I intended to submit this to the Republic, but never got around to it.

It’s official. Congressional Republicans are clueless. After getting their collective behinds handed to them in the recent midterm elections, Republican House and Senate members held elections to select new leaders. Actually, they mostly re-elected their old leaders. The lack of soul searching is nothing short of humiliating.

After getting crunched by Democrats on the issues of Iraq, scandals, spending, and good-ol’-boy arrogance, Republican caucus members in the House voted for more of the same. The caucus rejected leadership bids by Mike Pence from Indiana and Arizona’s John Shadegg. Pence’s loss does not rise to the same demoralizing level as Shadegg’s, primarily because Pence was trying to unseat the popular and respected John Boehner. Boehner has only been in leadership for seven months, having been elected to replace scandal-plagued former Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Boehner can’t be totally blamed for what’s ailing Republicans, but he didn’t even break a sweat as he beat Pence 168-27.

Shadegg’s loss to Blunt for Minority Whip, however, is proof positive that Republicans intend to take this minority status thing seriously and hang onto it for as long as they can. Re-electing Blunt is embarrassing, foolish, and plays smack into the stereotype that Republicans are more concerned about power than they are about what’s right for the country. Power, you ask? Republicans aren’t in power, so what power are they trying to protect? Earmarks. The Bridge to Nowhere, the Rock-and-Roll Hall of Fame, a swimming pool in California. All earmarks added to spending bills by Republicans. Believe it or not, there are still a large number of Republicans who subscribe to what used to be the ‘old’ way of thinking, outlined by guys like Speaker Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay and Roy Blunt, that as long as they bring home their share of the bacon, they will be dutifully rewarded by their voters in the elections. The Contract with America must have been drafted on a wet napkin, because the principles outlined in that document have vanished.

Shadegg was elected as part of the Contract with America class of 1994, and he hasn’t been corrupted by the pork game. So, after witnessing his party get sucked into the pork-for-power game over the last few years, Shadegg decided to run for Whip on the promise to reform the smoke-filled backroom persona that has become synonymous with Republican rule. For that he received 57 votes to Blunt’s 137. Great. It’s a good thing Hastert and DeLay weren’t running for anything, as they probably would have also been re-elected.

As recently as a week before the November 7 elections, Roy Blunt was on national television defending the practice of inserting earmarks into spending bills. That alone should have ended his chances at being re-elected Minority Whip. While Blunt was on television securing the Most-Out-Of-Touch-In-The-Country Award, Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake was featured on 60 Minutes blasting how badly earmarks have corrupted the institution. The 60 Minutes segment even likened Flake to the Jimmy Stewart character in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Which segment do you think had more populist appeal?

Flake and other leading conservatives campaigned hard for Shadegg, but we know now that it was never meant to be. How Republicans intend to show the country that they got the message clubbed over their heads on election day remains to be seen. One thing’s for sure, however, if Republicans don’t get this figured out soon, they will be in the minority for a long time.

According to the Associated Press, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says that as part of the Democrat reform agenda, Congressmen should be required to put their names on earmarks.

That may seem like a minor reform (or just common sense), but as Congressman Flake can attest, there is much resistance to shed even a little light. Flake spent the better part of last year trying to figure out who requested certain pork projects inserted into spending bills. But unless the member who did the requesting owned up to it, Flake found the task darn-near impossible.

Having to disclose who requests earmarks will limit the number of farsical pork projects, so this potential first step is certainly worth breaking a sweat over.

The Arizona Republic has used the last two days’ editorials to highlight problems with the Arizona’s Clean Elections system (our system of publicly funded campaigns).

But after highlighting all the problems with the 1998 “reform”, the legislature should ask voters if they want to keep the broken system in the first place, rather than spend time trying to fix the system. Put a question on the 2008 ballot that asks voters if they want to keep Arizona’s public finance system. The language on the ballot should read something like this:

A “yes” vote shall retain the Clean Elections system, which uses tax dollars to fund political campaigns.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of eliminating taxpayer-funded elections.

Those are honest descriptions, and if that’s what appeared on the ballot, the “no’s” would win.

Mark Swenson, a longtime Senate staffer is leaving his position as chief budget advisor for the majority caucus. Mark deserves a lot of credit for pushing the across-the-board income tax cut through the Senate earlier this year. He’s a true believer in the effects of marginal income tax cuts, and in his role, provided guidance and reassurance to many GOP members. He will be missed.

Much has been said about the effect the immigration debate had on the outcome of some of the elections. For what’s it worth, my view is that voters didn’t use the issue as a referendum on any particular candidate. Voters clearly have a very nuanced view on immigration. Rather, voters made their displeasure with the GOP known.

There are three basic policy proposals on immigration reform:

1. Comprehensive reform featuring a new guest worker program and a path to citizenship for workers already in the U.S. who participate in the guest worker program (models language by Rep. Flake and Sen. McCain).

2. Strict border enforcement with limits on immigration and no guest workers. For those currently here illegally, there would be no path to citizenship (this model is supported by Rep. Hayworth and Randy Graf).

3. A blend of the two. Enforcement first, guest workers later, no path to citizenship, and those currently in the country illegally would have to return to their home countries before participating in the guest worker program. This model is supported by Sen. Kyl).

Indeed, both Republican and Democrat consultants and candidates believed that no matter the nuance, talking only about strengthening the border would score political points. Whatever you do, say the other guy supports amnesty (even Harry Mitchell tried this on JD Hayworth, which was really laughable).

Democrats Jim Pederson and Harry Mitchell both talked up strong border enforcement (which, judging from their campaigns means they support policies that bolster the number of border guards), but were less vocal about whether they supported aspects of Flake’s and McCain’s bill (a bill which Pederson, at least, endorsed).

Pederson, of course, lost. Mitchell, of course, won. What does this mean? Nothing, except that both of those campaigns were about a lot more than their immigration positions. Pederson lost a statewide race in which Republicans hold a 6% registration advantage. Mitchell won a congressional district that has a 17% GOP advantage. Again, my view is that voters really like the job Jon Kyl is doing as U.S. Senator. They trust him on the issues he works on, and in this climate, they believe he is a different kind of Republican, i.e. he’s got ethics.

As for Hayworth, I don’t believe voters think he’s unethical, but I believe voters wanted more substance to his campaign. He didn’t run on anything except strict immigration controls and what a bad guy Harry Mitchell is. That didn’t play well.

Other immigration hard-liners lost in this political climate. I don’t believe that means a more liberal border policy is necessarily more popular across the country, but I do believe that the get-tough approach isn’t the meal-ticket to electoral success many believed.