News Flash: Republicans Won't Win Every Single Election From Now To Eternity

TIME Magazine's Mark Halperin gazing into his crystal ball. Some of his most insightful predictions:

"Republicans may not win the Senate."
"The BP oil spill may take some time to clean up."
"The World Cup may suck."

Again, I don't intend for this blog to be all about politics, but a friend of mine asked my thoughts on this article from TIME magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2003079,00.html?hpt=T2

I'd highly recommend reading the TIME article linked above for context, but my summary of it is that basically the author believes the Tea Party movement might actually prevent the Republicans from taking over the Senate in November. Suffice it to say that I disagree. It was never likely that the Republicans would take the Senate, but pinning it on the Tea Party is a stretch in my opinion. My gut reaction is that this guy fears the Tea Party, thinks he can look like Nostradamus if he predicts something that was pretty likely to begin with, and in looking brilliant to some otherwise politically unengaged readers, secure blame and dislike for a group and belief set that he doesn't like.

"See, I told you so, reader-with-only-a-passing-interest-and-had-no-idea-that-most-analysts-already-expected-Democrats-to-retain-control-of-the-Senate! Remember when I said the Republicans wouldn't take the Senate because the Tea Party is so wild and crazy?!? Well, look! The Republicans didn't take the Senate! THEREFORE, the Tea Partiers ARE crazy and MUST be to blame as I predicted in all my infinite wisdom!"

I would compare his prediction and analysis to my predicting that the Dawgs will not win the SEC Football Championship this year and if they don't, controversial UGA President Michael Adams is to blame. It is possible, though not particularly likely that the Dawgs will win the SEC this year. I'm not going out on much of a limb. It is possible, though not particularly likely, that Adams could do something stupid to cost the Dawgs such a championship (maybe replace Mark Richt with Lee Corso). That said, Adams will be around, smugly sitting in his skybox plotting his next scheme to irritate the UGA community, so if I watch him and scream and shout enough...if I get enough people on board with the idea that he is to blame for any and all UGA losses, maybe we can run him off.

UGA President Michael Adams: "Wait until they hear that I had Uga VII neutered before he ever produced a male heir! Mwah ha ha ha ha ha! My work here is done!"

As much as I don't care for Adams, predicting something that is already likely and suggesting that it will be his fault when it happens does not mean that it really will be his fault when it happens. It could be, but it probably won't be. But maybe I could trick a few people into disliking him along the way...And that's where I think this TIME author is coming from. I could be wrong. But I'm probably not. Anyway, if you're not a political junkie, this could get boring pretty quickly. Below is more or less my email response to my friend (that I was then encouraged to post as a blog entry):

I think (the TIME author's opinion of the Tea Party) is mostly wishful thinking. Is it true that Charlie Crist could screw up the Florida senate race (NOT Marco Rubio)? Sure, but I think the chances of Republicans taking the Senate in this election has always been significantly less than 50-50 (and often considered pretty slim...it seems that most hoping for a Republican Senate takeover seemed to think that it was possible, but that the stars would have to align just right), so this guy is by no means going out on a limb here. There is no excuse for the Republicans not to take the House though (which is all they really need to do to slow/stop our march toward socialism until 2012).

What interests me most about this is the author's motivation. What purpose is there in laying out an article stating what many analysts have already proclaimed for months? The key difference is that he takes it a step further and pins the blame for something that was never likely to happen on the wing of the party he most fears rising to power. I'm confident the author is liberal (mainly because he writes for TIME), so you can immediately dismiss any "advice" he has for the Republican party as suspect. Like most liberals, he is likely afraid of the Tea Party movement and its small government, independent-minded ideals.

Funny. When the Tea Party movement first picked up momentum, they were accused of being "astroturf"...a manufactured, fake, not-really-grassroots movement full of plants and people put up to no good or paid to crash townhall meetings on healthcare. Now, the criticism is that they're completely unorganized radicals. Which is it? Anything to marginalize them (and blame them for something that is largely the product of only electing a third of the Senate every 2 years...gaining 10 or 11 seats with only 33 up for grabs would be relatively historic...the fact that it is even fathomable is a testament to Americans' distaste for Obamunism).

And as a side note, Arlen Specter was not run out of the Republican Party. He abandoned (or never held) any conservative ideals and typically voted with the Democrats anyway. He left on his own when he realized he might not be nominated for his own seat by a party he had largely already left. Then, he learned the hard way what I've been saying all along. Moderate Republicans can't out-Democrat Democrats. Democrats and liberal media types might say "he's not bad for a Republican," but when it comes down to a choice between a lukewarm Republican and a flaming liberal, the Democratic party, their money, support, and their votes get behind the farthest left candidate that can appear the most moderate.

Making moderate Republicans welcome in a big tent party and helping them win in far left districts is one thing, but sacrificing conservative principles to try to make liberals and moderates like us is a losing strategy nationally...every time. This country is essentially 40% conservative, 20% liberal, and 40% independent. With a population claiming such center-right ideals, if everyone in politics is honest about their (supposed) ideals, conservatives run away with nearly every national election. If conservatives effectively communicate and practice their beliefs, they win nearly every national election. Period. Conservatives don't have to make the massive shifts to the center that liberals do, nor should they. What are you conserving if you are always giving in to those trying to grow government, spending, and taxes and changing society, culture, and interpretations of the Constitution? Moderates only grow government and allow change slower than liberals.

Liberal Democrats have to lie about their beliefs and move hard to the center to be electable. Republicans don't have to (and actually alienate double the base that the Democrats do by doing so). Let's be honest. Conservatives generally expect more from their leaders ethically than liberals (whether they get more ethically may be debatable), making a liberal's move to the center less offensive to their respective base. The far left knows their candidate's move to the center is insincere and they are more than okay with it. Whatever it takes to sneak some fringe beliefs into office. More of the country identifies with the small government, low tax, frugal spending message than the radical change, high taxing, big spending message. The Tea Party movement is as much a backlash against Republican spending under Bush as Democrat spending under Obama. Crist, Specter, McCain, etc. left the conservatives behind and only McCain will have a job in January (even though it's not the one he wanted in 2008).

Larger point being, yes, the author's forecast is likely correct (similar to my ability to predict that the Dawgs won't win the SEC this year), but he (I think knowingly) is incorrectly placing the blame on the most naturally-occurring and peaceful political movement our country has seen in decades, primarily in an effort to marginalize beliefs he fears. At the very least, there seems to be an ongoing media commentary suggesting that anything short of an undefeated election season is a huge disappointment for Republicans. Let's just see how this plays out before we go assigning blame. And right-of-center candidates have no business taking political advice from left-of-center publications.