GOP Left Holds Right Hostage

Insight Magazine ^ | September 16th, 2002 | Rod D. Martin

[Sabertooth]

GOP Left Holds Right Hostage
Posted Sept. 16, 2002
By Rod D. Martin

It turns out that, thanks to an obscure Missouri law, the GOP may regain the Senate as early as November, at least for the rest of the year. And they may lose it again almost immediately, courtesy of the Big Tent.

First the good news. Capitol Hill is abuzz with talk that a win by Republican Jim Talent in Missouri's U.S. Senate race could shift control of the chamber, at least for the remainder of the year. Talent is running against Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan, widow of Mel Carnahan, the corpse whom Missouri voters elected over then-senator John Ashcroft two years ago. Jean Carnahan was appointed to fill the vacancy. By Missouri law, she must win the seat in her own right this fall.

But it now appears that, if she loses, Missouri law forces her out of the seat immediately. Talent would become Missouri's junior senator this November, not in January. That would shift the Senate back to Republican control, at least for two months: 50 Republicans (plus Vice President Dick Cheney to break ties), 49 Democrats and one "independent," Vermont's Jim Jeffords, the senator whose one-man coup in 2001 handed the chamber to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in the first place.

The shift could prove earth-shattering. From President George W. Bush's scores of bottled-up, pro-life judicial nominees to his tax cuts to Iraq, a flood of initiatives would burst through the Democrat dam.

They would, that is, if they could. That they may not is a testament to the disloyalty of the Republican left and the suicidal shortsightedness of the national party leaders who support and even promote them.

The time bomb in this case is an extortionist named Lincoln Chafee. Termed by the media a "centrist" due to his voting record — almost identical to that of another famous centrist, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — the Rhode Island Republican senator is a leftist of the sort only New England can produce. Just days after Jeffords' defection, Chafee told Fox News and CNN that he would continue to work to move the GOP to the left. And assuming he didn't get his way, if the GOP ever did get back its one-seat majority, he'd switch parties to give control right back to the Democrats.

Would Chafee follow through? Probably, if the Democrats win enough races in November to keep control in January. In that scenario, a Chafee defection would thwart Republicans' "one big chance," and probably would reward the turncoat richly as well.

The irony, of course, is that the Republican leadership gave Jeffords and Chafee this power.

How did they do it? By their insistence on "running to the middle" as a general election strategy. In 2000 alone, Republicans lost two key Senate races — in Washington state and Nevada — by just a few hundred conservative votes cast for third parties. Had the party won that handful of votes, or those of the countless others who just stayed home, a 52-48 Senate would have been impervious to Jeffords' and Chafee's treachery.

Bush lost New Mexico — and nearly lost both Florida and the presidency —for the same reason. Indeed recent history is littered with such, from the loss of the Colorado state Senate to George H.W. Bush's and Bob Dole's disastrous runs against Bill Clinton, each of which originally was thought a cakewalk.

Running to the middle — whether by actually moving left or by sticking to mushy, vague platitudes — fails because it ignores simple math. In elections where less than one-half (and often less than one-third) of the people vote, simply turning out all your own people will win time and again. What's more, the "middle" largely is irrelevant. Most people who vote are, by definition, interested, and therefore have an opinion; thus, running to the undecided middle means trying to convince people who probably won't vote, while turning off the people who would elect you, if you gave them a reason to do so.

Who are the Republicans' people? Certainly not the loony leftists who populate Chafee's Providence. They are the social and economic conservatives who happen to make up most of America. They long for a Ronald Reagan — yea a whole party of Reagans, leaders who will lead, not just mark time. And though their fates may be wedded to the Republican Party, their hearts and votes are not.

Reagan offered a compelling, winning vision of a different, better America. For too many Republican "leaders," this is almost inconceivable. Until that changes, people such as Chafee will continue to hold Republicans hostage. And the left, whether in or out of power, will continue to dominate America.

Rod D. Martin, founder and chairman of Vanguard PAC, is an attorney and writer from Little Rock, Ark. A former policy director to Republican Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, he is the senior fellow in public policy and political affairs at the Center for Cultural Leadership.

[Sabertooth]

The RINOs so-called "big tent" is the Right's body bag.

[Rensselaer]

I have spoken with folks in the Senate and they seem pretty comfortable that Chafee isn't going anywhere. They see him as a Zell Miller type - not in his party's mainstream, but not about to jump. Chafee is a Republican deep in his veins - it is part of his personal identity. We'll see if they are right.

On a related point, though, note that it is very doubtful that a more conservative Republican could be elected in Rhode Island. And that is why it is important not to get carried away in bashing RINOs. As Jeffords defection has shown, there is a huge difference between a RINO and a Dem - like who controls the Senate.

[Sabertooth]

((((((growl)))))

[phillyfanatic]

Any Pub now is preferable to any Dem. Even Chaffee. If Talent wins, the Prez should immediately shove through anything he can. Another thing: every Libertarian should vote GOP this Nov. Libertarians cannot win , period. Let's be up front about that. Another thing: e-mail, call Zell Miller , as I do monthly to change parties. I always commend conservat. Dems when they vote for the GOP agenda and then ask them to change parties. We cannot afford ANY Dem leadership in the House or Senate.

[Sabertooth]

Thanks for pulling the duplicate thread.

[Darth Sidious]

This is why many of us cannot support the Republican party with any great exuberance.

[Eala]

This is why many of us cannot support the Republican party with any great exuberance.

Years ago my wife and I shifted our exuberance from the party to specific candidates. We're more involved and more committed as a result: we know who's good and who isn't, we've got connections, and when there's legislation we want (or don't want), we have access -- they know us by name. And it's a lot more fun than just writing a check...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[exnavy]

Republican Liberty Caucus ping!

[RAT Patrol]

They would, that is, if they could. That they may not is a testament to the disloyalty of the Republican left and the suicidal shortsightedness of the national party leaders who support and even promote them.

I try to be positive; I do. But I am inches away from dropping all "vote for the guy who can win" strategies and just voting for the Alan Keyes types--come what may. I'll still support the many great conservative Republicans out there, but I may have made my last concession vote. The "support your party" rules only seem to work one direction--when the conservative side loses. I am recognizing my party less and less.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, it's also why I say we need to kick out as many Democrats as possible and replace them with Republicans. And, obviously, with as many conservative Republicans as possible. If we have a larger contingent of conservatives in the Republican caucus, then we can overcome the left, regardless of party affiliation. But, the reality is, if the Republicans do not hold the majority, then the caucus of the left (the criminal enterprise also known as the Democrat Party) controls the legislative agenda, controls the judicial appointments and controls the ratification of treaties, etc. The Republicans must retake the majority and the larger the margin the better. Vote out the Democrats! It's the only way to retake America!

[Luis Gonzalez]

GOP Left Holds Right Hostage

"In 2000 alone, Republicans lost two key Senate races — in Washington state and Nevada — by just a few hundred conservative votes cast for third parties."

Let me get this right.

The tens of thousands of voters need to vote in line with the few hundred in order to regain their support so that the GOP can win, and this idiot's headline claims that the center is holding someone hostage?

This is spin worthy of Bill Clinton.

Try a new headline: "Right fringe of GOP diminishing in size, and strenght."

I love the way this guy uses the word "left" in the title, and then proceeds to discuss the center.

Like it or not, the majority of the "governed" are closer to the center than to either fringe.

And to expect the many to vote with the very few in order to retain power is even more absurd than his misleading headline.

[Sabertooth]

This is why many of us cannot support the Republican party with any great exuberance.

RINO loyalty is worse than a one-way street. There is always the threat of a stab in the back.

Forget about them voting third-party or not at all, they'll vote Democrat and sabotage conservative campaigns by mouthing Leftist talking-points for the "mainstream" press.

The RINO message to the Right is:

"Shut up so we can take your votes for granted already."

[Poohbah]

This article reflects a certain element of the conservative movement and its growing disenchantment with the American voter. Apparently, these people demand that everything be fixed NOW, instead of taking incremental moves--and then they get upset when the Democrat multitudes get energized.

This is a marathon, not a sprint.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not only do they want it fixed NOW, but they want it fixed THEIR way, and the want the freedom to vote how they want to vote. They just don't want others to have the same freedom.

[Luis Gonzalez]

RINO Saber?

I guess that you mean Republican In Name Only.

These people voting third party because they don't like the direction the majority of the membership is taking the GOP, are the true RINO's Saber.

[Sabertooth]

Let me get this right.

The tens of thousands of voters need to vote in line with the few hundred in order to regain their support so that the GOP can win, and this idiot's headline claims that the center is holding someone hostage?

Close. Try this:

"The tens of thousands of conservative voters need to vote in line with the few hundred RINOs in order to regain their support so that the GOP can win."

Me-too Republicanism hasn't exactly produced a bounty of victories for the GOP. Our biggest gains in the last ten years came in '94, with the most conservative of campaigns. Reflexively "running to the center" every campaign is a flawed strategy.

I love the way this guy uses the word "left" in the title, and then proceeds to discuss the center.

He's describing "left" and so-called "center" more accurately than the "mainstream" press opts to depict them.

I don't have a problem with that.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Poohbah]

You're saying that "RINOs" (who DO have very significant differences with Democrats on a lot of back-pocket issues) would prefer to lose everything rather than give one inch to the vast majority of the GOP.

Saber, your conclusion defies logic. It's also manifestly wrong. Your flavor of "conservative" hasn't voted GOP in three consecutive elections, preferring to receive no loaf whatsoever than half a loaf.