GOP Rout Could Be Historic

Thins are looking worse and worse for the Democrats this cycle. The latest Gallup tracking poll has Republicans leading in the generic congressional ballot among registered voters, 51% to 41%.

It's the GOP's lead is the largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress.

And remember this is registered voters. The likely voter model is the one that usually favors the GOP. The number among likely voters could be well into the teens.

Another news item that caught my attention was the fact that Tea Party groups were preparing to bring some serious cash to challenge Mike Castle (R) in the Delaware primary this Sept. I have said before how Castle would be a solid, yet moderate, republican voice in the Senate. I hope in an effort to move the country to the right, we do not end up pushing all moderates out.

One Reason for a Return to New Federalism

Scanning the various news sties today I came across this startling piece:

Here's a wake up call for the White House from Public Policy Polling: Louisianans are feeling more and more that President Bush's leadership in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was better than President Obama's on the massive gulf oil spill.

Key finding: 54% think Bush did the superior job of helping the state through a crisis to 33% who pick Obama.

While it would be fun to gloat and say that people didn't appreciate Bush while he was in office, or that Obama is just as inept at dealing with fast moving crises I don't think that really gets to the heart of the issue. What this poll shows is why we need a return to a New Federalism.

Early in our country's history a political group emerged calling themselves Federalist. The Federalist Papers, a compilation of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, strove to make the case for a strong federal government. They felt, rightly, that only a far stronger national government could address the many, and growing, crises facing the young United States. However, as our nation matured the federal government matured with it, and after the Civil War it increased greatly in size and influence, in terms of its influence on everyday life and its size as compared to the state governments. By the late 20th century many felt it had grown out of control. Enter the Regan Revolution and the idea of New Federalism.

New Federalism was characterized by a gradual return of power to the states through the use of such items as block grants, which allowed states to use the federal grants in whatever manner they saw fit as most beneficial to their citizens. The New Federalists understood that many of the issues facing the U.S. could best be handled by those closest to them. Unfortunately, George W Bush largely abandoned this movement instead moving towards a compassionate (read big) conservatism.

What the above stated poll shows is that in large part it does not matter who sits in the oval office, or what party controls congress when it comes to responding to localized crises. The federal government can not really do the job well.As the GOP strives to find an identity amidst pulls towards libertarianism by the Tea Party and pulls to the left by Big Government conservatives perhaps there is room for a discussion around a responsive and reactive government on the state level as opposed to an all-powerful national government.

Your Stimulus Hard at Work

Sarah Palin & Scott Brown: Why Do We Have To Choose?

Sigh.
I fear that there is a coming GOP implosion. 2010 will by accounts be great  for those on the right, but after that? I don't have the warm and fuzzies. While the Tea Partiers are providing lots of energy they are also shrinking the tent. Fewer and fewer Republicans are going to be good enough. I applaud those would are strict conservatives for standing up for their principles; it is admirable. But what I think some people fail to see is that our nation is not governed by political parties, it is governed by coalitions. In order to have a conservative coalition we need to have moderates as well as strict conservatives. Sarah Palin did not help things yesterday:

Sarah Palin, in an unexpected poke at Senator Scott Brown, said that while Massachusetts may “put up with’’ the GOP lawmaker and “some of the antics,’’ Republicans in states across the nation wouldn’t tolerate his more moderate views and compromising ways.

Palin, whose criticism strikes at the core of discord among top national Republicans over how closely to hew to the Tea Party movement, suggested in comments aired Wednesday on Fox Business Network that Brown is ignoring conservative voters’ wishes.

“But up here in Alaska, and so many places across the US, where we have a pioneering, independent spirit, and we have an expectation that our representatives in D.C. will respect the will of the people and the intelligence of the people, well, up here, we wouldn’t stand for that,’’ she said.

 I have said it before, but it bears repeating- Brown is the type of Republican that MA will elect. They will not elect Jim Demint, Marco Rubio or Sarah Palin. Would Palin rather put up with the antics of Martha Coakley?
 John Kerry? Joe Kennedy? Massachusetts managed to elect a moderate Republican for the first time in generation, but if that isn't good enough I am sure the state's Democratic party would be happy to supply the replacement.

Joe Scarborough in 2012?

This would be interesting.The Morning Joe host is my kind of Republican, fiscally conservative but also practical. From Marc Ambinder:

"Joe Scarborough, former congressman from Florida and co-host of MSNBC's agenda-setting wake-up show Morning Joe, has protested, kindly and loudly (he is kind and loud), when speculation arises about his presidential ambitions. He points out that MSNBC is not the platform a conservative would use to build street credentials among his base. He insists he enjoys his current job, turning down entreaties from Republicans to run for Senate by noting that he has more influence as a broadcaster than as a member of the saucer cooler. Nonetheless, a studio apartment industry has arisen of conservatives who think that Scarborough might just be the type of Republican who can be successful in the future."

"Scarborough describes himself as a conservative with libertarian leanings. He's a fiscal hawk who cares more about the debt because it's a genuine burden than because it's an opportunity to prevent liberals from spending. He is not a denialist. He doesn't traffic in fear-based politics. He doesn't like cant, and has been trained, as an off-the-cuff broadcaster, to speak more like the normal person he is than the politician he once was. "

Greatest...Quote...Ever

I know that here at The Moderate Republican I strive to be fair to both sides and seek common ground when I can. I do not partake in baiting the opposition just for the sake of picking a fight. That said, if we can't laugh at each other once in a while, what's the point?

Miss Me Yet?

Well....maybe not, but this is still pretty interesting:

The advice from Democratic consultants and strategists is almost unanimous: Run away from the president, and fast. A prominent Democratic pollster is circulating a survey that shows George W. Bush is 6 points more popular than President Obama in "Frontline" districts -- seats held by Democrats that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sees as most vulnerable to Republican takeover. That Bush is more popular than Obama in Democratic-held seats is cause for outright fear.

A Centrist Senate?

Matthew Yglesias had a very interesting post the other day:

It occurred to me today that there’s at least some chance that in January of 2011 the US Senate will have 49 Democrats, Joe Lieberman, Charlie Crist, and 49 Republicans. Which is to say that Lieberman & Crist could form a two-man caucus, hold the balance of power, and drive organization of the Senate. Crist could leapfrog seniority and chair a committee. And if it looked like that might happen, mightn’t it make sense for Northeastern moderate Republicans (Snowe, Collins, Brown, Castle) and Southern moderate Democrats (Landrieu, Pryor, Hagan) to join their rebellion against the two party system? 

If this actually happened imagine the pull that group could have. Unfortunately I doubt whether anyone would have the political courage to do something truly outside the box like this.