MATTERS OF OPINION

Originally written for and posted at: www.thesub-urban.com

2010 is going to be a big year for Republicans.

I’m talking huge.

Colossal.

Oprah’s waist size big.

Obama’s ego big.

Ted Kennedy’s liver size big (too soon?).

Very few people are debating this point at the moment. There are different reasoning’s and explanations that have been thrown out there, along with a general inquisition as to who is going to lead the party in 2012, but very few aren’t in agreement when the question is asked: Who is going to win big in these in 2010, Republicans or Democrats? Now, there are many different reasons why R’s are going to dominate, and I’ll avoid the usual snark responses like, “We’re smarter,”, or, “We’re better at just about everything,” in order to come up with a real coherent understanding of the political realities that we are tied to this coming election. To start with, it’s the midterm elections, and those classically sway to the right anyways. Statistically speaking, a good chunk of the Democratic voters just don’t come out on midterm elections. Sure, they’re bussed in in droves during the presidential election (a little joke there, I’m here all night) but for whatever reason they don’t show up the following year (possibly because the homeless don’t stay in one area for longer than a couple years? All right, all right, I’m done…) . That block is typically younger voters and African American voters. Sure, there has been a very positive looking uptick in both youngsters and blacks showing up at the polls at all, but unless that uptick really rises, there will still be a dismal showing.

The House and Senate both have Democratic majorities, with a Democrat in the White House, and historically when that sort of situation is presented, the American independent voters level the playing field a bit. This pretty well goes for either party, and has been a more recent trend (relatively speaking, because it’s more of a trend that has developed more since the past couple of decades) where independent voters may vote in a D or an R President and then during midterms replace a D or an R in the House or Senate seats. It happened in the 90’s by putting Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in control of the House while Bill Clinton and the Democrats had the Presidency. It happened again in the 2,000’s when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats dethroned the decade of Republican House rule while George Bush was President, and it will probably happen again this year with the major Democratic dominance in government.

Also, there is the stagnant economy, an overall disenchantment with government, and a whole lot of grass roots activism on the right that has never been so vocal or active. Right now Republican’s are battening down the hatches, working together, and, for the most part, placing good candidates in important races. Yes, 2010, even admitted by most political scientists of a more liberal persuasion, is going to be an unstoppable Republican year (unless some cover up to massacre children is found, which is very very unlikely). A lot of this has been happening at the more local levels, since although members of Congress are often looked at nationally, at the end of the day they aren’t voted on by everybody in America but rather those that live in their individual districts. This is the reason that Nancy Pelosi can continue to be reelected, even though her national approval rating hovers around 15%. Just from my own experiences here in my little corner of Northwest, Indiana, the party has been pristine with their organization and the candidates have been hitting the road hard, knocking on doors rain or shine, handing out pamphlets, and involving the grass roots with their campaigns, showing their recognition of the hard work these groups put in and showing that the groups are energized and happy with the over all lurch of the party back to the right (otherwise, these same very helpful grass roots organizations would turn on the party, and would be pulling for a third party candidate or fielding their own primary opponents. While we’ve seen a little of that with the libertarian sects, it hasn’t been an unusual amount because the libertarians, no matter how far to the right the Republican party goes, will always peg the party as not sufficient for their libertarian means. Ron and Rand Paul are more the exceptions that prove the rule than anything else, and even though they have R’s after their names, a lot of Republicans won’t claim them, including this one. And in any effect, if Ron Paul hauled any more pork back to his district while constantly preaching economical efficiency, he’d have change his profession from doctor and Congressman to butcher and hypocrite.)

However, on a national level right now, there is much to worry about. During this period of Republican re-invigoration, there’s an onward battle between many different faces, sects, and aspects of the party to be the leader and, subsequently, the 2012 Republican nominee for president. This next year and half, depending on presentation and determination, will decide if it will be Sarah Palin with her espousing of traditional conservatism, Mike Huckabee with his Christian right and evangelicals, Ron Paul and his libertarianism, or John McCain again with his moderate views. Granted, there may be an “out of the blue” candidate that could jump into the race (perhaps a John Thune or a Mitch Daniels) but as of right now, that seems to be the most likely handful. The only reason I didn’t include a Romney or a Giuliani in this mix is that neither one has been as vocal, and neither one have done a very good job of putting themselves out there for conservatism, especially when conservatism is the key word this year with Republicans. Of course I’m sure their names will end up the ballot, but I don’t think they will get far in the primary and so, for the sake of keeping this mostly about the possible nominations, I’m not going to dwell on them nearly as much.

On a public level, you don’t hear a lot of in-fighting and baring of claws as of yet (which is good, I think it would make the party look disorganized and petty if that were to happen so far away from 2012) but when you look at the grass roots level, whether it be through blog sites, Facebook and MySpace rantings, or even rhetoric at different events, an internal warring of ideologies is eminent and real. For example, while I do believe that there are indeed RINO’s in the party (Republican’s In Name Only), not EVERY moderate Republican is a RINO. I don’t believe John McCain to be a RINO. I don’t think that every member of Congress should be thrown out and publicly exonerated. Yes, there are members of Congress that are inadequate for the job, at least in my eyes, however that is ultimately up to the voters in those districts to take care of that situation. Regionalism in politics is a very real thing, and the voters in Tennessee don’t influence, say, the voters in Arizona.

Another prime example is the constant usage of the term “neoconservative” to describe any Republican that doesn’t tow a certain libertarian line. Every Republican that is in support of the Iraq war, or that agrees we need a more hawkish foreign policy, is not automatically a “neoconservative”. There has been this odd fascination with libertarian leaning R’s to weed out the hawks under the guise of eradicating the “neocon’s”, and though it isn’t going to happen any time soon, there is a small danger of losing the elderly vote that has a much more hawkish foreign policy (but I could rattle on about that all day, I’ll save it for another piece). There are hundreds of others that I could speak of, different ways of looking at things, different ideologies, however I think you all get the point. There is some fighting with in the family for the head of the dinner table, and only one man/woman can carve the bird.

This isn’t too uncommon, though. The Republican party has always been the “Big Tent” party because it incorporates so many (needed) elements. The different ideologies are there to counter balance each other and to (usually) come up with the best possible legislation for the most people as possible. We need the libertarians to keep us fiscally sound, but we have to be weary of their protectionism and often nutty foreign policy platforms. We need the traditional conservatives, not just because it’s such an enormous block of votes, but so that we don’t become knee jerk reactionaries and take things slow and steady, like most conservatives universally agree is the best, most effective method of passing good legislation. And we need some moderate voices in the party as well, because not everyone is politically tied down to one ideology or the other, and in fact more and more people consider themselves independent voters.

Also, this isn’t uncommon for a party that is in the throes of reconstruction, either. During the long stretch of Democratic President’s (FDR, Truman, an eight year break of the trend with Eisenhower, who was a rather moderate conservative, following by Kennedy and LBJ) there was worse infighting than now. Rockefeller represented the liberal wing of the Republican party, Nixon the moderates, and Goldwater the conservative wing, and many more dirty tricks and underhanded things were done back then compared to now because we didn’t have 24 hour news channels, cell phones with camera and video recording capabilities, or shock news hounds that wanted to dismantle politicians with a rather unhealthy passion (this changed with the Watergate scandal, of course). Hell, wire tapping itself was commonly ordered from the White House, and the Kennedy and Johnson administration had ordered at least double the wire tappings that Nixon had, not to mention the dirty Chicago politics that probably got Kennedy elected, or the dirty deals that Johnson was known to cut in order to get what he wanted. Politics was different then, less transparent and less accountable to the American people. There was a lot less “sun light” on the politicians, and so not only were they less accountable when in office, but the in fighting was less publicly known during that time or even in election cycles.

Right now the Republican party is like a giant game of king of the hill. Every ideology has their hat thrown in the ring, and they are all scraping to end up at the top and be able to mold the party as they each individually see as the best fit. It’s one of the reasons that I love politics. The different people with different ideas battle it out and the person who has conveyed his/her thoughts on the issue, and has done a good job hitting the streets, and has…well, just been lucky, runs and becomes de facto leader of the party for that period of time. Hopefully at the end of the day they can all do what past politicians have been able to do: shake hands and smile. Because while they may all be vying for power, they have to realize that the over all goal is better, if not good, government that does well for our nation and is supported by the people. If any one of them begin to lose sight of that over all goal, and I’m not convinced that any of them have, then all is lost.

This past Monday, President Obama said this to University of Texas graduates (taken from the AP line):

“America has to have the highest share of graduates compared to other nations. But Texas, I want you to know, we’ve been slipping,” Obama said on a visit to the University of Texas.

“In a single generation, we’ve fallen from first place to 12th place in college graduation rates for young adults. That’s unacceptable, but it’s not irreversible. We can retake the lead,” Obama stressed.

“What I’ve tried to explain to people, education is an economic issue, education is the economic issue of our time,” Obama insisted, arguing: “The countries that outeducate us today will outcompete us tomorrow.”

The US president said first-rate education must be a top priority for the US economy to flourish.

“The single most important step we must take is make sure that every one of our young people (…) has the best education that the world has to offer. That’s the number one thing we can do,” Obama said.

Now, first thing first. Of course the President is going to say this at a college graduation. The politics of this and any other speech is prevalent in every administration of every President, R or D. He isn’t going to step onto a college campus and tell them:”You guys aren’t going to find a job. Sucks to be you.” It’s just not going to happen.

With that said, what caught my attention is that the President is saying that college graduates are our future. And I believe and agree with him. However, are the college graduates the future, or is our industry our future? Democrats (more specifically union supported D’s) constantly talk about our lack of work force with the steel/manufacturing industry, and honestly, to a degree, I agree. As a younger male who works at the steel mills, I can honestly tell you that on my shift, I’m probably the youngest person out there. This isn’t very telling since I’m only 24, however, the gap between my age and the next youngest is. The average age of the steel worker is mid-late thirties and above. Young people aren’t filling the positions that are left by those that retire. We just aren’t.

And really, that’s a good thing. More kids are going to college, more kids are getting a good high school education (which, in turn, negates the argument that we need more funding for schools, but regardless…) and more kids don’t have to go work at the mills to make a living. I do, because I was a jackass when I went to college. I didn’t apply myself, and I’m paying for it by working hard, long hours, while paying for my school myself now. But most kids aren’t stupid like I was, and are getting the education they need to not have to work at a steel mill.

But regardless, the point is this: in one sentence you hear politicians tell us that we have to be more self reliant as a country, and in the next they tell us that we have to send more kids to college. In order to achieve the first, the second can’t happen. We already have a shortage of people to work in the mills, and subsidizing even more kids’ education won’t achieve that.

My thoughts? Why, I’m glad you asked!

Political rhetoric aside, we need to stop subsidizing as many kids’ college. I know this sounds heartless, but if we don’t, we’ll have a nation that is all manager, and no worker. There are kids coming out of school by the dozen, every day, with no work experience in a 10% unemployment economy who can’t find work and went to school on our tax dollars. That’s fine and dandy to pay for these kids’ school, assuming they have no means of payment and decent grades, but that’s not always how it works. Too often grades are set aside because of race or poverty and that isn’t right, nor is it efficient when one thinks about the purpose of subsidizing college students.

The hard truth about life is that sometimes a person has to work a manual labor job for a while, or even at McDonald’s, or some other form of employment that is not altogether “coveted”, in order to work his/her way up and away from those that deserve to be in those spots. It’s the way it is. Life’s a…well…you get my drift. Get a helmet.

The point of all this rambling? As far as political fodder, Obama got it right. As far as reality? While we are losing manual labor job after job overseas, we are encouraging and paying for people to go to college. At some point, however, we have to face reality. And that reality is that some people are janitors and manual workers, and some people design the buildings that janitors and manual workers work in. Just because we pay for them to go to school and barely pass with all D’s doesn’t mean that it’s right or that it is what’s best for our country.If we want to be more self sufficient, we have to start letting the worker bees work, and not try to push them through college just for statistical purposes. I think it is important to help out poor children who have excelled and simply can not afford college. All for that. And the government helping out with some student loans? Sure. But a line a has to be drawn, and we have to realize that we need some of these kids to work hard labor if we EVER expect to be a self-sufficient country again.

The Democratic incumbent, Senator Patrick Leahy had better be watching his back over there in Vermont. Vermont, known for it’s great skiing, it’s maple syrup, and now it’s Republican adds that will make you giggle.

Britton has been running a great grass roots campaign in his attempt to oust the historical relic that is Leahy, and despite his fair share of negative press from the lefty’s (hey, if there’s an R after your name, it’s GOING to happen) his numbers have been looking better and better with each passing week.

But hey, I’m just a talking head who writes opinion pieces. Check out the video for yourself, and then cruise on over to his web site, to find out what this guy is all about. I wasn’t disappointed, and if you aren’t either, give him a few bucks to keep making great campaign videos and put some life (literally!) back into the Senate.

The pictures a little fuzzy, but featured to the left is me, my son Gage, and Senator Dan Coats.

My family drove out to the Porter County fair to meet Sen. Coats, and I have to say, I was impressed. He had a commanding presence, seemed like a very amiable fellow, and seemed sincere about needing our help (and appreciating the help) here in Porter County. He gave a little speech to a group of us (mostly candidates, and then me, lol) and then we all filed out in a little mini-parade down the board walk. I thought it went well, everybody seemed to either be appreciative of Coats being there, and the ones that didn’t weren’t being annoying and yelling and screaming at us. All in all, a fun little time, I got to meet Dan Coats for the first time, as well as John Costas.

So imagine my surprise when I read this comment from some 17 year old kid in the Post Tribune today complaining that he didn’t get his hand shook: “It’s kind of upsetting. He probably doesn’t think youth matters.” A LOT of people didn’t get their hand shook, buddy. There was a pretty good number of people there, don’t worry about it. If you were really that interested in meeting him, you could have easily just walked up to him and introduced yourself. It’s not like there was security guards all around us (although God have mercy on the man that messes with Ralph Levi, that’s a big guy). It sounds to me like he just wanted to whine about Coats to the press, who is never reluctant to criticize a Republican (not that I’m complaining. It’s a fact that as Republicans we are going to get press coverage that is often less than optimal. It doesn’t happen ALL the time, but it happens enough that it is pretty noticeable, especially with a paper like the Post Tribune, excluding Davich) but maybe I’m wrong. If you really did feel like you got unfairly left out, let me relay my own first experience meeting Dan Coats.

It doesn’t surprise me much when older Republicans give me a second look up and down. I have one arm fully sleeved, the other arm scattered with tattoos, and gauges in my ears. I don’t look like the everyday, golfing, country club Republican. I’ve had it happen, especially with older R’s, and it’s just a fact. I chose to have my body look like this, and I like the way my body looks, but it does deter some people who haven’t always had positive experiences with people with tat’s and piercings. So I usually try and go out of my way to show that not all of us are a-holes. Regardless, with my first meeting of Coats and Costas both, I was happily surprised. Both looked directly at my eyes, and if they gave my arms a second look, I didn’t notice it. I didn’t get the feeling that it mattered to either of them, and neither one hesitated to shake my hand, pat me on my back, and ask me about my son (who was screaming most of the time. Hot weather and babies do not mix.) The same goes for my wife, who has a similar appearance. If the 17 year old really did think that Coats not shaking his hand was a slight, I hope he reads this account and realizes it wasn’t. There were several people on the midway, and just because you got passed up doesn’t mean that Coats or any of the other candidates don’t care about your vote or your voice.

I know on facebook today, regarding that same article, there was some complaints about the term “teabaggers” being used to describe TEA Party members. Some of the people said they were going to ask for an apology from the Post, and great, I hope they do ask, and that one is printed. It’s not the place of the papers writers, excluding op-eds, to allow their personal views to affect the content of the story. But there was a much bigger, full page of bias towards that back that I was surprised nobody else picked up on: Rich James’ piece on Gary Mayor Rudy Clay.

Yes, the piece was critical of Clay and critical of the many “grand plans” (or schemes, as I like to refer to them) of Clay to boost the city of Gary back up to where it used to be. However, I shook my head at the tone and wording of the article itself. “Despite your best intentions, Rudy…” and “The heck of it all, Rudy, is that I know you are passionate about Gary…” and “I don’t like being critical of you, Rudy…”

I have read some glaring pieces from James where he doesn’t mind being critical AT ALL…as long as it’s about conservatives. Yes, it is a rarity that he writes bad about a Dem. at all, and I guess in some small way it’s at least a victory that he wrote the piece in the first place, but STILL. James, if you want to have a reputation as being a tough as nails commentator on political doings and government employees, go right ahead. Hell, I encourage it! It’s needed! But please, let’s show some fairness. I know it’s a commentary piece, and by all rights you should write whatever crosses your mind, but it’s a glaring bias that is unbecoming of you, and I think you are too good of a writer to fall into that kind of political softball.