Election 2006: Some in GOP still don't get it

Arizona Daily Star ^ | 12/11/2006 | Staff

[Luis Gonzalez]

Our view: In Arizona and nationwide, voters rejected rigid ideologues in favor of those who promised moderation, dialogue.

The picture that emerged from last month's elections, at both the state and the federal level, showed a majority of voters weary of hard-line, intransigent ideologues on the far right.

We know that, because voters turned both houses of Congress over to the Democrats and for the first time in many years gave Democrats 27 of the 60 seats seats in the Arizona House of Representatives.

They also re-elected Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, giving her a 27 percentage point victory over her ultra-conservative challenger, Republican Len Munsil.

And so there is some irony, to put it kindly, in the comments from some Republicans who believe the party suffered because its candidates were not conservative enough. That line of thinking suggests that what voters really wanted were tougher, more rigid conservatives. If that were true, then candidates like Republican Randy Graf, an aggressive conservative who was running for Congress in District 8, should have trounced his Democratic opponent, Gabrielle Giffords. But the opposite happened. Voters told Graf to take a hike and sent Giffords to Washington.

It is remarkable, then, to hear Republicans like Bill Montgomery, who did so poorly in his race against Attorney General Terry Goddard, declare: "The Republican Party took a hit because we strayed from the principles that make our party so strong and that serve to unify our membership, which consists predominantly of fiscal and social conservatives."

This is the same as saying Republican conservatives should stick to the principles that made them unpopular and that voters, for the most part, rejected.

Montgomery was quoted by reporter Daniel Scarpinato in a Star story last Wednesday. We are more inclined to agree with Steve Huffman, a Republican moderate who ran a primary against Graf and lost.

"I think the most important conversation we have to have right now is: 'Are we where the voters are?' " Huffman said.

It's an important, practical question that suggests that candidates should be responsive to voters' concerns. It makes perfect sense, and if other Republicans were to accept reality they would see that there was nothing mysterious about the election results. Voters rejected the fringes and moved toward the political center. The Republicans in District 8 who rejected Huffman didn't get it.

Many of them would undoubtedly agree with Montgomery, a political novice, who told Scarpinato, "I've always had a problem with the term 'moderate.' If you always take the middle ground, I don't see how that's a virtue. That's not leadership."

On the contrary, we would say that it is both a sign of leadership and a necessary asset to realize the wisdom in compromising on 10 or 20 percent of the issues in order to achieve success on 80 percent of the others.

Compromise is not a dirty word, nor is it fatal to try to understand another viewpoint in the hope of negotiating an issue that gives both sides some of what they're seeking. A case can be made that compromise is a sign of wisdom and maturity.

The point that hard-liners like Montgomery miss is that public service does not require rigid adherence to a personal ideological agenda. It requires an ability to remain flexible enough to respond to the people who elected you as their representative, not their emperor.

Failure to accept the fundamental message of the last election will eventually dilute Republican power at the state level as sure as it has at the national level. Voters want a change, not a restatement of the same old manifesto.

[beyond the sea]

Right

[Luis Gonzalez]

We seated one of the most conservative presidents in recent history in 2000, and he could not hold Congress.

Conservatism lost.

[goldstategop]

No - the RINOs lost.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Lurker]

In delivery, the Republicans were only a slight improvement on what the Democrats would have done - they had a twinge of conscience as they mercilessly expanded government, formed a cabal to make President Bush treat terrorist prisoners better, and failed to grapple with illegal immigration comprehensively.

Sometimes it takes someone outside the problem to really see what's wrong.

The only thing I'd take issue with is that 'twinge of conscience' thing. They expanded government shamelessly and at a pace that even LBJ would have envied.

Other than that minor quibble, very well said, sir.

L

[Luis Gonzalez]

You get it, how refreshing.

Great post.

Reagan did just that, but as much as I admire President Bush, he's not good at it and the GOP took a beating as a result of it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Sure they did.

By all accounts, it was the "I" vote that swung...but go ahead and keep your head in the sand.

It's safer there.

[MadIvan]

I say a "twinge of conscience" because at least some of them were aware that what they were doing was wrong. But you're right, they gave LBJ a run for his money.

Regards, Ivan

[Luis Gonzalez]

Bill Bennett was symptomatic of the whole party as a moral compass.

Thank God the President managed to stay fairly clear from scandal.

[goldstategop]

This just happened to be a year where all the stars were aligned in the wrong direction and it would have taken a super-human miracle to change it. Americans have every rights to be idiots. I don't see the Democrats as a real improvement and with everything they had going for them, they hold only a narrow majority in Congress. I wouldn't read it as a thumping endorsement of the liberal agenda.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[beyond the sea]

Far too often I have heard person-on-the-street interviews conducted by Sean Hannity or Jay Leno. (Okay, so the two are hardly analogous, but they have both done such interviews.) Incredibly elementary questions (e.g. "Who is Condoleezza Rice?" or--I'm not making this up--"Who is the vice-president?" tend to provoke blank stares or wild guesses.

I've seen the Jaywalking (Leno) segments often. It freaks me out to see people that ignorant. Sean finds some beauties on the street too.

I'll be 60 next month. I've seen this conscious/purposeful dumbing down of the children for decades. It's not getting any better, because it serves the powerful to have this large ignorant class. Just as long as the trains run and the sewers work, all the rest of the people can be ignorant fools...... and they are.

And it's all one lovely plan to tear down America. Gotta give them credit......... they're good.

As Butch Cassidy used to ask Sundance when they were being followed by the posse, "Who are those guys? I couldn't do that, could you do that?"

;-)

[Lurker]

In order to keep Democrats out of power, you need to get Republicans elected

First you need to show a difference between the two. Why don't you try that.

It would be a very refreshing change of pace.

Just a thought.

I can't advance any ideology with the opposition in power.

In order to advance an ideology you first must have one.

And just for the record "Us too, just not so fast" doesn't count as an ideology.

L

[onyx]

goldstategop wrote: "No - the RINOs lost"









Republican Incumbents Who Lost in the House:

Jim Ryun (KS) - ACU rating 98
J.D. Hayworth (AZ) - ACU rating 98
Richard Pombo (CA) - ACU rating 97
Chris Chocola (IN) - ACU rating 95
Gil Gutknecht (MN) - ACU rating 94
Charles Taylor (NC) - ACU rating 92
Mike Sodrel (IN) - ACU rating 92
Melissa Hart (PA) - ACU rating 91
John Hostettler (IN) - ACU rating 90
Don Sherwood (PA) - ACU rating 87
Anne Northup (KY) - ACU rating 86
Clay Shaw (NC) ACU rating 82
John Sweeney (NY) ACU rating 77
Jeb Bradley (NH) ACU rating 71
Charles Bass (NH) ACU rating 71
Curt Weldon (PA) ACU rating 70
Sue Kelly (NY) ACU rating 65
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA) ACU rating 60
Nancy Johnson (CT) ACU rating 47
Jim Leach (IA) ACU rating 43



Vacated Republican seats lost

DeLay (TX) ACU rating 95
Beuprez (COL) ACU rating 93
Green (WI) ACU rating 88
Nussle (IA) ACU rating 86
Ney (OH) ACU rating 86
Foley (FLA) ACU rating 78
Koly (AZ) ACU rating 74
Boelert (NY) ACU rating 40


Democrat Incumbent seats lost

None.


+++

Republican Incumbents Who Lost in the Senate:

Burns (MT) - ACU rating 91
Allen (VA) - ACU rating 92
Santorum (PA) - ACU rating 88
Talent (MO) - ACU rating 93
DeWine (OH) - ACU rating 80
Chafee (RI) - ACU rating 37


Democrat Incumbent seats lost

None.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Wha's frightening about it Lurker?

Is it "government of the people, by the people, for the people" or is it government by your ideology?

[goldstategop]

There are still quite a number of people who believe everything the media tells them. We'll have the Geritol set with us for quite awhile yet.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[beyond the sea]

Conservatism lost.

wrong

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Conservatism lost."

Nope, the Republican party lost. Did you bother to follow any of the local state-by-state races ? Scores of Democrats cross-dressing as CONSERVATIVE family-values style candidates from coast to coast, hoodwinking the public. In Tennessee alone, we had 'Rats attempting to get well to the RIGHT of our Republican nominees. Want to know how come Harold Ford, Jr. nearly pulled off an upset win ? He RAN as a Conservative Republican ! Our nominee was so damaged as the most LIBERAL RINO in the race that he almost lost. Nope, this was a defeat for the GOP. The 'Rats used a Conservative platform to win this election. Conservatism won, even if these treacherous buffoons have no intention of voting that way.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Can you point out the RINOS is post #52?

[Lurker]

I used to think LBJ was the worst President in American history.

But then Carter came along and the goalposts were moved back considerably. Not only was Carter the worst President in history, he's making the ex-Presidency of Bill Clinton look positively statesmanlike.

L

[Luis Gonzalez]

Look over post #52 and tell me I'm wrong again.

[Lancey Howard]

So Republicans in Rhode Island, California, and Massachusetts should "go where the voters are"?
Please....

You seem to think that winning elections is about abandoning leadership and principles and taking up full-scale pandering. No thanks. As has always been the case, winning elections is about having a sound message and delivering it passionately with conviction. If the Republicans did that last month, I must have missed it....

This past election has been made out to be some kind of surprising upset when in fact Republican losses were actually MILD compared to the history of incumbent party losses in the 6th year of a two-term Presidency. Cycles happen. We actually got off easy.

When you consider that the war wasn't going particularly well (and Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms worked overtime to make it appear to be going even worse than it was) along with a few high profile Republican scandals (Cunningham, Foley, Weldon, DeLay, and a few more Abramoff acquaintances), plus the complete lack of any strong national message from the party as a whole, you had the perfect recipe for the election we had.

In retrospect, it is astounding that the GOP's election losses weren't a lot worse than they were. And James Carville said exactly that when he called for Dean's head right after the election.

So you can keep your "we need to be squishy moderates" prescription for GOP success.
It's a loser.

Regards,
LH