Posted on 10/19/2009 4:04:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
Given the public disenchantment with voter-ignoring, big-government-loving Democrats in Congress and The White House, next year’s elections could do much to restore some measure of fiscal sanity and common sense to Washington. But that will happen only if Republican leaders and grassroots Tea Party activists work together effectively. How – and whether – the two reconcile their different priorities and views will have profound consequences for any effort to beat back the Democratic vision of an ever-expanding, ever-more-intrusive federal government.
In recent days, there have been news reports about growing tensions between the Tea Partiers and GOP leaders. That’s understandable, because their priorities and motivations differ. While Tea Partiers are passionate activists committed above all to smaller government and (often) traditional social values, GOP leaders’ primary commitment is to winning seats for the party. But for a partnership to work, both sides will have to grow up.
Let’s start with the party leaders. No doubt there are places where conservative Republicans simply cannot win – in many parts of the Northeast, for example. But occasionally, there’s a laziness problem. Party leaders fail to examine the available alternatives or think about new and exciting candidates. Often, they settle on the candidate with the highest office or the most name identification at an early stage in the process, ignoring lesser-knowns who might be able to ignite real enthusiasm among the electorate in an off-year election. For example, in a year like this one, where anti-government sentiment runs high, it was a real mistake for the NRSC prematurely to endorse Governor Charlie Crist in Florida’s Republican U.S. Senate primary, completely overlooking former Speaker Marco Rubio, who has taken the race by storm.
Nor should party leaders use candidate selection as a covert way to impose their own political preferences on the local electorate. Sometimes, GOP leaders are more moderate than the mass of Republican voters in their area. Seeing newly-minted activists through the more “sophisticated” eyes of political pros, they are occasionally suspicious of, or even appalled by, their rawness and undiluted conservatism. Some are even ashamed of them.
It’s worth asking whether that dynamic was at work in upstate New York, where GOP elders in a conservative-leaning district selected as their congressional candidate a person with pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-stimulus views, who favored making it easier for unions to organize as a Republican congressional candidate. (She has subsequently been endorsed by the NRCC.) Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, one of the local party chairmen involved in the decision dismissively characterized the other, more conservative potential candidate as “unelectable” because he “uniformly stands for all the conservative values of the far right.”
No doubt there are times and places when the official’s assessment (however inartfully phrased) could be true. But surely there are more respectful and responsive ways to handle those delicate situations – especially in a district that’s been 60%+ Republican over the last decade. And there’s a world of difference between choosing an “electable” candidate and selecting one who is essentially a “slap in the face” to the party’s most hardworking, passionate constituency.
On the other hand, Tea Partiers need to be realistic, and understand the limitations of political passion and zeal. Plenty of congressional districts wouldn’t support even a second Ronald Reagan, simply because they are irremediably liberal. Rather than allowing the “best” to become the enemy of the “good enough,” activists could best further their cause by supporting the most conservative candidate who can win, rather than the most conservative candidate, period – when it means that candidate will surely lose.
Those who oppose such a course are prone to claim that insufficiently conservative Republicans are the functional equivalent of Democrats. But they are wrong, for one fundamental reason. Compared to the status quo, every Republican – of whatever stripe – who heads to Washington next year will ultimately empower the most fiscally-responsible wing of the party. After all, it wasn’t the election of far-left liberals, like Charlie Rangel in the House or Ted Kennedy in the Senate, who brought Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to power. Rangel and Kennedy had been in Washington forever. Rather, it was the Democratic “moderates” from battleground districts and states in 2006 and 2008 – people like Congressman Heath Shuler (D-NC) and Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) – who ultimately handed the far-left Democratic congressional leadership the majorities needed to enact its agenda.
Let’s have no illusions. It’s predictable that, on occasion, Tea Partiers and Republican leaders will find themselves at odds. After all, they serve different functions and hold different priorities. But with good will and a commitment to fairness that builds trust on both sides, most disagreements can be resolved. That’s especially true when both sides remember that there is so much more that unites than divides them – above all, a commitment to returning government to its rightful place in American life, where it serves citizens rather than vice-versa.
Political power without principles is worthless. But principles alone – devoid of any political power to defend or enact them – don’t achieve much, either. If Tea Partiers and GOP leaders find a way to work together – with respect on both sides and without fear or suspicion on either – that will be the best test of whether a commitment to principle, rather than just petulance or the quest for pure power, is each side’s driving force.
CAREFUL! Carol Platt Liebau sounds lik a French name!
Based on your posts here on this web site. You’ll have to forgive me if I sincerely DOUBT your boast.
But... then again, thats the problem with the label “conservative” It can mean anything and nothing. I guess its possible that you define “conservatism” as sucking up to socialist pricks. And in that case, I guess your right, you have actually sucked up to more socialist prick than I have in my life.
Although, when it comes to actually advancing the cause of freedom and liberty.... Heh... well.. the white stains on your shirt do not count as badges of honor.
To turn the GOP into a weapon against the Socialists and marxist revolutionaries we are going to have to make it hard core. That means purging it of the enemy. You know, those who are not 100% committed to the cause of freedom and liberty. I guess youll have to continue your lifes work in the democrat party, I hear Barny has a spot available...
Yes...
They really are that stupid...
The GOP has been trying to take over the Tea Party movement, at least, there were a good many pols who thought to be the headline-speakers at events, as though they were the head of the train. Wrong-o, if they're lucky, some reasonable conservative Republicans get a good seat in a forward car, most however are to be relegated to the caboose. This is not about the GOP, never has been ... the only thing it's time for the Tea-Partiers to do is get even more active, to my way of thinking.
I've grown very suspicious of Hugh Hewitt acolytes such as Ms. Liebau. Hugh was in the tank for Romney, and probably still is.
Conservatives shouldn’t give an inch to the GOP. The GOP is a liberal organization.
Again...
If you have really been around that long “working” for “conservatism” then please stop now, before you do any more damage than has already been done.
Then what the hell are you doing here.
FreeRepublic does not cater to REMFs.
Two thumbs up for this analysis.
You are spot-on, sir!
Needs a barf warning.
Just like Obama avoiding Fox News...another loser's tactic.
Using another example, I never "blamed" Perotistas for Bush 41 losing to Clinton. Sure, they had an effect, but the real reason Bush lost was he ran a terrible campaign.
A more recent example are the RINOs and Dems that say Palin lost it for McCain. The only reason why I voted for McCain was because of Sarah. Her crowds outdrew McCain's by a factor of 2:1 if not more.
Same here, or at least partly. I wasn't going to vote for McCain even AFTER he named Palin as his running mate. My kids (aged 14, 13 and 10) and wife urged me to "vote for Sarah," and both my wife and I did so.
In hindsight, that was a mistake. The top of the ticket is the only position that matters, as far as a vote decision, unless the two at the top are too difficult to distinguish from each other. In the recent election, neither McCain nor Obama represented a choice that was acceptable to me.
I do not understand why the NSRC is selecting preferred candidates in primaries when there is no incumbent Republican. As a person out here away from the Beltway, that smacks of insider dealings and infuriates me, as well as a lot of conservatives.
On the other hand, I do feel we have to prioritize our efforts. Snowe and Collins are not really a problem unless there is a close vote, and their being labeled Republican kept Harry Reid from being in charge of the Senate for two years, as well as giving us committee chairmanships.
The very first priority, to my mind, is stopping Obama. That can only be done by electing Republicans to the House and Senate in enough numbers to regain the majority. That has to be the number one goal. If it takes Snowe and Collins, so be it. If it means Crist should withdraw and let Rubio have the nomination, then that's what should happen.
We are in a real domestic war with the liberals. Strategy and tactics needs to be drawn up.
I will remind you guys that the running of "conservative" democrats in close districts was a deliberate tactic Emmanuel used in order to capture the House. The RNC needs to realize that the only way those seats can be recaptured is by showing that these fake blue dogs enabled Pelosi to control the House and ram through her legislation. Voters need this explained to them, and we need candidates in those districts who will get the misguided voters inspired to vote the democrats out.
In areas that are more liberal, like the Northeast, we are going to have to settle for people like Snowe and Collins. That's just the way it is. They are marginal people whose value is in that vote for majority leader. If we get a big enough majority, we will be able to ignore them.
Bush had trouble with those two plus McCain because the majority was so close. We need greater numbers.
So, I find the points this woman makes pretty much spot on. but I find her condescension a little bit off-putting.
Which comes down to asking the protesters to elect RINOS instead of Conservatives.
Personally, I can at least trust a liberal more than a RINO.
Who needs the RINO's vote on all the easy issues when the vote isn't ever going to be close but then lose it when it is needed most, ala Snowe, Graham, Specter, McCain?
I don't give a rat's tail that they vote 95% Republican if when it comes down to crunch time they support the worst BS the libs have to offer.
Again, libs won't disappoint you and may surprise you. Rino's will surprise and dissapoint but rarely if ever make you happy they are in place.
Please explain to me the difference between what you decry here and the ubiquitous "the perfect is the enemy of the good" or "a vote for a non-R conservative candidate over a liberal R is a vote for the dem" tripe that gets flung about willy-nilly?
The people are sending a message to the party. The message is simple - the people are sick of Scozzafava-type travesties. The people want more conservative candidates - heaven knows the more liberal ones are failing in droves.
But instead, we the people are told to "grow up".
Excellent. Since the GOP is in the mood to bow to whatever liberal special interest group it feels it needs to in order to win elections, it can try bowing to Conservatives first.
If it gets that right, perhaps there’s a way forward.
That is sad. And how many others are there with that same attitude?
Indirectly you are saying that you will always vote GOP over an otherwise solid candidate of another party.
GOP uber alles?
Sorry, McCain was a waste vote, wasn't he?
IMO, if Palin goes Constitution Party then the GOP becomes the defacto third party.
I remember reading posts very similar to this during the recall election for California Gov.
How is Arnold working out for you guys?
Please understand this and take it to heart. We will never back down on our aggressiveness towards socialists in the democrat or republican parties. We oppose an ideology of slavery, not just a party or a man. We want our freedom and liberty and will not cooperate with anyone who is less than 100% committed to that cause. No amount of discussion, theatrics, or name calling is going to change our direction or determination.
Our goal is not coexistence with socialists (liberal, marxists, progressives, etc). Our goal is to completely remove them from having any influence in our lives at all. That means the marxists that are voted into office and the idiots who vote for them. We WILL radicalize the right and we WILL gain our freedom from the marxists and the usurpations of the fedgov.
You know... I honestly think that most in the GOP are really not even aware that the revolution has started.
“What do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.” — John Adams
Everything has changed... Its too late to go back, nor would we want to if it were possible.
What elections? Do you think the left is going to hold free and legitimate elections in 2010? You’ve got to be kidding.. When the radical left takes power legitimate elections are a thing of the past. That’s the history, why should next year be any different in this country? Too many americans are stuck in the can’t happen here mentality.
The RINOs have been saying for years with smirking arrogance..."You don't have anywhere else to go." Well, look where that got the GOP? We're under the heel of the Democrats thanks to these elites. Now they appoint a socialist to run against a democrat. And, there's a third party candidate.
Let them see how things might go. This could be a lesson for them, and maybe they'll listen to conservatives more closely if they watch their hand-picked ACORN union thug go down.
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.