Can GOP Moderates Hold Their Numbers

With Rep. Marge Roukema (N.J.) retiring, Rep. Ben Gilman (N.Y.) finding himself without a district and Reps. Connie Morella (Md.), Nancy Johnson (Conn.), Charles Bass (N.H.), Rob Simmons (Conn.) and Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) facing tough challenges, Republican House moderates once again find their future uncertain.

For some rank-and-file Republican conservatives, that's just fine. They refer to the moderates as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and would be just as happy to see liberal Democrats representing those districts.

But without those moderate Republican legislators, Democrat Richard Gephardt (Mo.) would be Speaker, and President Bush would find himself in an even more difficult political predicament than the one he now faces.

While the current landscape favors continued Republican control of the House after the November elections, the GOP has little margin for error. The collapse of WorldCom and Enron, the weak stock market, uncertainty about future acts of terrorism internationally or at home and the always important question of voter turnout means that both parties need to scrap for every seat. And once again this year, the fate of Republican moderates in November could determine whether the GOP retains the House, or even increases its numbers.

The problem for moderates is that they increasingly find themselves in a classic squeeze. While conservatives come at them from the right in primaries, Democrats take aim at them, almost always from the left, in the general election.

One conservative group, the Club for Growth, has already proven its willingness to weigh in during GOP primaries, for example for state Assemblyman Scott Garrett in New Jersey's 5th district. Garrett's primary victory in a seat that sent the moderate Roukema to Washington demonstrates the problems facing moderate Republican candidates.

Now the question is whether a "big-tent" Republican group, possibly the Republican Leadership Council, will take on conservatives in a fight for the party's future. So far the RLC has refused to do so, noting that it doesn't promote an ideological agenda. "We support fiscally conservative, socially inclusive Republicans," says former Rep. Dick Zimmer (N.J.), the group's president, noting that the RLC can back anti-abortion conservatives who sound themes of inclusiveness.

Ironically, the moderate candidates' problems are increased by the presence of a Republican president, who has been strongly supported by party conservatives but also sounds the sort of inclusive themes that moderates like. Moderate GOP legislators often are under greater pressure to demonstrate their political independence when a Republican resides in the White House than when a Democrat is president.

Typically representing swing or even Democratic-leaning districts, the moderate Republican legislators are particularly vulnerable in midterm elections when a Republican is in the White House. That's when Democratic strategists have the easiest time making local elections referenda on presidential performance.

Of the moderates at risk this cycle, Morella is clearly the most vulnerable. Representing a Democratic-leaning seat that has been made even more Democratic by redistricting, her liberal voting record undoubtedly is in tune with her district. But her party label is a huge problem in a redesigned seat that went more than 60 percent for Democrat Al Gore in 2000.

Johnson's district has also been radically transformed, and her opponent, Rep. Jim Maloney (D), has the same advantages of incumbency that she has. Bass has drawn a formidable, well-funded opponent in Katrina Swett, the daughter of Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.) and wife of former Rep. Dick Swett (N.H.).

Simmons' district guarantees he will have a tough fight, probably against former state legislator Joe Courtney (D), just as Capito's district means that she can't take challenger Jim Humphreys for granted, even though she beat him two years ago.

Elsewhere, Iowa moderate Rep. Jim Leach has an advantage over pediatrician Julianne Thomas, but redistricting and the new district's Democratic bent add a degree of uncertainty to the race.

Republican moderates hope to offset possible loses by adding Mike Turner and Kevin Raye to their numbers. Turner, who turned back a more conservative opponent in the GOP primary, should win an open Democratic seat in Ohio's 3rd district. The pro-abortion rights Raye, a former aide to now-Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), is in a tossup race in Maine's 2nd district. He faces state Senate President Pro Tem Mike Michaud, a formidable anti-abortion Democrat in November.

Raye, who still must survive a recount over former Bangor Mayor Tim Woodcock, another Republican moderate, has already received a check for $5,000 from the federal PAC of the RLC.

In the long run, the future of party moderates may well depend on whether the RLC, which has never opposed a GOP incumbent, increases its profile and campaign activities. This year, however, Republican moderates can only hope that a popular president, a Congressional GOP agenda that includes a prescription drug benefit and education reform, the lack of normal midterm factors (in part because of the war against terror) and their own political skill combine to help them dodge another bullet.

It is pretty simple. The nation has been about 1/3 leftist, 1/3 right and 1/3 in the middle for nearly 60 years. The right can try to persuade the middle to come to the right or the right tolerate those from the middle and use them to change things. The far right deludes themselves into thinking that if the Center JUST LISTENED to their brilliant arguments, the center would be as right wing as they are. It is the ultimate conceit. Everyone would think like me if they just knew what I know is their view.

The truth is the left and the center, at least those that vote, know as much about political positions as the right does. They just don't agree with the right.

I ususally ask the purists if they think that Hillary and Bill would become conservatives if they sat down and talked to them? They look at me like I'm crazy. Then I ask would Jeffords change his views if you talked to him. I get the same look. I then ask if independents can be converted to the right,why hasn't anyone been alle to do so? It is very hard to change views. Some argue that views change all the time. But they do not. Go to any board of elections anywhere in the USA, and ask how many people change their registration from Democrat to Repubican or vice versa. It is next to zero. And just for the record most voters are registered as Democrats or Republicans. Arguments do not change views. Implemented policy changes views. And when the views are changed both parties adopt them.

The point that has to be made is the only way to conservative victory is by getting over half the center to vote for a Republican candidate. In liberal states that is an impossible task if the Repubican candidate is conservative. It is like Simon in California. His chances are very slim. The same was true about any conservative candidate in a liberal sate. They get defeated in the general election.

I often ask what the "To hell wiht RINOs" crowd what would be the chances of a very liberal Democrat winning in a very consrvative district. They usually hope the Democrats are dumb enough to do that. I then ask them why Republicans should be dumb enough to run a conservative candidate in a liberal district. That is when they tell me I don't understand the need for purity.

It is very instructive to see how the left took over this nation. The left took over this nation when the MEDIA was against the LEFT. It took a BIASED network anchor to tell the nation that although Truman was leading in the popular vote, that Dewey was certain to win. But that is what the anchors said over and over and over on election night 1948. The newscasters were still saying it at 6 AM the next morning.. The anti Democrat press in the 30's and 40's make Dan Rather look balanced. The media predicted that FDR would be defeated in 1936. They did a lot of discredited polls that showed FDR being defeated. The kept publishing the polls all through out the election period. They were vastly wrong, but they were used to hurt Roosevelt. The over whelming Conservative media of that era could not believe the people would re-elect FDR. They were very biased against Democrats.Time Inc. (Now Time Warner) was a huge media power in the 30's and 40's and it was owned and edited by a very very very anti left man named Henry Luce. Over 3/4 of the editorials published in the 1936 electoin called for FDR to be defeated. The schools were not under the control of the left when the left captured this nation. The schools preached that every boy could become a rich capitalist and Democrats grew up to be traiters like Alger Hiss.

What the left understood was the value of DINOs. They understood that if they could elect enough DINSOs they could control the presidency, the house, the senate and in time the supreme court. That is exactly what they did.

They used that power base, to gain the media, the schools, and the views of many more people than they had when they took control.

The problem with the idea that "The people will vote for us once they hear Alan Keyes" just got proved wrong on national TV. The ratings show No one will watch an Alan keyes on TV. He reaches 1/3 the people that Greta reaches. Changing people's views with words does not work nearly well enough. You have to implement the policy and demonstrate that it works. Welfare reform is a recent example for our side.

There is only one solution and way to power. That is attract the center then use them to achieve your goals. The "I hate Rino's" will never do it. They are not about victory. They are about looking pure in defeat. They perfer purity to victory. They are exactly like Barry Goldwater when he said. "I would rather be right than president." What that means is, "I will do what it takes to make this nation safe for the Great Society. My personal self esteem is more important than this nation."

The pure truth is you cannot convince anyone on the other side with arguments. The left could not convince the right that Social Security was something they would like with arguments. When it was started in the 30's almost half the population was very much against it. That is why Republicans fought it tooth and nail. Today 80 percent of the population is for it. That is why Democrats never let the public forget that Republicans once fought Social Security. The Democrats moved 30 percent of the population to their view on Social Secujrity by enacting it. By being able to do nothinw while out of powper the right managed to lose the 30 percent of the people that shared their views on Socialistic programs.

Get in power. Then change policies and over time, change views. It is the only way that works. Since its takes lots of RINOs to make that happen, the right has self inflicted its own defeat.

If right wing Purists did not exist, Tom Daschle would have to invent them.

Not a very good example. You're comparing independents with extreme left-wingers, which is silly. The reason Republicans don't "convert" independents is that they make little or no effort to do so. Instead, we make futile reach-out efforts to very liberal minority groups, with obviously poor results. A certain percentage of independents could be brought into the Republican party if the effort were made to do so, which might be enough to give Republicans a long-term advantage. The Republicans aren't called the "stupid party" for nothing.

You have to implement the policy and demonstrate that it works.

How do you implement a policy if people in your own party won't vote for it? Welfare reform was a slam dunk, because it was easy to see the negative effects that came from this program. A majority of Americans were for that change, so the libs had no choice but to go along with it.

Most issues aren't so easily framed, however, because the negative effects aren't as readily apparent to the average observer. Do people like independent voters or RINOs really sit down to contemplate things like the impending collapse of Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare, or some of the other big government programs that will be exploding in size in the not-too-distant future? No they don't, because no one is taking the time to educate them on the negative effect these programs will eventually have on their lives. Instead, we have RINOs happily voting for this big government cr@p while completely ignoring the conservatives (the majority in the party, BTW) in their own party.

How can you ever hope to get the concept of a more limited government across to the mushy middle when the party that is supposed to be the champion of this cause is voting for budgets in the trillions of dollars? There is total disconnect right now between what Republicans say and what they do, and the RINOs in the party are the main reason for this.

The Republican-led Congress of the past 8 years, with the exception of the aforementioned welfare reform, is a complete and utter failure, at least when it comes to bringing forth a more limited government. I'm not saying they haven't tried, mind you, but clearly there are many obstacles that need to be overcome to get the country moving in that direction. This will be impossible to do if we continue with the muddled message that the party is currently presenting, which will of course lead to more and bigger government.

What issues does a conservative candidate have to run on in this election? Limiting the size of government? If that's the case, they'll be running against their own President, who has been anything but a conservative this year. No wonder people like Armey and Watts are leaving Congress- they probably feel like they are wasting their time trying to get their message through the muddle of the RNC. I'm sure we'll continue loosing good people in Congress as the party continues its drift leftward.

Face it, the Republican party is a mess right now. Fortunately for us, so are the Democrats, but if they hit on an issue that resonates with the middle, look out! All the moderation and left-leaning talk of the Republicans won't save them from losing control of Congress. And those most to blame for that loss will be RINOs, not conservatives.

And howcome we never hear of DemocRAT moderates?

It depends on what you mean by moderate. The ideological disparity between Democrats within their delegations is much less than the disparity within the Republican delegations. Within the Senate, there are Republicans who are Christian conservatives and push a blatant pro-family agenda (Senator Brownback). On the other hand, we have Republican Senators who cannot bring themselves to vote for a ban on partial-birth abortion (Senator Olympia Snowe.)

The two have exactly nothing in common with each other ideologically. They come from diametrically opposed worldviews, and their can be no final compromise between them because the two are mutually exclusive. Either one will rule or the other will.

The Democrats have a few pro-life members left in the House, lonely members all. You never, ever hear from them on a national level. The Democratic Party is run by the hard left, and the power take-over is complete. We constantly have to compromise with our hard left. The Democrats rarely compromise because they don't have to. You'll notice that the so-called "Blue-Dogs" have had no effect whatsoever on Daschle's Gephardt's overall strategy.

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.