Posted on 08/12/2007 12:27:53 AM PDT by goldstategop
Other conservatives in this dependably Republican state are unhappy with Graham for supporting the failed Senate effort to legalize illegal immigrants and for his role in the 2005 bipartisan compromise that preserved the right of the Senate minority to filibuster judicial nominees. In the midst of this unease, several local Republicans -- including the lieutenant governor -- have floated the possibility of challenging Graham from the right for the GOP Senate nomination next year.
In Connecticut, Republican Rep. Christopher Shays has a different problem. Last year, he narrowly survived a Democratic tide that left him the sole Republican holding a House seat in all of New England. Now, at a time when disapproval of Bush and the war appears even more intense across the Northeast than it was in 2006, Shays has already attracted a well-funded Democratic opponent (Jim Himes, a former Goldman Sachs vice president) who will face him in 2008.
Shays and Graham embody the two forms of dissent from the dominant conservative orthodoxy in the modern Republican Party. In one category are traditional moderates like Shays, who pursue a centrist course, especially on social and foreign policy issues, but whose numbers have relentlessly declined for decades. In the second are maverick figures like Graham or Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who are too conservative to be considered moderates but too eclectic and unpredictable to be considered reliable allies by the right. Both of these groups -- moderates and mavericks -- are under siege at a moment when Republicans are struggling to reach independent and swing voters disillusioned by Bush and the war.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Who needs phony liberals? Most lib voters now go for the real ones - Democrats.Well said.
BTW, I like this author's phrase, "insufficiently reliable" conservative. It is much more intellectual than "not good enough".
The bottom line is that they're all weak-sisters... and they vastly outnumber their counterparts across the aisle.
BTW, I like this author's phrase, "insufficiently reliable" conservative.The Senate Republicans are almost completely comprised of insufficiently reliable conservatives, and reliably insufficient conservatives.
if anything I would not do in the moderates but the do nothing country clubbers that have been dominant in the GOP leadership since the time of Harding. They have no real agenda and are largely just status quo types who just leave the country in a sense of drift when they are running things. Are weak in defending themselves and articulating a message and are lacking in any creativity or imagination. They cannot think beyond the next election or change the structure to benefit us. They do not seize opportunities or see dangers (illegal immigration) until they are staring us down and then they just capitulate.
That is exactly right and while I am as frustrated as everyone else there are worse things than RINOs. As far as I know every RINO voted for our Supreme court nominees with the exception of Chaffee. Would a Democrat have done so? I think not. If having a party full of purist(which I would like) means we are back down to 30% of the senate and house then how does that help us? These are northeastern states for the most part and to think those people are going to elect a true conservative at this time is not realistic, we still have some hearts and minds to change.
I say, as Rush often does, "right on, right on, right on."
Agreed.
To an extent true. But the power in the Republican party lies in those who put up big chunks of money for primary campaigns. For the most part, these are businesses who see the government's role to be to let out a lot of big contracts to them and to leave them alone, except when it comes to preventing competition from other businesses.
By and large, the qualification to be a recipient of big primary money is: (1) You need to sound conservative enough to bring in the base; but (2) You need to be willing to play ball with the money guys when it's important. It frequently works out OK because the money guys just don't care too much one way or the other about many conservative causes--in fact, they may genuinely believe in some of them--low taxes strong national defense. So they don't mind if the base gets its way on those issues and often approve.
Social conservatism exposes this difficult coalition. Business R's don't like spending ANY political capital on abortion. The illegal immigration debate also exposed this divide but in a different way. The base and the money were on different sides of the issue. The stress that put on R politicians was enormous. Their donors were pushing hard one way. Their voters the other.
Back to your original point. As a practical matter, it is very unusual for a good conservative candidate to get past a primary in which a ball-player is his opponent. The ball-player gets all the money and his donors make sure that party officials who don't play ball pay a price.
So in an ideal world, primary voters would look past the money and nominate conservatives. In the real world, there is rarely a general election choice between a dem and a conservative. Rather, the choice is usually between a dem and the most conservative guy the money guys have to put up with to get him elected (depends on locale), but it is almost certainly someone with a record of playing ball when his masters say fetch.
That is a pretty smart analysis.
But you know, there are always competing interests a candidate can seek out for contributions, including grassroots organizations.
And when it comes down to it, the people can and will rise up and win when it’s important, as with immigration. In the final analysis, the voters have the power, not the money men.
The alternative to Shays this year is another Robber Barron from Sachs who views us as the proletariat who they can pilfer from. At least Shays is an honest man, lives in a modest house, and votes with his constituents. I’ve personally told him I don’t like the fact that he’s a lifer, but then I look at the alternative and things could be worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.