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.

[WRhine]

Why not do an active search, dear ? I have critisized the president, here, many times, when I didn't agree with what he said or did. I shan't speak for others; unlike you.

You are challenging my laziness. If you are speaking the truth I apologize for lumping you in with the others. Then again, I won't forget this conservation.

[WRhine]

conservation=conversation

[nunya bidness]

Let me know when you want to talk seriously about SS.

Not to butt in but it's a Ponzi scheme and hence doomed to failure.

How'd I do?

[Torie]

Oh dear. Finance. My favorite topic. But not at this hour. Right now the expected return from equities is not much higher than from bonds, if at all. During the fervor over this dead issue, it was lower, as has been borne out. And what if equities disappoint? Of course we won't let impecunious aged Gen X'ers eat cat food. The govenment will bail them out. That is what is called the moral hazard problem in the trade on this issue. That is my lagniappe for you tonight.

[Torie]

It is most certainly a ponzi scheme. All alternatives are worse. As ponzi schemes go, it is perhaps the only one that should not constitute a felony.

[nopardons]

Oh, you'll forget; you always do. You've called me a Bushbot and other names . You haven't a clue what my position, on ANYTHING is ; but, that hasn't ever stopped you from persoanlly attacking me, especially about something I have never done or said.

[rb22982]

Right now the expected return from equities is not much higher than from bonds, if at all

Keyword: right now. Not over the long hall. Besides, I have about 15% of my money invested in bonds even at 20 years old (I've inherited a sizable amount that I can't touch till I'm 27) so I'm not opposed to bonds anyway.

And what if equities disappoint?

This is for people under 35 I believe so if the stock market disappoints for that long, we have far more serious trouble than social security to deal with. If the market goes as normal for 40 years and then has a 2 year downturn, the gains over the long term are still much higher in equities than anything else. Plus, they can't just pick a stock and put money in it. It's the same fund options they use for congressmen currently.

[nunya bidness]

All alternatives are worse.

Careful there doc, you just opened up a can of "free market" worms.

[Torie]

Clearly you are a Jeremy Siegel aka Stocks for the Long Run guy. That is unfortunate, and dangerous for someone other than an inheritence expectancy type perhaps. More later. I will in time feed you some links, and perhaps pen some more later. I this issue I think I have something vaguely worthwhile to say. UMMV.

[Sabertooth]

You haven't a clue what my position, on ANYTHING is

"CAPlock key is GOOD?"

Just a wild guess.

[rb22982]

I disagree, I trust the stock market to manage my money far better than the government can. You can provide all the links you want but you will have trouble convincing me that getting on average return of less than the rate of inflation in the current system is better for the long haul than ANY type of privatization.

[rb22982]

lol I personally hold down shift to type in an entire word in all caps unless it is a very long word.

[Torie]

Ah the young. So certain. I remember that time. It was grand. In the meantime, what about the moral hazard issue? I will supply some links later. Maybe they will not be subject to your mouse hit, but perhaps to a few others.

[rb22982]

What moral hazard issue? If you are saying what happens if stocks drop badly for many many years? Then dear I will say we have far more important problems than SS as our economy will be in the tubes. But anyway, if we dont do something about it, we're going to have to just completely trash the SS system or fund it from the general income tax when it starts to cost more money than it brings in in 2017.

[rb22982]

Here is how I see it.

3 Scenarios. If only young people can invest then it's for the long haul. This leaves us three scenarios.

1)The market continues its current up and down business cycle. The stock market over the long haul continues to rise and fall but overall provides the best investment.
2)The market goes straight up from now for the next 35-40 years with no or very very small and brief downturns. The stock market will go straight up with it and still provide the best investment.
3)The market goes straight down the tubes and we have a sustained depression. Social security will be the last of our worries since it's not just elder's we'll be trying to figure out how to feed, house, etc and SS will likely go down the tubes in this scenario whether we privatize or keep it as current .

[m1911]

I'm very interested in seeing that information. I side with rb on the privatization, but I admit that's pretty much on the strength of what (little) I know about the long term gains of the market and a distaste for (1) the "nanny state", and (2) ponzi schemes.

[rb22982]

Since 1995, the Dow is up well over 100% net gain and the Nasdaq has almost doubled---this at probably the end or near the end of a huge drop in stock prices none the less. Sorry, just no way you'll convince me the stock market over the long haul is not the best option. I'll read your articles but I'm highly skeptical going in.

[Poohbah]

And with each passing day the RP looks more and more like the DP and less incentive for conservatives to come back.

Then conservatives DESERVE to lose--because if they refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, the GOP loses any incentive to be less like the Democrats.

2000 should have been a wake-up call for the "grassroots conservatives." Approximately 4 million "religious conservatives" stayed home compared to 1996--Bush's core constituency, the ones he worked overtime to appeal to, the ones he lost votes in the center to court, the ones who didn't f***ing show up--and Bush won anyway. Whoopsie, the slow-roll tactics didn't work this time! Anything the religious conservatives get is a freebie.

I agree that one issue voting is stupid, such as what you listed with the abortion thing and cutting funding for it. That's not what I'm talking about.

That's not the only thing I'm talking about, either. I'm talking about conservatives who want very public Monicas from the GOP while doing nothing to help out the GOP in tight spots. What's your take on the GOP "cave" in 1995 on the budget? Mine--which is based on experience--is that you couldn't expect anything else, because the conservatives didn't respond to urgent appeals from the GOP for a letter-writing campaign to support the freshman class.

I'm talking about us voting for 'conservatives' who dont want to cut taxes, want to increase every federal government program spending on everything known to man, openly pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro UN, pro enviro nuts, etc etc.

There are very few of those--but throwing a decade-long temper tantrum has simply increased their power.

Slade Gordon was an example of this although he was getting better as time went on according to the ACU.

And his thank-you note for getting more conservative over time was a concerted effort to vote for a Loonytarian, and throwing the election to a liberal extremist.

Like it or not, Washington is a fairly liberal state, and you're not going to elect a Reagan conservative to Senator--unless he has a fair amount of seniority.

Congratulations, y'all have just given the Washington GOP Senate candidates in 2004 and 2006 little (if any) reason to become more conservative as time goes on, assuming they win--because the only reward they will get is a stab in the back.

As for only conservatives voting for Perot, I'd disagree.

Gosh, that's too bad. I'm going by my experience--a good chunk of the '80s Reagan crowd bailed for Perot.

I know a lot of 'moderates' who voted for or liked Perot, including my enviro-nut aunt who is now registered Democrat.

I know a lot of 'conservatives' who voted for Perot, then went off and sulked when he didn't win.

And give us another Ronald Reagan and you'd probably have election day numbers of 80, 84, and 88.

No, give you another Reagan, and y'all will find an excuse to no-show on Election Day. We GOT a Reagan out here in CA--Bill Simon--and the usual suspects who were demanding his nomination are now making up false reports to justify a bolt to a third-party candidate or to stay home.

Y'all don't want a candidate. You want a Messiah.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Of course your statement has no color attached to it, you're one of these people who never sum up the courage to stand by your implications, and instead duck and cover when someone clearly states what you don't have the balls to say yourself.

What the rest of the implied remarks said, was that you believe that the country would be a better place if only the monied could vote, which is the way that the Founders set up the system.

[AAABEST]

Come on Louie. Every time the some new RINO initiative is brought forth you're running around here with your terrible grammar telling us all what a good idea it is and how we should get behind it for our own good.

You've never ever ran into a liberal immigration postition that you've disagreed with. Everybody knows that, despite your appeals that we not believe our lying computer monitors.

See, you don't have to be a real pinko to be a pinko enabler, just a quasi-pinko. The quasi-pinko is just as valuable to them.