The Decline of the GOP

It should come as no surprise that party loyalty among Republicans is waning in this country. Our president, proudly displaying his party loyalty, has seemingly made every effort to drive moderates, libertarians, and the intelligent (other than evil geniuses) from the ranks. Following his lead, the party leadership, both nationally and locally, have similarly done their part in maintaining ideological purity.


The obvious result has been a reduction in party loyalty by these alienated groups. We can all remember when Log Cabin Republicans famously declined to endorse President Bush during his reelection campaign, citing his lack of support on Gay issues. More recently, we saw Congress move from Republican control to the Pelosi Reich. Fewer and fewer Americans are willing to support the GOP.


A poll came out today that shows a more marked decline in Republican Party loyalty than we have seen in decades past. What’s more, the poll shows that typical voters are moving away from the socially conservative notions that are a hallmark of the Republican Platform.


Back in 1994, 84% of voters supported "old-fashioned values about family and marriage." That number has since dipped to 76%. More drastic is the reduced support for allowing school boards to have the right to fire Gay teachers, which dropped from 39% in 1994 to 28% in 2007.


These numbers show that the public sentiment is progressively more centrist on social issues. The Republican Party is hemorrhaging membership specifically because they are out of touch with voters. The Grand Old Party should focus on issues where it can agree with a majority of voters and return to a platform of small government and economic prosperity.

I Love a Man in Uniform

I've blogged on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act before the Pelosi Reich began. Of course, we all knew the bill that would end Don't Ask Don't Tell wouldn't get passed by a Republican, lame duck congress.

But, the bill is back with new support under the Democratic congress. Unfortunately, I have not found the new bill number for the legislation (last year's bill number was H.R. 1059).

Bringing an end to DADT is one of the most important issues facing Gay rights at the moment. From the Gay rights perspective, it is a government field which Gay men and women are explicitly banned from serving in openly. From a military perspective, DADT diminishes the pool of qualified candidates that the military may recruit. Further, it has been shown that many of those removed from the military for being Gay are the all-important Arabic translators that our military currently has a shortage of.

Never has there been a shortage of Gay and Lesbians serving in any branch of the United States military. Rarely does a week go by that I don't meet a guy from the Marines or Air Force out at the local Gay bars. While these men and women are usually not "out" at work (and, in fact, might not come out if DADT were reversed), they deserve the opportunity to serve without fear that they might be removed from their chosen profession because of their sexual orientation.

Hopefully, this year's version of the bill will fare better than HR 1059 did.

Congressional Style

Today, the New York Times wrote a fluff piece on the fashion of the women of the 110th Congress and Speaker Pelosi's personal style.

Since when is Nancy Pelosi a fashion icon?! It is very true that Members of Congress are not known for their sense of fashion, but saying that the St. James uniform is overplayed and ugly does not suddenly turn Mary Bono into Joan Rivers!

I have a very hard time taking seriously the fashion choices of anybody in Congress. When I was an intern working in the House of Representatives, I saw a photo printed in one of the rags (Roll Call or Congressional Quarterly, probably) pointing out that one particular day had apparently been seersucker suit day. On that specific summer day, several members wore full seersucker suits and posed for a picture on the Senate side to show off their silly sense of dress. My office promptly cut out the picture and posted it on a bulletin board to laugh at it daily.

Perhaps the fashion sense of the 110th Congress is far better than that of year's past. Even still, I don't think that Nancy Pelosi has had any effect on the Tahitian pearl industry. While it is true that she frequently wears them, they are not half as iconic as Barbara Bush and her white pearls. The real reason women are buying Tahitian pearls is that they are exotic, attractive, and currently very stylish. Besides, although women frequently admire Pelosi's power and status, I know of none that actually wants to look like her.

The First 100 Continues

As the Democrats first 100 hours of leadership continues into its second actual week of work, let us pause to look back and see what has occurred thus far.

• Massive Time Warp achieved to allow 100 hours to last 3 weeks

• Vacation to watch football

• 9/11 Commission Recommendations passed

• Stem Cell Research bill revived and passed

• Bill to allow Secretary of Health to negotiate for better drug prices passed

• Holiday for Martin Luther King Jr.

• Half holiday to allow recovery from MLK Jr. Holiday

After completing work on three bills last week, the Democratic-led House began this week in a true spirit of bipartisanship: they took a break together. Republicans and Democrats enjoyed a Monday off to honor MLK Jr. and most of Tuesday off to honor their own laziness.

In a less lazy display of bipartisan efforts, the House of Representatives passed a monumental bill to allow for stem cell research expansion. The only thing is, this bill passed last year and didn't go into effect because President Bush vetoed it. In fact, it is the only bill that President Bush has ever vetoed. All signals say that he is prepared to veto it again if it makes it through the Senate.

Nonetheless, the stem cell research bill passed by a 254-174 vote with more than a few Republicans voting Aye and several more not voting. Almost all the House Democrats voted in support of the bill. This shows that if the President vetoes it again, we can expect a substantively similar bill to make its way back to the Oval Office repeatedly until the President gives in or works with the Congress to develop a compromise plan.

On a vote of 255-170, the House passed a bill to allow the Secretary of Health to negotiate with drug companies for better prices. This will benefit those who use the Medicare Prescription Coverage that President Bush signed into effect. Basically, this is a cost cutting measure that fixes an apparent shortcoming in Bush's policy. I don't consider this bill to be all that earth-shattering.

Much more is still to come before the Democrats first 100 hours ends! Stay tuned!

100 Hours Update

So far, the Democratic leadership has been successful and bipartisan under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We are currently nearly 3 days in to a timewarped first 100 hours lasting nearly 3 weeks.

Here is a recap of what has already been accomplished:

• Speaker Pelosi drew upon Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to slow down time enough that the next 100 hours will actually take 3 weeks
• Congress took a long weekend to watch college football championship games
• Easily passed 9/11 Commission Recommendations

Almost all of the Dems and 68 Republicans in the House (including 3 Republicans from California) supported the efforts to implement the 9/11 recommendations. Two Democrats were suspiciously absent from the vote. Most of the Republicans that voted in favor of the measure echoed Mary Bono’s (R-CA) sentiments:

The protection of the American people is of paramount importance; and if this Congress is able to implement procedures and laws that will safeguard future generations of Americans to come, we must make every effort to do so…I am pleased that this Congress, in a bi-partisan fashion, has expedited the passage of this important piece of legislation.

America's traveling public, which includes the tens of thousands of visitors who utilize Palm Springs International Airport, will benefit from the steps Congress is taking to help ensure their safety.

I hope that this legislation will help accelerate initiatives that were already approved in the last Congress. Despite the redundancy of some initiatives, I believe legislation that places the safety of the American people first is a commendable beginning for the new Congress.

Basically, this measure passed because it really doesn’t change anything, looks really good and bipartisan, and might help alleviate fears about airport security (even if these efforts fail to, you know, actually secure our airports).

Today is “Increase the Minimum Wage Day” in Congress. I figure that even if the minimum wage is increased it won’t come close to approaching what the minimum wage is currently set at in California. As such, Californians are all winners today if Congress doesn’t increase their own salaries today!

This Week in America

The new Democratic leadership has officially taken control of Congress and the big headlines, other than whether Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama will top the Democratic presidential ticket in ’08, is that the first 100 hours of Congress will change the course of American history.

By 100 hours, they really only mean 100 hours when they are actually in chambers during their newly extended four day work week. And by first, they really mean starting next week. So really, instead of saying first 100 hours, they should say, “first month in office including the week we don’t really do anything except talk.”

According to Steny Hoyer’s office (as a side note, I have always really liked Congressman Hoyer in a non-Mark Foley sort of way) there is a calendar of historic congressional actions events happening between the 9th and the 26th of January.

The rundown is like this:

January 9th: Enact 9/11 Commission Recommendations
January 10th: Increase Minimum Wage
January 11th: Allow Stem Cell Research
January 12th: Negotiate for Lower Prescription Drug Prices
January 13th: Saturday
January 14th: Sunday
January 15th: Monday (Doesn’t everybody have Mondays off?)
January 16th: Votes postponed until 6:30pm (to recover from Monday hangovers)
January 17th: Cut Interest Rates on Student Loans
January 18th: Cut Subsidies for Big Oil and Invest in Renewable Energy
January 19th: Votes
January 20th: Saturday
January 21st: Sunday
January 22nd: Monday (You mean to say, You work on Mondays?!)
January 23rd: State of the Union Address (Maybe President Bush will solve this silly problem of working on Mondays)
January 24th: Votes
January 25th and 26th: Republicans Vacation after an exhausting “100 hours”

What is not on the calendar is that immediately afterward, the Pelosi Congress will solve world hunger (food instability), earthquake-proof California, find Osama bin Laden, pay off the national debt, make peace with Iran and North Korea, and still find time to keep declare Mondays a national day of rest for those of us that are not Members of Congress.

Seriously, why do we have to work on Mondays?

All Work and no Pay

In case you haven’t been keeping up with Congressional politics, the Dems are heading out of the gate at full speed. The interesting part is that they aren’t screwing up their lead at all!

First, Steny Hoyer announced that he will expect members of the House to actually show up and work most days. Commonly referred to as the “Tuesday-Thursday Club,” members of the House are known to work approximately 3 days of the week in DC, then leave to spend time with their families, constituents, donors, and lobbyists. What has resulted is a culture in which members don’t actually schedule House meetings often enough to actually accomplish anything. The 109th Congress may go down in history as being one of the laziest in US History.

Hoyer has suggested that the House meet five-days-a-week for the first part of the new session in order to take care of many items that were neglected this year and last. As you might expect, this has caused some buzz. Republicans are claiming that this is a ploy on the part of the Dems to hurt families. In reality, those Republicans are lazy bums that are worried about being over-worked with a (gasp!) 40-hour work week!

Now it looks as if the $3,300 pay raise members expected to start getting next month is in jeopardy. Pelosi and Reid have announced that they intend to block the pay increase, claiming that it is unconscionable to increase their own pay when the national minimum wage continues to be locked at $5.15.

Really though, the Dems are sounding more and more like the fiscal conservatives that I hoped they would. They are hoping to increase the productivity of Congress without raising the already high pay for members. When did the Democrats become responsible?

A Bad Year for the Roses

No, I am not talking about the Rose Bowl. My hopes are still high that Cal can pull a victory against the University of South Central this weekend. In fact, I will be blogging about that that at some point this week.

Today I am predicting another bad year for the Republicans. As everybody in politics knows, the campaign starts the day after the previous election, if not sooner. Why then are the Republicans already failing?

When the voters very clearly tell you that things need to change, it would be logical to change in the direction the voters intend. Not so, according to the choices currently being made in Sacramento and DC.

Republican members of the California Assembly look like they will soon replace George Plescia with even-more-conservative Mike Villines from the Fresno-Clovis area to be the new Assembly Minority Leader. True, Plescia was no strong leader for the GOP. Susan Kennedy referred to him looking like a deer stuck in the headlights and Governor Schwarzenegger expressed his concern that Plescia couldn’t control the “wild-bunch” of Republicans in the Assembly. Still it makes little sense to find a more conservative member to lead our party out of the current quagmire. At this rate, expect the California GOP to be even more irrelevant than it already is.

But it doesn’t seem the national party is any smarter. In the Senate, it looks like the minority leader will be Senator Mitch McConell, an anti-gay “Christianist” that votes a straight Republican ticket. That doesn’t sound like change to me, folks. Why don’t we see if we can find somebody closer to the status quo? Is Dick Cheney eligible for the post?

We can’t expect the foolhardy crowd in the House to provide our party with any good leadership, can we? The three favorite candidates to move into Pelosi’s old office when she becomes Speaker are John Boehner, Joe Barton, and Mike Pence. Boehner we can all remember from his role in the Foley scandal and cover-up where he may or may not have told Speaker Hastert what he knew about Foley’s indiscretions. Pence is an extreme conservative hoping to bring change to the GOP by being even more rightwing. Barton long spouted the necessity of traditional family values before his divorce in 2003 and marriage to another woman soon after. He has received extremely large contributions from energy companies while consistently denying the existence of global warming. When he seems to be the more moderate of the candidates for the job, the GOP is in trouble.

Unless the Republican Party wakes up and realizes it needs to change, it will continue to fall by the wayside. I expected the recent election to be a sufficient wakeup call, but apparently was wrong. What will it take to make the GOP move a little left?

The Last of the Election Wrap-Up Posts

I believe this will be my last post that is simply an analysis of the November election. Really, I think we are all tired of hearing about what Speaker Pelosi will do and how the country has called for bipartisan efforts, change, blah blah, Iraq, blah, etc. So, my final analysis will focus on what the election means to California Republicans and Gays, but not necessarily on Republicans that happen to be Gay.

I have always maintained that California is NOT a blue state. It is impossible to imagine it as a red state, either. Really, Californians are purple but forced left. Similarly, Gays are not hard Democrats. Even Log Cabin Republicans like myself have a hard time voting Republican because of the anti-Gay rhetoric from the right. We are forced left.

But we already knew their was an association between Gays and purple.

California showed its purple nature last week. At the top of the ticket was a very independent minded Republican winning by a huge margin. With the exception of Steve Poizner, the rest of the statewide ballot was decidedly Blue.

I have already looked at what makes Schwarzenegger different. He and Poizner both are fiscally conservatives with a background that shows that they favor business interests in general. California prides itself on a strong economy based on a combination of agriculture, natural resources, and commerce.

But, you ask, weren’t Strickland, McClintock, and other Republicans on the ballot strong economic conservatives?

Yes they were! However, Poizner and Schwarzenegger successfully painted themselves as social moderates. It also didn’t hurt that Poizner ran against Cruz Bustamante, who nobody really likes.

Schwarzenegger, especially is moderate-to-left on many social issues. He follows the majority of Californians when he discusses Gay Rights, Environmental Policy, and Criminal Justice. His basic view seems to be that government shouldn’t interfere where it doesn’t need to but should step in to protect the rights and property of individuals when necessary.

This (small-L) libertarian sentiment can be seen in his stances all over the place. He is pro-Gay Rights in protecting our rights to economic and social liberty and justice. He is pro-environment because he sees a government necessity in protecting the environment as a public good, but not so pro-environment that it would significantly impede the rights and liberty of individuals or business to operate or do as they wish (within reason) on their own property.

Californians, clearly, tend to lean left on social issues. Except in rural areas and the Central Valley, Californians tend to favor liberal social issues. Statewide, Californians tend to favor moderate economic policies.

More so, Gays tend to be socially liberal. I have met very few members of the GLBT community that are not socially liberal. It is extremely difficult to identify as a social conservative if most of what you hear from the right is how you are an abomination and living a deviant lifestyle. That does not mean, however, that Gays necessarily really identify with the Democratic platforms. Many Gays are not as economically liberal as the Democrats would like.

Last week’s election is a grand opportunity for the California Republican Party to take a serious look at itself and decide whether it wants to remain relevant. By rewriting its platforms to focus primarily on conservative economic goals while remaining socially libertarian, the CRP can win back the state.

The greatest and most successful Republicans to come through the ranks of the California Republican Party include Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. All three developed conservative economic policies while remaining socially moderate or libertarian. The policies of all three believed that the government that governs best is that which governs least.

If the California Republican Party rejected its current platform based primarily on conservative social issues, it would be in a far better position to recapture the votes of Californians. Further, it would be easier for Gays to vote Republican with a clear conscience (at least in California). Over time, this could lead to major reform nationally.

My hope is that the CRP will take a few minutes to look at the current state of affairs and recognize its own shortcomings. If it continues to serve as a bastion for social conservatives, it will continue to fall into obscurity in the state. If it learns to embrace the socially moderate views of its most successful members, perhaps it will have an opportunity to reform California while limiting the power of the tax-happy socialists disguised as Democrats in this state.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Again, to quote Evita, “What happens now? Where are we going to?” These seem to be some of the most relevant questions when thinking about where America will be headed in the immediate future.

I have already stated that I think Speaker Pelosi will need to move a couple steps right. Similarly, I think we have already begun to see Bush move ever-so-slightly toward the center with the acceptance of Rumsfeld’s resignation. While I certainly question whether we will see more of Pelosi’s spirit of bipartisanship, I remain skeptical that we will see much from Bush.

What we will see from Bush will be Vetoes. Lots and lots of lefty legislation will get the Presidential axe. To date, President Bush has only vetoed one piece of legislation (regarding stem cell research). Certainly a Democratically led Congress will pass more legislation that is not in keeping with the President’s views than the Republican led Congress did. If so, we should expect the President to be more willing to pull out the Veto pen than in years past.

The House of Reps will remain a wild and rambunctious chamber of politicians clamoring to push reactionary legislation to whatever happened to hit headlines that day. The conservatives will continue to push for a constitutional ban on Gay marriage while the liberals will continue to push for the US to leave Iraq. The real difference will be in what gets heard above the noise. Speaker Pelosi will control the floor schedule and will appoint the new committee chairs. The Democrats will decide what issues get significant floor time. Undoubtedly the Iraq War and other military reforms will take center stage while socially conservative issues will be quieted.

This does not mean, however, that things are going to be any better for Gay people. While the Federal Marriage Amendment is now off the table for the moment (thankfully), this opens too wide a door for the left to grandstand on the very same issue: Gay Marriage. I have said it before, and I will say it again. Gay Marriage isn’t going to help us any. We already know that any pro-Gay Marriage legislation that makes it out of Congress is almost certainly going to be Vetoed by President Bush. Further, few bills from the House make it through the Senate.

Which brings me to the more reasonable of the two houses of Congress, the Senate. The Senate has a well-earned reputation for being the place where legislation goes to die. That house tends to be much more moderate and well-regulated. Few reactionary bills get serious consideration in the Senate.

I sincerely doubt that we will see much change as a result of the shakeup in the Senate. The newly elected Democratic leaders tend to be on the moderate side, and often as conservative as their Republican counterparts. The partisan leadership of the Senate is less important than the leadership of the House because the rules of the Senate are largely traditional and based on seniority rather than party affiliation. Further, the presiding member of the Senate will remain Vice-President Dick Cheney who gets to cast tie-breaking votes. Also, this moderate house is further moderated by the close political division: the Senate is nearly divided equally in half by party.

So, in terms of where we are headed, expect little change other than President Bush getting to exercise his Veto power a little more frequently. Certainly, he will have to fight harder to continue the status quo. The prevailing political winds are calling for a change of direction. Expect Democrats to interpret this as a complete reversal of Bush policies. I remain hopeful that Pelosi will keep her word and remain level-headed, bipartisan, and fair. If not, the Senate will continue to moderate legislation.

I am Woman, Hear Me Roar!

In numbers too big to ignore, a Democrat Majority was elected for Congress. This means that the United States will have its first female Speaker of the House in Nancy Pelosi. I firmly believe that the Dems did not win by merit of their own superiority but because Americans were fatigued of failing Republican policies. This leads to an interesting dilemma that I am sure Pelosi has already begun to examine.

Should she remain the Liberal San Francisco Progressive we know her to be? Or should she transform into the characterization of what the American people currently want, namely a Pragmatic Centrist?

In 1994, the Republican Party came roaring onto Capitol Hill after a long tenancy by big-government-loving Democrats. The Class of ’94 promised to be different—they promised to cut government, to be critical of the Clinton administration, and to create pragmatic solutions to the problems the nation faced.

Then they got re-elected. Again. And Again.

Soon they forgot why they were there in the first place. They had gone Washington and ceased to be the champions of their districts. To make up for it they threw lots of earmarked money back home and espoused what they claimed to be traditional Conservative values on the hill. Except the values they loved so much really looked like tax cuts mixed with lots of Big Government and bureaucratic waste.

Now the Dems get their turn at the helm again. If they learn from their own mistakes (and the GOP’s) then Pelosi could turn the whole ship around. She just needs to make the right decision and move a bit toward the center. This could be a great new day for America.

Americans have spoken. Contrary to what the media might tell you, they did not vote only according to party. They voted based on what they saw as good or bad. Big government, unbalanced budgets, overspending, and mismanagement were seen as bad. But the people did not favor overly liberal, “progressive” values either. The candidates elected were people on the Right wing of the Democratic Party or the Left wing of the Republican party. The Center is gaining momentum.

And here is where Pelosi comes in. If she fails to build a moderate House of Representatives, she will have failed America. Our nation has cried out for a centrist approach in Congress. The people generally agree that the Bush policies both foreign and domestic are not working and the Republican-led Congress had failed to find solutions. America needs her problems to be solved. If Pelosi fails to lead the House in a moderate and fair manner, she will have broken the orders given to her by the voters on Tuesday and our nation will be the worse for it. Worse, our nation will be angry.

If Pelosi begins her term as Speaker in a centrist and problem-solving way, she will be seen as the great American hero and all of us will be the better for it.

I hope for the latter solution.

Where Do We Go From Here?

To quote Evita, “Where do we go from here? This isn’t where we intended to be.”

I am sure that Karl Rove didn’t even attempt to sleep last night and that President Bush woke up with a sickening knot in his stomach and a headache worse than any he has experienced since he gave up the bottle. Indeed, the Republican Party is experiencing one killer hangover today.

I for one, am not completely upset by the results of last night. Just like all other members of the GOP, I am terrified of the prospect of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. But much good could come from these election results.

There are several analyses I would like to draw from last night’s election and will be posting them soon on this blog. Among them, you will find my predictions for what will occur under a Speaker Pelosi House, how the Senate will operate with such a split membership, how policy will be changed, and how party membership will change.

I really do think that this could be a pivotal moment for both parties and for the direction of this country.

Berkeley College Republicans in the Wall Street Journal

On Friday, when I did my usual look through The Wall Street Journal, I saw a familiar face. Between the sketches of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nancy Pelosi, and various other political heavyweights was the poorly drawn image of fellow Golden Bear, Josiah Prendergast, President of the Berkeley College Republicans.

Chris Page at the Cal Patriot Blog already blogged about BCR's Wall Street Journal article. Unfortunately his coverage of the article lacks any real news. We already know BCR is a big group on campus and that the conservative mindset is a novelty in the People's Republic of Berkeley. However, he asserts that Republicans are needed in Berkeley more than anywhere and that is why they are a big group. In reality, the number of Republicans on campus is more a function of the increasingly moderate to conservative makeup of the student population. But the size of the club is mostly correlated to the activities of the organization.

The Berkeley College Republicans have fun. Students like to be involved in groups that are fun. It should come as no surprise, then, when BCR posts such large numbers. Really, who doesn't like a group that has lively political debates, fantastic guest speakers, huge events attracting worldwide media coverage, ice-skating trips, parties, bar nights, and other activities when people want to organize them? They really try to have something for everyone.

Another key to the success of BCR is that they avoid really divisive topics. The members of BCR, contrary to popular belief, don't sit around and talk about how wonderful it is that we are in Iraq right now or how awful abortion is. When those sorts of topics are brought up in meetings, it is usually in a debate format with two people passionately debating the issues with formal rules followed by the questions and comments of other members.

Berkeley College Republicans can thank their own efforts for developing an organization that people want to be a part of. Good job, guys! Thanks for keeping a conservative beacon on our liberal campus!

UPDATE: Josiah Prendergast, President of BCR, has been asked to appear on Hannity & Colmes on FoxNews on Wednesday. The show will air at 6pm and 11pm, PST.

UPDATE: The CNBC show "Kudlow & Company" is airing a debate at 2 pm tomorrow between Josiah and a representative of the Cal Democrats regarding the November election, students inpolitics, and the future of America.

And The Beat Goes On...

What is this? The year of the GOP congressional scandal?

If you are trying to keep track, let's see if we can recap the year to date (I am sure I will miss something):

• First there was the Abramoff lobbying scandal starring Bob Ney.
• Never to be outdone, Cunningham lived more like a Machiavellian Prince than a Duke.
• DeLay may or may not have broken any campaign finance laws, but he sure did his best to make it look like he did.
• I have already discussed Mark Foley and his follies on this blog.

Just as America was getting bored with exploring the Foley case, another Republican scandal to absorb the media! Joy of joys!

Now, it seems, Curt Weldon is under investigation for an alleged incident in which he may have used his congressional ties to secure cushy lobbying and consulting jobs for his daughter and a close friend. Though the alleged incident occured more than 2 years ago, investigators raided his daughter's home this weekend...just in time for some big media before this 10-term congressman faces a tough opponent in the November midterms. What luck!

Now it doesn't take any fancy degrees to tell you that public figures should avoid anything that even appears like impropriety. Ney, Cunningham, DeLay, Foley, and Weldon each have knowingly engaged in activities that regardless of actual illegalities are absolutely questionable. Because of this, the Dems, media, and general public have already found them to be guilty. And this sentiment has tainted the rest of our party.

Rightly so! Our party gained control of congress twelve years ago when we were able to successfully show that we had a clear plan to serve the nation. The Class of '94 was so popular because they had shown that Democrats couldn't be trusted and the Republicans had defined a plan to increase the quality of life while improving the budget and lowering taxes, simultaneously.

Lately, the grand elephants of the GOP have come to bear a striking resemblance to the asses of the Democratic Party. We have mastered pork barrel spending, overspending, and now the congressional scandal. What we have forgotten is how to maintain a healthy cynicism of big government and how to portray Democrat policies as too big brotherish.

I hate to say that we no longer deserve control of Congress. When I looked at the Drudge Report this morning and saw Nancy Pelosi's portrait with the caption "21 Days," I shivered with fear that this particular liberal could potentially be the next Speaker of the House.

Still, if the GOP were to narrowly maintain control of the House, it would only be nominally. Whichever party takes control would be unable to pass significant legislation without some help from the moderates of the other party but would bear liability for the wrongs that occur in the government over the next two years. Basically, all of the responsibility of congressional leadership without the benefits. It could benefit the Republican party to narrowly lose control of the House this year and let the Democrats take some blame for a while.