Republicans, Foiled by Fate

It’s one of the most under-told stories of every election cycle. The sheer amount of dedication, time, and effort required to run for public office. The sheer intensity of a hard-run campaign.

Candidates – good ones, anyway – put everything aside for the race. Jobs, homes, families, nest eggs – all sacrifice for it. All are sacrificed for it.

Losing is, therefore, hard. Hard enough, when you lose on issues, or money, or October Surprises. How much harder, when losing was simply fate?

That was 2006. Republicans lost, and Democrats won. Everything, everywhere. It was a tidal wave of 1994-esque proportions. A massive, inevitable defeat, brought on by forces that were well beyond our control.

As such, a lot of people lost elections they would, in any other year, have won.

The question I’ve been asking myself since is: should we have known? Should I have known? Could candidates have known, and thus spared themselves the anguish?

There were plenty of signs.

First and foremost, politics is a pendulum. According to George Will: “In the 140 years since 1866, the first post-Civil War election, party control of the House has now changed 15 times -- an average of once every 9.3 years.”

A dozen years after the Republican Revolution, Republicans were doing more defending of old turf than fighting for new, and the defensive is a weak place to be. This year, time took its toll.

Another factor: the marriage amendment, which may have spurred Democrat success in places where student turnout – fueled by massive anti-amendment efforts – brought more-than-usual Democrat votes to the polls.

Another: conservatives were disillusioned on spending, immigration, Social Security. Politics is a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately business, and those tax cuts are a few years old.

And then there’s the war. I hesitate to conclude that people have turned against the war effort, but the steady drumbeat of casualties with neither end nor measurable goal in sight took their toll. Polls showed clearly that the public was not happy, and as public opinion on the war went, so went opinion on President Bush.

All these things – and probably more – affected races up and down the ticket.

It’s not enough to ask why we didn’t see it before. In some ways, we did. Pundits have been pounding on Iraq and the President’s numbers for a long time. Conservatives have been pounding on non-conservatism. The marriage amendment was scheduled for well over a year.

We knew, but could we have changed it? Altered those dynamics somehow? If so, why didn’t we? And if not…could we have known that, and acted accordingly? In time?

Probably not.

The bigger the office, the more time you need to prepare. That’s why we started talking about 2008 last year.

If you were planning to run for office, you had to make your decision months ago. July, June, or even earlier. Case in point: Scott Walker, who dropped out of the Governor’s race in May.

Did he know something? Did he read those tea leaves – take a long, careful look – and decide this wasn’t the year to be a Republican candidate?

If so, then he is officially the smartest guy in the room, whatever room he’s in.

Because that wasn’t easy. These opportunities don’t come along every day, and even if things look bad six months out, well, things change fast in politics. The right event, issue, scandal can flip political fortunes faster than a middle-aged Congressman can learn to use e-mail. The only thing more fickle than fate is public opinion.

So, back in May, and June, and July…perhaps we should have anticipated more fully the effects of the marriage amendment. Perhaps we should have anticipated the Doyle campaign’s expert ju-jitsu on his ethics problems.

But could we have known then that Iraq and the President’s numbers were going to drag Republicans down, come November? Could we have honestly predicted that the Bush administration – with all their Rovian strategery – wouldn’t turn that around somehow?

No. Not in July.

Our candidates took the chance, because the chance was there. Two years from now, opportunity again available, they’ll take the chance again.

Heads held high. Waving to the crowds. Hoping they aren’t headed for a cliff.

Turkey-Induced Errata

It’s the Day After Thanksgiving, and if you’re reading this…seriously, go find something else to do. It’s the Day After Thanksgiving.

That said, it should go without saying that I’m much too busy digesting to put together a fully fleshed-out column. Therefore, I offer this series of thoughts, any of which could have been a full column if only I’d put in the time.

Cheese on the Ticket

No sooner did Senator Russ Feingold announce he wouldn’t run for President than Governor Tommy Thompson announced he was thinking about running for President.

My original thoughts stand: both Feingold and Thompson are legitimate candidates for the Veep slot, and if one gets it, that increases the chances that the other will, too. Unless it doesn’t: if the Republicans lock up Wisconsin by taking Tommy, the Democrats might pick somebody like New Mexico’s Bill Richardson, thereby locking up their own swing state.

It's possible, if unlikely: there are other swing states with more electoral votes than Wisconsin, and other candidates who could both lock up their own states and have tails outside their states. Ken Blackwell, anyone?

Post-Thanksgiving Shopping!

We can all stop kvetching about the early Christmas displays at the stores now – the season has officially begun!

While I’ve read that the Day After Thanksgiving is no longer the single biggest shopping day of the year (replaced by most Saturdays in December), it’s been a personal tradition to do just a little bit of shopping today, if for no other reason than to enjoy breathing in all that rampant capitalism.

Ahhhhhhhh.

Post-election therapy

Black Tuesday (also known as The Day Democrats Danced) is a few weeks behind us, and if there’s one silver lining to the whole sordid mess it’s this: we’ve moved on. I’m sure there’s still some hangover depression out there – particularly for the defeated candidates themselves – but for the most part, even those of us who work in politics have gone back to life as usual.

There are two lessons I hope to take from Black Tuesday: first, there will be days like this, and it’s not the end of the world.

Hopefully, that will lead to the next lesson: be more objective when considering future elections. In the buildup to Election 2006, a large part of me refused to believe the drumbeat of defeat coming from the mainstream media.

Even an objective assessment wouldn’t have removed that doubt from my mind. I may well have been just as optimistic as I was, anyway. But still: the President’s popularity was down; people in general are dissatisfied with Iraq, and conservatives were dissatisfied with Republicans. Governor Doyle did successfully blunt his own ethics problems. The marriage amendment was going to have negative effects on Republican candidates in some places, and staying in power for as long as Republicans did does put the incumbent party on the defensive more than is healthy for electoral success.

I never really gave those factors due consideration. Never sat down and weighed the good against the bad. At least a couple of times a year from now on, I’m going to take a good hard look at the tea leaves. A good, hard, objective look. I hope.

On the up side, Wisconsin and U.S. political arenas are now much more target-rich than they were before.

Hunting Season

For those of you who read Tuesday’s column (both of you) and were confused as to whether I got a deer or not: yes, I did. I shot a doe at about 8:30 Saturday morning. Hunted the rest of the weekend and didn’t see another live deer until we were driving back after dark Sunday.

And the thankfulness this year goes to (envelope, please)…

New experiences, and new opportunities. See above.

Oh, all right. Here’s the typical Thanksgiving Day column, plus something I wrote last year about the Pilgrims, who left us all a big pair of buckled shoes to fill by choosing freedom over security.

Here's hoping you're all having as happy a Thanksgiving as I am.

City Kid in the Woods

I’m a city kid. I make no bones about that. Sure, I do my share of camping, and I did a little Army time. But even then, I was far more likely to be found riding a desk and manning a coffeepot than anything else.

Bottom line, I’m no rugged outdoorsman. More of a comfortable indoorsman, if there is such a thing.

And yet, over the past few days, I’ve learned that even being a comfy indoorsman can help lead to outdoorsmanship.

How, you ask? Hunker down, young’un, and lemme tell you…

It was 6:45 Saturday morning. I was up, dressed, sitting in a tree, doing my best not to move. Trying to be as still and as quiet as possible.

Be very, very quiet. We’re hunting whitetails. You have to be quiet and still, because deer have excellent hearing. They spook, particularly on this particular weekend in November every year. Or so I was told. This was my first time, you see.

Normally, I’m a mover. I fidget. I pace. I play with a pen, or pick at my nails, or whistle. I’m not still, and I’m not quiet. Nor am I accustomed to the outdoors, which means that simply getting to my stand and then into my stand was an awkward, noisy, clumsy affair. Deer anywhere within a half mile radius were alerted to my presence.

At least, that’s what I figured.

Once up there, though, quiet came easy. Quiet enough, and still enough, that a squirrel twice came within an easy arm’s reach. Just checking me out.

When you’re trying to be quiet, it’s amazing how much noise everything else makes. Tiny birds, hopping around in the leaves underneath. Dry leaves rubbing against each other, or against a branch. Squirrels are incredibly loud.

And me, in the midst of cacophony, barely moving, barely making a sound.

How incredibly boring.

I wanted to pull out a book (yes, I’d brought one), but was afraid to. Didn’t want to risk missing a deer.

Tiresome. Dull. Cold. Sleepy, after a late night followed by a very early morning without my normal quart of rich dark roast. Boring. Anxious. Frustrating.

Impatient. Hey, I’m an American. We’re an impatient people. We want things now. Fast food. Supermarkets. High speed internet. Eight-lane highways. Why isn’t mass transit more popular? Because we have to wait for it!

So why am I sitting out here waiting to harvest my own food? If I want to shoot, I can go to the range. If I want food, I can buy it! We have people who make their living providing me with food. There’s no need for me to sit out here in the cold and the wind just hoping against hope that I might catch sight of something that’s close enough and clear enough and slow enough for me to shoot.

And that might not even happen! What if I don’t see one at all? I’ve been out here two whole hours, and I sure haven’t seen one yet. And it’s cold. And I’m tired. How did I ever get talked into doing this ridiculous…

Hey, what was that? Crashing in the treeline there – I saw white! That’s a deer!

Come on, come out where I can see you. Steady now, easy, not too fast, ready, and…

Wow, who knew hunting was so much fun? Satisfying? Thrilling! Oh, sure, it’s pretty tedious from minute to minute sometimes, but you know, you’ve got to have patience in this life. You’ve got to learn how to wait for things. How to sit still and be content, to understand that not everything worth having can be had right now.

I’m living the outdoor life! Connecting with my roots – the roots that lead to people who hunted because there weren’t grocery stores and gazillion-head herds of beef cattle. This is something everybody should experience, at least once!

Am I hooked? Not sure yet. But I’ve learned one thing: next time I’m lying on the couch in a near-catatonic state watching football and the wife says something about chores, I’ll just tell her: I’m not being lazy, I’m training for next year’s deer season!

A Little or a Lot, Taxes Are Going Up

Oh, yeah. Taxes are going up.

The writing’s already on the wall:

The state Department of Transportation is recommending raising the annual registration fees to $80 for cars, a 46% increase, and hikes of up to 65% for light trucks.

The department also recommends increasing the cost of driver's licenses by $10, from $24 to $34, to cover the cost of new federal requirements to make identification cards more secure.

The recommendations were due two months ago as part of the agency's budget request, but the department waited until Friday - three days after Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle was re-elected - to submit them.

On one hand, I’m all wet. These are fees, not taxes.

On the other hand, I’m completely dry. Unless you can live your life without driving and owning a car (which most of us can’t), these are taxes.

Tax increase!

It’s tempting to focus mostly on that third paragraph: what very convenient timing for Governor Doyle (kudos to the reporter for pointing that out). It’s also tempting to argue that the DOT would have plenty of money, if only the Governor hadn’t raided the Transportation Fund in two successive state budgets.

The DOT is using that as an excuse to fleece the rest of us now, or so the argument goes.

While entertaining in the short term, that argument doesn’t stand up for long. Remember, Doyle is still Governor. The DOT is under his authority. They wouldn’t intentionally embarrass him, or blame him publicly for their problems. Surely they don’t believe the public will have forgotten about Doyle’s budget mischief – at least, not when there are so many eager conservatives ready to remind them.

More likely, this is simply the first shot across the bow. There will be more like this. A lot more.

By the time the state settles in to figure out its budget for the next two years, I predict that many – if not most – other agencies will have made similarly drastic demands for more money, higher spending, higher fees.

By the time the budget is settled, the tax and fee increases we actually get will look reasonable, moderate, even small compared to what the agencies demanded.

The entire Democrat agenda for the next several months boils down to this: find a way to raise taxes without looking like we’re really raising taxes.

Yes, this is business as usual: ask for a big increase so you can get a small one (or ask for a humungous one so you can get a big one).

But this time, there’s more. The property tax freeze (such as it is), in force these last two years, ends on January 1.

There’s very little we can do about that. Democrats have only to do nothing, and it will end. New legislation has to be written and passed to prevent it from ending, and such legislation will only be written and passed in, at most, one legislative house – the Republican-controlled Assembly.

The Democrat-controlled Senate sure won’t. And don’t expect Governor Doyle to propose another one. He only proposed it in the first place for one reason: because politically, he had to come to the right on tax issues, or look like he was.

They can raise taxes, just by doing nothing!

That doesn’t mean Democrats can run around willy nilly, raising taxes left and right and outlawing the free market system (much as they might want to). That’s the single fastest way back to minority status.

So who knows? Maybe they will extend the property tax freeze.

On the other hand, they have some very liberal members who won’t take lightly to a small-government agenda. Some of their most vocal supporters and interest groups will most vocally agree.

So our goals are twofold: either force the Democrats to govern from the right, thus mollifying taxpayers but infuriating their base, or bait them into governing from the left, with opposite effects.

As an activist, I prefer the latter – the better to vote them out of office next time. As a taxpayer, I prefer the former. If we have to have Democrats, let’s at least have Democrats who act like Republicans.

What’s their base gonna do? Vote Green?

None and Done for Feingold?

It’s like Christmas come early! And...like not getting a present. Senator Russ Feingold has announced that he won’t run for President in 2008.

I’m both relieved and disappointed. Having Feingold in the race would have been a lot of fun, up to, if, and even after he won the nomination.

It might have meant a less stressful 2008 campaign, as Wisconsin turned from swing state to blue state in less time than it took him to say “I accept.” Plus, we’d get to watch half of McCain/Feingold raise and spend the tens of millions needed to run for President.

Now that’s amusement.

Or it might have meant an even harder campaign, as national Republicans put pressure on Wisconsin Republicans to beat Feingold on his own home turf. And that’s without Tommy Thompson maybe getting into the race.

If we thought 2004 was intense, well. We’d learn differently.

The question is: why isn’t Feingold running?

He has reasons. At least, he gave us reasons, all of which boil down to: he’d rather stay in the new Democrat-majority Senate. Doesn’t have the fire in the belly to move any higher. Happy where he’s at, and looking forward to helping lead the relentless advance of Socialism across our great nation.

Okay, so he didn’t actually say that. Read between the lines.

Here’s the problem: everything politicians do – particularly high-powered politicians – is done for a reason. And that reason benefits their agenda, their party, and most importantly, that reason benefits him.

A good negotiator never gives something up without receiving something in return. A good general doesn’t retreat unless it strengthens his position. A good politician doesn’t just refuse a shot at higher office, because simply following up on that shot makes that politician a player. It makes him more important, and thus more powerful.

Which leads me to assume: Feingold believes that this announcement – bowing out of the race – benefits him, his agenda, maybe his party in some way.

He isn’t telling the whole truth. That’s for sure.

Some possibilities:

He’s really running a shadow campaign. Just trying to stave off the spotlight for a few more months, after which he’ll announce that he’s gotten so much support, and the issues are so dire, he has no choice but to seek the Big Chair.

Or he made a deal with somebody. Hillary, or John Edwards, or maybe even John McCain. A plum Senate committee, or a high-power Cabinet seat (Attorney General?), or the second seat on the ’08 ticket.

Or he’s concluded that he’s still a viable Veep candidate – maybe even more so – without going through the nomination wringer.

Or he’s read the tea leaves, the way more of us (like me) should have before this year’s mid-term elections. With the liberal wing of Congressional Democrats in power for at least the next two years, Feingold may have decided that 2008 won’t be a good year for his party’s nominee.

It’s got to be something like that. The spotlight may be harsh, but it gives you power. Influence. That helps a politician – no matter the level – do the job. Climb the ranks. Win the votes. Politics is like celebrity in that way – if nobody’s talking about you, you might as well retire.

One thing’s for sure: he hasn’t quit because he couldn’t win. Lots of politicians run for President, knowing they have little or no chance of winning...this time. Nixon, Reagan, Dole and Gore all ran and failed at least once before becoming their party’s candidate.

Feingold is 58. He’ll have another chance. Running the race this time would increase his experience, his exposure, his ability to raise money and hire the top political guns in the future. And he knows that.

All the above is, of course, dependent on my original assumption: that Feingold isn’t simply telling the honest and complete truth. I’ll stick with my assumption because – well, come on. How boring would that be?

Besides, I think my assumption is good. Even if Feingold doesn’t throw his hat in the ring for 2008 – for the Big Chair, anyway – his story isn’t done. He won’t be standing pat. We’ll be hearing more from him, and plenty of it.

A Little Annoyance Goes a Long Way

I’m very grateful to the Democrats today.

You wouldn’t think that, but I am. See, I hadn’t been able to find my ass for the past couple of weeks. And then the Dems came along Tuesday and handed it right to me.

Thanks.

Monday, Republicans ran the world. Today, not so much. The forces of darkness close in around us, and those few worthies left to defend our very way of life can’t spare much time mourning their fallen comrades.

How did it happen? Depends on who’s explaining it. It was Iraq. It was conservative discontent. It was ethics. It was scandal. It was the marriage amendment. It was the natural ebb and flow of American two-party politics, ready for a change.

And the election was nasty. Bitter. Angry. Negative. The voters felt it. The voters got sick of it.

I can only make that statement via anecdote – as one who spent nearly 20 hours actively on the phones in the four days before the election, I can tell you: people had had enough.

One gentleman answered the phone with the question: “Is this a political call?” I said well, yes, as a matter of fact it is. He handed the phone instantly to his wife, who wasn’t any happier about it.

One answering machine actually ended with the phrase: “and we’ve had enough of political calls, so if this is one of those, please don’t bother.”

I received several earfuls about the sheer number of calls, not to mention the sheer number of campaign commercials, particularly the attack ads. One gentleman told me in no uncertain terms that he wouldn’t vote for Mark Green, solely because his commercials were so negative.

He hung up before I could ask him how he liked Governor Doyle’s attack ads.

Most of the people I called were at least tolerant. Politely tolerant, or begrudgingly so. Or just begrudging, or sometimes rude.

Which is fine, of course. If you can’t be rude to the guy interrupting your day unsolicited with the dozenth political call you’ve had since lunch, who can you be rude to?

The phone calls annoy. Commercials offend. What about mailings? I received five different pieces of campaign mail in a single day last week. I saw them. Looked at them. But didn’t read them. They, the commercials, the phone calls had all faded into the background. I barely paid them any mind.

The question now is: have we reached a tipping point? Have we gone so far that we’re actually turning voters off?

The Knowers-that-Be say no. Statistics show that voters are more likely to vote, the more contacts they receive. Even if the number of contacts hits ridiculous.

And yet, it’s not hard to imagine voters throwing their hands in the air and swearing to vote against the next campaign to call them, or the next campaign to air a negative ad, no matter whose it is.

Commercials offend. Phone calls annoy. Mailings become so much junk mail after the first twenty or so.

But what else is there to do? Campaigns have to communicate. They have to both convince voters that their guy is the guy, and that the other guy is not. They have to generate excitement. Get their voters out. Methods are limited: TV, radio, internet, phone calls, and mailings. Physically knocking on doors. All encroach on people in one way or another.

There’s also yard signs, I suppose. But it’s a little hard to flesh out an agenda on a smallish piece of cardboard that people drive past at 50 miles an hour. And even harder to explain why your opponent is a corrupt and incompetent uncaring sleazebag who lives in the pockets of special interests.

If only there was some way for us to know for sure whether the commercials and calls were turning voters against us. Maybe a phone survey?

Oh. Right.

Well, if there’s something else we can do, we’ve got about 18 months to think of it. Otherwise, next time will be more of the same. And next time, I’ll be on the phones again.

I hate to be such an annoyance, but…well, I’ll get over it. A different outcome will help.

Odds are there won't be anything posted here today

Well, you know, except for this.

I'm phone banking all day today (same as yesterday), except for the time I'm spending moving furniture around because our new windows are being installed today and tomorrow.

Take that, global warming!

And then I'm going to an election night party. And then I'll be back at work tomorrow morning.

Geez.

Perhaps I'll post something tomorrow. Perhaps I'll wait until Friday, my next regular day. You'll just have to click back every day to find out.

If You Can't Say Something Nice...

My goodness, politics has been nasty this year. And between now and Tuesday, it’s only going to get worse.

That’s what the Green Bay Press Gazette says about it, anyway.

If you're sick of negative campaign ads, brace yourself and keep the mute button handy.

Both major-party candidates for Wisconsin governor plan to spend a lot of time in your living room between now and Nov. 7.

Incumbent Democrat Jim Doyle and challenger Mark Green…are spending millions of campaign dollars flooding the airwaves with ads in this week leading up to the fall general election.

Vast amounts of money. Obscene amounts of money. So far, Doyle has spent $1.3 million – Green about $1 million – in the Green Bay market alone, with more to come. And all of it on “ads that have been almost issue-free and, instead, focused on attacking the opponent.”

In all, about $30 million have been spent on this year’s gubernatorial election, “most of it for negative ads.”

Nationwide, “almost $160 million” in congressional-race attack ads, opposed to “$17 million in ads that convey a positive image.”

So much negativity. So much nastiness.

I’m not impressed. What we consider dirty today would have been quite tame by 19th century standards. Still, as sure as night follows day, media will grab at the low-hanging fruit, and do the best Macaulay Culkin impressions they can.

But this time, the Press Gazette goes further. They conclude:

The new governor* and Legislature should waste no time approving meaningful campaign-finance reform in Wisconsin as soon as this election is over.

Campaign finance reform. And why? Not because of the sheer oodles of money being spent, but because they don’t like what’s being said.

They don’t like the message. The words, sentences, phrases and themes the campaigns are using to try and sway voters. It’s too negative, and they don’t like it, so the government must act. The legislature must control political speech.

Seldom is the issue framed quite so clearly.

Americans disagree on a lot of things. But some things, I thought, were beyond disagreement. For example, this simple rule: we don’t regulate speech. If you have an opinion, you get to make it known. You get to try and convince others to share your opinion.

And we let you. Especially in politics. Barring the unlikely event of someone screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater, we don’t control what people say. We don’t have to listen – in fact, we probably won’t – but go ahead. Say what you want anyway.

Whether spending on speech should be protected in the same way – that’s another question. The Press Gazette isn’t considering that question – they’re criticizing the message, more than the money – but even if they were, they’d still be wrong.

What is WEAC? A bunch of teachers. People making middle-class to upper-middle-class salaries. They’re not rich, but they band together. They pool their resources, to give themselves more influence. Same with the NRA, and Wisconsin Right to Life, and Fair Wisconsin, and, for that matter, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Greens.

I can’t afford to spend $500. But I can afford $10. Now, if I can find 49 others…

Banding together makes us richer. It evens the playing field. It lets us do more to make our mutual opinions heard.

The Green Campaign and the Doyle Campaign are funded by groups of people, who are banding together to promote something. Each campaign has received millions in contributions – much from big donors, and much from small donors. All these people want their message heard, and that message is: vote for my guy!

The Press Gazette may not have meant to suggest curtailing political speech. I’m sure they’d say it’s the money they want to limit. The sheer, ridiculous, impossible amounts of money.

Because if campaigns could only spend $15 million saying nasty things about each other, instead of $30 million…that would make things so much better. Because…

…um…

Whatever the Press Gazette meant – whether limiting speech, or the money that buys good venues for that speech – their “reform” means curtailing speech.

And that’s not allowed. Even if we don’t like what’s being said.

* Do I detect a prediction?