As the Pelosi Democrats prepare to yield power in the House to the Boehner Republicans, I wonder whether in the various meeting rooms of the gay groups in our nation’s capital, they are developing strategies to reach out to people whose language many of the groups’ leaders are loath to understand:  Republicans.

I wonder as well what kind of meetings these groups had two years ago, as Democrats cemented their control of Congress and were about to take control of the executive branch.  Did they just exult in the electoral successes of their preferred political party, believing that because the then-incoming majority was filled with well-meaning liberals who loved the gays that they were sure to act swiftly on their policy priorities?  Or did they develop a strategy to ensure that the Democrats kept their promises on a whole range of issues from repeal of DADT and DOMA to passage of ENDA as well as legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions.

It would seem that the smart strategy would have been to prioritize those issues so as to work on them one at a time, starting with the proverbial lowest hanging fruit, the most popular legislation.  Then, with priorities in place, they would be better prepared to reach out to their allies on the Hill and in the Administration to develop a time-frame for each.  Perhaps, they did develop such a strategy and from my perspective here on the West Coast, I was not privy to it.

But, from the various releases I received from these groups — not to mention the knowledge I gained reading their web-sites — it seemed they had adopted a scattershot approach, reminding us of the imperative of each of these issues instead of choosing to prioritize these issues and push them one at a time. (more…)

Catch the editorializing in the first line of this AP piece on the new crop of Republican governors:

Incoming Republican governors from Pennsylvania to New Mexico are vowing to keep campaign promises to slice already cut-to-the-bone budgets and balance them without raising taxes.

In doing so, GOP leaders intent on conservative governance signaled a desire to try to fundamentally change state government, shrinking it significantly. And they acknowledged that could mean more job losses and service cuts to already recession-hammered states anticipating more budget trouble ahead.

The article as a whole is pretty even-handed, showing that these incoming governors understand the fiscal challenges ahead of them.

That said, for AP National Political Writer Liz Sidoti to suggest that state government budgets are already “cut-to-the-bone” ignores the profligate record of many state legislatures in recent yeas, a profligacy hidden by the payments in the Democrats’ “stimulus” to fund various state services.

It would be nice if Ms. SIdoti could acknowledge that many of these incoming chief executives face the problems they do because of the profligacy of their predecessors, many of the Democrats.

Looks like Chris Christie’s got some company coming in the new crop of governors-elect.

Speaking of the hubris of Democrats, take a listen to something the senior Senator from West Virginia said recently:

I hunger for quality news. I’m tired of the right and the left. There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, “Out. Off. End. Goodbye.” It’d be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.

Does the “quality news” for which he hungers mean “journalism” which only reports on the comments he makes and the policies he supports in a favorable manner?  Look, Mr. Rockefeller, you’ve been in the Senate for 26 years, using your family’s vast resources to help finance your various campaigns.

Seems this fella thinks “the reason people have lost faith in government is because of… Fox News and MSNBC.”  You know, Jay, it just might be you and your big-spending colleagues.  Ever think that the problem might be those crafting the message and not the messengers?

If ol’ Jay just can’t get his message out, then, then, well the media just has to be at fault because, well, his message is just so good and wonderful that everyone will just like it because, well, he crafted it and thinks it must be really, super good.

But, Mr. Rockefeller, the problem isn’t the messenger, it’s the message.  So, maybe he should consider another line of work in line with the advice of one one celebrated leader of his party “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

It must have been sometime during the health care debate when the polls on Obamacare started going significantly south that the president started complaining that if only it weren’t for FoxNews, he’d be able to get his message across and people would support his health care overhaul.  It seems the comment lament on the left that when Democrats lose elections, it’s all because of messaging — and never the message.  Heck, someone even wrote a book about it.

This, Timothy Dalrymple writes, provides “a convenient narrative for the midterm slaughter“:

In a 60 Minutes interview after the midterms, Obama was asked whether the problem was that his administration had failed to sell its successes. He was only too eager to agree. It is barely a criticism.  Bravely taking responsibility for this failing, he said, “We were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn’t just legislation, that it’s a matter of persuading people.”

(Via Instapundit.)  Yet, as David Harsanyi pointed out yesterday in his Denver Post column, there are a number of problems to that bunch of health-care stuff the president and his team got done.  The Administration’s numbers don’t add up.  And despite its “fuzzy math” (to borrow an expression), Harsayni finds the The White House repeating it’s mantra of having “a ‘messaging’ problem when it comes to health care reform. As in, a’ you’re-not-buying-our-message’ problem.”

Even when the evidence fails to match up with their expectations, all too many on the left refuse to believe that the problem may be one of their policies.  Obamacare can’t lead to increase costs; the policy was designed to contain costs.   Indeed, when some corporations announced that Obamacare would “will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses“, my Congressman who happens to chair the House Energy & Commerce Committee (but not for long) summoned their chief executives to his star chamber committee informing them that “The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern.”

How arrogant to think he knows more about running business than those who actually run businesses. (more…)

I’m liking incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor more and more every day.  Seems he’s serious about cutting funding for public broadcasting.  Just look at what he posted yesterday on his web-site:

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) released the following statement to announce this week’s YouCut winner, a proposal that would eliminate taxpayer-funded support for National Public Radio (NPR) potentially saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

“On November 2nd, Americans sent an undeniable message to Washington to end wasteful spending. In the new Republican majority, the YouCut program will be an integral part of our effort to transform the culture of spending in Washington into one of savings. Americans have cast over 2.4 million YouCut votes, and the mandate to rein in spending has never been more clear.”

“This week’s winning spending cut is a proposal developed by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) that would eliminate taxpayer funding for National Public Radio. When NPR executives made the decision to unfairly terminate Juan Williams and to then disparage him afterwards, the bias of their organization was exposed. Make no mistake, it is not the role of government to tell news organizations how to operate. What is avoidable, however, is providing taxpayer funds to news organizations that promote a partisan point of view. Eliminating taxpayer funding for NPR is precisely the kind of common sense cut that we have to begin making if we want to fundamentally alter the way business is conducted in Washington.”

Emphasis added. (Love the fact that his web-site identifies him as Majority Leader-elect and not as Minority Whip, his current title.)

It seems there will be a vote on the House floor later today.  Just like MSNBC and FoxNews, NPR should not have to rely upon government funding to support its operations.

It’s nice to see a Republican leader finally have the courage to press for eliminating government support for this network, particularly in an era of trillion-dollar deficits.

About two months before the fall elections, I received a review copy of Rochelle Schweizer’s biography of the outgoing House Speaker, She’s the Boss: The Disturbing Truth About Nancy Pelosi.  I tried to finish it before those elections as I thought it would likely be remaindered soon after, but other obligations got in the way.  One thing which came clear as I read about the rise of the San Francisco Democrat was just how ruthless she can be, how determined she was as she climbed the political ladder and how much control she exercised over her caucus.

She did manage to push some pretty controversial votes through the House when she wielded the gavel.  But, with her party’s loss of over 60 seats earlier that month, her power is waning.  She will never again rule her caucus with the iron fist she exercised for the better part of the current Congress.

Yesterday, she did not receive the unanimous vote of that caucus in its leadership elections.  As Jonathan Allen and John Bresnaham wrote in Politico:

But the 43 votes against her reveal that a divided caucus — still reeling from the loss of at least 61 seats — will not be as pliable for the California Democrat as it once was.

There will be more votes in coming days on limiting Pelosi’s control of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Rules and Steering committees, but she is expected to win those fights, too. And there may be tough policy votes ahead in the new Congress, as House Republicans try to lure the anti-Pelosi forces to their side on key issues.

I daresay Minority Leader Pelosi won’t be able to hold her caucus together in the 112th Congress as she did in the 111th.  Those moderates who survived, but just barely, will want to avoid the fate of their colleagues who, through no choice of their own, won’t be returning to Capitol Hill next January.

Let’s hope that this time Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reaching across the aisle to Republicans like Susan Collins who favor lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the military.  This repeal legislation wisely allows the military to craft a policy allowing for open service by gay men and lesbians:

The legislation would allow for the first time gay troops to acknowledge publicly their sexual orientation. However, the repeal of the current law would take effect after the president and his top military advisers certify that doing so would not hurt the military’s ability to fight.

The bill was considered a deal struck earlier this year between more liberal Democrats eager to change the law and the White House, under pressure by the Pentagon to give it more time to determine how to repeal the law without causing any backlash.

Therein lies the advantage of going through the legislature.  Instead of allowing a federal judge, with no military experience herself, to determine when and how the military should lift the ban, this bill gives the president’s military advisors the opportunity to ensure that lifting the ban will not compromise military effectiveness.  Military officials, not judicial ones, will make the final decision.

Fascinating how the New York Times begins its report on the article by seeing Reid’s move as a “direct challenge to Republicans who support the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell”’ policy barring gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces” as if this were all a game of one-upmanship with the GOP — and not a matter of national security.  Times “reporter” David Herzensohn doesn’t mention any Republicans who support the ban.

It does look like the Nevada Democrat is committed to repeal.  Let’s hope he doesn’t repeat the blunders the made the last time he tried to move the legislation.