I expect that both the Republican and Democratic national parties will be severely stressed in the tumultuous process. The Republicans already are struggling with the question of how closely to embrace the growing public wrath of anti-Obamaism. As Politico pointed out, "Many top Republicans are growing worried that the party's chances for reversing its electoral routs of 2006 and 2008 are being wounded by the flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone of conservative activists and media personalities."
My very good and wise friend Eddie Gillespie is quoted by Politico regarding his polling that "shows rising numbers of persuadable voters who are growing disenchanted with the Obama administration's policies but nevertheless remain invested in the president. 'Our party has to bring those voters along with a critique of policies, not the kind of harsh rhetoric the left used against former President Bush.'"
Is that wisdom or excessive caution? I'm not sure. But the political mood is beginning to feel to me like the late 1970s, when I was working on Ronald Reagan's campaign, which used bold language, starkly conservative policies and genuine passion. Then, too, many Republicans judged we would scare off the independent and undecided voters.
But in times of fear, anger and passion, the opposition party must stand with that passion -- not aside. There still will be calmer, moderate votes needed, as well, to win. And that is where the shrewdness and style of the party's leader or leaders may make the difference. But I strongly suspect that the GOP cannot (and, for me personally, should not) vote "present" when "the times they are a-changin'." As the Bob Dylan lyric goes, "Get out of the new (road) if you can't lend your hand."
The Republican Party is likely to spend the next few months tearing itself up over that question. But at the end of the process, I believe the party will correctly stand with the passion and conviction.
Nor will the Democratic Party get a pass this season. With a pre-existing, built-in resentful Clinton wing, the Democrats are just beginning to judge whether it will be electorally safe to be standing too closely with the president next Election Day.
The Senate vote last week on whether to ignore the quarter-trillion dollars of deficit caused by the Medicare bill was noteworthy -- and perhaps predictive. Fully 12 Democratic senators (and one independent who caucuses with the Democrats) voted against the president's position; they refused to ignore the growing deficit issue. If the president's Gallup numbers slip from 52 percent to 47 or 48 percent by the late winter or early spring, expect to see more and more Democratic politicians keeping their distance.
Worse for the Democrats, even without more problems domestically, the president may well lose 3 to 7 percent on his 52 percent job approval because of the string of foreign policy failures that are likely to befall him in the next six to 12 months (Afghanistan, the breakdown of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the failure to get Russian support for sanctions in the nuclear showdown with Iran, the crisis in eastern Europe as resurgent Russia humiliates eastern European neighbors and the United States -- perhaps a reversal in Iraq).
Our body politic is likely to be convulsed in the coming 13 months. And the price for both parties and politicians if they misjudge events and passions is going to rise.
Tony Blankley
Tony Blankley, a conservative author and commentator who served as press secretary to Newt Gingrich during the 1990s, when Republicans took control of Congress, died Sunday January 8, 2012. He was 63.
Blankley, who had been suffering from stomach cancer, died Saturday night at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, his wife, Lynda Davis, said Sunday.
In his long career as a political operative and pundit, his most visible role was as a spokesman for and adviser to Gingrich from 1990 to 1997. Gingrich became House Speaker when Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives following the 1994 midterm elections.
©Creators Syndicate