So much of politics is simple delivery.  President Obama’s popularity is a testament to this principle.  The Republicans, without a doubt, have a powerful fiscal message that can potentially resonate with a majority of Americans, including many who voted for President Obama.  But, as of now, this message is muffled by the usual partisan rhetoric that turns more people away than it captivates.

For me, the crux of the Republican problem is evinced by a single thing: the most convincing arguments that I’ve heard about the merits of fiscal conservativism/libertarianism have come from personal, right-leaning acquaintances, and not from Republican leaders.  While having ordinary Americans convince one another is certainly a hallmark of democracy and free speech, a major political party cannot afford to rely on this alone.

Instead of sound-bite accusations of spending the country into bankruptcy, why not thoughtfully explain why debt spending does not work?  Why not explain to Americans how this is problematic even if it in fact saves their jobs?  Why not teach the country how fiscal conservativism by the federal government affects the lives of ordinary Americans?

The Republicans seem to have an argument that they’re simply not making.  But the longer they go without making it, the less I believe it actually exists.

Officials who work on the Guantánamo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies.

The Obama administration will certainly strive to provide more legal protections than the commissions did under the Bush administration.  But, to me, the point is clear.  There are certain talking points that resonate with people when a candidate is in opposition.  A candidate prevails by identifying a common thread in a large portion of the populace and tapping into it to win votes.  But when the candidate becomes the President and the  repercussions of policy choice fall squarely on the new administration, things take on a new context.

President Obama criticized the use of military commissions as a candidate and made the prosecution of suspected terrorists in either civilian courts or courts-martial part of his platform.  Now, with the challenge on his shoulders, the President is beginning to see the utility in the policies he previously criticized.  As one official put it: “The more they look at it, the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on January 20th.”

This is in no way meant to pick on the Obama administration.  I would much rather the President change his position for the better than stick to a problematic policy.  But it’s interesting to notice how the idealism of a campaign morphs into the pragmatism of a presidency.

In 1965, the Democrats had a 68-32 advantage in the Senate and LBJ as president. Within four years, Nixon was president.

In 1977, the Democrats had a 61-39 advantage in the Senate and Carter as president. Within four years, Reagan was president.

Question: Is today like 1965 and 1977, and conditions exist for another GOP comeback? Or are things different? (And if so, how and why? Luck? Bad governing? Dynamic candidate?)

My thoughts on this question: Barack Obama seems like a more dynamic candidate than either LBJ or JC.  But I don’t think that will be enough to save him and the democrats if his policies aren’t perceived as successful.  There is a fundamental ideological divide in this country that the stimulus bill has exacerbated.  If, three years from now, history shows that the stimulus was full of airports to nowhere, he might lose some key support.  To this end, Obama’s “stimulus cop,” Vice President Joe Biden, was quoted on the phone with a stimulus recipient on Sunday’s episode of 60 Minutes as saying, “But don’t come back and tell me you built a swimming pool because it doesn’t pass the smell test.”  Hopefully Joe’s tough talk works.  And hopefully the Biden “smell test” isn’t the only weapon in the administration’s arsenal.

But what’s clear is that Republicans have gone back to their small government roots in an effort to distinguish themselves from the administration’s policies.  This new/old platform could strike a chord with voters depending on how things work out.  Obama’s fate is thus intertwined with the perception of the stimulus, the state of the economy, and any other spontaneous and intervening variable that this world has so often proved capable of producing.

That was an angry Judge Sullivan as he not only dismissed the Stevens conviction, but appointed a special investigator to determine whether or not the federal prosecutors should themselves be prosecuted.  As some may recall, Stevens was convicted in October on corruption charges 7 days before his bid for reelection.  Not surprisingly, the longest serving Republican in the history of the Senate was defeated, but by only 3000 votes.  As Kaimipono Wenger writes on Concurring Opinions, his conviction must have tipped the scales.

The Obama Justice Department has decided not to pursue the case any further.  Why would they?  The Democrats managed to edge out a 40 year Republican incumbent.  In Alaska to boot.

As the saying goes, “Our work here is done.”