Opinion

The Great Debate

Why Republicans may not win the Senate after all

 Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks at the Faith & Freedom Coalition "Road to Majority" reception in Washington

Establishment Republicans should keep the champagne on ice until after the midterm elections. Too many are already popping corks, pronouncing their strategy of “crushing” the Tea Party during the primaries as a crucial step in their successful takeover of the Senate.

There are increasing signs, however, that the GOP might not take control of the Senate and may only make modest gains in the House of Representatives. In states like North Carolina, for example, the GOP candidate hasn’t shown the ability to wage a major-league campaign. In other key battleground states, the establishment GOP is supporting problematic candidates, like Monica Wehby in Oregon, who can alternatively be described as pro-Obamacare and a plagiarist. The National Republican Senatorial Committee handpicked Wehby over a strong conservative in the primary. She is now running 20 points behind.

In Kansas, the GOP Senate nominee, incumbent Senator Pat Roberts, seems to consider Virginia his home because that is his only permanent residence. A sizable number of Virginia Republican voters, meanwhile, aren’t going for Ed Gillespie, former Republican National Committee chairman, who is the GOP nominee there, either.

National polls show the GOP to be about as popular as the heartbreak of psoriasis. The Democrats, for all their faults (and they are many) remain more popular. Republicans are not for anything. They are defined as simply being against President Barack Obama and certainly not for any form of federalism.

FILE PHOTO OF FORMER U.S PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN.Since the 1950s, beginning with the rise of Senator Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley’s National Review, there has been a war for the soul of the GOP. But this time is different. The establishment Republicans loath the conservative-Reaganite-Tea Party-reformer-populists, viewing them as a serious threat. They stand as an indictment against the entire GOP insider culture.

How strong Senate candidates can help GOP also flip statehouses

Scott Brown, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, speaks during a town hall campaign stop at a VFW post in Hudson

Midterm election models continue to project that Republicans will gain control of the U.S. Senate, as the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza recently reported. The GOP is running strong candidates, many in red states that Mitt Romney won 2012, but also stronger than first expected in states that went for President Barack Obama that year — including Colorado, New Hampshire and Oregon, which weren’t previously considered in play.

Having these candidates at the top of the ballot is likely to help other Republicans running in the states. Indeed, in key states it could increase the party’s chances of flipping control of state legislatures from Democratic to Republican.

In Colorado, for example, Democrats hold the governor’s mansion and both chambers of the state legislature. Republicans, however, view the state Senate as a top pick-up opportunity.

from Stories I’d like to see:

What we don’t know about Qatar and what we don’t know about key Senate races

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry walks with Qatari Crown Prince Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Doha

1. Inside Qatar:  the terrorists’ benefactor and America’s friend

As the war in Gaza continues, we keep hearing that one pipeline for negotiations with Hamas goes through Qatar, the tiny, oil-rich kingdom in the Gulf that has friendly relations with Hamas. In fact, Qatar hosts the leaders of Hamas and provides financial support.

According to the online Times of Israel, “Qatar continues to fund the movement’s terror apparatus abroad, enabling tunnel digging and rocket launching.”

The United States, like Israel, has branded Hamas a terrorist group and, over the weekend, stepped up its criticism of the Qataris’ support of Hamas. Yet Washington maintains friendly relations with Qatar. The bond is so tight that the largest U.S. military base in the region is there.

Plagiarism is dumb. Thinking you’ll get away with it is dumber.

My Approved Portraits

You’ve got to hand it to the New York Times for its exposé of the plagiarism committed by Senator John Walsh (D-Mont.) in the paper he submitted for his 2007 master’s degree from the United States Army War College. Walsh, who spent more than three decades in Montana’s National Guard and won a Bronze Star after his 2004-5 tour of duty in Iraq, was appointed to the Senate in early 2014 and is now in a tough race for election to his seat. Montana Democrats have made much of Walsh’s military service. The Times’ accusation of plagiarism seriously threatens that narrative.

In olden days, before we had computer-driven, heat-seeking plagiarism-discovery apps, proving that someone had plagiarized was like establishing that he had written pornography: You presented the text, made your argument and invited readers to know it when they saw it.

A computer user poses in front of a Google search page in this photo illustration taken in BrusselsThe Times story is vastly more advanced. It features a page-by-page “interactive graphic” of Walsh’s paper about the Middle East, titled “The Case for Democracy as a Long Term National Strategy.” Each improperly attributed passage in the paper is highlighted; when you hover over the passage, a pop-up box tells you where it really came from and how Walsh misappropriated it. The cumulative result gives new meaning to the term “dead to rights.” Worse, the plagiarism demonstrated by the story is not so old that it can be dismissed as a youthful indiscretion.

One more reason the Democrats may be toast this fall

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about immigration reform from the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington

Democrats are apprehensive about this year’s midterm elections.

They should be.

Every indicator points to Republican gains in Congress. Two reasons are well known: President Barack Obama’s unpopularity and the historical record of midterm elections, when the president’s party almost always loses seats.

The third major reason is the two-four-six rule. Those are the different base years for different offices: two years for the House of Representatives, four years for most governors, six years for the Senate. These base years dictate how vulnerable each party is.

Here’s how it works: House members last faced the voters two years ago, in 2012, when Obama won re-election. With Obama’s strong voter turn-out, Democrats gained eight House seats. In the 2014 midterms, however, with their expected older and whiter electorate and Obama’s low poll numbers, Democrats are facing a tough November.

Is Michelle running for the Senate?

michelle walking in

First Lady Michelle Obama is everywhere. She’s traveling to China. She’s raising money for Democrats. She’s issuing plaintive tweets seeking the rescue of the kidnapped Nigerian girls.

She’s wading uncharacteristically deep into the Washington political mud pit to defend her school lunch program against Republicans, assailing them last Tuesday for opting to “play politics with our kids’ health.” She struck a similar tone in a New York Times op-ed two days later, accusing Republicans of trying to “override science” and suggesting they join parents and “put our children’s interests first.”

So what’s with the bolder profile?

Sure,  Obama cares strongly about the things she is doing. That she does care in fact begs another question: Is caring all that’s going on here? Does she have political ambitions that would allow her to pursue an agenda while working to cement her husband’s legacy?

Why the Obamacare fight never ends

“I know every American isn’t going to agree with this law,” President Barack Obama said about the Affordable Care Act at his April 17 news briefing, “but I think we can agree that it’s well past time to move on.”

The Republican response? Same as General Anthony McAuliffe’s reply when the German army demanded that U.S. forces surrender at the Battle of the Bulge during World War Two: “Nuts!”

To be precise, after Obama said we can agree to move on, the National Republican Congressional Committee tweeted, “No, we can’t.”

Democrats must give Obama trade promotion authority

President Barack Obama declared in his State of the Union speech, “We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment and open new markets to new goods stamped ‘Made in the USA.’ China and Europe aren’t standing on the sidelines. Neither should we.”

Republicans agree. But the president has not followed through on his call for legislative action. Giving him trade promotion authority would put two large trade deals on a fast track to completion.

It appears politics have intruded. The president has given in to members of his party who oppose granting fast-track authority because the trade deals might alienate friendly special-interest groups in an election year. He reportedly did not even mention the issue when speaking to the House Democratic Caucus at its annual retreat. Then Vice President Joe Biden, addressing the same group, said the White House would be backing off the issue in deference to Democrats’ political concerns.

Filling judicial vacancies to protect the progressive legacy

What could never happen, finally did.

For more than 30 years the Democratic Senate caucus feebly stood by as Republicans seized control of the federal courts. Now, however, faced with a GOP filibuster of nominees for three vacancies on the appeals court that could determine the fate of most of President Barack Obama’s initiatives, the Democrats have at last responded.

The Democratic Senate majority last month eliminated the 60-vote requirement to end filibusters against presidential nominees to the lower federal courts and the executive branch. With this, they blocked a key element of the GOP’s long-term strategy to overturn the progressive legislative and judicial advances of the past 50 years, and prevent new Democratic initiatives.

Five years into Obama’s tenure, Democratic judicial appointees are still barely even with the number of active Republican judges. There are 93 vacancies, including 37 judicial emergencies as of January 7, with 53 nominations pending. If Obama is to preserve President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s legacy – as well as his own — against the many hostile judges now on the bench, he and the Senate will have to act quickly.

The Senate after filibuster reform

The Washington Post editorial page led the charge in denouncing the change in Senate filibuster rules engineered by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and 51 of his Democratic colleagues last Thursday. Many other media voices quickly followed suit.

Reid’s action to allow a simple majority of senators present and voting — not the longstanding 60 — to end debate and proceed to a vote on presidential nominations to executive and judicial offices (except the Supreme Court) has now been widely characterized as a radical step, certain to accelerate the poisonous partisanship in Congress. It will, critics insist, grievously damage the Senate’s comparative advantage over the House of Representatives in fostering bipartisan negotiation and compromise.

The procedure Reid used — setting a new cloture precedent with a simple majority despite a Senate rule requiring a two-thirds majority to change Senate rules — was gutsy. Yet this method has been long available to the Senate. It was even proposed by Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist in 2005 and occasionally used to make minor changes in the filibuster.

  •