Now that the Iowa caucus is upon us, the best thing that could happen to the Republican party in 2012 at the national level may be a good drubbing -- not just in the presidential race but across the board.
This is not a prediction (certainly not with this economy) nor is it an endorsement for the Democratic party, merely an observation. Moreover, it is unlikely given so few states will be in play.
When it comes to governing, I have long been an advocate of divided government. I believe our system works best when both parties have some skin in the game.
But the public persona of the Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives, is more concerned with being against all things supported by President Barack Obama.
It gleefully lionizes former president Ronald Reagan as the titular head of the party while bearing little resemblance in deed or demeanor. Taking vows of no new taxes from Grover Norquist, who in return titillates their ambitions financially, may be successful for winning elections but is irresponsible when it comes to governing.
The perception of the party is increasingly one of absolutes and certainties, eschewing compromise, viewing it as a sign of weakness.
It is an insult to the American people to bemoan the dysfunction of Washington (which is bipartisan in nature) only to be seen as a driving force behind the problem. The payroll tax issue is the most recent example.
Before caving on the politics, the Republican House balked on a temporary extension that caused the Wall Street Journal editorial board to recently opine:
No employer is going to hire a worker based on such a small and temporary decrease in employment costs, as this year's tax holiday has demonstrated. The entire exercise is political, but Republicans have thoroughly botched the politics.The Republicans appear to be a party willing to drive the economy over the cliff to save it from itself. In 2010, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
That is an understandable political goal, Democrats would offer the same if the situation were reversed, but there must be a line of demarcation between political ideology and governing, with the latter taking precedent over the former.
For McConnell to make good on his political desires he must render the existing challenges that confront the nation to a secondary consideration.
America's problems are bigger than the orthodoxy of any political party.
We need two political parties actively competing in the marketplace of ideas. A shellacking in 2012 might be the tonic that will unearth the perspectives of individuals within the Republican party who are frustrated by the myopic and derisive approach currently adopted.
Political parties, especially in a two-party system, need to undergo a self-induced purging from time to time. If not, they risk the fate of the Federalists and Whigs.
In every presidential election, we are told by both parties how this is the most important election in our lifetime.
Whether the aforementioned is true, America cannot afford to have one political party driven by cynical politics and the other mired in mediocrity. But a G.O.P victory in 2012 would most likely sustain the current practices of both.
The downside to my observation if brought to fruition could infuse the Democrats with a dose of unbridled arrogance, which would warrant another correction.
For the Republican loyalist who may take umbrage with the tone of this column, bear in mind the last time the Republicans underwent a good old-fashioned trouncing was 1964. How did things work out afterwards?
Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks
Michael J. Hunt: Iowa Undecideds Just Want Candidate Who Can Beat Obama
100% precincts reporting
| Candidate | Votes | Pct. | Del. |
|---|---|---|---|
 Santorum |
29,839 | 24.6% | 13 |
 Romney |
29,805 | 24.5% | 12 |
 Paul |
26,036 | 21.4% | |
 Gingrich |
16,163 | 13.3% | |
 Perry |
12,557 | 10.3% | |
 Bachmann |
6,046 | 5.0% | |
 Huntsman |
739 | 0.6% | |
 Others |
254 | 0.2% | |
 Cain |
45 | 0.1% | |
 Roemer |
17 | 0.1% |
Delegate counts are estimates and might be adjusted later.
More on this post in my most recent compilation of Divided Government blog posts:
http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2012/01/carnival-of-divided-government.html
I'll stop asking silly questions when you stop making silly statements.
One of the main purposes is to keep more money in the pockets of consumers of goods and services - and therefore circulating in the economy - so that the jobs situation won't be worsened by employers shedding workers due to business falling off.
I'm sure the WSJ editorial board understands this perfectly well.
Republicans don’t care about spending. Republicans only care about money that we spend on education and healthcare.....but spending three trillion dollars we borrow from Chinaon unnecessary war in Iraq.....Halliburton approved!! 4500 dead Americans and 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians’ deaths later and now Republicans care about "life"? I think not.....
I'm not going to touch a Republican with a 10 ft stick. They might be able to rouse the bigots and some religious zealots telling other who they can marry but the Republican policies of lowering taxes and deregulating have unequivocally failed all but maybe 5% of Americans.
Republicans don’t actually stand for anything, and funny thing is, no one asks them to. With 15 years of failure by conservatives you have a cocktail for a beat down. How are Republicans going to inspire the voter turnout for their party? Great speeches? Conservative talk radio? Oh how about the flip-flop talk express bus overstuffed with Lobbyists? We all love to engage in punditry but the facts are the facts. Repubs do not have the votes to win. Outside of a total collapse (And I mean total collapse, not merely a split of the electorate) the Democrats they can offer up a broccoli f-art in a jar and still hold the White House.
Sorry you old geezers, Obama and Democrats in 2012.
Maybe what the Democrats need is a candidate who is capable of giving it. Both parties invoke the name of Theodore Roosevelt. Yet not one candidate of either party demonstrates even a small fraction of the intellect, vitality, integrity or vision of TR. TR boxed with the world heavyweight boxing champion in a for-real match in the White House, yet he had the intellect to write 52 books, was a noted historian and zoologist. He could recite from memory a poem in German when visited by the poet and could discuss intelligently almost any academic subject. He read an average of one book each day, even on expeditions in unknown Africa or S. America. He won the Nobel Prize for successfully mediating peace in the war between Russia and Japan. And much, much more. TR was one of the most amazing and accomplished humans ever to walk the planet. Why is there such a shortage today of politicians with such vision, courage, integrity and accomplishment? We are left to choose at the polls from such mediocrity.