I woke up this morning to find that the Republicans had lost control of the House and possibly the Senate. I should care, but, oddly, I do not. I devoted hundreds of hours, and dollars, to do my small part to elect and re-elect George Bush in 2000 and 2004 and help push the G.O.P. agenda, but I could barely muster the enthusiasm to drive three blocks to make my way into the voting both yesterday.

I know the precise moment when my indifference to the G.O.P. crystallized--the date the RINOs prevented the Senate from exercising the "nuclear option" in regard to judicial appointments. For me and many others, that was the key issue in the 2004 election--the one thing they had to get right and were in a position to get right. Yet, oddly, the G.O.Platitudians pushed it aside after one half-hearted attempt.

But my contempt for the G.O.P. has roots deeper than that. Any one remember the Contract with America back in 1994, when the G.O.P swept into power largely on the basis of promises to restore fiscal responsibility? I barely do, and the G.O.Platitudians certainly don't seem to. Fiscal responsibility? The G.O.P. offers bald, empty platitudes on the subject, and then spends our tax dollars like drunken sailors on shore leave. One of the largest entitlements in history, the prescription drug plan, was brought into being on the watch of the G.O.Platitudians--not the Democrats. Indeed, I suspect that if the House and Senate were in Democratic control when that measure was passed, our President might have dusted off the veto pen that has sat unused in his desk drawer. And don't even get me started with "line item veto"--anyone remember that issue? The one what would give the President the power to cripple pork barrel spending? The G.O.Platitudians do not.

Also of concern, there is the matter of the Iraq war. Sadly, after the 2004 election, President Bush and the administration returned to the White House and didn't bother to make any more proactive efforts to explain exactly why our troops continue to be there. I understand that in the first few years we definitely needed a military presence to maintain order, and I strongly supported that. But now four years have passed, and I do not know why we are there. Sure, I know the party platitude--"maintain order" and "stay the course." But I would like to know, and think I am entitled to know, a little more detail than that. Why aren't the Iraqis in a position to patrol and maintain order in their own country? I have no idea--if there is a good reason, I would love to hear it. Why are dozens of young Americans being picked off there every month? What are we doing to rectify that situation? Why is it that we continue to send National Guard and Army Reserve members to Iraq--after four years, can't we train active duty people to do these jobs? I need more than platitudes to stand behind a "stay the course" policy. I place this failure to communicate squarely on President Bush. When President Clinton was in office, it seemed like he was on t.v. every single day saying something I didn't agree with. Where is President Bush? When I do see him, all I hear is the same stumbling platitudes I have heard 100 times before. Starved of meaningful content, I'm not listening anymore, and it seems that the rest of the "middle" isn't either.

I recently heard someone say that the G.O.P. stands for and wins on Gays, Guns and God. I think you can throw in border security, a strong military, national security, judicial reform and fiscal responsibility. The national party has done a pathetic job of pushing these issues to the forefront. The independents out there will follow us on most of these issues--if we offer them.

Where is our leadership? Dennis Hastert has done a pretty lousy job in my humble opinion. He has maintained one of the most powerful positions in the world for years, and how many independents out there would recognize him if they saw him. Newt Gingrich is instantly recognizable. I know his face, I know what he stands for, I know he believes what he is saying. Who is Dennis Hastert? What agenda has he pushed? Speaker Hastert may be a brilliant administrator, but I want a leader in that position who can push the G.O.P. agenda. He has not done that, and as guardian of the purse-strings, he has done a pathetic job. Good riddance. I would rather have that nut job Nancy Pelosi out there, defining our agenda by contrast than have a complete vacuum as existed when Hastert was in control. I would rather have the House completely gridlocked, as it almost certainly will be, than have them burning my tax dollars in the furnace of their self-aggrandizement. And border security? Pathetic.

I might argue that the G.O.P. has been "all hat and no cattle" on most of these core issues. However, I'm not even certain there is a hat. I'm not sure they have defined an agenda well enough to warrant the label hypocrite. Hopefully in the coming months, some form of leadership will emerge in the Senate and House, though who that could possibly be I do not know. McCain (who, based on the results last night) will be our next President, certainly isn't going to push our agenda in any meaningful way. Who knows what alternatives we have in the House. I can name more House members from the late 1990s who were legitimate leaders and captured national attention, than I can name current leaders in the House (or Senate for that matter).

The G.O.Platitududians deserved the spanking they got last night. I seriously wonder if it would have been better if it had been worse. I would rather be aligned with a a consistent, forthright, loyal opposition, than the G.O.Platitudians we have been stuck with for nearly 10 years. If the G.O.Platitudians can't inspire me, arguably a "party hack," what hope do they have of inspring the "middle"?

Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Stumble It!