Clear Contrast In Tuesday’s Winners: Roy Blunt and Rand Paul

By Steve Parkhurst

The Wall Street Journal’s Weekend Interview features two new United States Senators from Tuesday’s election, Republicans Rand Paul and Roy Blunt. As you can tell from the title The Grand New—and Old—Party, this is supposed to be a contrast between the two men. But, this whole thing borders on the absurd. Senator-elect Paul comes across very well, in my opinion. But, Roy Blunt comes across poorly, and like a complete jerk.

Time will tell if Rand Paul can be effective, especially as he goes to Washington to join with other newcomers like Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson and Mike Lee. Roy Blunt sounds like more of the same, more of what got us Obama in the first place.

Case in point:

His first speech on the floor, he promises, will be on “the out-of-control deficit.” But since, “as Mark Twain said about the weather, that everybody is talking about it and nobody is doing anything about it,” Mr. Paul plans in his first legislative act to introduce a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. And, he adds, he’ll force a vote on it, too: “People don’t like to vote against something that’s so incredibly popular.” He also wants to look hard at steep cuts in defense and entitlements, the largest chunks of federal outlays, and in one swoop antagonize many Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

Rand Paul = New Thinking

Relaxed, in a open-collar blue shirt, Mr. Blunt starts off by pointing out that he was a hard budget hawk before it became popular. “I led the only fight we had in 10 years to cut the mandatory spending programs,” he says, referring to the congressional budget debate in late 2005. As whip, he recalls no one ever called to thank him. Republicans only wanted him to save their pet projects. “I think the country’s come a long ways in these five years,” he adds.

And how has he changed in the last five years?

He waves the query away with, “Hey, well, I’ve been a pretty conservative member of congress,” and then he changes the subject.

Roy Blunt = More of the Same

Advertisement

AP-GfK Poll: Most attuned voters tilt toward GOP

Huh, no surprise here.

Congressional races often turn on local concerns and the candidates’ character, factors that may yet sway many races this year. But many analysts think the public’s widely sour mood — just 35 percent in the AP-GfK poll said the country is headed in the right direction — means this year’s campaigns could be widely influenced by national issues, especially the economy.

“The economy is poor, we’re muddling through in Afghanistan, we’re not making much progress in the war on terror,” said Paul Goren, a University of Minnesota political scientist who studies voting behavior. “Every once in a while national issues can intrude. It looks like there’s a good chance this will be one of those elections.”

The vast majority of this poll is no surprise. Educated Republicans were not the ones looking for television cameras on election day in 2008 talking about Obama paying their mortgages, car payments and filling up their cars with gas.

Little-known fact: Obama’s failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

I’m sure the Obama Regime wasn’t expecting this.

Expect to hear a lot about how much the Iraq war cost in the days ahead from Democrats worried about voter wrath against their unprecedented spending excesses.

The meme is simple: The economy is in a shambles because of Bush’s economic policies and his war in Iraq. As American Thinker’s Randall Hoven points out, that’s the message being peddled by lefties as diverse as former Clinton political strategist James Carville, economist Joseph Stiglitz, and The Nation’s Washington editor, Christopher Hayes.

Are Political Consultants Stupid?

I was intrigued by a tweet today and it led me to a couple of articles about political consultants.

I am a political consultant. Please keep reading anyway. I consider myself one of the good guys though, and I’ll tell you why. It’s for the very reasons that political consultants were disparaged in these articles. To elaborate further, the points that Newt Gingrich made in the Washington Post are exactly right, and our firm does the opposite of what Newt wrote about.

GPH Consulting is made up of people who grew up in the activist side of politics, some of us are still precinct chairs at the grassroots level. We believe in building the conservative movement, through the Republican party, in every race that we are involved in. We look for candidates willing to work their communities and go door to door to deliver their message, because only when we talk with everyone will we all win. We know our history, we have conservative principles and we try to elect good, competent people to office each year. We’re not marketers turned political consultants who view a man (or woman) in a suit as a product we’re trying to push with a couple of soundbites. We believe in more than just direct mail and tv ads. We believe in the conservative cause.

We are and have been supportive of groups like RagingElephants.org and Latino National Republican Coalition, groups going into communities that our party will traditionally write off and engaging voters who rarely if ever hear from Republican candidates.

I feel that no race, no district anywhere, should be seen as “off the table”. When we cede ground to the opposition, the voters lose by not having a real choice, and eventually we all lose by having unchecked representation that can run wild in the halls of power.

Matt Lewis did a nice summation of what Newt said, and he also went back as far as 2007 to show that Newt was saying these things about consultants back then. In some of Newt’s 2008 and 2009 speeches he would also make similar comments about political consultants. Melissa Clouthier also followed up with some insights. I appreciate that Matt and Melissa both used identifiers like “most” and “many” rather than “all” or “every”, so I did not take offense to what either of them said.

I posted this blog back in April trying to warn our side not to give up ground so early in 2010, to keep fighting, to keep engaging, because we have the opportunity before us to build a long term movement based on freedom and prosperity. Just assuming we’re going to win and assuming we have enough districts to have a majority is not enough. Let’s make sure we’re building our databases of emails and voter interests so that when 2012 comes around, we can be on better footing with the Obama machine than we were in 2008.

I would say to Matt and Melissa both; I understand your concerns and what you’re saying, but rest assured that there is at least one consulting firm out here doing right by our cause. You may recall, just two weekends ago, I was with both of you at the AFP Summit in Austin, how many other consultants did you count in that crowd?

Yes, Prime Minister

The events that took place today in London were nothing short of remarkable. If you were able to watch any of the proceedings during our 1pm-3pm hours (CST), you know what I’m talking about.

During that time, Gordon Brown resigned as Prime Minister, he then left 10 Downing Street to head to Buckingham Palace where he gave the Queen his resignation. Then, within minutes, David Cameron went to Buckingham Palace where the Queen asked him to form a government, he agreed, and with that a new Prime Minister made his way to Downing Street to get to work.

Upon arriving to 10 Downing Street, Cameron gave this speech, with no notes and no teleprompter.

The dynamics of the election last week and some of what led to the changes today, will be stuff of history. We’ll be reading about it for years to come I’m sure. One of the people who had led Obama’s campaign in 2008, Anita Dunn, was a key player in Cameron’s campaign. It’s no coincidence that “change” was part of the Conservative Party logo and message this year.

As I touched on before and will write more about later, the Cameron campaign was a conservative model that we should look at following parts of here in the United States going into 2010. From the “contract with young people“, to their “contract for jobs“, to their “quality of life manifesto“, I think the Conservative Party put forth one positive proposal after another and they earned the trust of the people of Britain (yes there is a hung parliament, but the number of seats that changed hands was overwhelming).

One thing we must understand, and learn to live with, it that in those proposals, people may not have agreed with the Conservative Party 100% on each idea in each proposal. However, the party itself was bold enough to say “here is where we stand, where does the other side stand?”. I think when you make the choices that clear, people will always follow the logical options and the ones based on the most common sense

Conservative Offense Must Be Keeping Gordon Brown Awake At Night

As I reported yesterday, Conservative Party candidate for Prime Minister, David Cameron, introduced what is known as “A contract between the Conservative Party and you”.

Obviously, I was impressed. Then, I woke up this morning to see that the Conservative Party has now introduced a “contract for jobs“. In my opinion, this contract is full of common sense solutions. One of the highlights was this:

“introduce Work for Yourself, a new scheme to help unemployed would-be entrepreneurs start their own business by giving them access to a business mentor and start-up loans.”

I happen to think this overall concept is great, it’s something we should have been doing here since the beginning of the internet boom. I do wonder about the word “scheme” though. Maybe overseas that word carries a different connotation, but here, that word sounds under-handed and negative.

The election is four days away. The Conservatives are on serious offense right now. I almost can’t wait until the 10pm and 11pm hours here in the States for the new articles to start hitting the British websites in their early morning hours. You have to assume Gordon Brown wants to respond, which would mean Cameron is controlling the debate. I suspect we’ll have four more days of full throttle offense from Cameron and the Conservatives on their way to victory on Thursday.

Britons Adopt “Contract” Theme

On Thursday afternoon I tuned in to watch the third and final Prime Minister debate from across the pond, you can watch the entire debate here. As mentioned here before, this is the first time these debates have ever been televised. One bit of irony for me was the way Gordon Brown mirrored Richard Nixon. Not necessarily the Richard Nixon from the first ever televised Presidential debates in 1960, but the later Nixon on the 1968 and 1972 campaigns. So the “television thing” is something we Americans could claim as our idea, now adopted by the Britons some 50 years later.

Now, the guy at the top of the ballot for the Conservative Party, David Cameron, has proposed a “contract” to 3.5 million independent voters. He went through many of the same rituals that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans did in 1994, such as signing a giant version of the contract in front of a crowd. The “contract” also includes a suggestion to the voters that if the promises are not met, they are to “vote us out” in five years.

A good report on this new development can be found here:

The contract sets out 16 different pledges – five to change politics, five to change the economy and six to change society.

They include controlling immigration, cutting the pay of Government ministers and raising standards in schools.

The two-page document – entitled “A contract between the Conservative Party and you” – is also used to rebuff Labour allegations that Mr Cameron is secretly planning to remove some benefits, including the winter fuel allowance and other state perks for pensioners.

The contract can be found here in full.

If you haven’t paid attention to this process overseas, it’s worth looking at because I think the Conservative Party is doing many things we would do well adopting here in the lead up to 2010 and 2012. In that final debate, in a somewhat heated moment where the candidates are actually afforded more dialogue than ours are afforded, there was this great comment spoken by David Cameron:

“But do I want to cut taxes on all businesses, particularly small businesses to get the economy moving? You’re damn right I do.”

If you go to the C-SPAN feed of the debate and advance to 35:54, you’ll see the comments in full. We don’t hear candidates talk like that here.

We’ve heard the saying that “life mirrors art”, well in this case, countries are mirroring countries through their political systems. With the expected results this week in Britain, where the Conservative Party is now poised to lead for the first time since 1997, we might do well to remember what worked and what didn’t, and see if we can do some mirroring of our own. Elections like these, and the recent elections in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia show that when we intelligently and passionately take our message to the voters, we win elections.

King: Election winner will be out of power for a generation

In my obsession with the British elections next week, the headline really jumped out at me.

“I saw the Governor of the Bank of England last week when I was in London and he told me whoever wins this election will be out of power for a whole generation because of how tough the fiscal austerity will have to be.”

The column continued:

However, leaving this inconsistencies aside, the comments do seem plausible: King has said repeatedly that the Government will need to impose far more ambitious cuts on the deficit than it currently plans. The comments ought to stand as a reminder that although the focus of the election has switched away to bigotgate, and the economic focus worldwide to the eurozone malaise, Britain faces a decade of hurt in the wake of its decade of debt.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies spelt it out earlier this week in typically frank terms. Labour and the LibDem plans imply the biggest squeeze on public services since the 1970s, when the IMF was in town. The Tory plans imply the biggest set of cuts since records began in 1948.

The Republican party faces the same danger in both 2010 and 2012. With Obama still in office and until he is out of office, there are going to be continual fractures to our system. Our side needs to be ready and be upfront about our solutions and our plans. I’ve written about 1992, 1994 and 1996 before. I will continue to say that we must be bold and we must be realistic. We must have a conversation with the American people.

The damage that Obama is inflicting, including the sense of entitlements, is not going to go away easily. Hard decisions are going to have to be made. If we start having the conversations now, we will not only prepare people for the realities of tough decisions and real life in what is America, but we will start to get people to understand, to work with us and to advocate on our behalf within their circles of influence.

As Ronald Reagan said in 1975: “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pastels, but bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”

Let’s start presenting our bold colors now. As I mentioned here before, Congressman Paul Ryan’s Roadmap For America’s Future is a great place to start. I love the British and I love watching Question Time. But, I don’t want to be like our friends from across the pond in 2013 when a Republican President is sworn in to office.

Tim Aker for Aveley

My old friend from the Draft Newt ’08 Campaign, is running for a local office next week just outside of London in a community called Aveley. Listen to him speak, then think about Newt Gingrich, and you’ll understand why we worked so well together.

Tim has a great grasp on the concept that guided Draft Newt ’08, “Ideas Today, Solutions Tomorrow”. He is putting forth real plans, real solutions, and leaving it to the voters to decide. I wonder if we should do that in the states…

While I may not agree with the party Tim has aligned himself with, when the Conservative party seems to be headed in the right direction, one source said that Tim is bringing the UKIP party back to the mainstream, he has been called “the future of his party” and he has given it “added credibility”.

Keep up the good work Tim, win or lose, you’ve done great good for our cause. After the election, let’s have a virtual drink at the bar, the Newcastle Brown Ale is on me.

British Prime Minster Election

I’m ready to call next week’s Prime Minister election in favor of Conservative party candidate David Cameron. Prime Minister Brown’s recent gaffe, is such a clear example of the difference in political systems between the U.S. and Britain. While it used to be true that “what happens in Europe eventually happens here”, the Prime Minister candidates are having live television debates this year, for the FIRST time ever. Something we started doing here in 1960 with the infamous Kennedy vs. Nixon debate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/template/utils/ooyala/telegraph_player.swf

There had been quite a bit of speculation about a hung Parliament, but the gaffe by the guy at the top of the ballot, may influence enough independents to empower the Conservative party.

I’ll have more later on about the impact of the Conservative party on the national elections in Britain. I think the party has done many things right. David Cameron presented what became known as a “Green Manifesto”, which addressed environmental issues from a more sensible, rational point of view. Stay tuned.