Kyl believes GOP will bounce 'forward'

Sen. Jon Kyl, who is two years into his third six-year term, took a few minutes in the days following the Nov. 4 election to discuss the state of Republican politics, which is at a low ebb.

Voters elected Democrat Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois rather than Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona to the presidency. And they followed up the 2006 Republican purge with a second purge this year that gave Democrats even greater advantages in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

Kyl spent part of the week contacting colleagues trying to ensure his re-election as Senate minority whip, the No. 2 leadership position among Senate Republicans. If re-elected, as expected, part of his job will be helping Republicans regroup.

Question: Where do Republicans go from here?

Answer: Forward.

Q: Forward. OK. How ...

A: And would I like to explain? Is that what you're asking?

Q: Yes.

A: If we're talking generally about national Republican leaders, most of which would be found in Congress, obviously, that would include people like John McCain and the minority leaders in the House and Senate.

I think they and other leading Republicans need to be speaking out, be willing to cooperate with the new administration when proposals are based on American principals, but being willing to stop the agenda of the radical left.

Obama may believe in that agenda, but he certainly didn't campaign on it. He made it seem as if he's for tax cuts, a strong national defense and all of those things, because America still is a center-right country and he understands that. He doesn't want to scare anybody, even though a lot of people were afraid of what his presidency would be. So we will need to stop that kind of radical left agenda when it occurs. That's sort of the legislative aspect of it.

Q: What's the message from a policy aspect?

A: We're going to need to speak out in a way that demonstrates to people that we're not going to be the same party that they got upset about two years ago and this year - I think this year without as much reason as two years ago. This year, the economy going south and so on was hardly the Republicans' fault. We weren't even in power in the Congress and Bush doesn't run the economy.

But notwithstanding that, I think Republicans have to persuade the electorate that we really mean it when we say we're for smaller government, that we really mean it when we say we're against wasteful Washington spending, and we really mean it when we say we're going to work hard to keep tax rates low.

Q: Have voters grown disenfranchised with Republican ideals?

A: Most people are for a strong national defense. Most people are for basic, traditional values. And most people are for the general economy view of Republicans. But when they see Republicans acting in a different way, going right along with Democrats and spending far more money than we can afford to, or earmarking projects and so on, then we're no different than the Democrats.

"What's the difference between the two parties?" they say. We've got to demonstrate to them with our actions, as well as how we discuss it, that we are different. And that we do want to get back to those values that most Americans agree with.

Q: Senator, didn't we have this same conversation two years ago?

A: That's not inaccurate.

Q: Did Republicans not act that way during the past two years? Or did voters not see that happening?

A: I guess a little bit of both. But remember, Democrats were in charge. The president doesn't get any bill that doesn't pass Congress. So if you're upset about legislation, unless it was 98-2 or something like that, you can't blame Republicans.

Bush vetoed a lot more bills these last two years than he had before. He vetoed the ag bill, for example, that I opposed. And he talked a lot about stopping earmarks - and, in fact, put some pressure on Congress to do some earmark reforms.

It's ironic. I guess there's a delayed action. People didn't see the results of some of the reforms that both the Republicans and Bush put into effect. They didn't see the ways in which bills were made better and the costs were reduced because Republicans stood firm against Democrats' efforts to expand them.

Q: Who do you see emerging among Republicans to lead the party now?

A: It's going to take a long time for the various leaders to emerge who will be the predominate spokesmen two years from now. For a while, Sen. McCain is still going to be a person that the media pay attention to - for good reason. I mean, he's not going away and he will carry out some of themes that we're talking about, especially wasteful Washington spending and strong national defense.

The two leaders, McConnell and Boehner, presumably will be party spokesmen. I'm going to be a spokesman as our No. 2 leader - assuming I'm elected. Eric Canter, if he's elected in the House, is a very fine, sharp member of the House who will do a very good job.

Q: OK, so McCain, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, you, and House whip hopeful Eric Cantor of Virginia. Are there others outside of Congress?

A: People in governor positions. People like Jindal and Palin and a lot of others. We'll have to see who the media take a shine to and who can explain things well. You still have people who teach on television.

Q: So we'll add Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Sarah Palin of Alaska to the list. Do Republicans need someone about Obama's age to come on the scene?

A: No, but I think you'll see people like that emerge. I mean a lot of the young people we talk about in the House of Representatives, people like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan and John Shadegg and Jeff Flake. People like them are younger and I think have a good appeal because of that.

Q: So, Ryan of Wisconsin, and Shadegg and Flake of Arizona make the list, too. On a related topic, is the Republican Party undergoing an internal identity crisis?

A: Well, let me answer it this way - President Bush was different from his father and from President Reagan. John McCain was different from President Bush. And you have a lot of other Republicans in and out of elected office who have different positions on things and portray things differently.

There is clearly a time of redefinition. That doesn't necessarily mean changing what you believe in, but what that can mean is defining it in a different way. Communication is so different now than it was even in the last election - the methods by which people communicate, they way they communicate. So even if your fundamental principles are the same ... it may be that because you're not practicing what you preach, or there are a lot of conflicting messages or people are just tired of the messenger or other factors intervene, like the economic crisis, that you cannot keep doing things the way you've always done them and expect success.

I'd use the term redefinition rather than changing what we believe in, because my view is that what Republicans generally believe in is still what the majority of Americans believe in.

Q: As the Senate minority whip, part of your job will be working with the Obama administration. Do you have any personal anecdotes that reveal his character?

A: I'll say two things.

First of all, I was on the floor a lot, an active member of the Senate. I didn't see much of Barack Obama. From the time he was elected, he wasn't much in evidence in the Senate. I know the first year, he was getting his feet on the ground, and the last two years, he was running for president, so that helped to explain that, but I will tell you, he was not around very much.

The only fairly intense experience I had with him was not particularly positive, because he parachuted into one meeting on the immigration reform legislation - the only meeting he ever attended - and insisted on having his way on a particular point and got his way. Kind of implicit in the understanding was that if you came to the meetings, you were part of the bill.

The bill gets out on the floor - as John McCain has pointed out - he not only voted for one of the key poison pills to kill the bill, but he was a co-sponsor of another amendment to do the same. So after insisting on making a change in the bill to his liking, he then went out and helped to make sure the bill didn't go anywhere, breaking the commitment that at least John McCain thought that he had for Obama's support. Not a positive experience, as I said.

Q: Do you recall the point Obama wanted?

A: Oh yeah, it's a rather esoteric point, but it had to do with the process of appealing a determination that you are not eligible to be employed because of your immigration status. The point he was trying to make was that your eligibility be presumed valid until the end of the appeal process - and he prevailed on that.

Q: What was his demeanor? How did he push his point to other members?

A: Pretty aggressive. Just pushing his point very, very strongly.

Q: How do you foresee working with him during the next four years?

A: I have no idea how that will be.

Q: Is there anything else I should have asked you that I haven't?

A: Oh yeah, but I'm not going to tell you what it is, because then I'd have to answer it. Stay in touch.