A Rebuke Against Obama

One of America's most Democratic congressional seats has gone red.  NY-09, the district once held by former Congressman Anthony Weiner, was won last night by Republican Bob Turner in a special election to replace the disgraced former congressman.  The loss of this long-held district is a huge blow to the Obama administration.

The Democratic pedigree of the district is astounding and the statistics say it all.  The district, currently a bastion of (mostly Orthodox) Jews and Catholics nestled in Queens and Brooklyn, has been held by Democrats since 1923.  It has produced such notables as Chuck Schumer (current senator from New York) and Geraldine Ferraro (vice presidential candidate for Walter Mondale).  Only two Republicans have held the seat since 1874 (for a total of six years) and over the entire history of the United States, Republicans have represented the district for approximately nine years.

Yet even if the statistics are insufficient to convince naysayers of the impact, local Democrats concede the results are a clear rebuke of Obama. For instance, Democratic analyst Hank Sheinkopf said:

The Democrats said no to Obama, no to his economic plan, and no to his position on Israel.... It’s major smack at Democrats, a definite rejection of President Obama and it’s a warning that says if Catholics in the most blue of blue states can vote for the Republican they can do it in other states as well and the Democrats may have real trouble.

But while Sheinkopf is correct to focus on the Catholic vote, Obama should also worry about the second major demographic that makes up NY-09:  the Jewish vote.  New York Democratic leader Ed Koch outwardly supported Turner's campaign as a message against Obama's approach to the Middle East. Many Jews, a large Democratic staple, have become increasingly frustrated with Obama's caustic policies towards Israel and have turned against the administration.  This vote is a major indicator of that trend.

Dan Senor, in the Wall Street Journal, details a laundry lists of administration affronts to Israel, but sums up the meaning of the vote rather succinctly.

A Public Policy Poll taken days before the election found a plurality of voters saying that Israel was "very important" in determining their votes. Among those voters, Republican candidate Robert Turner was winning by a 71-22 margin. Only 22% of Jewish voters approved of President Obama's handling of Israel.

This trend, should it continue, does not bode well for the president and will certainly aid the Republicans come 2012.  Obama is getting hit hard in the supposedly safe bastions.  His mismanagement of the economy, poor foreign policy, and general inability to manage the political climate in Washington, have alienated many of his traditional voters.

And yet despite this wealth of evidence, many Democrats have tried to disavow any linkages to the administration's policy.  This is foolish.  Democrats can choose to ignore the lesson, but the interpretation of the special election as a rebuke against Obama stands rather solidly.  Even Turner acknowledged that there was little daylight between his and former opponent's, Democrat David Weprin, positions, particularly regarding Israel.  The voters, he argued, were not so much voting for him as sending a message of discontent to Washington.  Hopefully, for Obama's sake and the country's, the message does not fall on deaf ears.

Lessons Learned?

Behind the wavering voice and choked backed tears, there was a small grin which John Boehner struggled to contain. The soon-to-be Republican Speaker of the House had every reason to be proud. Republicans, who two-years ago had been considered a disgraced group of has-beens, delivered a monumental change of power in yesterday’s election. While the final results are still trickling in, it appears that the GOP has achieved a swing of over 60 votes in the House – a magnitude not experienced since the 1930s. And while the Republicans failed to take control of the Senate, they nevertheless made impressive gains.

Needless to say, Boehner was far from exuberant – and rightly so. Boehner’s post-election speech was powerful, poignant, and somber (See here for full transcript) and appeared to offer at least a glimmer of hope that the Republicans correctly understand the significance of yesterday’s election.

Boehner emphatically stated, not once, but twice, that “this is not a time for celebration.” He characterized the election as a win for the American people and “a repudiation of Washington ... a repudiation of Big Government ... and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the people.” However, nowhere did he mention that it was a groundswell win for the Republicans. Nor did he mention the Tea Party.

What he did focus on was the way forward. His message was clear; the Republicans must “roll up our sleeves” and get to work crafting policy that America wants. Boehner emphasized that the GOP is listening to Americans’ demands and will offer the agenda that has been requested.

This is the precise message that the Republicans needed to take from the election. The vote was against Democrat excess and detachment and only minimally for the Republicans. While the Tea Party certainly deserves some credit (particularly in the House), yesterday’s results show that it was not the Tea Party that America voted for, but the fundamental principles of limited government and responsibility. This can be clearly seen in a number of key races.

First there is Delaware, where fringe Tea Partier Christine O’Donnell was soundly beaten. Her loss came as no surprise; however, the GOP’s failure to win the Delaware senate seat was an unfortunate outcome that clearly kept them from taking control of the Senate. Had they selected, in the primaries, moderate Republican Mike Castle, Delaware would have most likely been won by the GOP. Castle, who was a perennial favorite in Delaware, was previously considered a shoo-in for Joe Biden’s old seat.

The same story unfolds in Nevada where Tea Partier Sharon Angle was defeated by a wildly unpopular Harry Reid. Despite the fact that Republicans, including Karl Rove, poured millions into her campaign Angle was unable to overcome the image of a loopy far-right nut. Ultimately, there was much split ticket voting in Nevada, as voters rejected Reid’s son Rory Reid for the governorship, choosing, by a comfortable 11% margin, Republican Brian Sandoval. Had the GOP selected Sue Lowden in the primaries, it is likely that Reid would have been sent packing.

Finally there is Alaska, where, as of this writing, Lisa Murkowski, appears to be leading in the senate race against Joe Miller, the Tea Party and Sarah Palin backed Republican. Murkowski, the incumbent Republican senator who was defeated in the primaries, ran a write-in candidacy that may be the first successful one since Strom Thurmond in 1954. While it is still too early to decisively call this race, Miller’s low results certainly put a damper on the Tea Party movement.

Tea Party fanatics will surely point to both Rand Paul (KY) and Marco Rubio (FL) as examples of the movement’s successes. But what distinguishes these candidates is the fact that they have a broader appeal and a set of principles and ideas that are lacking in the likes of O’Donnell. Rand Paul is obviously a product of his father, Ron Paul, a long-time idealist libertarian. Paul the younger is no backwoods, angry militant, but a polished (albeit first time) politician. Rubio is no different. The significance of these two is that they have been able to successfully wear the Tea Party mantle but are not fringe candidates. It was this type of “Tea Party” candidate that meshed substance with their displeasure who won, not those that were simply angry candidates. [One could probably argue that these candidates came first and then co-opted the Tea Party, rather than being products of the Tea Party.]

What this leads to is the simple argument that opposition and anger are not enough. Democrats lost yesterday because America is angry, but more importantly because Americans want substance and direction. While the left has certainly offered an abundance of policy over the last two years, they have completely failed to grasp that their prescriptions were well out of bounds of what this center-right country wants.

And while the Republicans were able to successfully exploit the resultant anger, they only offered a vague alternative. Fortunately, they seem to be learning that opposition is simply not enough and are prepared to begin fleshing out a new direction. Boehner has correctly interpreted the election as a rebuke of the Democrats and a call for government to adhere to the classic American principles. Now let’s see if the Republicans can rise to the challenge.

 

A Word to the Wise

As Republicans sharpen their knives for what looks to be an early Thanksgiving feast on November 2nd, they would be wise to heed a lesson from an unlikely mentor – Barack Obama. When the jubilations subside and the ticker-tape has been carted-out to recycling, Republicans must be prepared to offer America the leadership the country demands.

After having been banished to the wilderness only two years ago, the Republicans will indubitably be crowned victors in two days. However, a resurgent GOP, led by the pugnacious Tea Party, runs the risk of blinding itself with hubris if it fails to correctly interpret its win. Like Icarus and Obama, they may find themselves quickly plunging back to earth – setting the stage for dismal failure in 2012.

The risk that faces the GOP is the same miscalculation that the Obama administration made in 2009. Coming off an astounding victory, Obama misinterpreted his win as a mandate to lead America down a radically new and audacious path. America, he thought, had voted for him and for his new ideas. But the truth was much different and, after two painful years, reality has become palpable to the administration. In late 2008, America, blinded by Obama’s charisma and the amorphous promise of change, voted, not for Obama’s policies, but against George W. Bush.

The same story line applies to the upcoming election. America, after realizing that the administration was not the anticipated godsend, has increasingly become frustrated with the Democrats. As the party of “no,” the GOP has been able to hasten the administration’s decline; however, it has not endeared itself to the American public. Its anger and obstinacy, however justified, have not offered America the answers it has been demanding. Tuesday will be a vote against Obama and the Congressional Democrats, but not one for the Republicans.

The GOP needs to use the pending electoral win to show America that they can offer sound, thoughtful, and practical solutions to the nation’s problems. If they misinterpret the electoral results as a vote for the GOP, they will replicate the mistakes of the Democrats and fail to provide America with the leadership it wants. History will repeat itself and in two short years, the Republicans will find themselves on the receiving end of an angry and disappointed America, with a reinvigorated Obama celebrating another four years in the White House.

Obama the Desperate

The growing fear in the White House is palpable. As Election Day and the looming Democratic defeat inch closer, the administration’s political tactics smack of a growing desperation to derail the Republicans at any cost. The most recent and unbecoming attacks have been unleashed by Obama upon the US Chamber of Commerce. Unfortunately, these misguided strategies not only put on raw display the administration’s weaknesses and failures, but will drive an already skeptical America further from the Democrats.

The latest issue began after a liberal think tank released an unsubstantiated report alleging that the US Chamber of Commerce has used foreign funds for political advertisements. President Obama quickly jumped on the bandwagon, seemingly hoping to link these supposed shady foreign dealings with Republican candidates who are often supported by the Chamber of Commerce.  The Chamber of Commerce was quick to respond; denying any involvement in what is an illegal practice and emphasizing that there is no reason, outside of slanderous politics, for anyone to raise the generally institution’s funding practices. In a letter, Chamber President Tom Donohue wrote:

Let me be clear. The Chamber does not use any foreign money to fund voter education activities—period. We have strict financial controls in place to ensure this.... Under our accounting system, these revenues are never used to support any political activities. We are in full compliance with all laws and regulations.

Given these facts, the administration and Congressional leaders who attacked the Chamber have been challenged by journalists to produce any evidence to the contrary. They came up empty and, turning the American principles of fairness and justice upside down, our accusers have actually suggested that the Chamber should prove that it has not done anything wrong.

However, despite lack of any evidence and criticism by much of the press, the Democrats have been unwilling to back down. During recent questioning, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to drop the ludicrous attack. He stated, “The president will continue to make the case that we don't know where this money comes from and entities like the Chamber have said they get money from overseas.”

Tactics to distract voters are often used by both political parties. When the issues do not look favorable for the party in power, it can be politically expedient to draw voters’ attentions elsewhere. However, in general, there should be at least a kernel of truth in the diversionary issue. In this instance, this appears to be lacking. By randomly targeting an organization, based on nothing but partisan differences, the administration is acting childish. If Democrats and Republicans were to consistently use this strategy, accusing every union, business group, lobby, or other partisan organization of unproven crimes, it would clog public discourse with frivolous babble. It is one thing to raise issues – say Christine O’Donnell’s witchiness – that, even if inane, are at least based in facts; it is quite another to harass organizations simply to divert voter attention.

This makes it all the more embarrassing for the president to mire himself in such puerile politicking. Such mudslinging should be left to loosely associated lackeys and radio talk show hosts, not the president himself. The fact that Obama feels the need to partake in this faux battle reveals a deep fear of November 2nd and a determination to avoid the anticipated outcome by any means. It puts on clear display the reality that the administration does not have the self-confidence to support fellow Democrats with its record or its policy proposals. It shows Obama understands that his policies have failed America. After all, if he believed America has been happy with his administration he would campaign on his successes, not pie-in-the-sky accusations.

However, it is unlikely that smear tactics will sway an unhappy electorate. America who, driven by a poor economy, distaste with the administration’s hubris, and general opprobrium with the Democrats’ inability to successfully run the country, will most certainly see through the ploy to distract voters. But more significantly, Americans will be angered by the performance. Generally speaking, they do not want their president to stoop to this level. The office should be above this type of low-brow partisan behavior and by dragging it in the mud Obama will hurt his image.

Unfortunately for Democrats, Obama’s strategy will surely backfire and reinforce his detached image. It will further convince America that the administration is devoid of practical and acceptable ideas and it will solidify the past two years as a time of wasteful government growth and backward policies. Elections should be about ideas and policies, not mudslinging. And while both parties often fail at this, Obama’s current inability to focus on real issues and a growing strategy of smearing the Republicans only signifies that he and his party are in big trouble.

Sitting Ducks?

It’s open season on incumbency. In a number of widely anticipated elections, the grassroots dealt a serious blow to the establishment. First, Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) joined Republican Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) as the latest senator to lose a primary battle. Specter, a five-term, thirty-year veteran, was defeated by Joe Sestak, despite (or maybe due to) being endorsed by President Obama. Likewise, Rand Paul won the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky. Paul, the son of Ron Paul and self-avowed Tea Partier, beat Trey Grayson, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) hand-selected candidate. Finally, Blanche Lincoln, the incumbent Democrat from Arkansas, was forced into a runoff election.

These three elections, coupled with Bennett’s recent primary loss in Utah and Scott Brown’s senatorial win in Massachusetts, show the growing power of the anti-establishment movements in the U.S. Americans, on both the left and right, are largely fed up with the status quo and looking to replace everyone and anyone that is ‘part of the machine.’

Critics of this argument may point to the closely watched special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District as a counterpoint. The anti-incumbent storyline was supposed to award PA-12 to Republican Tim Burns. Burns was challenged by Democrat Mark Critz to fill the seat held for decades by the late Democrat Congressman John Murtha. Critz, a former aide to Murtha, was the epitome of the establishment. Simultaneously, the district met every characteristic of one that the GOP needs to win in order to take back Congress. Despite this, Critz managed to beat Burns.

However, while Critz won, the manner in which he ran his campaign only furthers the anti-establishment narrative. As Politico writes, “In districts like Critz’s… the lesson appeared to be that Democrats would be better off keeping their national leaders away—or perhaps only bringing in select figures who can still appeal to centrists, such as former President Bill Clinton, who appeared in Johnstown on Sunday with Critz and Murtha’s widow.” Critz not only is a pro-gun, anti-abortion Democrat, but opposed healthcare and fought off attempts to be linked to Pelosi and the administration.

All of this together is stark proof of the new political toxicity of incumbency and the Obama administration. While incumbent status used to offer politicians benefits, it now only seems to offer pains. There are a few lessons to be learned from this new pattern.

First, the Obama administration has squandered the overwhelming popular support that swept it into office less than two years ago. Not only did the Democrats misread the election results as a mandate to push forward a liberal agenda, but they so severely overstepped that they fomented widespread anger. As a result, Obama’s popularity has plummeted to 49% and the ‘national consensus’ behind the Democrats has been squandered. For many Americans, the Democrats have gone from the outsiders who could fix Washington, to the very essence of political hacks.

Second, yesterday’s elections profoundly display the political impotence of the administration. Obama had campaigned vigorously for the Democratic candidates in the Virginia and New Jersey governor races, only to see them won by the GOP. Likewise, the administration allowed Martha Coakley to lose Ted Kennedy’s senate seat in Massachusetts to Republican Scott Brown. After these fiascos, the administration pushed Joe Sestak not to challenge Arlen Specter (Obama was presumably too embarrassed to even stump for Specter in the primaries). Sestak not only did not listen, but defeated the administration’s pick. The administration has shown itself to not just be unable to keep its party members in-line, but as a political liability to those campaigning under the Democratic standard.

Third, while the pattern of anti-incumbency is targeted at both Republicans and Democrats, it will in the short-run work towards the Republican advantage. This is simply due to the fact that the GOP is in opposition. Democrats are in power and will thus be deemed more responsible at the polls. Republicans who portray themselves as outsiders that are committed to the people and are not part of the establishment will benefit immensely come November.

Finally, all candidates should be wary about appearing to be detached from their constituents. Voters seem to want representation that is based on direct responsibility to the individual rather than an elitist and paternal Washington. Populist movements loathe the exclusive and condescending attitude of many of Washington’s finest. While their emotionalism may often override their common sense, politicians – particularly the moderates – must be aware of these sentiments if they want to maintain their positions and prevent America from divisive polarization.

The Democrats' Campaign Strategy (Or Their Biggest Fears)

The Democrats are growing apprehensive about the upcoming midterm elections. In a fundraising effort, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) recently mailed an impassioned plea for campaign contributions. The letter, which was signed by Vice President Joe Biden, was filled with emotion and scare tactics.

The letter continued to play on two main themes of recent Democrat campaigns. The first was the tired theme of “Blame Bush”. The current administration cannot seem to avoid the siren call of Bush-bashing that is increasingly falling on deaf ears. This rhetoric certainly helped Obama get into the White House, but it is questionable nearly two years later if it will really convince any but the most diehard Obamaniacs to open their checkbooks.

Besides continuing to harp on the Bush era, the letter also attempted to paint the Republicans as obstructionist and disinterested in helping America. For instance it stated, “I [Joe Biden] have served in the Senate for 36 years and in all of that time, I have never seen more Republicans committed to permanent, unyielding obstruction.”

However, what was most interesting was a bookmark insert, included in the mailing, that outlined the “3 REPUBLICANS WE MUST DEFEAT IN 2010.” Surprisingly, the three are not exactly household names. The handout named Richard Burr (NC), the current Senator from North Carolina, Roy Blunt (MO), currently a Congressman from Missouri, and Rob Portman (OH), formerly a Congressman from Ohio, Director of the OMB, and US Trade Rep. All three are currently running for Senate.

The pitfalls of all three candidates, according to the insert, were their connections to Bush. Burr “prove[ed] his allegiance to the Bush-Cheney-Rove ideology, [by] call[ing] in Karl Rove himself to help his reelection campaign.” Blunt, the “former House Majority Whip helped turn President Bush’s disastrous agenda into law while accepting thousands of dollars in contributions from Big Oil.” Portman is “‘A Bush Guy,’… and is trying to hide his past as ‘the face of the Bush Administration on two issues – trade and the economy’ and a key architect of our nation’s economic crisis.”

It is interesting to see who the Democrats have decided to aggressively target. According to The Cook Political Report, Burr’s seat is designated “Likely Republican”. On the other hand, the seats that Blunt (currently held by Kit Bond R-MO) and Portman (currently held by George Voinovich R-OH) are running for are marked as clear toss-ups. Cook also mentions Bunning (R-KY) and Gregg (R-NH) as the other two toss-up Republican seats. Why the Democrats feel Burr is a bigger threat (or easier target) than Bunning or Gregg is unclear.

Such campaign tactics are common – on both sides of the aisle – and despite the vitriol are unsurprising. However, it is clear that the Democrats have offered little variation in their strategies over the past few years. The overused blame-Bush and obstructionist-Republican talking points continue to remain the staples. Yet, as Obama continues to length his time in office the former becomes less convincing. Likewise, the latter, while probably more effective, fails as the Republicans begin to offer more concrete ideas (for instance at the Health Care Summit). It will nevertheless be interesting to see if or how this strategy changes as November approaches.

For some of the most interesting highlights from Biden’s letter, see below:

• “After eight years of misguided leadership, our economy was in shambles….”
• “We were fighting two wars – one without reason, the other without focus….”
• “After nearly eight years of drift, the President has put in place a strategy for success in Afghanistan.”
• “And as we saw in Massachusetts, Republicans want to exact a political price for our efforts.”
• “There are only two possible motivations for their actions… Either they want to return to the destructive policies of the Bush-Cheney administration, or they think the only way they can succeed is by causing us to fail. What this cynical strategy fails to recognize is that if we fail, America fails and the American people pay the price.”
• “We simply cannot return to George W. Bush’s America."

Pro-Market versus Pro-Business

Within political arenas, there is a distinction that is far too often overlooked: pro-market vs. pro-business. Republicans, at least the fiscal conservatives, tend to call themselves pro-market. They speak in terms of supporting the market, free-trade, competition, and business. Democrats, in turn, disparage the concept of being pro-market and criticize Republicans for really being bosom buddies with Big Business.

The difference between the two concepts is often muddled, but is in reality very simple. Being pro-market is expressing a commitment to the economic principles of a free-market and competition. It represents the support of an economic system that allows Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to perform the majority (certainly more modern economics allow for greater government interaction) of economic production and distribution. The principles accept that truly free-markets operate best with minimal government interference and maximum individual liberty.

In contrast, being pro-business is an expression of support for one type of player with the market. The interests of these players sometimes coincide with the interests of the market and sometimes do not. Rather than supporting a principle or idea, those who are pro-business are indebted to partisan interests.

As most are aware, the majority of Democrats are neither pro-market nor pro-business. Instead, generally they correctly criticize the concept of pro-business and incorrectly, although quietly, eschew the concept of pro-market. Many Democrats chose to follow policies that fit a more socialist (in the ideological not the disparaging sense of the far right) economic model. In other words, they prefer active government management of parts of the economy in terms of both production and distribution of wealth.

In contrast, Republicans often claim to be pro-market. While often successful in this pursuit, unfortunately many Republicans devolve into the realm of pro-business. This is most clearly represented when Big Business or cronies of certain senators get market-distorting tax incentives or other perks of their position (E.g. antitrust exemptions).

In truth, it is difficult for a politician to be truly pro-market. Commitment to a principle is always complicated when faced with electoral constraints. Politicians need money and voter support and thus need to give incentives, whether in the form of providing money or perks, to their supporters. This causes elected officials, who are inclined to support an ideology, to compromise their beliefs when the electoral rewards are greatest. The most committed pro-market candidate can quickly devolve into a pro-business shill when he realizes the realities of Washington.

This is true because, aside from a few academics and bloggers, the market has no real constituency. Being pro-market means that and individual must sometimes support business, sometimes support labor, sometimes support consumers, and sometimes just sit back and do nothing. Pro-market leaders will inevitably be forced to make decisions that upset either their financial or electoral supporters – a politically unwise proposition.

Despite the obvious difficulties, the pro-market framework is truly what is best for America. Being pro-market reduces the role of government to one that simply ensures that markets operate efficiently and competitively. It means that when one player, be it government, union, or company, gains too much power it is prevented from abusing its position. In practice this means supporting policies that prevent consolidation of power (anti-union and anti-monopolization) and facilitating the free flow of information.

At the end of the day this not only minimizes the size and cost of government but allows each player within the market to pursue its self-interest in a fashion that maximizes its own and societies worth. In contrast, the pro-business mentality artificially distorts the market by giving special privileges to some members of society. While potentially difficult to implement, pro-market policies should be the foundation of the Republican platform.

Massachusetts, A Blue State Goes Brown

Today, in Massachusetts’s special election for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, won an overwhelming victory. Brown defeated Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, 52% to 47%, in a race that up until a few weeks ago was a nearly uncontested competition in favor of the Democrat. This marks the first time since 1972 that the very blue state of Massachusetts has sent a Republican Senator to Washington.

The Republican triumph is a massive political event. It follows two big GOP wins in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races and serves as a stark referendum on the Obama administration and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The swing of the historically Democratic state has shown that America is thoroughly dissatisfied with the profligate spending and arrogant politicking of Obama and the left-leaning Congress.

In particular, the vote directly reflects the distaste that most Americans feel with the current healthcare package. Brown ran on a platform that promised a vote against the current healthcare bill. The overwhelming support for a Republican candidate exemplifies how out of touch the Democratic leadership’s strong-arm tactics are with the pulse of America. Furthermore, the newest Republican Senator also breaks the Democrats’ supermajority, giving the Democratic caucus 59 members. This ends the filibuster-proof Senate and prevents the Democrats from monopolizing legislative power without Republican input.

Both Republicans and Democrats should heed the lessons of this election. The win was primarily a triumph for the center. Democrats should recognize that their leftward tilt has alienated the bulk of America. Fifty-one percent of voters in Massachusetts are independents and obviously eschew extreme policies. In order to maintain their dominance, Democrats, particularly those who hail from conservative states or districts, would be wise to think twice about the supposed leftist mandate that they divined in Obama’s win a year ago. Today’s vote clearly is a harbinger of the disaster that will befall Democratic incumbents who are running for reelection in November. Brown’s win clearly shows that many other Democrats will face the ax from their moderate and conservative constituents if they fail to take note. America is primarily a center-right nation that voted for Obama on the ephemeral concept of change and as a refutation of Bush. The past year has painfully shown the Democrats that Obama’s election was not an anointment of new liberal era.

Likewise, Republicans must understand that the recent GOP success in Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts were on the back of the center-right. Senator Brown is a moderate, Northeast Republican, who for instance, is moderately liberal on issues such as abortion. In contrast to the Scozzafava fiasco in Upstate New York, the entire Republican Party rallied behind Brown. This is the Big-Tent paradigm that the Party needs to continue to rely upon. If they choose to ignore this fact and shrink the party to a narrow, ‘purist’ rump they will become as disparaged as the far-Left is has become.

This election is a grand win for the Republicans, but does not imply that such successes will continue. Much depends on how both parties respond. If Democrats continue their obstinacy (for instance by refusing to seat Brown or by pushing healthcare through in a surreptitious way) and the Republicans tack to the center, the Obama administration will surely fail. However, if the Republicans pursue a path of party-cleansing or the Democrats correct their failed leftward drift, the November elections, and certainly 2012, is anyone’s game. Two cheers to Scott Brown and two more to this being the first step in the reemergence of Big-Tent Republicanism and the resurgent Northeastern Republican.

The Road to El Dorado

As Obama’s second year in office begins to pick up steam, one of his primary campaign promises has yet to be addressed.  However, as Time.com suggests, the administration will begin to push for immigration reform in 2010.  If they are wise, Republicans will take the lead and beat the Democrats out of the gate.  Not only is immigration an important issue but successful handling of reform could reap political rewards for the GOP.

If Republicans fail to offer a concrete proposal they run the risk of being portrayed as obstructionist.  This has been all too evident in the political quagmire that has become healthcare reform.  Rather than playing defense against a filibuster-proof Senate, Republicans need take the offense and offer solid, well articulated policy.  The need to frame the debate is important for two reasons.

First, as in healthcare, there are divergent principles at issue and the deck is already stacked against conservative ideals.  The Democrats’ first salvo will all but obliterate any Republican counter-attack.  In order to jumpstart the type of honest national debate that was absent in the healthcare process, Republicans need to get their ideas out first.

Primarily, the GOP needs to emphasize that the rule of law has to be maintained under any system.  Individuals who violate laws, whether immigration or otherwise, cannot be allowed to reap the benefits.  However, simultaneously, Republicans must emphasize that this is a pro-immigrant policy.  Immigration has been and will continue to be the backbone of this country.  The majority of, if not all, Americans are descended from or are immigrants.  Any Republican plan should trumpet this fact.  Upholding the rule of law means supporting the honest and hardworking immigrants, who choose to make the legal journey to citizenship or other legal status.  It does not mean penalizing them by rewarding those that chose an illegal method.

This is important in light of the second reason:  the Hispanic vote.  As a recent article in The Economist reports, Hispanics are one of the fastest growing populations in America.  Although, as a second article in The Economist reports, they voted approximately two-to-one in favor of Obama in 2008, they are far from a solid Democratic force.  The article states:

In a fair number of keenly contested states, the Hispanic population in effect holds the balance of power; and as long as they continue to vote solidly Democratic (as they did in 2008, by a whopping 67-31% margin), that is great news for the blue party. The big Hispanic vote for Barack Obama in Florida turned that vital state from Republican to Democratic; the Hispanic vote also proved crucial in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. It is not impossible to imagine that, in time, Texas’s huge Hispanic population could turn America’s second-largest state Democratic

If the Republicans want to avoid that fearful fate, they need to reconnect with Hispanic voters, and fast. In principle it ought not to be too hard. Culturally conservative, strongly religious, family-oriented and with a long and distinguished tradition of service in America’s armed forces, Hispanics are natural Republicans. But they are also, on the average, poorer than whites, and they are rightly incensed at anything that smacks of xenophobia.

The Republicans would be wise to heed this poignant analysis. By articulating an immigration policy that appeals to Hispanics and conservative principles, the GOP would not only fend off attacks from the Left but possibly be able to swing a number of blue states in their favor (such as New Jersey which just elected a Republican governor).  Furthermore, a successful policy maneuver will redeem the opposition Republicans’ image and give broad swaths of voters a renewed confidence in the Party’s ability to lead.  If they fail to appropriately frame the debate, the GOP will not only be demonized by the Democrats as racist, xenophobic, and anti-immigrant, but will likely lose the chance at capturing the increasingly important Hispanic vote.

Win Two, Lose One - A Recipe For Big Tent Republicanism

With both Virginia’s and New Jersey’s governor races won by Republican candidates and the loss by the Conservative candidate, Hoffman, in NY-23 Congressional district, the results of yesterday’s elections have interesting implications for the Republican Party. In short, these results have reflect a distaste with the Democrats’ agenda, coupled with a call for greater Republican cohesiveness.  This bodes well for the moderate Republican movement.

The Republican win of both governorships is a clear indictment of Obama’s policies and Congress’s rule. Both states went to Obama last year. Of the two, New Jersey has historically been ‘bluer’. Virginia on the other hand has swung more widely. It is thus less surprising that Virginia elected a Republican governor. What is surprising is the magnitude of Republican Robert McDonnell’s win. McDonnell won Virginia with an astounding 59% of votes, a massive swing from the percentage of Virginia voters that supported Obama last year.

However, the Republican triumph in the historically staunch blue state of New Jersey is the more significant of the two. New Jersey has long been considered a Democratic stronghold. They fact that the state could go red only a year after Obama’s election supposedly stamped a new mandate on America, reflects a strong repudiation of the past year’s policies. Both Virginia’s and New Jersey’s results signify America’s distaste with the overreach of government and the inability of the administration to solve the most pressing issues.

So what is one to make of the loss of Congressional district NY-23, a long-time Republican district? Democratic pundits will most certainly claim it counters any message sent by the governor races. However, the story more directly reflects the internal problems within the Republican Party than national politics.

The muddled race began with liberal Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, running against former Independent-cum-Democrat Bill Owens. A rebellion by Republicans prompted Conservative Party candidate Hoffman to jump into the fray at the last minute. Scozzafava was immediately overshadowed and dropped out of the race; ironically throwing her weight behind Owens. The result of theRepublican infighting split the Republican vote. Furthermore, Hoffman’s candidacy never had the time needed to fully get off the ground. Voters were undoubtedly unclear about where he stood. Ultimately, this handed the race to a Democrat for the first time since the Civil War.

Yesterday’s elections send a clear message to the activist wing of the Republican Party. The branch of the party that wants to see a smaller, more ‘ideologically pure’ party has been dealt a heavy blow. The failure in NY-23 is clearly an issue of party infighting. Hoffman or Scozzafava most likely would have won if they were the sole right-wing candidate; however, by taking the fight outside of the Republican Party all conservatives lost.

This election is a resounding success for the Big Tent Republicans. Republicans have won where they have appealed to all and have lost where they have become narrow and isolated. This will become increasingly important as conservative Republicans aim to challenge moderate Republican candidates, such as Charlie Crist, next year. The challenges are welcomed, but should stay within the party. Republican candidates should be selected that can appeal to their electorates. As the wins in New Jersey and Virginia show, America has soured to the liberal excesses in Washington. Republicans can win by being true to their principles and reaching out to independents and Democrats. But they cannot win by being exclusionary and fighting amongst each other.

Back from the Dead - Harry Reid's Public Option

Just in time for Halloween, Harry Reid has raised the dead. Like a zombie from a cheesy horror flick, the public option is now once again roaming the halls of Congress. In a recent announcement, Senate Majority leader Reid stated the newest version of health care legislation would be heading to a vote in the Senate with a government-run public option included.

Setting aside for a moment the foolishness of a public option, Reid’s insistence on including this provision in a plan is utterly baffling. The public option was killed over the summer when Democrats realized the political infeasibility of the concept. The Democrats simply did not have the votes in the Senate to avoid a Republican-led filibuster. The Democrats need every single member of their caucus (58 Democrats and 2 Independents) to agree with the plan in order to push it through without Republican support. The political reality indicated that this just was not possible. If one Democrat wavered the entire plan would fail. And so, wisely the Democrats seemed to move on from the public option. After all, they profess that their real goal is to achieve much needed health-care reform.

Reid’s move to bring back the discussion on the public-option is a step backwards. Nothing has changed to indicate a different political environment. In fact, shortly after his announcement Olympia Snowe, the sole Republican to have voted with Democrats on some health-care related issues, backed off from her cross aisle move. She indicated she would work with Republicans to quash any health care reform that included a public option. Snowe’s rebuke was quickly followed by one from Joe Lieberman – one of the two Independents who caucuses with the Democrats. With Lieberman’s defection a public option is undoable.

So what are the left-wing Democrats trying to accomplish? The inclusion of a public option will sink any reform bill. If the Democrats truly want to reform healthcare, they need to face the reality that it cannot (nor should not – see a prior post on ANR) include a public option. Reid’s gambit seems to lead to nothing but a dead end – torpedoing the Democrats’ and Obama’s crown jewel.

Ironically, it appears that Reid is sabotaging any chance at Democrat-led healthcare reform. One possible explanation is that the Democrats are in such internal disagreement that they cannot design any plan that is amenable to all wings of the party. The tensions between the leftists and the centrists are running high. In order to avoid a failure based on the Democrats’ inability to compromise, Reid is setting up a surefire way to fail that can be pegged on supposed Republican obstructionism. At the end of the day, Democrats will point to the ‘anti-reform’ Republicans who successfully filibustered their plan, rather than their own ranks for the political failure to pass a reform bill. If one is going to fail, at least make it look like it is someone else’s fault.

The Wall Street Journal offers another relatively plausible explanation for Reid’s maneuver. Reid might be offering the plan knowing full well that he will have to drop the public option. The WSJ writes;

He could then tell the left that he did his best, only to have been beaten back to the unreliable likes of Mr. Lieberman….Meanwhile, such endangered swing-state Democrats as Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas could claim they won a great concession if the public option fails, making it easier for them to vote for a final bill that would still do enormous harm to private insurance and the federal fisc.

Reid and his cronies could be trying to push the negotiating grounds leftward in order to achieve a more Democrat-friendly outcome. This is a risky move, but opens an opportunity for Republicans. Senate Republicans should point out the foolishness of Reid’s insistence for a public option. They can easily turn the tables on the Democrats, by branding them obstructionist. How can the Democrats claim to be solving our health care problem if they are offering proposals that clearly are not passable? However, such a strategy necessitates a counter-proposal – something the Republicans have been lacking. A successful Republican-led reform will offer America the right kind of health care fix and deal the final deathblow to the leftist Democrats’ socialist ambitions. Let’s put a nail in this coffin for good.

Obama on the Attack and the Destruction of Healthcare

Obama’s artifice and politically motivated smears in his recent comments regarding healthcare are despicable. The President is not only putting undue pressure on an already delicate issue, but using scare tactics for political expediency. His attempts to cram through ‘reform’ and socialize America’s healthcare system are terrifying to say the least.

In remarks given Monday, he launched an all out partisan attack on Republicans. He preyed on emotional fears of a failing healthcare system and attempted to portray the respectably cautious Republicans as pawns of vested interest and the status quo. Obama continued his misguidance on Tuesday, again attempting to portray Republicans as the bad guys.

This is not only unfair, but patently disingenuous. As Obama points out, everyone acknowledges the system is in need of overhaul. However, the current Democrat-led plans are disastrous. Republicans, such as Bobby Jindal, are proposing alternative and better solutions which the Democrats wish to ignore.

The bottom line is that, as discussed here before, the public option is an utter sham. While Obama’s claim that “[i]f you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep it,” might be technically true, it glosses over the economics of the public option. Because a public option ultimately rests on the shoulders of the taxpayers, it can (and will) operate in a grossly inefficient fashion.

Any shortfall in profitability will be picked up by the taxpayer. This will allow the public option to avoid cost reduction. Managers of the public plan will be able to simultaneously undercut private insurers and avoid having to reduce costs. If America is concerned about inefficiencies in the private sector, just wait until the government gets into the business. Obama, with an unequivocal Freudian slip, admitted this: “The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings, and inefficiencies [sic] to our health care system…”

It is unfortunate that the Democrats in Congress backed by the increasingly disingenuous Obama feel the need to cram a broken fix upon a broken system. It is even more frightening that they are attempting to cloud the scene with false economics and political sleights-of-hand. What we need is a well thought out, economically efficient plan, that corrects the flaws in the current system. Hopefully, America will wake up and halt the pending utter destruction of our healthcare system before it is too late.

Give Me Healthcare, Or Give Me Death?

The state of US healthcare system is atrocious. It is in need of desperate reform. Unfortunately, the Republican Party lacks any coherent proposals to fix the broken system. This leaves the American people with a choice between the current unwieldy system or the big government, nationalized, nearly Socialist plan of the Left.

For years, the Democrats have been proposing state control of the healthcare system. They want to offer universal healthcare to every American on the taxpayers’ dime. While seemingly noble in aim, this is absolutely foolish. Not only will a government system crowd out the private industry, but it will be vastly inferior. As most know, the government does a substandard job at providing services, particularly services that can be supplied by the private sector.

Unfortunately, this is where the discussion stops for most Republicans. The criticisms of the Democrats’ model of universal healthcare are solid and well thought out. However, the Republican’s offer little in terms of a solution to the obvious problems in the healthcare industry.

A relatively clear-cut answer is to fall back on the free-market principles that form the base of American conservatism. While unquestioning defense of the healthcare industry often comes hand-in-hand with criticism of universal healthcare, this need not be the case. One of the bases of free market capitalism is the notion of competition. However, the current structure of the health insurance industry limits competition.

Contrary to other, non-health, insurance industries, the health insurance system is an employer-based system. This severely reduces the number of buyers of health insurance. A health insurance company only needs to pitch its product to a few large companies in order to capture a substantial portion of the market. This forces the insurance company to structure products that will appeal to HR representatives, not the insurance consumer. This limits the diversity of the products offered and gives the insurance companies greater market control. Health insurance consumers can veto bad insurance plans only by leaving their jobs. Certainly, this puts some limits on the downward movement of insurance quality- as competition remains at the firm level. However, it drastically reduces the specialization that would occur if each consumer were responsible for his or her own insurance.

The easy solution is to end the employer based health insurance system. Individuals would be responsible for finding their own health insurance. Companies, since they no longer have to pay for insurance, would increase salaries accordingly. This would leave individuals with the same amount of money as they previously had to purchase health care on the free market. Naturally, many new, specialized products would develop. This would allow individuals to spend more or less based on the type of care and services they want. Insurance companies would have to compete rigorously with each other to capture new, separate segments of the market. All this would lead to greater competition, lower prices, and increased services. Insurance companies that fail to deliver would find a swift exit from the market, thereby creating a marketplace of higher quality companies.

Critics of such a proposal argue that health insurance is far too complicated for the average American to purchase on their own. This, however, unfairly diminishes Joe Six-Pack’s ability to obtain the appropriate information that he would need. The average American is capable of doing their own taxes and finding homeowner’s or car insurance. For those that cannot, or do not want to be bothered, there are a myriad of brokerage services available. It is quite likely that insurance brokers would expand in scope as they aided individuals in searching for the right health insurance plan.

The answer to the health insurance issue is not increased consolidation and government regulation, but a move towards greater free market competition. Government controlled, universal healthcare will only deepen the systemic problems that already exist. A greater number of differentiated healthcare providers will facilitate cheaper, more universal healthcare, without sacrificing the quality of healthcare in America.

Reverse Racism, Sotomayor, and Some Firemen

The term “reverse racist” is about a meaningless term as one can get. What’s the difference between a racist and a reverse racist? The artificial distinction seems to imply that someone who is prejudiced against minorities is a racist, while someone who is prejudiced against whites is a reverse racist. But why is a distinction necessary? Racism is racism, pure and simple. If one is discriminatory based on race, it is racism. That’s it.

It seems that the use of “reverse racist” is mired in a philosophy that systematically separates races and automatically defers to the Democrats’ talking points and language. Racism is often an accusation hurled at the right from the left. Whites have historically been pegged as racist (often because they were). However, it is seemingly un-PC to call a minority racist. It touches on some sort of sensitivity to use the language of victimhood for the supposed [historical] perpetrator. So instead, the right soft-toes around the Democrats’ feelings and coins a new term- “reverse racism”.

This is at best inane and worst outright harmful. Racism, to whomever it is directed at, should be labeled as such. By having two terms, the argument is still one of white vs. black- not one between discrimination and non-discrimination. It is foolish for America’s conservatives to give the Democrats free rein to structure the debate around skin color and claim that only one or two groups in America are truly victims. Rather, Republicans need to brand racism propagated against whites not as reverse racism, but simply as racism. It is the same beast.

This is essential to shifting the focus of the equality and discrimination debate in America from one of skin-color to one of tolerance. In this day and age, skin-color should not matter. The so-called Civil Rights movement should no longer be one of emancipation for blacks and other minorities, but one of eradication of race based thinking, regardless of the racial category of the victim. The emancipation movement for blacks has already succeeded. It is high time we recognize this. The Left is very reluctant to do so, as there are a milieu of special interests and politicians (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton) whose existence is based on racial tensions. The Republicans only fuel this mode of thinking by acquiescing to Democrat standards of language use.

This issue has been widely prevalent in regards to Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court. While I would not go so far as to call her a racist, Judge Sotomayor’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano is clearly racist and discriminatory (See my prior discussion here http://anewrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-race-is-your-fireman.html). She approved of a system that blatantly and unfairly signaled out (and failed to reward) individuals based on skin color. Republicans have been doing a great disservice by terming it reverse racism. It implies that Sotomayor’s decision does not have the same gravity as it would have if the races of the firemen involved were inverted. In fact, the Ricci decision is as heinous as if New Haven refused to promote any black firefighters simply because of their skin color.

It is time to take charge of the debate. Republicans have to move the focus from the partisan, racial agenda set by the Democratic Party to a new post-Civil Rights conversation. We have to appeal to the notions of equality and fairness. We have to seek to eradicate racism and raced-based thinking. We have to stop automatically terming any differences between blacks and whites as racism and focus on true discrimination- regardless of who it is targeted at. Defining the debate not as skin-color versus skin-color, but as discrimination versus non-discrimination will broaden the appeal of the Republican Party to minorities who previously bought the demonized racist image broadcast by the Democrats. Until we do that, the Republican Party will continue to suffer by playing the game under the Democrats’ rules

But Why?

Arlen Specter is gone. The Democrats are jubilant in celebration; their mouths watering at the thought of a filibuster free Senate. The Republicans are hurt, downtrodden, and licking their wounds. We are already seeing the cries from the Right- “Good Riddance,” “We didn’t need him,” and “He wasn’t really a Republican anyway.”

But before we let our embarrassment and hurt turn into an emotional lashing-out at the one who wounded us, we should step back and ask ourselves ‘why’? What is going on that one of our own has forsaken us? Why, in such a crucial time, did such a senior (and yes moderate) Republican abandon ship?

Of course there are the easy answers; some of which are true, others not. He was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Probably not true. After all he was a Republican Senator for some 29 years. It was expedient. Most definitely true. Specter says this much himself. The demographic in Pennsylvania has shifted and he feels he needs to follow in order to keep his position. (See his official statement here: http://www.specter2010.com/news6.html).

Expediency is probably the correct answer. Most Republicans throw up their hands here in disgust and indignation- and rightly so. It isn’t fun to feel betrayed. But I think we need to press this further. It must be expedient for some reason. Presumably, Specter hasn’t thrown in the proverbial Republican towel for personal fame, fortune, or power. He’s switched sides because he believes it is the way to stay in office and make policy. The question is- why does he think this?

The fact of the matter is that Republicans lost Congress, we lost independents, and we lost the election. We now seem to be losing the Northeast completely. Some may say good riddance, but I think this is the wrong approach. We need to take a long hard look at what the party is becoming and where America is going. Ranting and raving will not help us. We can slink into a corner and bemoan our sorry state with the few stalwarts left, or we can step up, be strong, and redefine ourselves.

When Reagan swept to the White House, he had a broad and strong coalition behind him. The modern Republican Party has always admired Reagan as its poster child. However, we appear to have moved very far from that historical greatness. How can we expect to persuade all of America to support us when we can’t convince our own Senators to stay in the party?
Unfortunately, the Republican Party is slipping from a national to a nearly a regional party. We cannot allow ourselves to devolve into a small, narrow party. We cannot allow ourselves to be a pipsqueak of a voice to a new mighty big-tent Democratic Party.

It is easy to get caught up in a kind of ideological hubris. We can protect our egos by ‘trimming’ the fat, by driving out those that fail to tow the orthodox party line. But we do little to help the party. We need to develop new ideas, new policies, and new ways of presenting old ideas and policies that will appeal not only to the current core, but to independent Americans. We have to reconsider what our priorities are. We may even have to be willing to compromise on some issues. This is unfortunate, but we can do a lot more good for this country compromising on certain policies in order to regain control of the House, Senate, and eventually the Presidency, than by being an obstinate, minority party.

Maybe Specter’s leaving is good for us. Maybe it will force us to rethink. I truly believe we have it mostly right. The majority of our changes are in presentation. However, it needs to be utterly clear that we cannot simply be a party of the South. Until we realize that, we will remain in the wilderness.

Free Speech? I Think Not

Despite allegedly being bastions of liberalism, American’s elite universities are deplorably illiberal. Take the recent incidents at University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (http://teamamericapac.org/) was brought to UNC by an on-campus group to give a speech about illegal-immigration. Before he could even start a group of anti-dialogue leftists unfurled a banner across the podium. They chanted loudly and prevented Tancredo from speaking. (See Michelle Malkin’s blog for a video of the event http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/16/where-are-the-adults-at-university-of-north-carolina-chapel-hill/.) The speech was never given.

This is, unfortunately, just one of far too many examples of the left’s desires to quash free speech on America’s university campuses. This is a bit ironic if you accept the Democrats’ rhetoric that they are the supporters of free speech. The irony fades if you understand Democrats not as supporters of free speech, but abusers of the philosophical concept of free speech to establish their beliefs as the only acceptable dialogue. Democrats, and particularly Democrat organizations on these campuses, use the term ‘free speech’ as a ploy to signify the freedom for left-wing ideas. However, when dissenting views arise, the notion of free speech is cast aside. It becomes embarrassingly clear that free speech is not a true principle of the left, but a figure of speech.

This is terribly concerning. Our institutions of higher learning should be the exemplar of free speech. Politically active people on campus should, not by law, but by policy and ideology be committed to the open and free discussion of ideas and policies. There should be no more perfect place for the free movement of ideas than at these universities. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

These liberal groups, which have now become the majority on campuses, seek to do what their platforms supposedly rail against. They claim to be representative of minorities. They claim to speak for the oppressed. Maybe at one point they did, but unfortunately the term minority has lost its true meaning. ‘Minority’ is not supposed to solely refers to racial classes in America, but to any viewpoint, ideal, or characteristic that is not is not ‘mainstream’. Democrats have hijacked the term, and claimed unmitigated representation of minorities.

However, when a group or idea that was once a minority becomes accepted by the mainstream, its proponents no longer have a role in defending that minority. Now they become the oppressors as they seek to use the same ‘protect the minority’ language to further their partisan agendas. This is seemingly what has happened in the women’s and black’s rights movements. Two noble causes that fought for and justly gained equality some 50 years ago, now no longer have much of a purpose. Yet they push on with bankrupt and out of touch leaders such as Al Sharpton.

This is the same phenomenon that we see on college campuses today. These misguided youth are fed a steady diet of illiberalness from professors and national organizations. When professors post pictures comparing George Bush to a monkey, or laugh at students that express different beliefs, or prevent students from open discussion (all of which has happened to me) an altogether restrictive environment is established. Students are not taught to think liberally but to think Liberally. The difference is that true liberals are open to discourse and dialogue. They want to learn and hear each other out. However, Liberals are simply those that tow the Democratic Party line. The Democrats try to claim these two concepts are one and the same, but they are clearly not.

It is necessary for Democrats to be truly liberal, not just Liberal. This should be a matter of policy. I do want to emphasize that I am not so convinced this is a free speech issue. I think private institutions (on the issue of public universities such as UNC I think this is a bit more hazy) have a right to approve and disprove of who speaks on campus. Inappropriate and un-educational hatemongers, such as Ward Churchill, should rightfully be precluded from speaking and teaching. That being said, as a matter of policies these universities should keep true to their supposed mission and allow open and free dialogue. Disrupters of this, whether on the left or right, should be punished accordingly. Preventing someone from speaking is not an exercise in free speech. Differences should be settled and discussed by allowing both sides to have the podium- and both sides being able to hear the other.