In my early morning (GayPatriot blog time) post on civility, I mentioned a conversation I had last night with a fellow alum of America’s finest liberal arts college about my opposition to Barack Obama’s reelection.  I focused my arguments on the incumbent’s big-spending ways and his regulatory policies.  He has neither a plan, I reminded my interlocutor, to deal with the skyrocketing federal debt nor the coming insolvency of federal entitlements.

As this wavering Obama supporter acknowledged my points, he expressed concern about a Republican Party obsessed with social issues, particularly contraception.  I replied that it wasn’t the candidates so much who focused on social issues, but the legacy media which focused on statements one candidate had made.

I then brought up the ABC/Yahoo/WMUR January debate in New Hampshire when former Bill Clinton advisor, now ABC News anchor, George Stephanopolous brought up the topic of contraception; I encouraged my friend to read what the likely Republican presidential nominee had said in that forum.

Discussing that debate, I expressed relief at Rick Santorum’s loss earlier this week in Illinois because that former Pennsylvania Senator, in the words of Erick Erickson (a blogger quite sympathetic to the concerns of social conservatives), like “Dug the dog in Up getting distracted by every random squirrel, Rick Santorum loses all ability to focus when social issues come up.”  With the Senator as the nominee, we would have a more difficult time defending our party as one focused on restoring fiscal sanity.

With Romney as the nominee, however, it will be a lot easier to make the case for change to intelligent urban- and suburbanites aware of the incumbent’s fiscal failures.

As a reminder, below the jump, I provide Romney’s response to Stephanopoulos’s question about contraception.  He doesn’t say anything that would offend social moderates — or sensible social liberals — concerned about our nation’s economic wellbeing: (more…)

Ari Fleischer nails it:

Today, grass-roots Republicans want to drink a bottle of 2010 small-government wine, but our candidates were bottled in another era, before the tea party’s ideas took root. (more…)

Since the first year of the Obama administration, Michael Barone has identified two issues which could tip the 2012 election, the first, related to the policies at odds with the candidate’s strongest supporters in the 2008 election, the second, an increasing tendency of suburban voters to return to their (pre-1992) Republican roots.

As to the president’s strongest supporters, Barone observed in 2009 that “Democrats’ policies are not in sync” with younger voters, part of a generation

. . . accustomed to making its own choices and shaping its own world. They listen to their own iPod playlists, not someone else’s Top 40; they construct their own Facebook pages rather than enlisting in the official Elvis Fan Club.

At the same time, crediting “longtime Democratic pollster and political analyst Pat Caddell,” Barone pointed out that in the 2009 off-off-year elections, “affluent suburban voters moved sharply toward Republicans in 2009″.  And not just in the marquee gubernatorial contests that fall.  Republican candidates also did well in contests in the Philadelphia and New York suburbs.

Last night, the pundit native to Detroit offered his hunch that Romney’s success in that city’s suburbs has “implications. . . for the general election“:

Romney has shown in Michigan as elsewhere a capacity to win votes in affluent areas—which is exactly where (at least in the North) Republicans have been weak in presidential general elections over the last 20 years. Look at it this way: in 1988 George H. W. Bush carried the five-county metro Detroit area 50%-49%–a tiny margin, but one which enabled him, with a 56%-43% Outstate margin that was underwhelming in historic perspective, to carry Michigan. Similarly, the elder Bush, with big margins from affluent suburbanites, carried metro Boston, metro New York, metro Philadelphia, metro Cleveland and metro Chicago, which enabled him to win the electoral votes of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois.

H.W.’s son never did as well as his Dad in metro Detroit. (more…)

If the returns tonight show what the exit polls indicate, Mitt Romney will muster a near-majority in the Florida primary. He may win by a bigger margin over Newt Gingrich in the Sunshine State than that by which the Pennsylvania native bested him in South Carolina.

Should Romney do well, he would be advised not to gloat, but instead to commend his rivals for running spirited campaigns, praising them for the positive proposals they have put forward. In short, he should be magnanimous. He will need the support of his rivals’ supporters if he is to defeat Obama in the fall.

He can learn something from each of his three remaining rivals. Newt has shown has to rally the conservative faithful — and when he’s not whining — demonstrated how to articulate the unifying conservative principles which have (ostensibly) guided our party these past three decades. Rick Santorum has been tenacious in the face of low poll numbers and pleas for him to exit the race. In understanding Ron Paul’s appeal, Romney can appreciate the power of the ideal of liberty and adherence to constitutional principles — not to mention the concerns the Texas Congressman has articulated about the Federal Reserve.

In short, tonight while Mitt Romney savors his victory, he must remember his rivals. He needs their support to unite the GOP and defeat a president out of step with the American electorate.

Yesterday on Facebook, a friend posted this:

Newt Gingrich has an issue with hypothetical Muslim candidates who would not respect other religions and push Shariah agendas yet Republicans do just that with fundamentalist Christianity and their religious agendas.

Emphasis added.  She’s not the first intelligent individual to have made such an observation.  Relating my experience having been “welcomed in various Republican circles as both a gay man and a Jew”, I asked her to specify and she civilly replied, asking why I was a Republican.  I offered a succinct expression of my support for the GOP:

I’m a Republican because I favor small government and individual freedom and it is the better of the two parties on that score. Better though not perfect.

All too many people, like my friend, have this image of the GOP as the party of fundamentalist Christians.  And to be sure, as my friend noted, “the fundamentalist Christian movements in this country find a home under the Republican umbrella.”  Perhaps it’s their presence in the GOP which causes some to define the party by their agenda.  Or the way our media dwell on that presence.

As small government ideas find increasing favor among the American electorate, the GOP needs to do a better job defining itself as the better of less federal regulation and more personal (and economic) liberty.  Over at the National Review, Cato’s Michael Tanner suggests that Republicans would be wise to “to take some of [Ron Paul's] ideas seriously“, you know those domestic policy issues he talks about on the campaign trail not those he published in his newsletter.

For a great variety of reasons, I don’t think Ron Paul will run on the Libertarian Party ticket should he (as most expect) fail to win the Republican nomination.  Indeed, I would wager that he will end up endorsing the GOP nominee.  (Will explore this in a subsequent post.)

Given my theory, I quickly clicked on a link on Yahoo!’s home page: Ron Paul Quietly Plots Backup Strategy While Seeking the Nomination:

But behind the scenes Campaign Manager Jesse Benton admits to ABC News that the team is plotting a back up strategy in case the congressman doesn’t pull in enough delegates to become the nominee.

If the campaign comes up short at the convention, Benton says the plan is to use all the delegates awarded to Paul as a bargaining chip to force the Republican Party to stick to its limited government platform.

To this, I say, “Right on!” If Paul can use his prominence in the primaries to push his party toward free market principles, then his candidacy will have indeed served a positive purpose.

And Republicans can get all the good the Texas Congressman has to offer (free market principles) without the baggage (newsletters and foreign policy).

So would I, Senator DeMint.  That is why I, like you, agree that our presidential candidates need to listen to the Texas Congressman:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Wednesday the Republican presidential candidates need to listen to Ron Paul and would benefit from integrating some of his libertarian ideas into their platform.

“One of the things that’s hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul,” DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.”

Bruce’s senior Senator put this notion of respecting libertarian ideas in the debate on the direction of the GOP:

DeMint also said that while he didn’t fully agree with Ron Paul – especially on foreign policy – that rejecting libertarian ideology would prevent Republicans from regaining majority party status.

“If Republicans don’t understand the important aspects of what Ron Paul is saying, we won’t be able to exist as a party, certainly not a majority party,” DeMint said. “The debate in the Republican party needs to be between libertarians and conservatives, that’s what our party needs to be about. There’s no longer room for moderates and liberals because we don’t have any money to spend, so I don’t want to be debating with anyone who wants to grow government.”

Now, I have my concerns with Senator DeMint, but at least in his discussion of Mitt Romney’s work at Bain — -and understanding of free-market capitalism — appreciate the ideas which can help strengthen the GOP, increase opportunity and grow our economy.

Over the weekend, Glenn quoted a comment from Matt Welch which helps explain why I stay with the GOP despite a number of concerns with the Republican Party, notably its imperfect record on gays and its often inadequate commitment to Ronald Reagan’s small government ideals:

MATT WELCH COMPLICATES WILL WILKINSON’S NARRATIVE: “But here’s the thing that non-Republican, gay-marrying, pro-immigration, pro-choice, anti-empire potheads like me (and Will) need to grapple with if we insist on talking about the relationship between ourselves and various large political blocs: The GOP has been more receptive to libertarian ideas these past couple of years.” And the Democrats, not so much, despite all the “liberaltarian” hype.

He’s right. At least the GOP has been more receptive to libertarian ideas in recent years.  Heck, even the establishment candidate is starting to sound like a Tea Partier, proposing major cuts in federal spending.

In his post (which is well worth your time), Welch adds:

honesty compels the observation that among the governing classes, if you find an economic libertarian he/she is more likely to be a social con than a RINO (or DINO). The Gary Johnson crossover dream is still just that. Which makes me no more likely to join Team Red, but it does suggest that certain libertarianish traditions within the broader right have staying power, at a time when the libertianish tendencies on the broader left seem to be receiving little or no expression in the governance by Team Blue. That I wished things were different doesn’t change the basic facts.

I have noticed the same thing among a good number of social conservatives; they hold libertarian views on a great many issues.  It’s why some gay people are willing to work with these folks in common purpose — reducing the size of the federal government. (more…)

A recent Pew Research survey showing Republicans are making serious gains in “leaned party identification” among white voters, particularly those under 30 and those “earning less than $30,000 annually”.   Yet, as my friend John Hinderaker noted, they have failed to make similar headway among ethnic minorities.  He offers “two possible explanations” :

The first is that poorer whites see their fortunes as tied to the economy, while poorer African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to see their fortunes as tied to government support. Thus, hard economic times may only cement their loyalty to those who promise more government benefits.

This theory may be partially correct, but it can’t account for the whole phenomenon, since large majorities of African-Americans and Hispanics are not poor, but are middle-income or better. Likewise, the fact that African-Americans (but not, to my knowledge, Hispanics) are more likely than whites to be public employees can be, at most, a partial explanation.

The second possibility is that Republicans haven’t done a good enough job of competing for the votes of these minorities. This is, of course, a discussion of long standing in Republican circles.

It would be interesting to see if there has been any shift among gay voters in the past two years.  Surely, gay entrepreneurs feel the impact of increasing regulation and prefer policies which give them greater freedom to operate their enterprises.

But, does the perception that social conservative dominate the GOP prevent gays businessmen and women (less attuned  than we to the increasing economic focus of the GOP) from choosing the party which better represents their economic concerns? (more…)

Rudy Giuliani, my guy for 2008, reminds Republicans where our focus should be:

“I think the Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people’s bedrooms and let these things [e.g., gay marriage] get decided by states,” Giuliani said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’d be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots.”

It does seem that the one upside of Obama’s big-government ways is that it has kept the GOP, by and large, centered on the small-government ideas that have defined the American conservative movement at least since the ascendancy of Barry Goldwater in 1964.

The Tea Party has certainly helped out*.

My only quibble with the former NYC Mayor’s comment is his use of the conditional, “We’d be,” he said, “a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots.” (Emphasis added.)  I’d use either the present or past tense her, to note how the GOP has been more successful when it sticks to those roots, as many Republicans were in the 2010 elections.

*RELATED: Gay marriage not priority to NH Tea Party Protesters

While I still have some quibbles with the rhetoric Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper uses on gay issues and his support of policies at odds with the conservative freedom agenda, I am pleased that unlike the first two executive directors of the group, he has shown a clear commitment to electing Republicans, challenging the big-government policies of the Democrats and helping build the GOP.

Just today, we learn that the Republican National Committee (RNC) tapped Clarke for “its Finance Committee, where he will be playing a critical role in raising funds for the party’s efforts to elect Republicans to the White House and across the country.”

We may not agree with Clarke on all issues, but it’s nice to see a Log Cabin (national) leader committed to building the GOP.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

WIth the Waukesha County Clerk, Democrat** Kathy Nickolaus reporting on Thursday “that she failed to save in her computer and then report 14,315 votes in the city of Brookfield, omitting them entirely in an unofficial tally released after Tuesday’s election,” Republican David Prosser surged to an almost insurmountable lead in the race for chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

As I blogged* yesterday, I had expected a loss in this race.  Democrats and their allies on the left seemed more organized and energized.  They were hoping to use any means necessary to undo Governor Walker’s reforms.  They wanted Republicans to pay a cost for pushing conservative reforms.  A victory for JoAnne Kloppenburg would remind Republicans that they still hadn’t convinced the people, at least in Wisconsin, of the merits of their ideas — and that they need to constantly be playing offense because politics is a livelihood for many on the left, particularly those whose livelihood depends on taxpayer largesse.

But, even with Democrats fired up and their union allies digging dip into their coffers to elect Kloppenburg, the Republican pulled out a modest victory in this light blue state.  It seems that the 2010 elections were not an aberration, but perhaps part of a trend.

That said, Michael Barone contends, “This result was closer than it should be.”  Republican shouldn’t rest on their laurels and must realize that we need be better organized if we’re going avoid such close calls in the future as we build upon our gains and elect candidates serious about cutting the size of government and reducing its scope. (more…)

Bruce alerted me yesterday to a poll which shows that for the first time since 2005, more Americans “have a favorable than unfavorable opinion” of the GOP:

The really good news for the GOP is that the uptick continued even after the fall elections. Indeed, the party’s negatives have continued to slide since then — during a time when the media coverage hasn’t always been favorable.

If elected Republicans continue to hold the line on federal spending and stand firm to the ideals espoused by Ronald Reagan, expect those numbers to hold up — if not improve.

I have long been bullish on the man who is now Speaker of the House.  Perhaps, it’s that John Boehner and I grew up not far from one another, he in the working class Cincinnati suburb of Reading, I in the more affluent enclave Wyoming just west of the Republican leader’s hometown.

Cincinnati folk have always struck me as hard-working, decent Americans, largely respectful of their peers and generally treating people from different backgrounds with dignity.  It is no wonder that the city became a refuge for European Jews in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and a center for Reform Judaism.  It was also an important way station for the Underground Railroad — and the location of the center honoring that path to freedom for many African Americans fleeing slavery.

Throughout his career, Boehner has embodied many of the qualities of his hometown, chief among them humility.  Indeed, in his commentary yesterday on the new Speaker’s “inaugural address” yesterday, Roger L. Simon singled him out for this quality:

In his speech today, John Boehner showed himself to be among the most impressive figures on our political landscape, and he did it by being that rarest of things in politics: a humble human being.

His opening ad-lib quieting thunderous applause – “It’s still just me” – should be an instructional moment in public behavior in our celebrity culture. Can you imagine Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama or even, alas, Sarah Palin saying such a thing with the authenticity Boehner clearly had at such a moment?

He spoke graciously for a brief twelve minutes – as compared with his predecessor Pelosi who spoke for thirteen before passing him the gavel. And unlike Pelosi, he spoke about us, the people, and very little about himself. (She spent the better part of the thirteen minutes listing her own accomplishments. But enough about Pelosi – let’s hope for a long time.) Boehner emphasized comity and civility, virtues the almost feel extinct in our society.

But, this isn’t the first time the Ohioan has shown humility upon achievement of an honor. When elected Speaker in November, he did not show the cockiness of the last Republican to succeed a Democrat in that office: (more…)

For there to be a real change in the legislative landscape in 2011, Republicans elected to represent congressional districts or states in Washington must remember that they serve the people in those various jurisdictions and not the permanent denizens of the nation’s capital, a notion which many elected Republicans neglected in the past.

In her post on Republican investigations into Administration misconduct, Michelle Malkin reminds those Republicans of their duties:

Just a humble reminder: [Incoming House House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell] Issa’s job — and this goes for every GOP House leader — is not to mollify Beltway pundits.

Their job is not to manage White House p.r. and “reach across the aisle” and “get things done” for the sake of bipartisanship.

Their job is to protect taxpayers’ best interests, rein in a bloated, out-of-control federal government, and abide by their oaths of office.

Republicans need remember that Americans did not embrace the GOP this fall so much as they rejected the Democrats.  They gave us back our House majority on a kind of “trial basis.”  Should Republicans stand up to the Beltway establishment and for over-regulated individual and entrepreneur, they may well lose favor with the in-crowd in Washington, but retain the good will of the taxpaying folk beyond the Beltway for years to come.

Interviewed on what changing demographic trends mean for both parties, Joel Kotkin offers this:

Republicans govern most of the growth states (I leave it up to the reader to say whether this is a direct connection). These states are attracting migrants from both abroad and the rest of country. When these people, including Latinos and millennials, arrive three things can happen: they turn the states blue, they themselves turn red, or sometime in between. The key is for Republicans in these states to make a case for their lower tax, lower regulation model. But tolerance for immigration and ethnic change and social tolerance (for example towards gays) will prove critical over time.

Emphasis added.  Republicans do need make an appeal to Latinos.  Had Carly and Meg broken even among Hispanic voters, the Golden State would not have returned two septuagenarian politicians with ideas and ideologies drawn from the 1970s to office.

But, the GOP also needs make its pitch based on the ideas which have proven a winning formula at least since Reagan — and govern on those small government principles.  And in this day and age, social tolerance, particularly toward gays as Kotkin noted above, is key.

(via Instapundit)

From her new berth at the Washington Post, the Hebrew Athena alerts us to a striking new poll:

In November, 36.0% of American Adults identified themselves as Republicans; 34.7% considered themselves Democrats, and 29.3% were not affiliated with either major party. That’s the largest number of Republicans since February 2005 and the first time ever that Rasmussen Reports polling has found more people identifying as Republicans than Democrats.

Interesting trend.  Let’s see if it holds up once Republicans take over in the House.  If they hold true to the Reagan/Tea Party principles of more personal and economic freedom and a less intrusive governments, methinks the trend will hold.

Shortly after last month’s elections when Republicans recaptured Congress, I had planned a post, urging Republicans not to repeat the mistake they made just after the 1994 elections when, in the race for House Majority Whip, they rejected the principled Bob Walker for the opportunistic Tom DeLay.  That one-time Republican leader was back in the news as I prepared to travel to San Francisco to celebrate Thanksgiving with the most important person in the state (my now 2-year-old nephew); the Texan “was convicted [last] Wednesday on charges he illegally funneled corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002“.

While I believe it’s likely the conviction will be overturned on appeal, I did not shed a tear for DeLay.  More than any other Republican leader in the House, he was responsible for abandoning “The Spirit of ’94″ and focusing on building a permanent Republican majority, not on conservative principles, but on lobbyist connections (and financing).  Had he not led the Republicans away from the small-government principles which secured their election in 1994, they may well have had a more lasting majority.

For Tom Delay Republicans, politics was about power not principles.  And in a republic, you can’t hold onto power very long unless you stand for something beyond its maintenance.

Fortunately, the incoming majority party’s slate lacked any Tom DeLays, with its leadership representing a diverse array of conservative opinion.  While incoming Speaker John Boehner supported the TARP bailouts, incoming House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling,  in the words of former House Majority Leader Dick Armey,  having “the best voice in opposition” to TARP.

There will be no Tom DeLays in the Republican leadership of the 112th Congress.  And that’s a good thing for the GOP.

FROM THE COMMENTS: DaveP reminds us, “The other thing to remember about Tom DeLay is what an abject failure his ‘K-Street’ program actually turned out to be in practice. Never forget that.” Good point.

Writing in Politico, Jessica Taylor reminds us that when you look beyond Republican gains in Congress to the party’s victories in various state legislatures, “the bloody picture for Democrats nationwide becomes even more gruesome. Several state legislatures made historic transitions to Republican hands — some for the first time since the 19th century — and nearly an entire generation of state Democrats saw its ranks obliterated.”

Yet another story in Politico causes us to wonder if that picture would have been even bloodier had the Republicans had a more effective leader at the helm of the Republican National Committee (RNC).  In resigning yesterday from his post, Republican National Committee political director Gentry Collins delivered “a stinging indictment of Chairman Michael Steele’s two-year tenure at the committee“:

In a four-page letter to Steele and the RNC’s executive committee obtained by POLITICO, Collins lays out inside details, previously only whispered, about the disorganization that plagues the party. He asserts that the RNC’s financial shortcomings limited GOP gains this year and reveals that the committee is deeply in debt entering the 2012 presidential election cycle.

“In the previous two non-presidential cycles, the RNC carried over $4.8 million and $3.1 million respectively in cash reserve balances into the presidential cycles,” Collins writes, underlining his words for emphasis. “In stark contrast, we enter the 2012 presidential cycle with 100% of the RNC’s $15 million in lines of credit tapped out, and unpaid bills likely to add millions to that debt.”

The short version of the RNC’s 2010 troubles as described by Collins: The committee couldn’t afford to run an independent expenditure ad campaign on behalf of their candidates, didn’t fund a paid voter turnout operation for Senate and gubernatorial races, left its vaunted 72-Hour turnout program effectively unfunded, offered only a fraction of the direct-to-candidate financial contributions they made four years ago and dramatically scaled back its support of state parties. . . . (more…)

During the course of the 2010 campaign, I was working on a blog post/op-ed with the title I use for this post.  But, as I followed the messages of Republican candidates across the country, I realized that, well, they had already gotten the message.  It didn’t seem necessary.  And since it wasn’t a winning issue in the campaign, it shouldn’t be a defining agenda when the 112th Congress convenes in January.

Thanks in part to the unpopular, big-government initiatives of the Obama Democrats and the concomitant (given popular opinion) growth of the Tea Parties, most Republicans campaigned on fiscal issues.  Those who made an issue of gays (or appeared to do as much) didn’t do as well on Election Day as polls forecast.

Now, our good friends at GOProud “and some Tea Party leaders” are pressing Republicans to stay true to their campaign rhetoric and “to keep social issues off” the agenda:

“On behalf of limited-government conservatives everywhere, we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement,” they write to presumptive House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in an advance copy provided to POLITICO. “This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue.”

When Chris Barron of GOProud contacted Bruce and me about the project, each of us eagerly signed on.  His letter is exactly in the spirit of the ideas this blog has been promoting for six year — and that I have been promoting for at last fifteen.  Social conservative Tea Party folk are also signing up:

“When they were out in the Boston Harbor, they weren’t arguing about who was gay or who was having an abortion,” said Ralph King, a letter signatory who is a Tea Party Patriots national leadership council member, as well as an Ohio co-coordinator.

King said he signed onto the letter because GOProud seemed to be genuine in pushing for fiscal conservatism and limited government.

“Am I going to be the best man at a same sex-marriage wedding? That’s not something I necessarily believe in,” said King. “I look at myself as pretty socially conservative. But that’s not what we push through the Tea Party Patriots.”

Nice to see a gay conservative group actually working within the framework of conservative groups to keep the focus on the issues which have defined our party at least since the rise of Reagan — and have helped Republicans win elections in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994 and now 2010.

Even the Advocate has picked up on this.  Guess the message is that a gay Republicans can get media attention without attacking their own party.