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.

[NittanyLion]

I also reject the false dilemma that the only way to appeal to voters in the center is by appeasement to the Left, losing votes on the right in the bargain.

Well said. If the conservative course is the proper one (and it is) then moderates will come to the GOP based on its record of success. Instead, we have folks advocating a liberal agenda (which will fail) in order to attract moderates.

Think about it. Adopt an unsuccessful agenda, then expect people to be attracted to your cause. It's a terribly misguided strategy.

[hchutch]

"So, politicians don't recast their campaigns in response to what worked or didn't the last time? Do you really believe that?"

No, you're putting words in my post.

"What do you suppose was the purpose of Clinton's DLC after the Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis losses of the '80s?

It was to remold the image of the Democraty party to regain the Reagan Democrats. And it worked well enough to help Clinton win a couple of terms in the White House."

Somewhat accurate, but not quite. You are forgetting Perot drew 17% of votes, and a large portion of that was not exactly left-wing frommy recollection.

"Yes, I've seen such coalition-building sentiments on FR."

And some have felt the same way about those they have had disagreement with over issues.

"A pox on politicians who think our votes are their birthright. Votes must be earned. If they aren't, politicians have only themselves to blame if they lose."

You forget, politicians and voters aren't the only players in the equation. Did you not read Poohbah's post earlier about a group that pushed support to a third party candidate and took down a Republican because the Republican was "impure"?

"So, it was the conservatives who jumped ship and the RINOs who hung tough?"

Where were the conservative groups running ads to counter the AFL-CIO's Mediscare ads? Where were the press conferences and street demonstrations? Where were they?

"I've got no problem with reaching out to folks who aren't traditionally Republicans, but I have confidence in the intellectual strength of conservative arguments on their face. Outreach can be done in such a way was to pick off wavering Democrats without depressing turnout in certain conservative camps.

Bush, Rove, and the RNC need to find a better balance. "

I happen to think they have found a decent balance for the present circumstances, but then again,

"I'm not trying to take the GOP down, I'll be voting the straight ticket again this Fall. And you're right, people who join third parties will be ignored."

You'll forgive me if I question that in light of your comments on some of the Immigration threads. If you're not willing to support a nominee after a primary, and put the disputes aside, some people will think you ARE "trying to take the GOP down."

"But you're wrong in thinking that Republicans who stay home will be ignored in future elections. What to you suppose is the purpose of "get out the vote" efforts? In part, it's to reclaim lost votes."

Even if that is the case (I happen to view "get out the vote" as getting your known supporters out and voting), that would be considered a bonus in my mind.

"Fine, but don't blame the old mare if you end up with a mule in the bargain."

If the mule can do the job (get a candidate elected, thereby giving us a CHANCE at enacting the agenda), then the bargain isn't a bad one.

"Oh, I completely trust that you are, hchutch.

What I reject is the contention that this is an effective means of coalition-building. I also reject the false dilemma that the only way to appeal to voters in the center is by appeasement to the Left, losing votes on the right in the bargain."

Appeasement? That's the problem I have with this. There are some issues (free trade, immigration, and others) that there seem to be legitimate disagreements on between conservatives, partially motivated on where people happen to be residing, partially based on the experiences they or people they know have had, and partially based on PRINCIPLE.

Those who disagree with you often are not mind-numbed robots (or Bushbots).

"Consistent failure to effectively make the conservative case in terms that appeal to the center is not evidence that conservatism has no mainstream appeal."

I've never made that contention. On the contrary, I consider that crafting a conservative case that wins over the center is VITAL, and that how to accopmplish that result is open for a civil discussion - and that Free Republic is a crucial forum for that discussion.

Unfortunately, some here prefer to attack those who disagree with them on certain issues. That does nothing towards crafting a conservative message that will win over the center. In fact, it DIVIDES the party.

[Darth Sidious]

I'm seeing a lot of arguments about why the Republicans should be swept into power.

But I haven't seen a single argument about why the Republicans deserve to be given power.

Well, why should I, as a strict Constitutionalist and believer in limited government, and a person who holds that the glory of America is found in individual sovereignty and not collective might... why should I, or anyone else, trust the Republican party to hold to those values when it's proven itself more than willing to toss those out the window for the cheap sake of "winning elections"?

Number one reason I didn't vote for Bush, and find it impossible to support him now: he said several times that he should be president "because I can win." That doesn't even mean jack-@&$% in my book. No one is entitled to that much power just because he/she/it can "win". Power is only meant to be given to those who've demonstrated they've wisdom enough to use it, the most important component of that wisdom being self-discipline. It can NOT come as the result of machinations of a collective group (i.e. a political party). I'm not saying that Bush doesn't possess that quality, but to ride into office on a merit so petty as to be able to "win" says something about whether he lacks the greatest quality of that wisdom that can bear power: humility.

Well, the Democratic party lacks humility. And so does the Republican party. Not one or the other has demonstrated to this voter why I should trust them with my ballot, that could perhaps tilt the flow of power in either direction. I would like to vote Republican: I became the first man in my family, in at least a hundred years, to abandon the Democrats when I did so in '94. They left me, as Reagan put it. Eight years and a lot of growing-up later, I can no longer give the Republicans the same confidence that I could then, and it all comes as a result of the GOP's "lowering the bar" over the past few years.

I'm willing to give them a second chance, but the Republican party is gonna have to prove itself deserving first. Otherwise, they're colluding with the Democrats in dragging America into cultural stagnancy.

[NittanyLion]

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.

What's the return on money held by the government? I've never seen anyone claim that it's even equal to the lowest-performing private sources. Is that the claim you're making here?

[hchutch]

GraniteStateConservative makes the point in Post 264 that is my first argument in this case. We're dealing with a vessel that does NOT stop, much less do a 180, on a dime.

We're dealing with a slow process that involves educating the electorate, picking our fights, and to an extent, thinking outside the box. Victory will go to the patient in this fight.

[NittanyLion]

We're dealing with a slow process that involves educating the electorate, picking our fights, and to an extent, thinking outside the box. Victory will go to the patient in this fight.

Agreed. That said, the non-WOT-related spending increases for 2002 and for future budget years are projected at 5-6% (if memory serves). That's acceleration.

[hchutch]

But, as I also said in Post 285, it also involves picking our fights.

I should also add that we must set priorities. War on terror MUST come first, and that may involve trade-offs of stuff lower on the list of priorities.

[Darth Sidious]

We're dealing with a vessel that does NOT stop, much less do a 180, on a dime.

This vessel had better stop, at least long enough to clear some "barnacles" off her underbelly. She's hobbling toward a waterfall as it is.

We're dealing with a slow process that involves educating the electorate,

You can't educate anyone by lowering expectations. I'm a teacher... believe me, I know.

I'll take what happened in the North Carolina primaries as an example: Liddy Dole may have been anointed to win by the GOP bigwigs, but philosophically she was the least conservative on the slate. Certainly the least dynamic of the candidates. The Republicans might "win" with her in November... but for the long run they've lowered their standards and expectations considerably.

Victory will go to the patient in this fight.

There's no patience here at all. Both parties will do what they feel is good for now to grab power. Neither will stop and reconsider what it is they are fighting for, or why it is they should "win" it.

[NittanyLion]

I should also add that we must set priorities. War on terror MUST come first, and that may involve trade-offs of stuff lower on the list of priorities.

Agreed. Going on memory here, I believe the total forecasted 2003 budget increase is 9.5%. About 4% of this can be attributed to military/homeland security and related WOT-expenses. The other 5.5% or so is primarily domestic spending increases. I think this is a perfect opportunity to say that we only have so much money to spend, and the WOT must come first. As a result, the US needs to hold the line on all other spending - no increases in 2003.

People will relate to that. Everyone's had unexpected medical bills, layoffs, etc that have forced them to radically stem their spending.

[rb22982]

I never implied race bud you are the one who keeps injecting it. There are no hidden implications about it. I know just as many lazy white trash as anyting else--including my brother

And it depends on what you define as being 'moneyed'. I'd define it as anyone from the lower middle class up which would include the great majority of Americans and yes I believe we'd be less socialistic today if that were the system. No where did I imply anything though. You made a statement about how our FF felt, I elaborated. You assumed.

[rb22982]

I was at the old 7 when Reagan was around. I remember where I lived and a few church lessons--that's about it. The first presidential election I remember was '92. I was 11 and started listening to Rush Limbaugh daily shortly thereafter. Perot was also around in 96 in which I was 15. And Yes I talked with a lot of people about politics since the 92 election. I've always been curious about politics since, in large part due to Rush and my grandfather.

[rb22982]

You realize the majority of your post is crap because every time you refer to 'you' I didn't do any of that. Or did you miss my post about my voting record (albeit small beause of my age).

I Know a lot of conservatives voted for Perot but I'd say just as many moderates did as well. Probably a lot of people voted for Perot that wouldn't have voted otherwise.

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.

I personally like Bill Simon a lot from what I've heard and if I wasn't paying for my livelyhood and college tuition I would have sent him some money. As for with Reagan, I'm not demanding one, I just said that until we get another one you can't expect the voter turnout.

And a word of advise, don't attempt to get someone to vote the way you want them to if you call them loonytarians.

[rb22982]

Consistent failure to effectively make the conservative case in terms that appeal to the center is not evidence that conservatism has no mainstream appeal.

Bares repeating over and over.

[Poohbah]

"You" and "y'all" are being used in the all-inclusive group aspect. I'm a conservative. I also realize that not everyone else is, and that I have to work with people I have varying degrees of disagreement. Too many conservatives don't realize that.

And a word of advise, don't attempt to get someone to vote the way you want them to if you call them loonytarians.

Sorry, the Libertarians are...loony. Conservatives voting for a Libertarian, KNOWING that the effect will be to elect Cantwell, is...loony. "Loonytarian" is thus a fitting description.

Electing a Democrat to "uphold conservative principles" is like fornicating to uphold chastity.

[rb22982]

Hardly loony on anything except perhaps military. And most of those who voted for the LP candidate were libertarians or libertarian leaning.

Electing a Democrat to "uphold conservative principles" is like fornicating to uphold chastity

They didn't elect a Democrat unless they voted for one. You are using the same scare tactic that democrats use on the elderly & blacks to get them to vote for their candidate.

[Sabertooth]

You are forgetting Perot drew 17% of votes, and a large portion of that was not exactly left-wing frommy recollection.

I forgot nothing, I didn't attribute Clinton's victory entirely to his efforts to cast himself as a moderate, I said, "it worked well enough to help Clinton win a couple of terms in the White House."

I didn't mention that Perot drew 19% of the votes, largely from the right, nor did I mention that those votes from the right came from voters who were disenchanted with the "centrist" appeasement of George HW Bush, because these facts were beside the point of politicians moving to reclaim lost votes.

Did you not read Poohbah's post earlier about a group that pushed support to a third party candidate and took down a Republican because the Republican was "impure"?

Yeah, I saw that.

However, given the faultiness of his recollection of the facts of Impeachment and the '98 election here, as shown there, I really don't know what to make of his anecdotal account of an anonymous election scenario.

Where were the conservative groups running ads to counter the AFL-CIO's Mediscare ads? Where were the press conferences and street demonstrations? Where were they?

Where were the GOP pols? Failing to make the case in Sunday show after Sunday show that it was Clinton who shut down the government.

Where was the RNC? Their issue advertising helped defeat HillaryCare in '94, but they went silent during Clinton's government shutdown in '95.

Appeasement? That's the problem I have with this. There are some issues (free trade, immigration, and others) that there seem to be legitimate disagreements on between conservatives, partially motivated on where people happen to be residing, partially based on the experiences they or people they know have had, and partially based on PRINCIPLE.

Upon what conservative principle would an extension of Clinton and the Democrats' Section 245(i) Amnesty program for Illegal Aliens be based? Or President Bush's AlGore lite prescription drug entitlement?

Unfortunately, some here prefer to attack those who disagree with them on certain issues. That does nothing towards crafting a conservative message that will win over the center. In fact, it DIVIDES the party.

Forcing the party to adopt divisive policies is divisive.

If tomorrow, President Bush wanted national handgun confiscation or a federally funded abortion entitlement, and the GOP was predictably divided over it, with whom would the responsibility for that division lay?

Let me guess, the "unappeasables?"

If the mule can do the job (get a candidate elected, thereby giving us a CHANCE at enacting the agenda), then the bargain isn't a bad one.

You missed the metaphor: mules are sterile, mares are not.

[Poohbah]

Thank you for your input.

[hchutch]

But it won't stop on a dime, and it won't stop unless we have control of the ship.

Even then, Liddy Dole in the Senate does do something for us: She will vote to put Orrin Hatch in charge of the Judiciary Committee. That means good nominees like McConnell, Owen, and Pickering do NOT get borked.

Look what will happen if we keep the House. John Conyers will NOT be able topush his ultra-left agenda, including reparations for slavery and tons of gunn control measures. Jim Sensenbrenner will make sure neither of those see the light of day.

Look at the other committee chairmen in the House and Senate. That represents a SIGNIFICANT difference in and of itself. It determines who sets the agenda in those bodies for the most part.

"There's no patience here at all."

Your lack of patience is your weakness. This mess did not happen overnight. We have to remember that - do you remember the failure of Operation Market Garden in 1944? The best book about that was titled, "A Bridge Too Far." The title alone sends the message.

[rb22982]

and you for yours

[Poohbah]

OK, Saber. I'll give you the 1998 election--but I will tell you WHY they went centrist, and it was because it was clear that conservatives were very long on talk and very short on turnout no matter what happened. Can't really blame the party for hunting for votes elsewhere after 1995--they got their a$$es handed to them by Clinton, and grass-roots conservatives were nowhere to be seen during that fiasco. I spent most of the summer of 1995 trying to organize a letter-writing campaign for the upcoming fight--and got told "I'll just send an email," no matter how often I told people that emails could and would be erased, but ignoring out lots of dead trees was a lot more difficult. A RINO was far more likely to send a letter--but most "conservative" couldn't be bothered.

Thanks, you lame-a$$ no-shows! Thank y'all for 4 more years of Clinton!

However, after that fall-on-their-sword effort in late 1998, they got ZERO support during the impeachment fight from conservatives (just like they never got any during the budget showdown in 1995--once again, conservatives just could not be bothered to write large numbers of actual LETTERS to Congress instead of sending worthless emails), and the conservative vote did not show up in large enough numbers in 2000 to justify the investment thus made.

Let's face it--conservatives don't want candidates, they want the Second Coming. Unfortunately for them, tha one is in God's hands, not ours.