, but they do likely signify the need to recalibrate a bit in order to prevent further political erosion.

As for the GOP, the Republican "brand" is so very damaged -- rightfully so, some might argue, (this writer being one of them, at least on certain issues) -- that three elections in an off-year will be only the first step in a long process of recovery and rebuilding. Would a "sweep" tonight be a feather in the GOP's cap? Sure. Would it energize a Republican base still licking their (largely self-inflicted) wounds from 2008? You bet. But if Republicans try to make too much out of what happens tonight, they risk returning immediately to the cocky and tone-deaf politics that brought the party to its knees a year ago. So as a Republican, my advice to the GOP tonight is the same advice a good football coach gives his players about how to behave after scoring a touchdown. Do you spike the ball and start dancing around like a maniac? Absolutely not. You calmly hand the referee the ball, return to the field, and get back to work. "Act like you've been there before", the coach says. Bingo. Republicans tonight should "act like [they've] been there before". If they do, perhaps it will indeed be the first of many steps required to actually get them back there again.

The Republican Party: An "Endangered Species"?

There’s no question that it’s a tough time to be a Republican. Look no further than the cover of this week’s Time Magazine (left), which features the trademark Republican elephant below the ominous descriptor: “Endangered Species”. So let's take stock of where things stand. Democrats control the White House, the House and the Senate, and if recent polls are accurate, the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans too. Arlen Specter’s defection and Al Franken’s inevitable “victory” in Minnesota will give Senate Democrats a coveted, filibuster-proof 60 seat-majority in the Senate. House Republicans are led ineffectively and are in no position to mount a credible challenge to any legislation that President Obama or the Democratic majority wish to see passed. New RNC Chairman Michael Steele has been a colossal disappointment, and now borders on earning “national joke” status. Any fair-minded person would admit that the media are in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, only furthering the inability of Republicans to mount any sort of quasi-effective counteroffensive. But “other than that, Mrs. Lincoln”, how do things look for the GOP?

It’s indeed hard to deny that the Republican Party is facing something of a nadir right now – certainly for my generation. We grew up during the “Reagan Revolution”, saw the Democrats briefly resurge when Bill Clinton was elected, but then witnessed the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 in which the Republicans gained control of the House and the Senate – the former for the first time in four decades. And there were heady times initially in the George W. Bush years, too, particularly when, very briefly, it was the Republican Party who controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. But shortly after Bush was reelected in 2004, things began to go very badly very quickly for the GOP. President Bush squandered considerable goodwill from the electorate and enormous political capital, most notably in the mishandling of the first years of the Iraq War, as well as with Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The severity of the GOP’s dire straits began to be confirmed in the 2006 midterm elections, and the situation only worsened for the party as it stumbled into the 2008 elections. John McCain never had a chance in November (and really, no Republican candidate would have), and the Democrats built upon the legislative majorities they already held. So what now for the Republican Party? Are Republicans, in fact, an “endangered species”?

The irony for the GOP is that this daunting low point could, in fact, be a great opportunity. Americans have not seen a government this liberal in recent history. Between Obama – who as president is belying his “most liberal Senator” rating – Harry Reid and his soon-to-be unchecked Senate, and last but not least, Nancy Pelosi, we as a country are dealing with individuals in the key positions of power who are arguably further to the political left than any in history. With no legislative or popular leverage for Republicans, Obama’s agenda will sail through the House and the Senate, and in a matter of months, there could be some very significant changes in our country that will affect Americans in their day-to-day lives. As a Republican, I obviously believe that the majority of people will not be happy with everything that Obama has done, not to mention the more worrisome things he has yet to do. And it is here where opportunity may knock for the GOP. A popular backlash to Obama’s policies would give Republicans the chance to remind the voters who they are, what they stand for, and to present a stark contrast from what we are sure to see from the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress.

This is an opportunity that the GOP has not had since Ronald Reagan assumed office following President Carter’s disastrous single term. Unlike today, during the Clinton years, the Republicans were in control of the House and Senate for the majority of his two terms, and perhaps more importantly, Clinton often led from the center of the political spectrum. Clinton’s poll-driven and fickle “centrism” offered no true chance for a Republican contrast. The situation is different now. There is no such moderation in President Obama, and he’s too ambitious not to take advantage of having such decisive control of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. But with great power comes great responsibility, and should the various items on the Obama agenda fail, there will be no one else for the Democratic Party to blame.

It’s not that simple, though. While perhaps optimistic Republicans would argue that Obama and his party now have “just enough rope to hang themselves”, the president is too smart to walk into such an obvious trap. No, Obama and the Democrats won’t implode on their own -- certainly not if the media can help it -- and to the extent they do fail and suffer for it politically, Republicans still have to present a cohesive and coherent alternative for those who may become disaffected with the Democrats. The Republican Party of May, 2009 is not a party capable of rising to this challenge. Ideological fault lines have created deep divisions within the GOP, a party that used to pride itself on its “big tent” philosophy, and on its ability to accept and embrace people of varying views – particularly with regard to social policy. Certain wings of the party still practice this, but others have become far more stringent about the litmus tests applied to those who seek to identify themselves as Republicans. This constricted and narrow-minded approach to party ideology is an impediment that must be dealt with before the GOP can rise again.

But who will take them there? As of now, there is no clear leader who can both begin the GOP’s recovery and serve as its face and voice. The person or persons who exhibit the ability to unite the currently divided party will likely earn Reagan-esque levels of admiration for achieving such a feat. I don’t know who this person is. I’m not sure any Republican really does. Perhaps it is someone who is young and only now beginning a political career. Or, perhaps it’s a more unlikely figure, maybe even someone who has been around for awhile. Either way, I tend to doubt the Republican Party will find this person in time to mount a credible challenge in 2012, but eventually, they will find him (or her). Because from adversity comes strength, and the ideals that Republicans of every ilk still commonly hold dear remain powerful, identifiable and appealing to many Americans – even if those who fail to lead The Grand Old Party now have temporarily lost sight of them.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com)

First Things First, Mr. President

Suppose I had my eye on a new house, a real “fixer-upper”. It’s a bigger house than I have now, and it’s more money than I want to spend, but I want it nonetheless. And maybe “fixer-upper” is too generous. There are leaks in the roof, the appliances are old and some are even broken, and the yard is overgrown. But I want this house, and I decide to pull out all the stops to make it mine, exhausting my savings and borrowing heavily. Then imagine that during the time between the acceptance of my offer and the closing, the leaks worsen until finally, right after we close, a full-fledged hole develops in the roof, allowing rain, cold air, debris and other undesirable things to enter the house through the hole, rendering it nearly uninhabitable. At this point, however, we are committed, this is our home, and so we proceed as planned and move in.

We have big plans for this house. We plan to add a new master bedroom to the back of the house, we want to put a pool in the back yard, and we also want to take the necessary steps to make the house “green”. Our first few weeks in the house, however, things aren’t going too well. The constant cold air rushing through the hole in the roof forces us to use the heat at all times, driving up our power and gas bills. The washer and dryer, already old and unreliable, finally kick the bucket, joining the refrigerator on the list of now defunct appliances. About a month after we move in, the area of the roof where the hole had been completely collapses, and now we have no roof over the dining room at all. Our new house is basically a living hell, and I find myself constantly reminding my wife that we didn’t cause the problems in the house. Did the previous owners really allow the house to fall into such a state of disrepair?

I promise my wife that we are, first and foremost, going to address the roof. It has to be done. We are basically living outdoors. We ask for a number of estimates on the roof, and despite the fact that one of the roofers has had his license revoked for construction violations, he says he has the most experience dealing with roof problems like ours, and so we hire him anyway. He begins to show up every day, but it seems as though he only examines the roof over and over again, taking pictures and measuring, but not actually doing anything. One day as I watch him again examining the missing roof, I ask him just when he plans to get to work. He tells me that he is still formulating the best plan of action, and that as soon as he has a full plan in place, he’s going to get started. I’m slightly irritated – there’s no roof over our dining room, after all – but he’s supposedly the best, and I figure it’s probably better if I don’t interfere too much.

In the meantime, I have promised the kids for years that we would have a pool as soon as we moved, and I just don’t think I can make them wait. I contact the pool company, and they come out to give me an estimate. It’s staggeringly expensive, but a promise is a promise, and so I go back to my bank where, miraculously, I’m given additional loans. At dinner the next night, I tell my kids that we’ll break ground on the new pool in a few weeks, and of course, they are ecstatic. My wife is worried, though, because of the other problems that remain unaddressed, but I think I know how to pacify her. I’ve been promising her the new master bedroom, and deep down, she’s as excited about that as the kids are about the pool. The next day, a contractor shows up to give us an estimate on the addition. It’s almost as much as the pool, and while I feel a little sick to my stomach, I am able to borrow against my mortgage to get the cash to pay for it. When she hears that we’re going to begin building her dream bedroom, she nearly forgets about the missing roof.

The following week, we’ve broken ground on the pool, the plans are in place for the new bedroom, and the roofer still shows up every day to tinker with his plan, but he hasn’t yet made the repairs. At the same time, the missing roof has become such a constant that we’re almost immune to the inconvenience and discomfort, and we continue to wait for the roofer to work his magic. But then things change dramatically when I get some bad news: I’ve been laid off at work. While they offer me a decent severance package, with the job market as tough as it is, I know it’s going to be hard to find work. In an attempt to soften the blow that the news will be to my wife, after I leave work for the last time, I go right to Sears and buy the best washer, dryer and refrigerator they have with my Sears Card – the only credit card on which I’m not maxed out!

When I get home, all is not well, though, as our pipes have burst and the first floor is flooded. The pool company asks if I still want to move forward with the pool, and the contractor offers to halt construction of the new master bedroom, but I am terrified of disappointing my wife and kids, so I go full speed ahead on both. Even the environmental company is nice enough to offer to cancel our consultation, but my in-laws have made it clear that they won’t visit us unless our house is environmentally friendly, and I do not want to cross my mother-in-law! The environmental consultant is aware of my situation, and amazingly, he tells me that I can delay my payment by a year if necessary, and so I tell him to go ahead and get started on making our house green. My mother-in-law is thrilled! All in all, things seem pretty good.

Does all of this sound completely and utterly crazy? It certainly should. The scary thing is that this is nearly the equivalent of what Barack Obama has done in his 50 days in office. In this little allegory, I’m President Obama. The house is the country. The roof is our economy and financial system, and the roofer, obviously, represents Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. My wife and kids are the various far Left constituencies who helped elect Obama, and to whom he is politically indebted. The pool represents the Obama budget, the master bedroom is the stimulus package, and the plans to make the house green symbolize Obama’s recently unveiled healthcare initiative. My father-in-law is Harry Reid, and my terrifying mother-in-law is Nancy Pelosi.

In the last few months, our economic and financial problems have worsened dramatically, and as things have deteriorated, the administration has looked at the problems, talked about the problems, but really done nothing to fix the problems. Despite this glaring and fundamental issue, Obama continues his incredibly ambitious and expensive plans with almost no regard for the growing economic mayhem around him. Last week, on the same day the Dow again lost another 4%, Obama announced plans for healthcare reform with a $650 Billion price tag. He is prepared to sign a $3.6 Trillion budget which will not only double our national debt and add more to our deficit than all of his predecessors combined, he is prepared to sign this budget replete with its 8570 earmarks – earmarks Obama promised to do away with. All the while, our economic and financial predicaments become more and more severe, and Tim Geithner has yet to offer any sort of concrete plans to address it. The proverbial house is crumbling around him, but the president seems determined to make it bigger anyway.

Our new president didn’t cause the problems he now faces, but he has exacerbated them. What Obama and his administration should have done – and perhaps still can and should do – is set aside their other plans and focus almost myopically on the economy. The other initiatives can and must wait. Fix this, and the political capital Obama will have will be nearly limitless, and the American people will support almost anything he wants. But fix it, and fix it now. As one of the ubiquitous talking heads noted on television recently, Obama and his team are remarkably good at politics, but are they as skilled at governing? Let's hope so.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Should the GOP Just Mail It In This Year?

It’s a tough time for the Republican Party. GOP purists would argue that the party has lost its way, no longer adhering to the central tenets of “The Reagan Revolution”, particularly with regard to spending. Republicans had simultaneous control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House from 2002 until 2006, and yet most would agree that the party emerged from that opportunity with very little to show for it. Voters took notice, it seems, and the 2006 Midterm Elections served as something of a comeuppance for Republicans, with Democrats taking control of both the House and Senate.

Going into the 2008 Elections, it’s not looking good. As things stand now, it appears the Republican minorities in both the House and Senate are going to widen. Topping the GOP Ticket this year is John McCain, a nominee for whom enthusiasm is lukewarm at best, and whose chances are not helped by facing Barack Obama, one of the most eloquent, charismatic and well-funded candidates in history. With such a bleak outlook, a controversial school of thought has emerged in certain Republican circles, proponents of which make the case that the GOP should essentially concede this election cycle to the Democrats, allowing them to assume simultaneous control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Then, the theory holds, the country could watch the Democrats make a fine mess of things, paving the way for a triumphant Republican resurgence in 2010 or 2012. It’s a romantic idea, and one whose merits I can understand and even appreciate to a certain extent, but in the end, mark me down as one Republican vehemently opposed to this strategy.

Currently in the House of Representatives, Democrats hold a 236 to 199 seat majority. To make matters worse, all signs point to Democrats increasing their majority in November. The latest generic Congressional poll conducted by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal gives Democrats an edge over Republicans of 48.7% to 37.3% (despite Congressional approval ratings at only 15%, even lower than President Bush who sits at 30%). Republicans are only hurting their prospects more with a near-record number of retirements on the horizon. At least 26 House Members have announced their intentions to call it quits this year, ceding the huge advantage of incumbency to the Democrats by creating open seats in a year in which voters do not hold the GOP in high regard.

The situation is really no better in the Senate, either. While the Democratic majority in the Senate is much narrower (50 seats to 49 seats with 1 Independent), the implications of an increased majority in the Senate are much more significant. Should the Democrats manage to increase their majority to 60 seats – the so-called “Magic 60” – the consequences for the GOP are enormous because the Democrats’ edge would be “filibuster proof”. A filibuster-proof majority gives the Democrats an enormous amount of power, and would be particularly important in several key areas. First and foremost, the agenda of a President Obama would essentially be fast-tracked without the threat of any real Republican challenge or ability to stop it. Secondly, with no threat of a filibuster, Democrats would be able to quickly and easily push through any and all judicial nominations – including, of course, nominations for the Supreme Court. Lastly, assuming an increased majority in the House to boot, the Democrats would quite literally be running the country, with Republicans marginalized to little more than spectators.

For some Republicans and conservatives, this scenario has appeal, providing Democrats, they would contend, just enough rope to hang themselves. And this strategy, it should be noted, has some high profile backers. Among those making this argument over the past few months are Rush Limbaugh, and various writers and editors at The National Review, the preeminent conservative publication in the country. With the Democrats in complete control, Limbaugh has said, “the country would go to hell in a hand basket”. Once that happens, claim those who subscribe to this theory, Americans would be forced to recognize the misguided, erroneous and foolish nature of the Democrats’ policies. The GOP, hitting a cathartic bottom, would have no choice but to return to its best conservative traditions and roots, emerging from its political wilderness as a stronger, more united, and more philosophically pure Republican Party, ready to again earn the Americans’ confidence and return to political superiority.

Not so fast, says this Republican, however. To be sure, like many, I too am disappointed by President Bush and by the Republican Party in general, and by their missteps and the missed opportunities of the last 6 to 8 years. I further agree that the GOP has lost sight of many of its foundational principles – many of which were what attracted me to the party in the first place. I also concur that the party needs a wake-up call, but here is where I begin to diverge from Rush Limbaugh and others. I would argue that the sad state of the Republican Party today should be sufficient in giving the party the slap across the face it clearly needs. And while I also believe that the Democrats would make a mess of things if given unfettered control of the federal government, I am not prepared to simply concede this election and let them wreak havoc purely for long-term political gains. The stakes are simply too high – not only for the country as a whole, but for me personally.

There are three major areas of concern that preclude my signing on to the concession theory. First and foremost, a President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are going to raise taxes through the roof. At the very least, the top tax rate will go from 35% to 40%, the lowest tax rate from 10% to 15%, the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20%, and the tax on dividends from 15% to 40%. The so-called “marriage penalty”, now non-existent for couples making less than $150,000 a year, would under Obama’s plan, be in full effect from the first dollar earned. Under the current law, parents receive a child tax credit of $1000 per child. Obama, Pelosi and Reid would reduce this to $500 per child. For those who have been exposed to the archaic Alternative Minimum Tax in recent years, under Democratic control the AMT will continue to exact its disproportionate toll on taxpayers’ wallets. At a time when the economy is unquestionably hurting, the country cannot afford the massive tax increases that Democratic control would bring. From a personal standpoint, as my wife and I try to save money, work to purchase a home, and hopefully prepare for the financial aspects of raising children, we truly can’t afford to let Obama, Pelosi and Reid have their way when it comes to raising taxes. My financial stability is too important to passively watch the Democrats enjoy an unencumbered taxing and spending spree.

Second, I am not comfortable with the national security or foreign policy ramifications of the potential Democratic trifecta. Obama’s lack of experience is a major source of concern for me, and his stated willingness to meet with Iran and other rogue regimes as president with no preconditions raises concerns for me about his judgment in this area. Does he understand the nature and gravity of the terrorist threat to our country? I am not convinced he does. His continued refusal to acknowledge the success of the so-called “Surge” in Iraq (and his unwillingness to indicate he would have supported it had he known the benefits it would ultimately have) leads me to question his readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief. Pelosi ushered the Democrats into the majority in 2006 with all sorts of reckless promises with regard to Iraq. While thankfully she hasn’t delivered on them – much to the chagrin of the moveon.org wing of her party – with the willing pen of a President Obama in the Oval Office and a compliant partner with an increased majority of his own in Harry Reid, it’s not unrealistic to think she would return to her dangerously dovish plans. Finally – and again from a personal perspective – as a resident of Manhattan incalculably grateful for the job that President Bush, Homeland Security, and the NYC authorities have done in keeping us safe since September 11^th, I am not convinced that Democrats in full control will be willing to make the touch choices required to maintain our national security. I would never put political gains ahead of the safety of my family and me, and so I cannot concede an election with the possible consequences so serious.

Lastly, there is the issue of the Judiciary. With four Supreme Court Justices over the age of 70, the next President will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint at least two people to the Supreme Court, and likely more. While the Supreme Court currently consists of more Justices appointed by Republican Presidents than by Democratic Presidents, the ideological makeup of the Court is, in reality, rather balanced. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are considered reliably conservative; Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are thought to be reliably liberal; and Justice Kennedy is considered to be the swing vote. With the possibility of several imminent retirements (or, morbidly, deaths), the next President could have a significant impact on the political leanings of the Court. If Republicans concede this year and allow President Obama to appoint judicial nominees of all levels without a realistic check on that power by the Republican minority in the Senate, the long-term consequences could be dire. Democrats in the Senate did an extremely effective job of reining in President Bush’s judicial nominees through the use of (or threat of) the filibuster. If the Democrats reach the “Magic 60”, the GOP will have no ability to influence the makeup of the Judicial Branch. While the ability to appoint nominees of his or her choosing is a right and privilege afforded to the president – and therefore a right and privilege Obama would rightfully have earned should he be elected – the vital system of checks and balances instituted by our Founding Fathers requires that the opposition party have some parliamentary powers at their disposal to provide that check. The far-reaching and wide-ranging powers of the Judiciary are far too consequential for the GOP to wave the white flag in November. Looking at it personally, the coming judicial nominees and their rulings are likely to affect me for the rest of my life, and I’m not willing to relinquish that advantage to the Democrats by taking a pass this year.

In many respects, frankly, the GOP deserves to be in the position in which we now find ourselves, and I have no doubt that Democrats delight in the current Republican dilemma. (I can’t say that I wouldn’t enjoy it were the tables turned)! I also can’t tell you with sincerity that I am really enthusiastic about John McCain, or about Congressional Republicans in general. It may well be that when I go to the voting booth in November and pull the lever for McCain and other GOP candidates, I’ll be doing so more to voice my opposition to unrestrained Democratic control than to express my wholehearted support for my party’s presidential or congressional candidates. But whatever my motivation ends up being, I can assure you that I will indeed be pulling that lever for McCain, and I encourage my fellow Republicans to do the same. There are different theories on how to extricate the Republican Party from its current predicament, but conceding an election to the Democrats and thereby handing them the keys to the entire federal government, is not the answer. The stakes are too high for the country, and the stakes are too high for me personally.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).