Freedom Line Blog

The (British) Guardian promotes an interesting theory about the 2012 electoral cycle: maybe Republicans should focus more on winning the Senate than the presidency.  Here’s the rationale:

And here’s more potential bad news: in 2014, another 20 Senate Democrats are up for re-election, compared to just 14 Republicans. That means over two successive election cycles, 43 Democrats – 80% of those currently in office – must defend their Senate seats, compared to just 24 Republicans. Could the GOP end up with a 60-vote super-majority of its own, just two years before laying siege to the White House in a post Obama contest?

The strategy doesn’t explicitly cede the presidential campaign to President Barack Obama, but it does acknowledge that the current crop of likely GOP presidential contenders don’t include the exciting names conservatives want (e.g. Mike Pence, Chris Christie, John Thune).

Consequently, don’t be surprised if conservative activists and donors spend their time and money electing more senators like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio instead of backing whichever compromise candidate emerges with the presidential nomination.

Freshman Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is taking a much more traditional approach than colleague Rand Paul (R-KY) when it comes to proving his Tea Party credentials.  Paul continues to thumb his nose at the GOP establishment by founding the Senate’s Tea Party caucus, and feeding speculation he may run for president in 2012.

Rubio didn’t join the Senate Tea Partiers, and until recently has been publicly silent about his immediate intentions.  That changed with a recent column in the Wall Street Journal demanding major budget changes.

Interestingly, Paul is building a national brand while Rubio focuses on few – but profound – policy statements.  In an age of 24 hour media, Rubio’s statesmanlike approach could be an indication of very good things to come.

Republicans in Congress are currently split on whether to accept incremental budget cuts in the name of political pragmatism or to hold a hard line — and face the possibility of a government shutdown or a freeze in the debt ceiling — in the name of principle. Freshman Florida Senator Marco Rubio takes to the editorial pages of the Wednesday edition of the Wall Street Journal with a message that leaves no doubt where he stands:

“Raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” So said then-Sen. Obama in 2006, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling by less than $800 billion to a new limit of $8.965 trillion. As America’s debt now approaches its current $14.29 trillion limit, we are witnessing leadership failure of epic proportions.

I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

For months now, we’ve heard “sober” politicians tell us that it’s time to have “an adult conversation” about the size and cost of government in which “everything is on the table”. It looks like Marco Rubio is calling their bluff.

The uniqueness of Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Jim DeMint (R-SC) in joining their chamber’s Tea Party caucus shone forth again when yet another freshman conservative declined to join their ranks.  Tea Party darling Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) refuses to join.  Now, it’s John Boozman’s (R-AR) turn.

Officially, Boozman says he doesn’t want the public to confuse the tri-partisan nature of the Tea Party (Republican, Reagan Democrat, and Independent) with being an arm of the GOP.  But closer scrutiny of Boozman’s rationale to ABC News indicates he’s not ready to balance the budget by cutting agricultural subsidies.

“But it doesn’t sound like ag subsidies will be at the top of your list for things to cut,” Karl said.

“We’re going to have to look at everything but ag subsidies are like everything else. That affects jobs,” the senator said. “Now listen, the one thing about agriculture is we’ve lost our manufacturing, we’ve lost a great deal of jobs overseas, lots of our industry. The last thing in the world we need to do is lose the ability to produce our food.”

Chances are Boozman doesn’t want to tie himself to unqualified budget cutters like Paul, Lee, or DeMint.  Boozman’s calculation may be that it’s far better to fight for certain cuts while arguing to keep tax-supported jobs in his home state.

Senators like Rubio and Boozman argue that caucus membership in the Senate isn’t as important in the upper chamber as it is in the House.  Any member of the Senate can unilaterally slow or kill legislation he doesn’t like.  While that’s true, it’s also a way to sidestep a measure of accountability.  After all, if your major theme is cutting the budget, why not join a group that won’t make exceptions for pet pork projects?

Eventually, Paul, Lee, or DeMint might prove the truth of the single senator theory by killing bills favored by Rubio or Boozman.  If that happens, don’t be surprised to find Rubio and Boozman caught between their rhetoric and their record.

Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Rand Paul (R-KY) have all joined the new Senate Tea Party caucus.  No word yet on movement favorite Marco Rubio (R-FL), or other stalwart fiscal conservatives like Tom Coburn (R-OK).

Politico notes that caucuses are more important in the House because of that chamber’s preference for majority rule.  In the Senate, one member can hold up or kill legislation if he’s willing to filibuster (or usually just threaten it).  Even so, it would be nice to see DeMint attract enough members to the Tea Party caucus so that the Senate has at least one institutional block against runaway spending.

Judging by this announcement list of top staffers, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) thinks highly of people who worked on former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) failed 2008 presidential campaign.  Of eight top staff positions, Rubio gave three to former Romney for President people.

With Romney lining up support for a 2012 presidential run via PAC donations and outsourcing staff to rising Republicans, don’t be surprised if Rubio endorses Romney for the White House.  If it comes early enough, it just might be the thing that cinches a Romney-Rubio ticket.

There may be no politician more adept at turning Tea Party popularity into actionable results than Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC).  Yesterday, the conservative icon took the unusual step of publicly withdrawing his support of his party’s fundraising head, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.  There are good reasons to do so, but by publicizing his displeasure DeMint is serving notice on the rest of the GOP that he is ready to push for a more robust conservative presence throughout the party’s apparatus.

With his Senate Conservatives Fund DeMint went head-to-head and beat several GOP primary candidates supported by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, led by fellow Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).  With freshman senators like Florida’s Marco Rubio, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, and Utah’s Mike Lee owing much to DeMint’s patronage, expect to see the junior senator from South Carolina take on a much bigger role in deciding his party’s next presidential nominee.  If DeMint manages to replace Steele with a RNC Chairman of his choosing, he will be better positioned than any conservative in the party to make a serious run for the nomination.

H/T: Roll Call

For a guy who won a 21-month-long campaign, you’d think Senator-Elect Marco Rubio (R-FL) would get the weekend off.

Hardly.

He’s already been asked to deliver the GOP’s response to President Barack Obama’s weekly address.  Welcome to primetime, all the time, Mr. Rubio.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) offers some great advice to newly elected conservative colleagues like Marco Rubio and Rand Paul: stay true to your campaign promises of less government and more freedom.  Here are the highlights:

(1)   Don’t request earmarks – they obligate you to take bad votes

(2)   Hire conservative staff – they help you avoid mistakes

(3)   Beware of committees – in the Senate, all members can legislate from the floor

(4)   Don’t seek titles – every Senator has the privilege to speak and be heard, regardless of seniority

(5)   Don’t let your reelection become more important than your job – breaking campaign promises for the sake of being reelected ensures you won’t be

DeMint’s brief column should go on the wall of every incoming Senate conservative’s office as a reminder of why they are in Washington, D.C.

H/T: Wall Street Journal

It’s nearly a week later, but on this Sunday talk show-eve we can be guaranteed that tomorrow’s beltway chatter will be dominated by talk of Christine O’Donnell’s upset of Mike Castle in the GOP senate primary in Delaware. To save you the pain of sitting through Meet the Press, This Week, Face the Nation, Fox News Sunday and CNN’s State of the Union, here are the basic talking points you’re going to hear all morning: O’Donnell’s win proves that Tea Party radicals are taking over the GOP, ruining their chances for a majority this year and imperiling the long-term existence of the party.

Put aside the obvious bias of these remarks (remember how two years ago the GOP was imperiled because it was losing? Now apparently it’s imperiled because it’s winning). The truth is a lot more complicated.

It’s undoubtedly true that O’Donnell’s nomination makes it much likelier that Democrats will retain the Delaware seat that used to be held by Joe Biden. Delaware is a solidly blue state and O’Donnell’s deep Republican red — regardless of her virtues or vices — is never going to play as well as Castle’s fuschia statewide.

The Tea Party’s stated goal, however — moving the Republican party closer to the principles of small government — is on track for success in most of its other contested senate races throughout the country. Ken Buck in Colorado, Mike Lee in Utah, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, and Marco Rubio in Florida are among the Tea Party-backed candidates who appear on track for victory. Joe Miller in Alaska is a strong bet too, though Lisa Murkowski’s misbeggoten attempt at a write-in candidacy may tighten that race. Only Nevada’s Sharron Angle presents similar difficulties to O’Donnell, but on a far narrower basis. As of this writing, she’s polling essentially even with Harry Reid.

But there’s an even bigger misperception at work here. Since pundits only discovered a few weeks ago that Republicans had a shot at taking over the senate, they were able to put their Prozac back in the medicine cabinet with the O’Donnell win. This is a mistake. For while Delaware may have just slipped out of reach, two seats that were not previously part of the electoral calcuation are now in play.

The first is in Connecticut, where former WWE CEO Linda McMahon has pulled within five points of the supposedly invincible Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. The second is West Virginia, where the seat formerly held by Robert Byrd was expected to be an easy win for Democratic Governor Joe Manchin. However, industrial executive John Raese has closed the gap to within five points as well. Given the strong conservative turnout expected this year, these could both be sleepers come election night.

Don’t despair, conservative America. We’re just getting started.

Where’s the party unity?  Florida’s Charlie Crist morphed into an Independent when it became clear Marco Rubio would be the Republican Senate nominee.  To date, Delaware’s Mike Castle hasn’t called to pledge his support to GOP nominee Christine O’Donnell.  (Though he did find time to take phone calls from both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.)

And today, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski announced she would reject the judgment of her fellow Republicans and run as a write-in candidate after losing her reelection primary to Joe Miller.

Here we go again.  While the conservatives always fall in line, it’s the Republican Party’s moderates that are refusing to put their own political interests at the service of party unity.

Wake me up when it’s November…

Three Freedom Works-backed U.S. Senate candidates sent videotaped messages to the 1,000+ gathering of grassroots activists last Friday night.  The differences in quality and presentation were noticeable.

Dino Rossi (R-WA) stands in front of a campaign banner dressed in slacks and an open collar, long-sleeved shirt.  He thanks Freedom Works and the crowd for its hard work, and gives an earnest, seemingly impromptu riff on the problems facing Washington State and America.  Good, but not great.

Next was Rand Paul (R-KY).  Seated in an office environment surrounded by book shelves, Paul also sports an open collar shirt.  Like Rossi’s video, Paul’s looks and feels like a candidate taking a few moments out of a busy day to look directly into a camera held by a campaign operative, and doing his best to stay on message.

Then Marco Rubio’s video begins.  After the fade-in, Rubio (R-FL) appears leaning forward on a stool with one foot on the ground as if ready to walk forward and greet the viewer.  He’s dressed in a crisp dark suit and power tie.  His mannerisms give the subtle impression he’s studied how to interact with a camera.  His delivery is smooth and unhurried.  Unlike Rossi and Paul, Rubio doesn’t just talk to the audience members; he connects with them.  His video is certainly shot in a studio, and his communications team took pains to mold his stump speech to fit this grassroots crowd.

Judging by the audience’s reaction after each candidate’s video, Rubio won the straw poll. No wonder the Freedom Works organizers chose to end with his submission.

It certainly looks that way. Back when he was Speaker of the Florida House, Rubio pioneered “idearaisers” — a format where he solicited the best public policy ideas from citizens of the Sunshine State. The result was a book entitled 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future. All of those 100 ideas were passed by the Florida House, and, by Rubio’s accounting, 57 are now Florida law.

Now on the hustings as a U.S. Senate candidate, Rubio has now unveiled “23 Simple Ways To Create Jobs, Grow Our Economy And Help The Gulf Coast Recover.” You can read the full list via the link, but here are a couple of the choicer items:

 Fundamentally Reform The U.S. Tax Code. The current tax code hinders economic growth. Too many years of special interest lobbying and class warfare politics have cemented it as anti-family, anti-jobs and anti-competitive. The U.S. should have a tax system that is simpler, fairer and promotes economic growth.  We should start moving toward being able to pay our taxes with a single rate on paper the size of a postcard.

Make Claims Checks Tax Exempt. The Gulf Oil Spill Relief Fund is designed to help those whose economic well-being and revenue has been impacted. Similar to legislation after September 11, the federal government should act immediately so that Floridians and the people of the Gulf Coast receive a full gross relief check. BP should cover any tax losses.

See Rubio talking about the linkage between ideas and action below:

Answer: quite possibly, the margin of victory for Republicans in the United States Senate.

According to a new report from Public Policy Polling today, the largely unknown Johnson (a plastics manufacturer from Oshkosh) is within two points of the Badger State’s liberal stalwart, Senator Russ Feingold.  If the Wisconsin seat flips, it puts Republicans very close to retaking the Senate. Here’s the succint explanation.

Republicans currently have 41 seats in the Senate. Since the tie-breaking vote in the Senate belongs to the Democratic Vice President, Republicans would need a net pickup of 10 seats to retake the majority — an extremely high threshold.

To start with, that means having no Republican incumbents get beat. That shouldn’t be too hard. There aren’t many GOP incumbents around these days, and the ones that are are fairly safe. Only North Carolina’s Richard Burr looks vulnerable this year and he’ll probably be able to ride it out.

The next step is hanging on to the seven open GOP seats: one due to a Republican primary in Utah, the other six owing to retirements in Kansas, Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Florida, and New Hampshire. Utah, Kansas, and New Hampshire look very safe right now. Kentucky will be close and will likely hinge on how cautious Rand Paul can learn to be. Florida has scrambled into a three-way race with Charlie Crist’s decision to run as an independent, but look for Marco Rubio to make a strong showing as the year continues. Ohio and Missouri will likely stay tight up through election day.

Assuming a perfect defense, then, Republicans will still need to pickup 10 seats on offense. There are a few pieces of low-lying fruit: North Dakota Governor John Hoeven will almost certaintly win the seat being vacated by Byron Dorgan. The odds also look quite favorable for Dan Coats in Indiana and Mike Castle in Delaware to pick up open seats, and for John Boozman in Arkansas to defeat incumbent Blanche Lincoln.

Factor in those wins and Republicans still need six seats for a majority. And with the Wisconsin race competitive, they now have seven prospects. In addition to Johnson’s challenge to Feingold, there are also serious threats to Democratic incumbents in California, Nevada, Colorado, and Washington. With Republicans competitive for open seats in Illinois and Pennsylvania, the Wisconsin race actually gives the GOP an ever-so-slight margin of error for taking back a majority come election day.

And who is this great white hope of the upper midwest? George Will’s profile in the Washington Post last month provides some insight. If he’s right, this may be one more member of an exceptional senate class in 2010. To wit:

The theme of his campaign, the genesis of which was an invitation to address a Tea Party rally, is: “First of all, freedom.” Then? “Then you’ve got to put meat on the bones.” He gets much of his meat from the Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages. And from a Wisconsin congressman, Paul Ryan, whose “road map” for entitlement reform Johnson praises. Health care? “Mitch Daniels has the solution.” Indiana’s Republican governor has offered state employees the choice of consumer-controlled health savings accounts, and 70 percent now choose them.

“The most basic right,” Johnson says, “is the right to keep your property.” Remembering the golden age when, thanks to Ronald Reagan, the top income tax rate was 28 percent, Johnson says: “For a brief moment we were 72 percent free.” Johnson’s daughter — now a nurse in neonatal intensive care — was born with a serious heart defect. The operations “when her heart was only the size of a small plum” made him passionate about protecting the incentives that bring forth excellent physicians.

This sounds like a conservative who nows how to connect first principles to daily governance. Dare we dream such a thing?

Following up on Ashton’s excellent post yesterday, one of the most salient facts about President Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, is her total lack of a track record. This is not to indict Ms. Kagan for her lack of judicial experience –– more than a third of the justices in the Supreme Court’s history have come from outside what Patrick Leahy refers to as the “judicial monastery” (a phrase too sterling to have been coined by a U.S. Senator — at least in the era since Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s passing).

Rather the issue is — apart from Harvard Law’s ROTC scandal while she served as dean– that Kagan doesn’t seem to have an observable opinion on anything. As CNN and New Yorker legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin — a friend of Kagan’s since law school — observed upon news that she would be the nominee:

Judgment, values, and politics are what matters on the Court. And here I am somewhat at a loss. Clearly, she’s a Democrat. She was a highly regarded member of the White House staff during the Clinton years, but her own views were and are something of a mystery. She has written relatively little, and nothing of great consequence.

What Toobin regards as personal anecdotage, however, the New York Times’ always interesting (and often perplexing) David Brooks sees as pathological. As he says in the coda of today’s column:

What we have is a person whose career has dovetailed with the incentives presented by the confirmation system, a system that punishes creativity and rewards caginess. Arguments are already being made for and against her nomination, but most of this is speculation because she has been too careful to let her actual positions leak out.

There’s about to be a backlash against the Ivy League lock on the court. I have to confess my first impression of Kagan is a lot like my first impression of many Organization Kids. She seems to be smart, impressive and honest — and in her willingness to suppress so much of her mind for the sake of her career, kind of disturbing.

As Ashton mentioned yesterday, the same criticism could be equally applied to the pre-presidential Obama. But this isn’t just the provenance of the left. John Roberts presented much the same sort of blank slate prior to his elevation to the Court. And those already clamoring for a Marco Rubio presidential bid are running the same risk.

Consent of the governed is a meaningless concept when the governed aren’t told what they’re consenting to. If the Kagan nomination is a further indication that we’re living in an age of empty political vessels, the country will be worse off for it.

It’s hard to believe that Florida Governor Charlie Crist is on the precipice of being a one term chief executive with only a new wife to show for it.  Haled as the difference maker for John McCain’s struggling presidential campaign, he single-handedly decided which Republican candidate would win the 2008 GOP Florida primary.  Yes, he was that popular in a state where he now trails his Republican challenger for the open Senate seat, Marco Rubio, by 20 points.

Aside from doing little more in office than unwind many of Jeb Bush’s conservative accomplishments, Crist is likely to leave office in November without having ever fully concentrated on being the most powerful politician in a crucial swing state.  In stark contrast to New Jersey’s recently elected governor, Chris Christie, whose budget balancing is a model for skillful public policy in action, Crist will be remembered as a politician who couldn’t be satisfied with his current job.  Very soon, Florida voters will relieve him of the burden.

That’s the rumor coming out of Florida Republican circles and RedState’s Erick Erickson.  Not that such a move would be too much of a surprise since Crist is still the sitting governor of Florida and is losing by 18% to former state house speaker, Marco Rubio.  He needs something to spice up his campaign, and going rogue would certainly do it.  The question is, though, what kind of voter would Crist try to attract once he became un-tethered from a political party?

This isn’t the same scenario that faced Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) when he ran as an independent after losing the Connecticut Democratic primary to Ned Lamont in 2006.  There, netroots activists took over the election and alienated much of Lieberman’s comparatively moderate base.  Lieberman was also aided by some not so subtle help from the Bush Administration seeing the Iraq War supporter as an ally on foreign affairs.  Neither factor is present in this year’s Florida U.S. Senate race.  Not only is Rubio building the kind of following that could deliver a decisive victory among Republicans and Independents, there is no indication that the Obama Administration will coordinate with Crist to the detriment of the likely Democratic nominee, Kendrick Meek.

If Crist truly is considering leaving the GOP, he should instead “suspend” his campaign and concentrate on ending his one term as governor on as good a note as possible.  Otherwise, he’ll do further damage to his reputation while simultaneously wasting Floridians time and money on an ill-conceived vanity tour.

With a growing lead in the polls and a rousing speech at CPAC now under his belt, former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate is looking better by the day. And the surging would-be senator proved yesterday that he won’t shy away from taking the fight to his more liberal primary opponent, Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Consider this jab that did everything but cite Crist by name:

2010 will not be just a choice between Republicans or Democrats. It will not just be a simple choice between liberals and conservatives. It will be a referendum on our nation’s very identity.

People want leaders that will come here to Washington D.C. and stand up to this big government agenda, not be co-opted by it. The Senate already has one Arlen Specter too many. And America already has a Democrat party. It doesn’t need another Democrat party.

In the wake of that speech, Crist has now agreed to a nationally-televised debate with Rubio  on Fox News Sunday. That a primary contest is generating this kind of attention shows how important this race is going to be nationally … and how bright Marco Rubio’s future may turn out to be.

From the Sunshine State today comes news that Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer (one of the closest allies of moderate Governor — and U.S. Senate aspirant — Charlie Crist) is resigning from his post. The chairman came under fire from the right for his unsubtle support of Crist against the more conservative former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio in the Republican senate primary, as well as for being a bit of a spendthrift.

The delicious irony is that Greer — a man who had been justifying his every action on the basis of creating a “big tent” party — chose to leave office with a scorched earth message:

Greer said his opponents want to “burn the house down and destroy the Republican Party.”

“I am not a purist,” he said in describing his vision for the party. “I have never been a purist. I believe that our party stands for principles and values and that anyone who has an interest in our party should be able to participate.”

Greer’s beauty pageant eloquence aside, these statements are an intellectual schematic of political breakdown. If your party “stands for principles and values,” then you can’t strengthen it by attempting to marginalize those who take those principles and values most seriously. Too many GOP moderates seem to think that creating a big tent means pushing conservatives out of the back end. They’re going to have to learn how to be partners and not adversaries in the future. If they don’t, expect to see more centrists dethroned ala Jim Greer.

Even though there isn’t much hope of Republicans winning a majority in the U.S. Senate after the 2010 election, President Obama may have a few new conservative voices critiquing his administration. Of the four Republican candidates endorsed by the Senatorial Conservative Fund, the two most likely to get elected are running to replace moderate members of the GOP. But while replacing Kay Bailey Hutchison with Michael Williams would be an improvement for Texas conservatives looking for a more aggressive advocate, that scenario pales in comparison to the starkly different paths confronting Florida’s Republican primary voters.

In that race former Florida house speaker and Tea Party darling Marco Rubio just pulled even with Charlie Crist, the current Republican governor and a closet liberal. CFIF has previously covered the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s decision not to endorse in contested primaries. Now, it looks like that decision, coupled with Rubio’s successful linkage of Crist to Obama, is hurting the once front-running Crist. After Doug Hoffman’s narrow loss in the New York 23rd congressional special election, many pundits opined that conservatives like Rubio would be persona non grata in the GOP. Like everything else coming out of Washington these days, the “experts” were wrong about what Americans want.