Tea party's rebranding costs GOP

Prior to the 2010 election, the Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate 59-41. And the Republican wave that swept over the U.S. House on Election Day two years ago threatened Democratic control of the Senate, too. When the dust settled, the GOP had gained six seats, and the Senate stood at 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans. Six seats is an impressive gain, unless you look deeper.

Thanks to the tea party, the GOP lost in four states it could have otherwise won. And with those four seats, the Republicans would have taken control of the Senate. A quick look at what happened in those four states vividly portrays the extent to which the tea party is in the process of rebranding the Republican Party in a way that cripples its ability to win and govern.

Delaware

No incumbent sought re-election in the Delaware Senate race. Democrat Ted Kaufman, who had been appointed to the seat after Joe Biden was elected vice president, chose not to run in 2010. The Democratic primary was won by New Castle County Executive Chris Coons, who was basically unknown to most voters in Delaware.

On the Republican side, it was a two-person primary that pitted Republican Congressman Mike Castle against tea party activist and political commentator Christine O'Donnell. Prior to his election to the House, Castle had been both governor and lieutenant governor of Delaware. He was widely known and respected throughout the state. A moderate by instinct, Castle had a long record of reaching across party lines.

Political pundits believed that Castle would handily defeat the unknown Democrat Coons in the general election. But O'Donnell mounted an insurgent campaign against Castle that was bankrolled by the Tea Party Express. Her campaign charged that Castle was having a gay affair. She was endorsed by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. It worked. She and her tea party allies defeated Castle in the Republican primary 53 percent to 47 percent.

But by October, she was running television advertising in which she stated, "I am not a witch." Her campaign had become a bad joke. Coons, unknown Democrat, demolished her on Election Day, 57 percent to 40 percent.

West Virginia

West Virginia is a state that has been trending Republican in recent years. It has voted Republican for president since 2000. Only about a third of its voters approve of President Barack Obama.

The death of longtime Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd in 2010 resulted in another open seat battle. But Republican Congresswoman Shelley Capito, a moderate conservative and the only pro-choice member of the state's congressional delegation, chose not to seek the GOP Senate nomination. Her decision opened the door for Republican John Raese to handily win the nomination with 71 percent of the vote in the primary. In the general election, he was opposed by the state's governor, Democrat Joe Manchin.

In September 2010, Raese told Real Clear Politics, "The tea party is a little bit to the left of me." He lost to Manchin 53 percent to 47 percent.

Colorado

In Colorado, former Denver Public School Superintendent Michael Bennet, a Democrat, had been appointed to the Senate seat and sought a full term in 2010.

In the hotly contested Democratic primary, he was opposed by former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. Bennet had the support of President Obama, and Romanoff had the support of former President Bill Clinton. Bennet won the primary 54 percent to 46 percent.

The favorite in the GOP primary was former Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton. She was opposed by Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck. With strong backing from the tea party, Buck pulled off the upset, defeating Norton 52 percent to 48 percent.

In the general election, Bennet was able to appeal to voters, especially suburban women voters, by criticizing Buck's views on abortion and his refusal to prosecute an alleged rapist while district attorney. Bennet won 48 percent to 46 percent.

Nevada

Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, sought re-election in 2010. He was widely regarded as the Democratic incumbent least likely to be re-elected. For the GOP, it was a golden opportunity — capture control of the Senate and defeat Harry Reid in the process.

It didn't happen. Reid won his primary election with 75 percent of the vote. With strong support from the Tea Party Express, Sharron Angle easily won the Republican primary. As the campaign began, she had a double-digit lead.

Then she began to talk. She opposed fluoridation of water. She opposed Medicare and Social Security. Initially she ran from reporters in order to avoid questioning, but later stated, "We wanted them (the press) to ask the questions we want to answer." She attacked people of Mexican descent, who make up about 25 percent of the Nevada population. And she stated that "the tenet of the separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine." She lost 50 percent to 44 percent.

And there you have it. When you spot your opponent four turnovers before the kickoff, guess what? You lose!

One would have hoped that in the 2012 election cycle the GOP and the tea party would have learned something productive from their self-inflicted disaster two years ago. Not so fast. John Raese is back as the Republican nominee for the Senate seat in West Virginia. And in both Missouri and Indiana, the GOP has saddled itself with nominees who are way out of the mainstream.

Please Visit:  Citizens Against Politics As Usual

Please Visit:  Mike Tower Political Opinions

Gerrymandering panders to wingnuts

In 1994, to the dismay and surprise of most election experts — except, of course, The Shadow — the GOP emerged from 40 years in the wilderness and took control of the U.S. House of Representatives by winning 52 seats. The Shadow's prediction was 54.

Its reign ended when the Democrats recaptured the House in 2006 as public opinion turned against arrogance of Republican rule on Capitol Hill and growing disillusionment with President George W. Bush. In 2008, the Democrats solidified and expanded their grip on the House by adding another 21 seats to their majority. As President Barack Obama took the oath of office, the Democrats controlled the House by a margin of 257-178.

With control of all of the levers of power in Washington, the Democrats were able to have things their own way. They could run roughshod over the Republicans, and that's exactly what they did.

Early in 2009, President Obama proposed both his stimulus legislation and his health care reform legislation. Although he had campaigned on a promise to bring hope and change to Washington, he broke that promise by turning control of both bills over to partisan Democrats on the Hill. Forget hope and change. We will never know the extent to which the GOP would have been willing to work with and compromise with the Democrats on those bills because we do know they never were given the opportunity to do so.

And with a wink and a nod from the president, the Democrats rammed through their stimulus and the health care reform bills. In so doing, they sewed the destructive seeds of the tea party rebellion.

In 2010, the explosive force of that rebellion manifested itself at the polls. Eighty-seven members of the tea party won election to the House, and the GOP gained a net of 63 seats. The House election of 2010 was a classic wave election, in which one party benefited enormously from the public's repudiation of the other. But the wave and its results were a mixed blessing for the GOP. House Republican leader and now Speaker John Boehner soon realized that he was a hostage to the emboldened tea party zealots who had taken control of the House with but a single, uncompromising purpose — the defeat of Barack Obama.

The House is composed of 435 districts. Sadly, as this year's election approaches, fewer than 100 of them are competitive. In upward of 350 of them, only one party has a chance to win. Gerrymandering accounts for this sad situation.

Every 10 years, the national census is used as the basis to adjust the number of House districts state by state as the nation's population increases and shifts disproportionately from state to state. In most states, this process is controlled by the state legislature.

North Carolina is a perfect example of how the census gave one party the opportunity to redraw the borders of its congressional districts to give it maximum advantage. The 2010 census came at the same time the GOP captured control of the N.C. General Assembly for the first time in over a century. And the GOP struck with a vengeance. It gerrymandered the state's district lines in a way that has put Democrats in jeopardy in four districts, including our district here in the mountains. Its rationale, deficient but simple, was that it was only doing what the Democrats had done to it for over a century.

These gerrymandered districts are the breeding grounds for the wingnuts in both parties. This is the most important single reason that the House of Representatives simply doesn't work. The two political parties have become homogenous. The Republicans in the House are dominated by right-wing conservatives, and the Democrats are dominated by left-wing liberals.

They share the same objective, and it isn't passing laws that address America's problems. The objective they share is getting re-elected. And each of them knows that demonstrating unyielding fealty to the zealots who dominate their gerrymandered districts is the way to stay in office. Gerrymandering has made a mockery of the House and contributed significantly to the nation's decline.

Finally, a word about the race in the 11th Congressional District here in Western North Carolina is in order. In late August, Times-News op-ed columnist Mike Tower and I decided we would try to interview separately the two candidates for this district, Mark Meadows and Hayden Rogers. It was our intention to write a joint column that would be published in October based on those two interviews.

Both men were told that we wanted to complete the interviews by Sept. 21 in order to allow adequate time for the preparation of our column. That date gave them several weeks to find a time to meet with us. Mr. Meadows agreed, and we interviewed him for over an hour and half on Sept. 7. A staffer for the Rogers campaign told Mike that Mr. Rogers had our request and that a prompt reply would be forthcoming. Although Mike made multiple attempts to elicit a response from Mr. Rogers, the deadline of Sept. 21 came and went. Neither of us has received any response from Mr. Rogers or his campaign.

Please Visit:  Citizens Against Politics As usual

Please Visit:  Mike Tower Political Opinions

We watched a Mile High miracle

At last, at long last, the presidential campaign has been meaningfully engaged. In Denver last Wednesday, the nation witnessed a remarkable debate between President Barack Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney. It was remarkable because it was so stunningly lopsided.

Viewed through any prism that is relevant to this form of political theater, the bottom line was inescapable — Romney won and Obama lost. As Winston Churchill said in 1942 during Britain's darkest hour, "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Romney brought his A-game to the University of Denver. It was all the more impressive because we had not yet seen it. He was self-assured, thoroughly prepared, and he consistently drew the distinction between the Obama administration's failures and how he would correct those failures. And he did so with specificity. That specificity was and must continue to be his secret weapon.

President Obama was off stride from the outset of the debate. Without his ever-present teleprompter, his comments lacked crispness, were defensive and lacked authenticity.

And there's more. Romney unshackled himself from the right wingnut straitjacket he's been in since the Republican primaries. From tax policy, to health care, to entitlement reform, to the necessity of working with Democrats on Capitol Hill, Romney made clear that he was no ideologue. To the contrary, it was evident that his experience as governor of Massachusetts taught him that reaching across the aisle to the opposition party is not only essential but achievable.

It was encouraging to see Romney call out the president for not having taken advantage of the nation's enormous reserves of oil and natural gas that exist under public lands. But it was disappointing that Romney did not develop this opportunity more fully.

Romney urgently needs to help the American people understand that the nation's immense reserves of oil and gas will, when safely brought to market, make the United States energy independent and much more. The much more includes the creation of millions of good-paying jobs. But even more importantly, bringing these natural energy resources safely to market will produce trillions of dollars of royalty payments that will reignite our stalled economy.

Last Wednesday's consequential debate now puts the outcome of the election in doubt. By the time you're reading this column, there will be new polls showing Romney is closing the gap. And those polls will also show that the gap is closing in the battleground states.

But this campaign goes on for another month. There will be three more debates. It's very unlikely that President Obama will get caught like a deer in headlights again. And no matter how the president chooses to counterattack from now to Nov. 6, Romney must stay focused and disciplined.

That focus and discipline will require that he remain confident and hopeful about his faith in the American people and America's unique and evolving experiment in democracy and self-governance.

It will require that he keep pointing out how the Obama administration has failed to improve the lives of not only the middle class, but also the working poor, and those who live every day with the desperation of poverty and hopelessness.

It will require that he delineate his own list of specific ideas to reverse our downward spiral. And it will require that he continue to explain how working with Democrats in Congress is the only way to get the job done.

And finally, he needs an October surprise, one of his own making. In 2008, Obama first stunned Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries and then annihilated John McCain in the general election by opposing their support of President George W. Bush's war in Iraq. More than any other single issue, Obama's opposition to the Iraq War propelled him into the White House.

In Wednesday's debate, Romney repeatedly stated he will not weaken America's defense or its armed forces. No surprise there — that's straight Republican orthodoxy. However, Romney could take that very orthodox position and turn it into a foreign policy initiative that would resonate with an enormous majority of the people and put the president in a cul-de-sac from which there is no escape.

Romney should declare that Obama's escalation of the Afghanistan War, his policy of counterinsurgency, his obsession with nation building in a land that remains medieval, and his unyielding requirement that American forces remain in Afghanistan until 2015, are a failure. Moreover, it's a failure that has hollowed out our military and weakened our national security.

Romney should say that in order to not further weaken America's security and its military, he will end our military operations in Afghanistan.

In other words, America will be stronger by facing the truth that Obama's Afghanistan policy has never been sound, never been smart, never been winnable. Liberal and conservative foreign policy experts now agree on that assessment. The people in large numbers now agree with that assessment. If Romney links American military strength with an end to our military presence in Afghanistan, he will lay the failure where it properly belongs — at the feet of its architect — Barack Obama. When that happens, Obama is finished.

Please Visit:  Citizens Against Politics As usual

Please Visit:  Mike Tower Political Opinions