Sebelius' response

The Kathleen Sebelius response speech seems to be getting lukewarm reviews. She spoke rather slowly, and wasn't very passionate.

There's been buzz in some quarters about Sebelius as a possible VP pick, but I think that the chances of that are about nil: true, she's a popular Democratic governor in a conservative state (my home state, Kansas)--and she'd probably bring in the votes of some Midwesterners, but she lacks other qualities that are pretty necessary for a running-mate: namely, the ability to give exciting speeches.

The Democratic response to the SOTU is always an understated affair, but this is the way she always speaks; not a fluke. In fact, her total lack of fire-in-the-belly is probably what's allowed her to be succesful in Kansas. 

Don't get me wrong, she's a good governor--I like her a lot. She's done a lot of good things for Kansas. But I don't think VP is in her future. She should focus instead on running for Sam Brownback's senate seat, which he'll be vacating in 2010, at the same time that she's term-limited out of the governorship. She's got a good chance to be the first Democratic Senator from Kansas in more than 70 years.

Kansas' Grand Old Politburo

I thought I'd just add a comment on the hilarious news out of the Kansas Republic Politburo, err, Party. A lot of people that would otherwise probably be Democrats have signed on with the Republicans because for a long time the Republicans have been the only show in town; when you're almost sure that the Republicans are going to be the ones dispensing jobs and patronage, it makes sense to be on the winning team, whether or not your beliefs actually line up.

Kathleen Sebelius's election was facilitated by a split between moderates and hard-liners during the Republican primary. Now that Sebelius is one of the most popular governors in the country, and now that she's easily won re-election,  the Republicans aren't looking like the only show in town anymore. 

Obviously the move to shun Republicans who support Democrats is intended to keep people on the reservation, but I think it'll probably backfire and have the opposite effect. More Democrats are being elected at all level--we also kicked out Phill Kline, who used the Kansas AG's office to harass innocent women.

Not only did Nancy Boyda (whose been great so far this Congressional term, by the way) win an encouraging victory, but Todd Tiahrt, the Congressman for the Wichita area, is more vulnerable than he gets credit for.

In the last election, a no-name with no credentials and no campaign ended up with about 35% of the vote. It shouldn't be impossible to get that next 16% with a real candidate, plus an organization on the ground. Places like Wichita are where the 'Fifty State Strategy' can pay off, and of course it did pay off in Topeka/Lawrence in 2006. 

The Topeka Catch-22

This story should probably be Sam's turf, but I can't resist. Apparently the Kansas Republican Party, which is in tremendous electoral pain (not only is Kathleen Sebelius one of the best Democratic governors in the country, but they unexpectedly lost Jim Ryun in the '06 landslide and their moderates are jumping like rats from a sinking ship), has gone Soviet:

The state Republican Party is forming a loyalty committee so that it can punish officers who endorse or contribute to Democrats.

The GOP's conservative-dominated state committee also is accusing a prominent moderate of trying to undermine the party's fundraising. It has adopted a resolution criticizing Steve Cloud, a Lenexa businessman and former legislator who represents Kansas on the Republican National Committee. [...]

"It gives me pause for thought anytime someone requires a loyalty oath of anyone from any organization," said Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh. "I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a group sitting in judgment of other members."

[political scientist Bob] Beatty said forming such a committee could be seen as an attempt to purge moderates from the party -- something Kobach said isn't true.

But Andy Wollen, president of the Kansas Traditional Republican Majority, a moderate group, mused about the GOP creating a "grand high inquisitor."

Now, leaving aside the hilarious image of the Kansas Republican Party having a "grand high inquisitor", there's a lesson here on the position of today's conservative politics. From the left, Kos laughs at how obviously they're shooting themselves in the foot:

I won't pretend to be distressed at the Kansas GOP's abandonment of the moderate center. I think it's fantastic -- their rightward tilt has had an objectively negative impact on their electoral viability (unlike our own efforts to create a strong, proud, and unified Democratic Party).

One word of advice, though -- skip the creepy loyalty oaths and stick to the democratic process -- elections. It makes for much better optics and really, it's the right thing to do.

And then keep ousting your moderates until you deliver to us Democrats your state on a platter.

But over on the right wing, at RedState, diarist MartinAKnights points out quite rightly that having moderates doesn't really seem to help them either:

"Moderate" and/or Rockefeller Republicans (I exclude proper Republicans like Rudy Guiliani and William Weld) may win elections here and there, but at the end of the day, they are basically slow acting poison...

It is extremely rare to find a Rockefeller Republican as either an elected or party official who leaves office with the party in his district or state stronger than when he/she met it. It is far more common to find the exact opposite, e.g. Bob Taft in OH, George Pataki in NY, Christie Whitman in NJ. I have looked for instances where it is proven otherwise but those instances are very few and far between. In fact, in recent times, the immediate after-effect of electing a "moderate" Republican into any public office is an increase in Democratic strength in the area affected.

Witness Kansas - a state which has long had a traditional strong preference to the Republican Party; the state GOP long ago decided to cater to "moderates", in the process essentially violating post-Watergate Reagan's admonition that a party must have certain principles and beliefs that must remain inviolate. Worse is that after having crippled the GOP by basically cutting it free of its philosophical moorings and rendering it without purpose or direction, these "moderates" are switching over to the Democrats i.e. the Kansas Republican Party State Chairman from 1999 to 2003 switched parties (to Democrat) last year.

Let's be honest; how often do "moderate" Republicans have coat-tails? How many actually hand over to another Republican after their terms are over? Usually they hand over to a Democrat (often they do so more gladly than they would have to another Republican) because during their terms they would have conceded so much of the basic premises that define what it means to be a Republican that they basically render the average Republican unelectable for being "extreme." i.e. does anybody honestly believe that any Republican would be able to win a statewide race in CA for a long while after Arnold steps down?

This is one of the reasons why I have become convinced that allowing Republican "moderates" to achieve high positions in the GOP is basically slitting our own throats, trading in short-term gain (if any) for very long-term pain. To be blunt, I personally consider Christie Todd Whitman's (who ironically won her first Governor's race in New Jersey by running as a strong fiscal, law and order conservative) particular off-shoot of Republicanism to be akin to streptococcus on the body of the GOP. It's basically guaranteeing sabotage from within until the Jeffords' moment when they switch.

(Frontpager Erick concurs with a post wonderfully titled "Snakes in the Kansas Grass".) This is all, frankly, true; while of course I despise everything the RedStaters believe, I quite agree that their party (like ours) requires a clear and vigorous message in order to win. It's political common sense.

Problem being, that message sucks. These days, with resentment of Republicans and conservatism at all-time highs, you have to have a hell of a song-and-dance routine in order to make these ridiculous ideas look palatable, and right now that means showing your moderate side. So the Kansas GOP, like its compatriots across the country, is in what I propose to call the Topeka Catch-22: either they stick to their beliefs and look psycho, or they compromise their beliefs and look weak and gutless. Neither of these situations, one might add, is particularly conducive to winning elections.

...This problem is going to break national as the GOP primaries heat up; we're already seeing cries of "Real Conservative!" behind pretty much everyone that isn't Rudy Giuliani, and if the right can coalesce around someone to focus their rage on him, LOOK OUT. For decades, and especially post-Gingrich, this festering rage between far-right fundies and pragmatic Republican "moderates" has been more or less hidden because their coalition worked politically; but apparently it doesn't play in Peoria anymore, and from there it's only a couple steps to outright GOP cannibalism. (Which, considering how conservative the party is anyway, amounts to a snake eating its own tail, but whatever.)

This can only mean good things for Democrats; plus, intellectually it'll be interesting to watch this paradox play out. As they often say in the pages of RedState when our party is infighting: folks, get the popcorn.