Much as the crowd ate up her every word, Palin had apparently missed the real message this electoral season in Arizona: for his three decades in Congress, McCain hadn’t gone with the flow enough, at least not enough to satisfy many Arizona Republicans. Why else would his rival, former congressman J.D. Hayworth, be billing himself as “the consistent conservative”? Many of the GOP’s most faithful, the kind who vote in primaries despite 115-degree heat, tired long ago of McCain the Maverick, the man who had crossed the aisle to work with Democrats on issues like immigration reform, global warming, and restricting campaign contributions. “Maverick” is a mantle McCain no longer claims; in fact, he now denies he ever was one. “I never considered myself a maverick,” he told me. “I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities.”

Ummm, Senator:

And, ummm……

And then there’s that book you wrote remember ? It was called Worth the Fighting For: The Education of an American Maverick, and the Heroes Who Inspired Him

Fail Senator, one massively stupid fail.

• The Roots Of Arizona’s Immigration Law
• John McCain: The Establishment’s Antidote To Hucakdoom ?
• John McCain: The Establishment’s Antidote To Hucakdoom ?
• Mexico Issues Travel Warning For Arizona
• It’s Not All Palin’s Fault

Now, it seems, those same voters are drifting back toward the Republican Party:

President Obama is exceeding all their fears on fiscal and economic issues. After promising a “net spending cut” during the campaign and denouncing “the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history,” he has sent federal spending and the deficit soaring into the stratosphere.

Meanwhile, he’s not delivering what some of his voters hoped for on social issues. No gay marriage, even as Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, conservative superlawyer Ted Olson, and the legislature of crusty New Hampshire sign on.

No end to the drug war, even though he’s the third president in a row to have acknowledged using drugs. He even mocked a question about drug legalization at his online town hall. (“Dude, we elected that guy, what’s up with that?” is Reason editor Matt Welch’s summary of the blogosphere’s reaction.) No pullout from Iraq.
So once again fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters are starting to wonder if they made a bad bargain.

Independents who turned against the Republicans are likely to become equally disillusioned with Obama, and there’s already some evidence of that in the polls. Support for “smaller government with fewer services” has risen in the ABC News/Washington Post poll, and independents prefer it by 61 to 35 percent, a margin three times as large as a year ago. The number of people who see Obama as an “old-style tax and spend Democrat” has risen by 11 percentage points.

In a USA Today poll, a majority oppose Obama’s health care efforts and 59 percent say he’s spending too much. In another ABC/Washington Post poll, only 25 percent “strongly approve” of his health care plans, and 33 percent strongly disapprove. His honeymoon may turn out to be as passionate, yet brief, as Britney Spears’ Las Vegas marriage.

It’s hard out here for a fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter. But at least there’s always the other party to try again.

The problem with that is that there’s little, if any, reason to believe that the Republican Party will be any better than the Democrats, in the end. Twenty years after Ronald Reagan, most of what comprised the Reagan Revolution, modest as it was in retrospect, has been dismantled. At the same time, the twin monuments to statism — Social Security and Medicare — remain standing. And Medicare even managed to get expanded during a time when Republicans controlled both the Legislative and Executive branches of government.

What reason should anyone have to believe that the GOP of 2009 is really any different from the GOP of 2001-08 ?

None that I can see.

So, yes, libertarian voters are drifting back to the GOP, once again. And, once again, they will find themselves disappointed.

H/T: United Liberty

None Found

When you think about it, it’s exceedingly odd. The Vice President has no formal role in the conduct of government to speak of. And yet, since the end of World War II the choice of VP has been very important. Not so much because the Vice President is an important person but because no many VPs go on (Truman, Nixon, Johnson, HW Bush) to become President while others (Gore, Humphrey, Mondale) become major party nominees. Consequently, even though the office is trivial, the choice is very important. But the choice is also fairly important politically to the person who does the choosing. Therefore, “would it be good for this person to become a presidential nominee” gets relatively little consideration during the decision-making process (relative to: would s/he be a good surrogate? give me a ‘bounce’? help with a state?) even though it really ought to be the primary consideration. Beyond that, you have the “Cheney Paradox.” It seems perverse to have a Vice President who doesn’t do anything. But a Vice President who does too much becomes a destabilizing influence within the government — nobody really knows who he speaks for, and he can influence things in ways that provide for no accountability.

At the end of the day, after all, the Vice President’s core job function is simply to take over the government in case the President dies. But it would be easy enough for the line of succession to simply run through the cabinet (SecState, SecDef, etc…) rather than their being a specially designated “inaugurate in case of death” figure. The original conception of the Vice Presidency was a constitutional bug that the framers hadn’t really thought through properly, and though Amendment XII works okay as a patch, it would really be better do do away with the thing entirely.

Would it really ? Frankly, I’m not convinced.

One of the values of having a popularly elected successor to the President is that it helps to maintain a sense of democratic legitimacy to the office. If the Vice-Presidency were to be eliminated and the line of succession changed so that an unelected office holder like the Secretary of State, or one elected only by a small number of people such as the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate,  would become the immediate successor to the office, the first thought that would come to the minds of many people would be — who voted for this guy ?

Yes, it is possible today for something like that to happen. In fact, it did happen in 1974 when Gerald Ford was named to succeed Spiro Agnew as Vice-President under the Section 2 of the 25th Amendment, and then succeeded to the Presidency under Section 1 of that same Amendment when Richard Nixon resigned shortly thereafter. But such a succession is rare in American history — one time in over two centuries — while we’ve seen the elected Vice-President become President eight times due to the death of a President while in office.

At the same time, it’s unclear how much impact a candidates Vice-Presidential choice actually has on voters. As I noted several months ago, it’s fairly clear that George H.W. Bush’s selection of Dan Quayle was a weak one at best, but there’s no evidence that it any impact at all on the 1988 Presidential Election.

Notwithstanding Dick Cheney’s arguably unconstitutional extension of the powers of the office, the Vice-Presidency is still very much as John Adams once described it:

Gentlemen, I feel a great difficulty how to act. I am Vice President. In this I am nothing, but I may be everything.

And it is precisely because of the fact that the Vice-President, whether they serve under President Obama or President McCain, could one day be everything that the office should continue to exist.

H/T: Justin Gardner

• Another “Expert” Says We Should Get Rid Of The Vice-Presidency
• Another “Expert” Says We Should Get Rid Of The Vice-Presidency
• The Most Important Vice-Presidential Pick Since Truman ?
• The Most Important Vice-Presidential Pick Since Truman ?
• Is Dick Cheney Unconstitutional ?

Two Republican strategists, David Johnson of Strategic Vision in Atlanta and Holly Robichaud of Tuesday Associates in Boston, have penned a memo of advice for Republicans in the U.S. House, in which they say that the GOP is in the deepest hole it’s seen since the Great Depression.

The core of the problem, they say, is the inability of congressional Republicans to escape the shadow of George W. Bush.

To make a long story short, Republicans, from the nominee on down, need to completely and totally disassociate themselves from a President who is on the verge of going down in public memory along with men like Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon. And it needs to be done not only personally, but philosophically.

George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism was really nothing more than Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society on Roger Clemens’ steroids. The size, scope, and power of the Federal Government today is greater than it was on January 19, 2001, and the nation’s future looks far worse today than it did back then. Not all of it is Bush’s fault, but a good deal of it is and, this being politics, the general public blames it all on the President and his party.

The entire memo is below the fold, with appropriately alarming and cogent sections highlighted.

To: House Republican Leadership

From: David E. Johnson, Strategic Vision, LLC and Holly Robichaud, Tuesday Associates

Re: Rebuilding The Republican Brand and Surviving The 2008 Election

Date: May 22, 2008

The Republican brand and identity with voters is at its lowest point since 1932 during the depth of the Great Depression. To compare the Party’s standing even to the depth of Watergate or the debacle of 1964 is to understate the situation.

In 1974, following the resignation of Richard Nixon, while the Republican Party was demoralized and the Democrats made key gains, the voting public was angry at Richard Nixon and his subordinates and sought to punish Republicans for Nixon’s misdeeds. By 1976, however Republicans and Nixon were not synonymous and the seeds for a Republican revival had been planted.

In 1964, despite attempts by George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller, and William Scranton to disassociate the Republican brand from Barry Goldwater, who had been unfairly painted as an extremist by his primary competitors and Lyndon Johnson, voters equated Republicans with extremism and racism in regards to the issue of war and peace and civil rights. Yet by 1966, the Republican image had rebounded due to Democratic missteps and stray Republicans and Republican leaning voters returning to the Party.

That is not the case in 2008. The Republican image has not rebounded and the Party continues to suffer not only among Independents but among core Republican constituencies. The devastating defeat in the Mississippi 1st District was not an aberration but rather an indicator of what could happen not merely in marginal districts but safe Republican districts.

The reason that the Party has not rebounded even marginally from 2006 is that it continues to be identified with George W. Bush. This invokes the comparison to 1932 and the midterm elections of 1934 and general election of 1936.

Democrats were able to exploit the Great Depression to become the majority Party in America for the first time since the Civil War by identifying the Republican Party with Herbert Hoover in the minds and hearts of Americans. They were successfully able to equate Republicans with Hoover very much as Democrats are tying Republicans at all levels with George W. Bush.

Indeed invoking Ronald Reagan, as is being done today, has echoes of Republicans in the 1930’s invoking Calvin Coolidge rather than mention Herbert Hoover. Invoking Ronald Reagan now will do more for Republicans than invoking Calvin Coolidge did Alf Landon and Republicans in 1934 and 1936. This is not to say that Republicans must run from conservative principles, rather they must re-embrace them and again to convince voters that Republicans are true conservatives.

The first step for Republican recovery must begin in distancing itself from President Bush. The Party has been viewed as the conservative Party since the advent of the New Deal. Indeed, part of President Bush’s initial appeal in 2000 was that he was a conservative in the tradition of Ronald Reagan. This view no longer holds among Republicans.

In key states that Strategic Vision, LLC has polled in, less than ten percent of Republicans view George W. Bush as a conservative and this has been steady for three years. As seen in the following from recent polling:

Do you view George W. Bush as a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan?

State Yes No Undecided

Florida 8% 78% 14%

Georgia 8% 80% 12%

Indiana 6% 76% 18%

Iowa 6% 73% 21%

Michigan 6% 75% 19%

Missouri 7% 79% 14%

New Jersey 8% 77% 15%

Pennsylvania 8% 81% 11%

Ohio 7% 76% 17%

Wisconsin 7% 79% 14%

Washington 6% 81% 13%

These responses show that even among strong Republican voters, President Bush is no longer seen as the conservative that he was billed as in 2000. More ominously for Republican candidates and incumbents these voters do not see a difference between the President and Republicans in Congress.

This parallels again Herbert Hoover and the Republican standing of the 1930’s rather than Watergate or 1964 when voters punished the Party because of an individual but rapidly returned the fold. These conservatives are not at this time returning to the Republican banner.

To recapture these voters and reinvigorate them, Republicans in Congress must disassociate themselves from the President on key conservative issues. They must demonstrate that the Republican Party is the true conservative Party rather than the Bush Party which it has been branded.

Even more alarming is that the Republican base continues to be demoralized. This low morale among Republicans which has been reflected in turnout in the primaries and fundraising reflects an even more disturbing analogy – that of the Tory Party in Great Britain following the election of Tony Blair and New Labour in 1997. To further this analogy, just as the Tories hopes that New Labour would become ‘Old Labour’ once elected so Republicans hoped that the Democrats would revert back to form after 2006. With this not happening, morale among rank and file voters has sunk.

Indeed, it is not merely among Republicans that Congressional Republicans have been hurt but also among Independents who consider themselves slightly right of center. These voters believe based upon polling that the Republican Party no longer believes in core conservative values. These voters are still very much in play as they are and the country as a whole continues to be right of center.

Yet President Bush and Congressional Republican identification with the President has allowed this demographic to either move into the Democratic fold as seen in Democratic victories in Republican leaning districts or these voters have stayed at home.

Quite simply put many Republicans and most voters are already looking beyond the Bush Presidency. Even more important to remember is that these voters are in play at this moment. For Republicans the concern is not so much that Republican voters will exodus the Party, although that is a possibility but rather they will stay at home.

Beyond the President’s problems, the Republican brand is being hurt because many voters including the Republican base do not believe that the Party has learned the lessons from 2006. Despite the stunning losses in 2006, voters do not believe that the Party has made adjustments or done a mea culpa and begun returning to core Republican principles.

In a corporation, after losses such as the Party suffered, at the very least there would be public apologies to the stockholders and a massive public relations campaign designed to show the change and put the company on offense, at the most extreme there would be a complete housecleaning of leadership.

The final image problem the Republican brand is suffering is a perception fostered by the media of being intolerant. The media has assisted in helping Democrats by saying that the Republican Party is closed to moderates while Democrats are now open to conservatives such as Heath Schuler, Travis Childers, and others. This turns off swing voters who may be conservative on pocketbook or defense issues but more moderate on social issues. Another key issue to the base in which the media and Democrats have cast Republicans as intolerant to great success has been immigration reform. While this issue remains a fissure issue, Democrats have been able with the media’s assistance to paint Republicans as anti-Hispanic and against all immigration. A key message that has been missing in this argument is that the Party is against illegal immigration but for legal immigration.

Having assessed the Republican image, there is some good news, the Democratic image while better than the Republican image still suffers in Congressional approval numbers. Voters are not yet sold on the Democratic Party and they have yet to solidify voter loyalty. This will not be enough to save and revive the Republican brand. Even with poor Congressional numbers, as long as the Republican brand is as mired as it is, the Party faces the prospect of losing between twenty to thirty seats in November.

To begin recovering the Republican brand in order to avoid such a sweep, a definite public relations and strategic marketing needs to be done. Congressional Republicans must show core policy differences from the President and not be afraid to combat him on policy issues. Congressional Republicans must show clearly to Republican voters and Republican leaning Independents that they are charting a different course from the Administration and moving away from the President on fundamental issues where voters feel he has strayed. The message to voters must be that Congressional Republicans are not the same as President Bush. If this is not done immediately, than voters will continue to equate the two as the same even after the President has left Washington and thus consigning Republicans to at least a decade out of Party.

The Republican leadership needs to emphasize to voters that it understands the reasons that voters have been rejecting it and apologizes for past mistakes. Congressional Republicans must pay more than lip service to the idea of change but rather demonstrate what a positive Republican change will entail. It must continue to crack down on members who appear tainted with corruption to regain the good government image that voters associated with the Republican brand. There must be a zero tolerance for even the slightest hint of corruption.

Congressional Republicans must show that they want the support of all voters and are not closed off to moderate voters. They need to remember the Reagan mantra of it is better to have someone who supports me, 80% to 90% of the time. In doing this they must abandon some of the harsher rhetoric they are using on such issues as immigration. They need to remember that being for legal immigration while against illegal immigration registers better with voters. In reaching out to these voters, Congressional Republicans would be advised to present a platform similar to the Contract With America.

Congressional Republicans must emphasize that the Party is not out of ideas to make the country better and improve individual’s daily lives. The Party has to demonstrate again that it for positive change rather than just opposed to the Democratic alternative. Yet, the message also must be of the harm that Democratic policies are doing to the nation and the economy.

Missing or lost for much of the past several years is the harmful consequences that Congressional Democrats are creating. This means attacking Democrats beyond the Iraq issue. Over the past year, Republicans have lost their advantages on dealing with the war on terror and defense, as well as the economy. Only by presenting a two tier approach can we recover.

Finally in getting the Republican message out, we must incorporate new viral marketing. This is definitely the new wave of communications. Even more interesting is that the fastest group of people using, online news outlets, blogs, and podcasts ate voters aged 45 and up. To successfully target voters, we need to use strategic email blasts, online chats and blogs, as well as constant podcasts.

With a highly motivated base and a shared common vision, Democrats are dominating us in fundraising. They are doing this through traditional methods as well as using new Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 in which we are far behind. We need to catch up! How can you overcome their dominance? By always remaining aggressive on the phone, increasing your event schedule, and maximizing your direct mail and email programs. Do not mistakenly rely on the PAC community. They are now forced to support the Democratic majority which means less money for Republicans.

First and foremost remain diligent in dialing for dollars. Don’t just call former high dollar donors. Reach out to new prospects. Always be prospecting because 12% of your list will go bad over 3 months.

Due to our base supporters being disenfranchised, direct mail response has dropped more than 40% over the past 2 years. Here are a few suggestions for improving your rate of response.

• Have a third party sign the letter on your behalf.

• Be creative. The standard #10 letter package is not going to cut through mailbox clutter this year.

• Include facts and figures to not only back up your arguments but also to prove that you have remained true to your word. For example, if you have an outstanding record with Americans for Tax Reform or the National Taxpayer Union, make sure to mention your ratings.

• Solicit smaller lists. The more targeted you can be with your message the better the results. After speaking to a local chamber, send them a fundraising letter. Try to hand address whenever possible.

To increase fundraising, you should be event heavy. People still want to be seen by their Congressman so be aggressive in your planning. Don’t neglect to do house parties. Not only do they easily net a profit, but they also generate new donors. Finally we need to begin using Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 strategies far better.

Our target voters aged 45 and older are used to paying bills online, purchasing online, and acquiring news online. We need to be using email marketing, RSS feeds, and online events to raise money. We need to be using conservative websites far more effectively in raising money. Quite frankly, we need to catch up and think anew with online fundraising or the disparity in fundraising will grow even greater.

• Will George Bush Hurt The Virginia GOP ?
• Will George Bush Hurt The Virginia GOP ?
• Why Romney Lost, Why McCain Won
• Why Romney Lost, Why McCain Won
• Is John McCain Going Down In Flames ?

CRAWFORD, Tex., Aug. 15 — Donald H. Rumsfeld, who came to symbolize the Bush administration’s problems in the war in Iraq, resigned as secretary of defense one day before last fall’s elections, although President Bush did not announce the move until the day after the elections.

The White House confirmed on Wednesday that Rumsfeld’s letter of resignation was dated Nov. 6, 2006, the day before voters — many of them furious about the war in Iraq — evicted Republicans from the leadership of the House and Senate.

Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said that Bush received the letter and accepted Rumsfeld’s resignation on Election Day. The president waited until the next day to announce that he was replacing Rumsfeld with former CIA chief Robert M. Gates.

Bush said that the decision to oust Rumsfeld had come after a series of conversations with the then-defense secretary. That revelation angered many Republicans who thought GOP electoral losses would have been reduced if Rumsfeld had been removed earlier.

“If Rumsfeld had been out, you bet it would have made a difference,” Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said at the time. “I’d still be chairman of the Judiciary Committee.”

Not only did Bush not telegraph his intention to replace Rumsfeld, but he also publicly stated in the days before the elections that he envisioned Rumsfeld serving in his administration for the foreseeable future.

“I didn’t want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign,” Bush said when asked about the statement by reporters. “And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer.”

Quite honestly, the idea that announcing Rumsfeld’s resignation the day before Election Day 2006 would have made any difference in the outcome seems absurd. The voters had already made up their minds about the Iraq War and the Bush Administration. Getting rid of Rumsfeld is unlikely to have changed things significantly.

None Found

NEW ORLEANS, Dec. 9 — Voters looked past a federal bribery investigation of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) and reelected the eight-term congressman in a runoff election Saturday.

Jefferson grabbed a commanding lead over state Rep. Karen Carter, a fellow Democrat, almost as soon as the polls closed in the New Orleans district. With 44 percent of the precincts reporting, Jefferson, had 61 percent of the vote.

Louisiana’s 2nd District was one of the nation’s last unresolved midterm races, and the runoff election put Jefferson in danger of becoming the only Democratic incumbent to lose this election year.

In her concession speech, Carter embraced family members and pledged to work with Jefferson, particularly on the area’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

“I guess the people are happy with the status quo,” she said.

Jefferson, Louisiana’s first black congressman since Reconstruction, has been the target of a wide-ranging investigation into allegations that he took bribes — including $90,000 allegedly found in his freezer during an FBI raid — from a company seeking lucrative contracts in the Nigerian telecommunications market. He has not been charged with any crime and denies any wrongdoing.

He described his win as “a great moment and I thank almighty God for making it possible.”

Something tells me God had little to do with it.

All of this puts me in mind of a quote:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. H. L. Mencken

Yep, that about sums it up.

None Found

WASHINGTON ? Republicans who helped capture control of Congress 12 years ago blame the party’s leaders for this year’s debacle at the polls.

Architects of the 1994 “Republican revolution,” as well as current and former lawmakers elected that year, say the GOP repelled voters by putting self-preservation before the nation’s agenda. “For the first six years of the 12 years, we were focused on policy and principles, and politics was secondary,” says Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, a member of the 1994 class who won his seventh term this month. “The second six years, politics became primary: raising money, going negative, consolidating power.”

“We did more good work the first 12 hours we were in Congress than the Republicans have done in the past five years,” says Joe Scarborough, a class of ‘94 member who resigned in 2001 and is a talk-show host. “Republican leaders who took us to the point we are right now should be ashamed.”

Two-thirds of the 73-member Republican class of 1994 are gone from the House of Representatives. Twenty-four kept their House seats despite this year’s rout, in which Democrats gained simultaneous House and Senate majorities for the first time since 1994. Five lost their bids for a seventh term. Two others resigned in disgrace.

Most members interviewed from the class of 1994, as well as former House GOP leaders, cite three reasons beyond their leaders’ control: the war in Iraq, corruption scandals and President Bush’s low popularity. Beyond that, they say leaders such as House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois and former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas put staying in power above principles such as limited government and low spending.

Yep, that ’s a pretty fair assessment of what went wrong.

None Found

What?s gone wrong with the GOP? Let me start by quoting a friend who is both gay and conservative (yes, I know several such): ?I?m for low taxes, strong defense and limited government. Why doesn?t the Republican party want me??

There?s a two-part answer to that question and neither half is good news. The first is that today?s GOP doesn?t really want gays ? and it yearns to supervise everybody else?s bedroom and reproductive behavior as well as (implicitly, at least) their relationship to God. The second is that Republicans are no longer really in favor of limited government. Besides having their own version of a nanny state, they want to spend and spend, start program after program, ladle out the pork, make deals with influence peddlers, and spin the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street. Yes, they still pretend to favor low taxes but that?s an illusion; they pay for limitless government via huge deficits that will mean high taxes for my granddaughter.

And as long as that continues, the GOP will continue to lose.

Previous Posts:

Why The Republicans Lost
Why The Republicans Lost Part II

• The Republican Party: Sailing Right Down The River Denial To Disaster
• The Republican Party: Sailing Right Down The River Denial To Disaster
• Why The Republicans Deserve To Lose, And Lose Big
• Why The Republicans Deserve To Lose, And Lose Big
• I Don’t Think He’s Alone

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Because plans for implementing the commission’s recommendations are still fluid, Democratic officials would not speak for the record. But aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the “first 100 hours” of the Democratic Congress.

Shocking I tell you. Just shocking.

• Terror Threat Or Much Ado About Nothing
• Terror Threat Or Much Ado About Nothing
• ABC News: Major Nidal Hasan Tried To Make Contact With al Qaeda
• ABC News: Major Nidal Hasan Tried To Make Contact With al Qaeda
• The Pakistan Connection

In Congress, the minority life is mostly talk and little action, and yet for advocates of minimal spending and low taxes, that may not turn out to be so bad. It’s easier to promote fiscal discipline in theory than to practice it as a party leader or committee chairman. Remember that $200 million-plus “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska? It still makes conservatives cringe.

“Now that Republicans are in the opposition, they’re going to be the most saintly budget hawks you can imagine,” said American Enterprise Institute economist Kevin A. Hassett. With the absence of power, he notes, comes the absence of accountability and blame. As Hassett put it, “being in the minority means never having to say you’re sorry.”

Of course, many of those who will be spouting fiscal conservatism today are the same ones who were feeding at the pork trough throughout the 10 years of Republican rule. At the same time, though, there are signs that those who were dissenting from the spend-spend-spend philosophy of the past several years are reasserting themselves:

Fiscal conservatives started to agitate days after the election, when the Republican-led 109th Congress reconvened to wrap up unfinished business. At the top of the to-do list: nine remaining spending bills for the fiscal year that started Oct. 1.

(…)

“We need to examine the bills in the light of the last election, in which I think the American people were unhappy with our spending habits,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) explained to reporters. He and his allies, including Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), want Congress to pass a “continuing resolution” to extend funding from the previous fiscal year. “We’d save the taxpayers a lot of money,” Sessions said.

Their quest has reinvigorated fiscal conservative groups such as the Club for Growth, which suffered several major election defeats this year. “The Senate showdown on earmarks is next week,” the club’s blog reported yesterday. “The good guys, Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, are battling the appropriators and the big spenders.” The article warned, though, that the continuing resolution “isn’t a done deal

There are also indications that fiscal conservatives in the GOP may look for allies among incoming Democrats:

A chief target of the budget hawks is a group of Democratic House freshmen who won seats in conservative districts, including the Florida seat that was held by disgraced Rep. Mark Foley, and Tom DeLay’s former seat in Texas. Republicans call these “rented seats” and hope to win them back in 2008.

(….)

“Spending cuts resonate in a macro sense, especially if you can show they are tied specifically to waste,” [Stuart Roy, a longtime senior Republican House aide] said.

The trick, Roy added, is to avoid programs that happen to be popular, such as public television funding. “There will be a substantial number of people who will want to go out and do that.” That impulse should be resisted: “This is not a governing strategy, it is a minority strategy.”

Sounds like a strategy that, at least in the short term, just might work.

None Found