Where Is The Party Of Reagan?

"In the scenario that Roy Blunt is elected to be the new majority leader; I will withdraw my membership from the Republican Party and become an independent. I became a Republican a day after I swore in as an US citizen. But I am now reconsidering my membership.

I became a Republican long before I became a US citizen, long before I came to the US, long before I was old enough to vote. I was a young boy in Vietnam listening clandestinely to Voice of America (VOA) over a short wave radio..."

Where, indeed? As we say, read the whole thing...

Up until a few weeks ago, if you had asked me if I cared about who the House Majority Leader was for the Republicans, I would have looked at you like you had two heads. Sure, I'm politically wonky, but internal GOP leadership struggles? Please.

But that's because I was being a bit of an idiot, and more to the point, not paying enough attention to the genuine battle over reform that is playing out in the leadership race. I'm not a diehard GOP partisan, and I don't think of the Good of the Party as a goal in itself. But I do believe in limited government; in expanding transparency and openness in the functioning of Congress; in limiting the power of lobbyists and raising the power of individual citizens. And of course, I believe in the corrupting influence of "pork" earmarks, and the need to clean up both those small fiscal disasters, as well as the larger budgety issues weighing down our national finances.

The Majority Leader race is turning out to be a referendum on exactly these principles. In one corner, as the frontrunner, you have Roy Blunt, who took up the reigns from Tom Delay and whose campaign slogan might as well be "business as usual". And on the other end of the spectrum, John Shadegg, who is leading a small but growing revolt among members who recognize that for the good of the GOP, and of the Congress and nation, it's time for real change, and real reform. (Somewhere in the middle is John Boehner.)

I don't warm to politicans all that easily. But Shadegg, with a 97% rating from Citizen's Against Government Waste on pork issues, impressed me with his anti-pork credentials. And his answers to our questions on policy and reform were good ones, showing not just a grudging acceptance of the need for a reform, but a real passion for it. And lastly, if intangibly: listening to the way he handled himself on the blogger call, I just plain liked the guy. He spoke candidly and openly; seemed honestly interested in answering questions, and sincerely committed to the ideas he was championing.

As Glenn points out in his own post in support of Shadegg, it is pretentious for a blogger to declare an "endorsement", especially for a leadership race in which nobody but Congressmen can vote. But for whatever it's worth, Shadegg has my endorsement, and my support.

It isn't my support that Shadegg needs, however. He needs Representatives, and most particularly: he needs the members of the Republican Study Committee, the conference of diehard conservative Republicans which he once chaired --- and he needs all of them. Many RSC members endorsed Roy Blunt before Shadegg entered the race, but have not yet publicly committed to support their former leader.

Even as somewhat of an outsider to hardcore conservative activism, I can see how baffling it is for RSC members to not be supporting Shadegg as the standard-bearer for limited government and reform at this crucial time. And if you're equally confused, there's something you can do.

The list below shows RSC members who are currently stated as endorsing Roy Blunt, along with their DC and district office numbers. Pick up the phone, give them a call, and urge them to give Shadegg their support. Especially if you are in their state, or even better, their district.

The next few weeks may well determine both the course of the Republican party for years to come, and the chances for real and meaningful reform in the way Congress does about business. If you care about either, pick up the phone, and help John Shadegg get the support he needs.

All politicians "play to the base", making occasional outrageous statements that engage and excite their core constituencies, but won't necessarily help them with the electorate as a whole.

At some point, though, you have to begin suspecting that a politician may no longer even be trying to win elections, but rather has crossed over into a continual base-appeasing mode that guarantees sufficient attention to fund ongoing campaigns, without any particular regard for whether or not any will ever be successful. The process of campaigning has become an end in itself; a permanent job description, rather than a step towards actual elected office.

Today's example: John Kerry's call for a fillibuster on Alito's nomination.

Kerry has become the Paris Hilton to Al Gore's Nicole Ritchie on the stage of American politics: creatures whose fame has become self-sustaining; and who remain in the public eye not because of any achievement or acumen, but who are simply famous for being famous.

Last week, all three candidates battling for the House Majority Leader position appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio program, and each also conducted a conference call with bloggers. Over the past several days, I've parsed through the transcripts of all six sessions, and extracted out the candidates' answers to key reform and policy questions.

The full table of results can be seen on the main GOP leadership page, and there are predictably some key policy differences between the candidates.

But in reviewing their responses, what struck me is how all three were willing to make broad commitments to key reform measures. Those who, like myself, are most focused on this race because of an interest in implementing genuine reform, will be heartened to see the wide consensus on proposals that probably would have been considered radical just a few months ago.

For example:

- All three candidates said they would support a measure to require 'earmarks' be identified by the name of the suggesting member of Congress

- All three candidates endorsed the application of FOIA to Congress, and the suggestion that all legislation be posted on the Internet 72 hours prior to a vote

In addition, the candidates expressed dissatisfaction with the free-speech limitations imposed by McCain-Feingold, and generally agreed that reforms are needed in the area of subsidized travel for Congress.

If this all seems too good to be true: well, maybe it is. But thanks to the work of the team of bloggers who participated in these sessions, we now have quite a few commitments to reform on-the-record from all three candidates. So whoever wins the race, we should expect -- and, politely, demand --- to see some genuine action on implementing these proposals.

The Majority Leader election is scheduled for February 2nd, less than two weeks from today. But for those of us interested in achieving real change in the way Congress does business, that will be just the beginning...

Now that the blogger conference calls are complete and the race for House Majority Leader is heating up, I've set up a mechanism for individual bloggers to log their endorsement of a candidate.

if you want to have your position noted, post your argument and include one of the following exact phrases (quotes and formatting are not required) in your post:

"I endorse Roy Blunt"

"I endorse John Boehner"

"I endorse John Shadegg"

(For group blogs, you can also use the appropriate phrasing "We endorse")

The Ecosystem will search for the phrases above, and show detailed results here, as well as listing summary statistics on the main GOP leadership page. And yes, for me to scan your blog properly you need to be registered in the Ecosystem, which is painless, free, and can be done right here.

Please note that your position will not show up immediately, as the scans are run regularly every evening.