The Arena - Daily debate about the big issue of the moment

• expand all
• There are closed responses: restore

• 
  

  Erika Lovley Moderator :

  Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) is the latest Republican lawmaker to agree that the wealthy should likely pay a higher tax rate. 

  Corker told “Fox News Sunday” yesterday that Republicans will likely need to side with President Obama’s demand that Bush-era tax cuts be eliminated for those making more than $250,000 per year.

  However, the shift is not gaining as much popularity with Republican House members, who face shorter terms and more backlash from tea party activists.

  Do these Republicans have the right idea by beginning to soften their stance on tax breaks for the wealthy?  Or do they run a serious risk of angering wealthy donors and supporters?

  Permalink
• 
  

  Roger Pilon Vice President for Legal Affairs, Cato Institute :

  The "fiscal cliff" debate going on in Washington today has almost nothing to do with the nation's fiscal problems, which are rooted in too much spending, not too little taxing.

  Thus far, the debate's all politics. Do we need any better evidence than Obama's obsession with taxing the rich, expected to raise all of $1.6 trillion over 10 years (and we know how reliable those long-range static analyses are)? That barely covers the deficit for one year.

  So those few Republicans, mostly in the Senate, who are playing this game deserve to be bitten, not simply by those who'll be hit by the tax but by anyone who recognizes the game for what it is. When Obama and the Democrats, to say nothing of too many Republicans, get serious about reining in federal spending, then maybe they'll be taken seriously. 

  In the meantime, the much over-hyped fiscal cliff looks increasingly attractive. Republicans will take the initial hit. But soon enough it'll be "Obama's economy." That may be the jolt we need. Otherwise, we'll keep borrowing until lenders decide it's too risky to keep lending.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Steve Murphy Democratic consultant; Managing Partner at Murphy Vogel Askew Reilly :

  The solution for Speaker Boehner and the president is obvious - let the Bush tax cuts expire and then implement a deal.  Do not try to force House Republicans to vote for a tax increase when it will occur automatically.  

  Vote on a deal in January, with a middle class tax cut and strong spending cuts while protecting the poor.  Republicans can readily accept that.  

  The ultimate challenge will be the Democrats, who won the election and are not going to let Republicans undercut our commitment to the elderly or the poor.  If the Republicans want real cuts in Medicare it will have to come from more means testing and negotiating prices for Medicare prescription drugs.  

  This is not the real fiscal cliff, this round is more like a fiscal bunny hill.  So Congress will most likely punt on the big stuff, cut about three trillion, and wait for the real fiscal cliff looming when interest rates rise and the debt balloons the deficit like a subprime mortgage.   
  
   

  Permalink
• 
  

  Robert White Assistant professor of Management, Iowa State University :

  There are only a few ways to address the nation's ballooning debt.  These include raising taxes, cutting discretionary spending, and reducing entitlement benefits.  Increasingly, politicians from both sides of the aisle are admitting that all three of these changes may be necessary to right the nation's fiscal ship.

  Tea party activists are known for having an anti-tax bias, but they are not blind to the nation's financial difficulties.  If a credible long-term, bipartisan plan came together that appeared to set the nation on a path to fiscal strength, there would be significant support from rank-and-file members of the tea party.  Similarly, the traditional liberal coalition of unions and ideological progressives are recognizing that current spending cannot increase ad infinitum.

  Let's just hope enough politicians and activists from both ends of the political spectrum come to their senses before a fourth debt reduction alternative becomes unavoidable - Greek-style default.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Soren Dayton Senior Vice President, Prism Public Affairs; Executive Director; Young Republican National Federation :

  Corker would be right if the question were about a total package.

  If Republicans were presented with an offer from the president that genuinely cuts entitlements. But it is important to note that that is not President Obama's plan. His plan is to raise taxes now, while doing nothing about the long-term challenges. The New York Times noted this weekend that the president's demand results in only one quarter of the revenue he says he needs.

  If Republicans had a serious negotiating partner in the White House or Democrats, then the Republicans should put serious options on the table. But there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House is a serious partner, instead focusing their debate on small amounts of revenue that has only political symbolism.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Erika Lovley Moderator :

  A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll finds that Republicans have no clear spokesman or leader for their party. While 47 percent of participants see Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan favorably, Romney has exited party politics, while Ryan has returned to his duties in the House.

  Democrats fared much better in the leadership department. President Barack Obama received favorable ratings by 52 percent of Americans, while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received a 60 percent favorability rating - good news for the potential 2016 candidate.

  Who do you think should step up to be the new face of the Republican Party? With Democrats at a clear advantage, do Republicans have enough time to recover before the 2014 midterm elections?

  Permalink
• 
  

  David Boaz Executive VP, Cato Institute :

  There is no single new face for an out-of-power party. McConnell and Boehner may not be the best faces, but they're going to be part of the mix.

  I expect Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul to be very visible in the next couple of years, along with the governors who are running for president. But until the presidential race heats up, no Republican will rival the president in visibility.

  As long as the Republicans avoid further insulting people, I would expect the still-sluggish economy and the general exhaustion of the Obama agenda to give Republicans a good 2014. Remember how fast people lost their enthusiasm for George W. Bush after his reelection?

  Permalink
• 
  

  Tevi Troy Senior Fellow, the Hudson Institute; Former Deputy HHS secretary :

  In our system, the parties only have a single party leader when they hold the White House or have selected a presidential nominee.  

  This can be a disadvantage at times, but an advantage at others, especially if the opposing party's president is unpopular.  The GOP had no official party leader in the 2010 elections, and the Republicans did just fine. 
  
  
   

  Permalink
• 
  

  Sabrina L. Schaeffer Executive Director, Independent Women's Forum :

  If we learned one thing after last month’s election, it’s that the Republican Party isn’t reaching female voters with its message.

  I’ve never advocated for electing a woman simply because she’s a woman, I oppose gender quotas, and I despise playing gender politics. Still when considering who should be the “face” of the Republican Party, the GOP would be foolish not to take advantage of the slate of strong, talented, fiscally conservative female lawmakers. Women like Rep. McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (NH), and Gov. Susanna Martinez are poised to communicate the message that Liberty is No War on Women.

  Sadly the GOP lost some key female lawmakers in November – namely IWF’s 2012 Woman of Valor, Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) and Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.). This ought to serve as a lesson to the leaders of the Republican Party. It can no longer afford to ignore the remaining female voices that understand and can communicate how progressive policies fail women.

  It’s time to make women the face of the GOP.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Celinda Lake Democratic strategist :

  Jeb Bush, who on some counts could be the most dangerous, has surprisingly high negatives.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Garry South Democratic consultant, The Garry South Group :

  New boss same as the old boss. Rush Limbaugh is still the most prominent voice in the GOP, and unless or until someone demonstrates the cojones to step up and reject or rebuke his intolerant screeds, he will remain the quintessential messenger of Republican doctrine to many Americans.

  Remember how the GOP presidential candidates - Romney among them - turned verbal somersaults to avoid directly taking on Limbaugh when he called Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute"?

  Permalink
• 
  

  Richard Albert Professor of Law, Boston College :

  The biggest mistake the GOP can make is to rebrand itself hastily with a new face.

  What the GOP needs most right now is a variety of spokespersons, both women and men representing the Republican Party's traditional circles as well as its emerging constituencies. Eventually, the GOP will pick a new leader and consolidate behind her or his vision for the country. But that time is not now. Today is the time for a multiplicity of competing voices.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Jamie Chandler Political scientist at Hunter College :

  The new face of the Republican Party must be a centrist.

  Centrism is the best way to go because that’s the sweet spot of the electorate. Chris Christie or Marco Rubio best fill this requirement.  Rick Santorum and Paul Ryan, as skilled as they are politically, wouldn’t take the party where it needs to go in the next couple years. Santorum, as skilled as he is politically and consistent in his beliefs, he’s too controversial - his social views are out of touch with a 21st century society. Ryan, as bright and talented as he is, is still green. He needs some more seasoning. 

  Conservatives must be patient. The GOP doesn't a de facto in the next 24 hours. It's only been a couple weeks since the election, and we have four years until President Obama's term ends. The top priorities for the "Big Tent" now are to put the "Fiscal Cliff" problem to bed, and reorganize the party to appeal to broad national interests.

  One thing the party must not do is move further to the right. Some believe that the next presidential candidate should be ideologically pure, not a RINO (Republican in name only).  Mitt Romney's campaign failed not because he was a moderate, but because he didn't run a successful campaign. He put too much emphasis on fundraising and too little on building a strong get-out-the-vote infrastructure. He didn’t have a consistent narrative. He tried to please whatever audience he was speaking to at any given time.

  Whoever the next Republican leader, that person must understand that a majority of voters are middle of the road.  Most are probably fiscally conservative, and socially-moderate, and they want bipartisanship. If elephants can find someone like that, they'll be in a great position to win the White House in 2016.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Matt Mackowiak President, Potomac Strategies Group :

  When a political party does not have the White House, they often have no clear leader.  This is true for Republicans now, just as it was for Democrats in 2005.

  For the next two years, the party will benefit from the talent of specific leaders in their own areas (McConnell and Boehner on the Hill, Priebus at the RNC, governors in their states, etc).

  Even on specific issues, different leaders will step up.  Paul Ryan will be a key figure in next year's budget and the effort to pass tax reform.  Marco Rubio is expected to introduce immigration reform legislation next year.

  Until the presidential campaigns begin in 2015, many individuals will, at times, lead Republicans.  The exciting thing is that after our party has lost two national elections with nominees who did not excite the base, we have a bench of candidates that is the strongest in my living memory.  Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Mitch Daniels, the list goes on.  Rick Santorum and Rick Perry could run again and be formidable.

  What is important now for the Republican Party is not anointing a leader, but addressing immigration, continuing to fight to limit government and grow the economy, and rebuilding the party's infrastructure so that we can be more competitive in our field program and with data.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Ross Baker Political scientist, Rutgers University :

  I think that Grover Norquist should come out of the shadows and assume his rightful place as head of the GOP.

  He has vastly more influence than Reince Preibus, has more experience than Marco Rubio, is more beloved by the tea party than Jeb Bush, and his Harvard education places him far above those educated in lesser schools such as Paul Ryan.

  Besides, he has been the power behind the throne for so long, he might as well claim the throne for himself.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Scott Paterno Republican strategist :

  In the first part, the idea that the Democrats have a "clear advantage" is somewhat silly - in 2008-09 we heard much the same thing.  Furthermore, the GOP enjoys a majority of state houses, governorships, and are a majority party at every level of elected government except the White House and the Senate.   So this notion that the GOP is on life support would be a great narrative except for facts on the ground.

  That said, it is a critical time.  Much like 1996, the GOP is a powerful force with control of the house but lacks a unifying national voice.  It is important that GOP emerge from the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling negotiations with leverage but also a clear agenda for the middle class - one that can (and almost must) include some increases in revenues.  The need for a clear message and agenda almost trump the need for a specific face, except that a unifying voice to convey that message would be extremely desirable and make delivering that message much more effective.

  Even under the worst of conditions, there is no question that the GOP will have time to recover and - in fact - are very likely to make considerable gains in both the House and the Senate.  Structurally the last redistricting favors the GOP in the House and the Senate has far more vulnerable Democrats than Republicans.  Throw in the fact that there is no obvious signs that any new Obama policy may energize the economy beyond its current anemic growth and the ground in 2014 looks particularly fertile in 2014 for Elephants everywhere - except California and Vermont, of course.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Mark Hannah Former campaign aide for John Kerry and Barack Obama; Adjunct professor of media studies, The New School :

  The Republican Party is in the midst of an identity crisis.  

  The GOP isn't just in search of a leader, but it's also in search of a coherent vision and mission that will unite the disparate wings of the party... which a leader will need to embody. The previous vision and mission (i.e., to "deny the president a second term") was not just narrow-minded but, as we saw in last month's election, unpopular. 

  The libertarian and tea party wings of the party have nearly nothing in common - the former is socially liberal and economically laissez-faire while the latter is socially conservative and economically populist.  And they're geographically distributed as well - the former being largely urban and white-collar and the former being largely rural and working class.  

  If the Republican Party hopes to have national appeal once more, it will need to find a platform that is compelling to these diverse political perspectives.

  .

  Permalink
• 
  

  Ken Feltman Past president; International Association of Political Consultants :

  Republicans have no clear national leader and may not for some time. The problem is numbers and attitudes.

  The conservative elements of the Republican Party, especially social conservatives, do not have the numbers to claim party-wide leadership. In fact, their numbers are dwindling. Some tea partiers, although certainly not all, do not work well with others and tend to alienate the regulars. For their part, the regulars resent the brash, rigid, energetic, sometimes needlessly secretive newcomers. This is a formula for disaster.

  Meantime, and increasingly left outside the tent, the moderates and remnants of the old Northeast-Midwest based GOP are aging and finally vanishing from the Republican Party. The moderates feel out of place in a party that has so many factions seeking converts, not compromise and governing coalitions. This sort of group funk has occurred in the Republican Party before. It has happened within the Democratic Party, too. Rarely does a party go the way of the Whigs, who could not adjust to the growing abolitionist movement.

  Somewhere, the beginnings of a new party that will draw more heavily from the center may be stirring. Or perhaps a new, more inclusive Republican leader is set to emerge. Whatever comes will challenge the Democrats, who have drawn ever leftward as the Republicans have headed to the right. A successful political future will include more voters from the middle, which is the only way to get to 50 percent plus one. That middle happens to be where many women and immigrants find themselves today.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Lara Brown Political scientist, Villanova University :

  Although the Republicans do not currently have a singular spokesperson for the party, they have a wealth of statewide elected officials who could grow in importance over the next few years and don a national leadership mantle.

  Thanks in large measure to the GOP's success in both the 2009 and 2010 electoral cycles, Republicans possess the majority of governships. From Chris Christie in New Jersey and Nikki Haley in South Carolina to Susana Martinez in New Mexico, Mary Fallon in Oklahoma, and Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Republican executives represent widely varying constituencies and have faced several unique governing challenges.
  
  Beyond this, there are a number of younger Republican senators - from Marco Rubio to Kelly Ayotte to Rand Paul to Ted Cruz - who are looking to foster a national profile and take on some of the responsibilities of party leadership. Further, were Haley to appoint Rep. Tim Scott to DeMint's Senate seat, he would surely also contribute to his party's national rebuilding efforts.
  
  Overall, Democrats would be foolish to count out the Republicans' strong bench of rising party stars. This is especially true heading into a midterm cycle that will mark the incumbent president's sixth year in office (a traditionally difficult one for presidents, see for example: 1938). In national politics, so long as you're involved with one of the two major parties, you're rarely ever all that far from the spotlight.

  The Republicans may well have some heavy lifting to do in order to catch up to the Democrats, but right now, time is on the GOP's side.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Donna Robinson Divine Professor of government, Smith College :

  The Republicans seem to be sorting out not only their leadership preferences but also the kinds of policies they should be advancing.  

  That is good for the party and may be positive for the country if the result is a set of ideas that can improve America's economy and put its institutions on a firmer footing enabling them to manage the kinds of challenges this century will present.  I am not certain that the party needs to complete this process before the congressional elections in 2014.  

  The party may run successfully at the local level without having to anoint or name its new national leaders.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Bradley A. Smith Professor, election law and campaign finance :

  In December 2008, Democrats had a clear advantage, only to be shellacked in 2010. In December 2010, Republicans fully expected to take the Senate and the White House in 2012. It's pretty early to be predicting doom for Republicans in 2014.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Mike Fraioli President, Fraioli & Associates, Democratic strategist :

  By virtue of his position as key “fiscal cliff” negotiator with President Obama, the face of the Republican Party is Speaker John Boehner.  All would be future leaders will have to address whether they support the deal which Boehner ultimately strikes. 

  Since he will be in all the difficult negotiations for the next two years, Boehner will maintain this position until after the 2014 elections.

  Others will just be expressing their opinions - and there will be many.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Ron Faucheux President of Clarus Research Group, professor and author :

  Political parties without an incumbent president always have a spokesperson problem.

  For starters, the congressional leadership will serve as de facto spokespersons simply because they are at the center of action and the media will cover them. In addition, Republicans need to build a team of practical, sensible governors and former governors to make their case.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Dewey Clayton Professor of Political Science, University of Louisville :

  Here is a newsflash that became glaringly obvious after the 2012 election: The changing face of American democracy is the most important demographic trend in the United States. 

  With the huge growth of the Hispanic and Asian populations in this country, many demographers now predict that this no one race will comprise a majority by 2050.  The face of the Republican Party has been a white male for far too long.  I think Republicans would be smart to put a new face on their party that reflects the changing diversity in this country. 

  For starters, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) would be an excellent choice.  If Republicans do not improve their electoral prospects with Hispanic voters, they are relegating themselves to minority status in this country for quite some time.  Gov. Nikki Haley (R-S.C.) is another bright, smart, face that Republicans should embrace.  Not only is she a rising star in the Republican Party, but she is a female. 

  Gov. Bobby Jindal (D-L.A.), represents the new face of the Republican Party.  In my opinion, the Republicans need to choose someone other than conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh to be the new face of the GOP.  A smart approach would be several new faces of different races, both  male and female.

  Permalink
• 
  

  Joshua A. Tucker Professor of Politics, NYU and blogger at “The Monkey Cage” :

  Two years is an eternity in U.S. politics.  What did polls say in December 2008?  I doubt anyone would have predicted a Republican landslide in 2010 at that point in time.

  That being said, the Republicans face serious long term structural (weak with minorities, youth, and women) and strategic (how to match Democratic prowess at getting voters to the polls) that will likely plague the party until they are addressed.  Off-year congressional elections tend to favor the party out of power and deliver a more Republican looking electorate (whiter, older), but the big picture question for 2014 is going to be how these two opposing dynamics interact, and which one ends up being more relevant. 

  Permalink
• 
  

  Clyde Prestowitz Founder and president, Economic Strategy Institute :

  The Republican Party needs to reinvent itself.

  Somewhere there is an as yet unknown leader who will rise from the present turmoil within the party and guide it into new and more relevant paths. That person is not yet visible.

  Permalink

Comments

• Continue reading »

Recent Arenas

• Will the wealthy bite back at the GOP?
• Open Mike, Dec. 8-9
• Is a $1 billion election too expensive?
• Fox News wise to sideline Rove?
• Who will fold first on the fiscal cliff?
• Could Ashley Judd beat Mitch McConnell?
• A looming tea party backlash?
• GOP immigration reform just a knee-jerk reaction?
• A Romney-Obama friendship?
• Does Susan Rice not deserve 'secretary of state'?

Arena Referees

• Erika Lovley
• Vivyan Tran
• Alexander Trowbridge
• Andrea Drusch

Arena Players

More POLITICO Arena

• Grab this feed
• Become a fan
• Follow on Twitter

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.

Frequently Asked Questions

POLITICO

• RSS / Widgets
• E-mail Alerts
• Video
• Site Map
• POLITICO 44

• POLITICO Home
• About Us
• Subscription Information
• Advertising Information
• Privacy Policy
• Employment
• Terms of Service

© 2012 POLITICO LLC Please read our Privacy Policy. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Service.

Back to top