House and Senate Republicans should back away from the bloated, pork filled spending bill that Democrats are masking as a stimulus. New computers for State Department bureaucrats? Food stamps? $335 million to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (someone please tell me how preventing the clap is going to revive the economy)?

The New York Times, likely in jubilation, reveals exactly what many opponents have been arguing (and fearing) for a long time in a front page headline today: "Stimulus Plan Offers Road to Retooling Social Policy." With expanded entitlements and experiments in socialized medicine -- don't forget the family planning money that was recently stripped -- the bill is the largest, liberal spending boon this nation has ever seen.

The key to a successful stimulus is one that puts money directly into the hands of the people, not borderline bankrupt states and the bureaucrats who run them to pay off debt. Besides creating a lobbyist feeding frenzy, the bill does little to create long term jobs. It might create short term work, but that is what we saw with the New Deal, and that is why it failed. While new roads are nice, you can't rebuild a road five times.

While it's true the bill doesn't contain earmarks -- as Obama likes to boast -- the money gets directly funneled to the states and the bureaucrats decide how to best spend it (with the help of overzealous and overpaid lobbyists). This makes it extremely challenging for the American people to maintain oversight, something we desperately need. The Democrats have perpetrated a fraud: there is nothing that remotely resembles change in this excessive, leftist boondoggle. As the Wall Street Journal said today: "only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus" and that it appears to be comprised of "every pent up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."

Almost as troubling as the contents of the package and how it will be spent is the speed at which the left is attempting to jam it down the throats of the American people. "It's urgent," they howl. What's urgent is the need for Democrats to ram this thing through so Republicans have little time to publicly oppose it. Whenever the opposition starts obstructing, the media gets involved and constituents begin to pay attention, giving the opposition -- and their arguments -- traction. The bill was written in the House under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, with zero Republican input.

I caution Republicans: do not fall for Obama's eleventh hour plea to get on board. You might appreciate his overtures to you but his motives are transparent. To Obama, GOP support is only ideal so Democrats aren't solely to blame when voters see that almost $1 trillion of their taxpayer money was used to lavishly reward our new president's supporters and advance a radical agenda instead of helping struggling businesses and families.

The crux of our problem is a credit crisis. This bill does absolutely nothing to fix that. And though what's about to happen on Capitol Hill is frightening, it presents an opportunity for the GOP. We were thrown out of the White House because we acted like Democrats. It's time to stand up, stand strong and return to our principles of low taxes for everyone, private sector growth, and long term job creation through incentives that aren't handouts for a select few. There is no better time than now.

Andrea Tantaros is a conservative commentator and Fox News.com contributor. Her commentary can be found at www.andreatantaros.com and www.FoxNews.com/opinion.

07:59 PM | Permalink

With this Friday's RNC Chair election fast approaching, the divide between what committee members are looking for has come down to the two buzzwords of competency versus change. The race has been seen as a virtual tie among two or three candidates all along because no candidate has convincingly proved himself a man of both attributes. The current Pledged Vote race according to Your RNC stands at Duncan: 36, Dawson: 19, Steele: 18, Anuzis: 16, Blackwell: 13, Saltsman: 0.

Atop the competency column lies incumbent Mike Duncan whom every committee member supporting him says is the best fundraiser, organizer, and leader of what one committee chairman argued is basically a $300 million corporation to be run for the next two years. While change was what everyone originally looked for, he said, it is now competency. As one committee member stated, "Most members of the committee went in after the previous election wanting change, wanting a chairman of Romney, Gingrich, Jeb Bush. But as we got farther away from the two election cycles people realized that Superman's not running and the most important quality is competence to run the rebuilding of the party, raise money, and spend it wisely." Duncan needs competency to rule the day on Friday.

Close behind Duncan in reputation for competency is Katon Dawson who frequently speaks of his long time involvement in the RNC and his success in turning around the Republican South Carolina Party. National Committee Chairwoman Demetra DeMonte, who has endorsed Dawson, told RCP yesterday that Katon "is a nuts and bolts guy. He knows the importance of organization, he's great at raising money and getting Republicans elected." Dawson knows that Duncan is the establishment, experienced pick and thus has also tried very hard to attain the 'change' label as well - citing his ability to grow the party's grassroots infrastructure. Dawson seems to have impressed many in one-on-one conversations with committee members, showcasing his very likable, gracious personality. Yet to no fault of his own, Dawson is exactly what some members seeking change are not looking for: a white southerner - especially one who's only national exposure had been news about his previous membership in an all white country club. An attack piece was distributed this week picturing what USA Today's headline would be if Dawson were to win.

Atop the Change column is Michael Steele. He has continued to impress Committee members with communication skills many had witnessed during his frequent appearances on Fox News. National Committeeman Pat Brady told RCP he endorsed Steele "because it's very important that the Republican Party have the best possible messenger, and that person is Steele". Not many outside of the race would disagree with that, the question is whether Steele's previous endorsements of moderates in the party and questionable fundraising skills will significantly hurt him. While Steele has not framed his campaign around his race, he does have the notable advantage of being an African American in a party desperately needing to bring in minority voters in future elections. His election to RNC Chair would be the surest 'Change' message the RNC could send to voters.

As mentioned in our previous update, Saul Anuzis of Michigan, Duncan, and Dawson have an important advantage in being RNC committee members themselves because members often like to pick one of their own. One potential variable is whether a thirst for change will cause an opposite effect this time around.

The importance of this election should not be overlooked. The RNC Chair will control the party's agenda for the next two years and unlike the previous eight, there will be no one above him in the party's ranks. The election held Friday will be determined by the vote of 168 RNC committee members. A majority of the voters, 85, is needed to win on the first ballot. Rumors circulated earlier this week that Steele and Duncan had made a deal in which Duncan would throw his support to Steele if he does not win on the first ballot, something many believe is crucial to his chances. Steele categorically denied the rumor, saying he declined the request out of hand.

Depending on who you talk to, the top tier candidates vary from Duncan and Dawson, Duncan and Steele, or all three with some even throwing Anuzis in third place. Ken Blackwell looks to be behind all three and Chip Saltsman is considered all but finished. This election looks to be a nail biter.

Greg Bobrinskoy is an associate editor at RealClearPolitics.

07:00 PM | Permalink

As I watched President Bush say his final farewell to the nation last night, my emotions were mixed. Though I admired the humility of his speech, I was left to wonder where that President Bush, and that tone, had been hiding for the last eight years. Puzzlingly, there was no real acknowledgement of our economic calamity, or at minimum a reassurance that the situation was top of mind, and that he and President-elect Obama were working together to ensure a seamless switch. Many of the points he did hit were noteworthy and noble, but he wouldn't have had to argue his case if his communications team had been articulating it all along. Disappointingly, I saw a man desperately trying to promote his Presidency in the eleventh hour.

While he still remains a somewhat popular figure in the Republican Party, Bush has angered many in the GOP, including me. That is not to say I don't respect my President. I do. But Bush and I have something in common: we both are always going to tell you exactly what we think - politically correct or not - no matter whom we piss off.

President Bush will largely be known for two things: the decision to invade Iraq and for presiding over the largest and most dramatic expansion of government this country has ever seen, which is a long term threat to liberty. While his compassionate conservatism produced positive results like an unprecedented level of funding to combat AIDS in Africa, it also bought into the notion that it is the federal government's job to provide material success to people - a terrible premise to operate from.

On foreign policy, he rightly supported Israel and refused to back down to radical Islamic Jihadists. His tough-talkin', cavalier character put the fundamentalists who seek to destroy us on notice, but his second inaugural was an ideological orgy of democracy promotion. As a conservative, I do not want the United States to be a crusader for democracy. That is Napoleonic.

Domestically, Bush created a massive fault line in the Republican Party with his proposal for easy immigration. He saw successes with Medicare Part D and CAFTA, but the back story to each was filled with late night votes and congressional cloakroom arm twisting. By the time Hurricane Katrina had rolled around it seemed as though he given up. He politicized his decision making by having Rove in all his policy meetings, and he put allegiance above ability when it came to selecting a staff whose modus operandi was insular, bullish, close-minded and off putting. Sadly, this has left the Republican Party badly bruised, divided and disoriented.

While he deserves enormous credit for keeping this country safe, his most overlooked achievements were his admirable positions on the judiciary and the social issues. He genuinely struggled to formulate an ethical position on stem cells. He picked outstanding justices, and that is his biggest, most untold legacy. He also picked a wife that could arguably be the most gracious and respected First Lady in United States' history. Moreover, as a person, he is a man of class and grace, a role model as a father and a man with a genuine conscience. It is hard not to admire him for that reason.

When it comes to his legacy, President Bush deserves more credit than he will get, especially when it comes to the mainstream media. In order for Obama to be a success, they must paint Bush as a failure. However, no president is perfect. Bush's biggest downfall was not that his intentions were malevolent, it was that he forgot how to communicate with the American people. The last week of one's presidency is a terrible time to remember.

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican political commentator and Fox News.com contributor. Her commentary can be found at www.andreatantaros.com and www.FoxNews.com/opinion.

06:01 PM | Permalink

With the vote for RNC chair set for January 31, the six candidates in the race are working overtime to win votes from the 168 committee members. For background on the race, read here.

CNN reported this morning that Michael Steele will release a memo today announcing the names of a dozen RNC members who have pledged to vote for him. Yesterday National Committeeman Ron Kaufman, who has pledged to vote for incumbent Mike Duncan, spoke with RCP about the state of the race, saying it now stands as a four way tie between Duncan, Steele, Katon Dawson, and Saul Anuzis.

The 3 committee chairmen running (Duncan, Dawson, and Anuzis) carry a notable advantage, he said, due to Committee members wanting to pick one of their own rather than an outsider. Kaufman compared the scenario to the House of Representatives picking a non-Congressman as Speaker of the House. While most were originally looking for change in the new RNC Chair, Kaufman said competence is the quality voters are now looking for.

Katon Dawson spoke to RCP earlier today, saying his status as the fourth longest serving state chairman is a crucial factor in the race, as is his record of turning around the South Carolina state party. Dawson stressed the importance of "having a unique understanding of the job, as everything you do besides being spokesman of the party is the tactical part of running an organization."

As our previous update detailed, Michael Steele had an impressive debate performance last week demonstrating his strong communication skills. Mike Duncan seems to have the greatest advantage in networking within the committee. Anuzis has been running the most hard working, tech savvy campaign. And Katon Dawson has impressed many as a likeable and competent manager. The bottom line: this race remains wide open.

02:34 PM | Permalink

President-elect Barack Obama is prepping to jam another massive stimulus plan down our throats. Lately, the president-elect has been hitting the media circuit to sell this monstrosity and each time he launches into his pitch he proves that what he lacks in actual specifics he makes up for in vocabulary. But is this bloated bill just a ruse for another big, federally funded bailout for struggling states?

According to Obama, his road and sewer stimulus package would pump billions into things like "infrastructure" and "green jobs." Wait a minute: nobody is saying that the failure to spend over $700 billion on roads and sewers created this mess, and no one saying that new sewers will get us out of it. Obama has insisted that we must invest in what works. How do we know green jobs will work and provide a return? We don't. And it's quite a pricey experiment to find out.

What's most troubling is the notion that more taxpayer money is heading right for states that are in the red. Just a few weeks ago, governors and mayors made their way to Washington, DC to hound Obama for a handout. Now mayors across America have submitted over 11,000 proposals for some bailout cash including one to fund a mob museum in Vegas. Talk about a real gamble in Sin City. Is Tony "The Ant" Spilotro really our best bet?

Take New York for example, a state that's in financial ruin. The Empire State is facing a $15 billion budget deficit. Why would we encourage a state that spent itself into disaster to spend more? There are workers already repairing sewers and roads around the Big Apple and America. Will Obama give money that will be spent on existing jobs or hire thousands of new sewer workers?

According to Obama, "only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy...where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit." What our future president doesn't understand is that the vicious cycles were caused by the government through the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the refusal to regulate, in part because there was a belief that a regulation would prevent the prosperity associated with owning a home. How do we expect government to be part of the solution? According to CNBC we have allocated 7 trillion to fix our economic crisis and there is $300 billion currently left in TARP. Is that not enough?

Obama is refusing to ask the same question that homeowners didn't answer when the mortgage mess was going on: Can we afford to borrow this money? At some point we are mortgaging our national security by letting developing countries buy our debt. The more we spend the less we have to spend on our national defense. What if China develops distaste for buying our debt? Maybe refusing to borrow more money might be the best thing for us. Sort of like the way parents cut off a frivolous child's allowance.

On the campaign trail Obama campaigned for balanced budgets. This might be his first broken promise. While we wait to hear answers about what this massive deficit spending will do to our currency, to inflation and to our national security even Obama admits that his recovery plan alone will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis.

But for a trillion dollars, it better.

Andrea Tantaros is a Republican political commentator and Fox News columnist. Her commentary can be found at www.andreatantaros.com.

06:48 PM | Permalink

The six candidates running for chairman of the Republican National Committee were in Washington Monday at a debate sponsored by the Americans for Tax Reform. Attendees included state chairs Katon Dawson of South Carolina and Saul Anuzis of Michigan; former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell; former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele; Chip Saltsman, the former campaign manager for Mike Huckabee; and incumbent RNC Chairman Mike Duncan. Each is trying to win a plurality of votes among the 168 RNC members who will gather in the nation's capital at the end of the month. Other than a question about how many guns each candidate owns, the discussion centered almost exclusively on fiscal policy and the future of the party. Each candidate emphasized the party's need to close the technology gap with Democrats and to expand the party's appeal to minority groups.

Here is a rundown of each candidate, including their background, debate performance and an analysis of their place in the race:

Katon Dawson

Background: Chair of the South Carolina Republican Party. Dawson hasn't been helped by the fact that the biggest news surrounding his candidacy has been his former membership and recent resignation from an all-white country club in Columbia, S.C.

Debate: Dawson argued that South Carolina's state party was in disarray in 2002 until he stepped in and led the party's financial and electoral turnaround with Mark Sanford elected governor, two Republicans sent to the U.S. Senate, and 8 of 9 state-wide offices won. "Winning is possible", he concluded. Yet, as Ken Blackwell joked on stage, South Carolina is hardly a battleground state.

Analysis: Dawson seemed lost in the shuffle as he failed to convey an adequate set of credentials or aura of change (Southern white guy) that the Republican Party may be looking for.

Saul Anuzis

Background: Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party. Anuzis has done as much if not more than any candidate to create name recognition for his candicacy among Republicans and those in the media. His blog, That's Saul, Folks, has given him a tech-savvy rep and essentially put him on the map.

Debate: Anuzis painted himself as the Tim Pawlenty-like blue collar Republican best able to attract 'Reagan Democrats' back to the party. He cited his background as Lithuanian, having not learned English until he was seven, and a resident of suburban Michigan where his working class neighbors are leaving the party in droves. Referencing his previous membership in the Teamsters and as a Republican in a blue state, Anuzis did his best to come across as the strongest fighter among the bunch.

Analysis: Anuzis displayed a strong grasp of specific policy issues as a former backer of Jack Kemp and knowledge of the technical party politics ranging from the local to state level. He has obviously spent significant time working in the nuts and bolts of the party and his hard effort to become noticed among better known candidates may make him the dark horse of the race.

Ken Blackwell

Background: Former Secretary of State of Ohio and the first African American candidate to run for the state's governorship from a major party. He is Vice Chairman of the RNC Platform Committee and is regarded as a strong social conservative. Blackwell gained stature among Republican activists for his role in helping President Bush's 2004 re-election in Ohio and leading the move that banned same sex marriages in the state. Blackwell was a late entry into the field and recently released a list of supporters for his chairmanship which included Steve Forbes and James Dobson.

Debate: Blackwell referred to his candidacy as a "shareholders revolt". He spoke of the need to reinvigorate the conservative base, of which he has many supporters. He cited his experience of over 30 years as a party activist and officeholder, stating "I know how to win elections." Blackwell was not referring to his 2006 bid for Governor of Ohio in which he lost to Democrat Ted Strickland by a margin of 24 percent.

Analysis: Heading into the debate, Blackwell was definitely considered to be a top contender for the RNC position. Yet depending upon the importance of the debate in the minds of voting members (which no one knows), Blackwell's performance was far from spectacular. His playful comments added spark to a sometimes monotonous debate but he seemed overshadowed by Steele's greater ability to connect with the audience.

Michael Steele

Background: GOPAC chairman, and former lieutenant governor and state party chairman of Maryland. Steele is the most recognizable of the six contenders because of his frequent appearances on Fox News and the rare position of being a prominent African American in the Republican Party. Steele has been criticized by some conservatives as too moderate, with his involvement with the Republican Leadership Council, an organization of Republican moderates, as the greatest example (though Steele has said that he no longer is part of the organization because of its involvement in GOP primaries). Steele has also received criticism for his willingness to support moderate candidates in the party such as Wayne Gilchrest, a former Maryland congressman defeated in a 2008 primary. Yet despite the questioning by some of his conservative credentials, it has never seemed to hurt him politically. He was able to win Republicans' support during his 2006 run for the Senate, which he lost; and despite his association with moderate to liberal Republicans like Christine Todd Whitman and John Danforth, he is personally in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and is against government funding for stem-cell research.

Debate: Steele said he sees the state of the Republican Party with a "glass half-full" attitude despite what he referred to as two consecutive "devastating" losses. He had no problem criticizing the Bush administration for its shortcomings, such as "a failure to communicate, Katrina, the bailout." At numerous times during the debate he emphasized the lack of influence the RNC chair has in creating significant change in the party, from attracting minorities to reorganizing its local infrastructure. Steele was easily the best communicator of the debate, speaking lively and clearly about his intentions for the party. Yet what was most notable was his organizational advantage, as "Steele" posters lined the balconies while many attendees wore "Steele" name labels or carried signs across the room.

Analysis: Steele gave the best performance of the debate, though how much that will influence RNC voters is unknown. He is the most charismatic and telegenic of the six running. Questions remain about whether his past support for a more moderate party or relatively weak fundraising record will hurt him. If the debate and chatter are any measure, Steele appears to have the edge in this race.

Chip Saltsman

Background: Chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party from 1999 to 2001 and manager of Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign. Saltsman created the biggest news surrounding his candidacy when he sent out a collection of songs to members of the RNC, one of which was titled "Barack the Magic Negro." Newt Gingrich and Mike Duncan criticized Saltsman for the move while Blackwell stood in his defense saying it showed the "hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race."

Debate: Saltsman talked extensively about his work fighting tax hikes in the state of Tennessee. He said his motive to run for the position is not about the party but about the country, so that more voices can be heard. Citing statistics showing that young Americans describe themselves as entrepreneurs wanting to run a business, he described his vision for a party platform of an "opportunity society" that could bring back the youth vote that Democrats have dominated in recent elections.

Analysis: While his experience in Tennessee politics and managing Mike Huckabee's campaign were clearly impressive he, like Dawson, failed to stand out enough to be seen as a top tier contender.

Mike Duncan

Background: The incumbent, Mike Duncan was elected to replace former RNC chair Ken Mehlman in 2007. Duncan was dubbed the 'Invisible Chairman' by California RNC Committeeman Shawn Steel in a December Politico article, in which Steel said Duncan was "installed in January 2007 by Karl Rove to be unobtrusive -- a mission he has carried out brilliantly. Many, if not most, Republican leaders and activists don't know who he is." There is some truth to Steel's criticism: During the 2008 election, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, consistently appeared on major television networks and cable news shows defending Democratic candidates and attacking Republicans. Duncan hardly ever presented his views through the media. Duncan's advantage, however, was the prowess he showed in fundraising which allowed the RNC to significantly fund John McCain's campaign, allowing it to run almost neck and neck with Obama's fundraising machine until the last two months of the campaign. Duncan is also disliked by many in the conservative blogosphere and grassroots. Some have claimed he deserves credit for wins in the two runoff elections in Georgia and Louisiana, but as the incumbent he also bears the burden of Republicans' many crushing defeats.

Debate: Duncan noted the RNC's strong fundraising in the 2008 election, which enabled McCain to stay close to Obama and helped Republican congressional candidates across the country. Duncan also tried to characterize himself as an agent of change, a difficult theme for an incumbent to sell, especially one seemingly without strong communicative skills.

Analysis: Duncan proved himself to be the opposite choice to Steele. As a white Southerner lacking the ability to strongly convey his views to Americans through the media, Duncan's strengths lie in organization, experience, and fundraising skills.

Talk after the debate seemed to suggest that the race was a Blackwell-Steele contest. Yet this came mostly from party activists and media types, not necessarily those who will vote. Duncan's advantage with networking RNC members should not be overlooked. As of now, it seems an open race between Blackwell, Steele, and Duncan, with the vote set to take place Jan. 31 at the RNC winter meeting.

Greg Bobrinskoy is an Associate Editor at RealClearPolitics.

03:28 PM | Permalink