In answer to those who diminish the prospect of firing Janet Napolitano as merely symbolic, may we perhaps remind everyone that there is no such thing as “merely” symbolic? Especially in politics, where symbolism is often all that counts?

Nappy is Obama’s Brownie. She’s doing a heckuva job, isn’t she?

Here’s a key difference between Brownie and Nappy: Brownie was incompetent and distracted while Nappy is focused on doing her boss’s will. The mistakes she’s making are completely congruent with the orders she’s been given. He should be made to fire her. There’ll be no escaping the blame, just as Bush was unable to escape the blame for Brownie’s failures.

Even though the Bush Katrina failures were exaggerated by an incompetent and partisan media, he was never able to shake the symbolism of Brownie.

I don’t think Obama’s gonna be able to escape the consequences of his multiple failures either.

Make him fire her.

Today.

Cross-posted to thinking out loud…

I’ve been hammering Erick (and some of his fellow bloggers on the right) lately for what I think are over-generalized, over-heated, over-the-top criticisms of various Republican Senate leaders. I’ve gotten a lot out of the resulting back-and-forth. Not sure any minds have been changed, but it’s good to hash out the logic and be challenged on our rhetoric.

Yesterday, on his RedState blog, Erick posted The Power of Plain Speaking. which was very specific, very measured, and very not over-the-top.

Politicians of all stripes go to Washington and lose the ability to relate to people. Part of that is an inability for politicians to speak plainly, even when talking to the base.

This is one of the many aspects of citizens getting elected, going to Washington, and going native. Same thing happens to diplomats. They simply lose their ability to talk like normal Americans, which I often suspect is less a problem of speaking clearly than of thinking clearly to begin with.

I have criticized Mitch McConnell repeated[ly] for wanting to beat the spread instead of actually beating health care. Being in the good old boys club that is the United States Senate means Senators often put collegiality before the fight.

Some of you have said I have been too hard on Mitch McConnell [don't know if Erick was thinking of me, but I plead guilty...], but I stand by the comments.

Erick then describes (in good Sunday School teacher fashion) the teaching of Jesus to let our “Yes” be “Yes” and our “No” be “No.”

This is a complaint I share. Here’s what Erick quotes McConnell saying:

Well, certainly, politically, it’s a big problem for them. They all kind of joined hands and went off the cliff together. Every single Democrat provided the vote that passed it in the Senate. You have seen what’s happened already with Congressman Parker Griffith in Alabama switching parties. There are rumors there may be others. There is great unrest in the Democratic Party. And the reason for that is, the surveys indicate the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this effort to have the government take over all of their health care. It will be a huge political issue next year, and that’s why you hear the Democrats saying, let’s don’t tackle any more big issues. I mean, I was reading an article this morning indicating they don’t want to do cap-and-trade anymore, they’re nervous about financial reregulation. What they understand is the new administration and the new Congress has squandered its goodwill with the American people, leading to what could be a big setback for them a year from now.

Truthfully, I don’t think there’s anything I necessarily disagree with in that answer.

The problem, though, is two-fold:

1. His answer isn’t clear. In fact, it’s the opposite. It’s a kind of thinking out loud thought stream. Like this is the first chance he’s had to vent about this.
2. Even worse, it didn’t answer the question.

It was a yes or no question.

Of course, the correct answer is “Yes.” Followed by “Of course we are.” Followed by “For these reasons: Blam! Blam! Blam!” Followed by “We’re gonna do it this way: Blam! Blam! Blam!”

McConnell looks to me like he’s not thinking ahead. The Democrats know they’re going to lose a lot of seats. But they think it will be too late. McConnell isn’t leveraging the probabilities. He isn’t going to the Blanche Lincolns in his world and showing them the polls demonstrating they’re about to have their brains knocked out in the coming elections. He needs to be standing at the highest pulpit saying, “We’re going to beat the stuffing out of you guys in the next election and we’re going to repeal. And if President Obama vetoes the repeal, we’re going tie that veto around his neck and beat him next time. And then we’ll repeal again.”

Truth is, they should’ve been talking like this from the beginning. Then it might not have gotten this far.

Cross-posted to Thinking Out Loud…

This morning I was reading an excellent post by Jennifer Rubin on Contentions, The Politics of Addition. In it she talks about the McDonnell win in Virginia, purity tests, reaching out to moderates, and so forth. While I agree with most of what she said, I think there’s something missing, a dynamic at work that is making everyone basically talk past one another.

I think there’s a very powerful “one size fits all” misconception that is apparently hardwired into human nature somehow. Because it pops up everywhere in multiple guises.

Take Sarah Palin, for instance (of course, you might not want to take her). But I like her. Especially now when she’s not running for anything but is, instead, serving the extremely useful function of Great Scourge Against Self-Appointed Guardians of What is Elite and Good. In other, words, the condescending, non-comprehending, thickheaded establishment.

In that role, her disparaging of the media is very effective. For one, because it’s demonstrably true and they need to be called to account. For another, it rallies the troops. Plus, it makes her the lightning rod that allows the Bob McDonnells of this world to stay focused on the issues that resonate with their voters. (Conservative pundits like Jennifer Rubin can also fulfill this role, though with a more focused audience.)

As a candidate, though, especially a national candidate—not so much.

So the role makes a difference in the choice of approaches.

Should we avoid having doctrinal purity tests? Of course not. All of us have them. They just differ from each other. And we differ on whether and how we talk about them. I am against throwing all standards and principles out in service to party dominance. Sorry. Don’t buy into it. There’s no excuse here in Texas, for instance, for electing moderate Republicans to statewide office. Run the best conservatives and tell the moderates “no thank you.” Will that work in Connecticut or New Hampshire? Probably not. But nominate the most conservative electable candidate you can and convince the voters that the conservative solutions will work for them. Even if you don’t win, you’re educating the voter. Lose in a winning way. But pouring resources into the re-election campaigns of a Jim Jeffords or Lincoln Chafee or Arlen Specter isn’t a winning proposition—either for the Party or for the conservative cause. It isn’t the Republican Party—because it’s the Republican Party—that’s going to turn America around. It’s conservative ideas and values. We don’t need to purge the Party. We do need to win the debates.

The takeaway from the McDonnell campaign isn’t the electoral power of the Big Tent. It’s understanding current problems in light of long-term principles and applying those principles to those problems. The other key lesson is listening to the voters, knowing what they (not you) believe are the most critical issues, and then convincing those voters you have the (conservative) solutions to those problems.

Small application of the above: Yesterday Orrin Hatch was tweeting about how current iterations of healthcare reform and financial regulations were harming small businesses. Which, of course, is true. So I tweeted him, “What you have to help public understand is these policies hurt ALL OF US.” And I pointed out “I’m still underemployed because of them…”

This is what he started tweeting (don’t know if in response to me, or that he’d planned it anyway):

• At the same time the President held a jobs summit, Dems pushing a $2.5 T tax-and-spend health care bill that will be a major job killer.
• This bill is especially harmful to the small-business community which is the job-creating engine of our economy
• Here are the top five reasons why the Senate health care bill is a job killer:
• 1) Disproportionate impact on small businesses – every dollar lost to new taxes will be a dollar taken away from job
• 2) Job-killing employer mandate

And then he tweeted three more good reasons to oppose the bill.

We shouldn’t be throwing anyone under the bus except bad candidates. And what constitutes a bad candidate differs according to the situation.

What we need to be doing is fighting for our ideas, listening to people, hearing them, and responding with solutions they will understand and embrace.

Out in the world where I live, we call that selling. I think it’s the future both of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. And I think it’s the only available hope for America’s future.

Cross-posted to thinking out loud…