For Senate Democrats, Southern Collapse Delayed, Not Avoided

Last cycle, much of the action in Senate races took place in the Midwest, with competitive races in Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota and Missouri ultimately deciding which party would control the chamber.

This cycle, the South is the scene of many of the significant races, and that’s terrible news for the Democrats, who continue to lose ground in a region that once constituted their party’s bedrock.

In addition to Georgia Sen. Zell Miller (D), who has already announced he won’t seek re-election, at least four other Southern Democrats may well retire: Sens. Fritz Hollings (S.C.), John Edwards (N.C.), Bob Graham (Fla.) and John Breaux (La.).

Hollings and Edwards are certain to face very difficult tests even if they decide to run for re-election. Rep. Jim DeMint (R) and former state Attorney General Charlie Condon (R) are already in the South Carolina contest, and Rep. Richard Burr (R) looks to have established himself as the GOP standard-bearer in the Tar Heel State…

…How bad is the Democrats’ outlook in the South? If the Republicans win Senate seats in the Carolinas and Georgia next year (all quite possible), they’ll hold all of the U.S. Senate seats in seven contiguous Southern states starting in Virginia and stretching around to Mississippi. Only three states of the Confederacy, Florida, Louisiana and Arkansas, would have Democratic Senators.

GOP strength in Dixie isn’t anything new, but just a couple of years ago some Democrats were talking about a comeback. After the 2000 elections, Democrats sat in the top state offices of both Carolinas, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama, and party strategists were arguing that the party’s fortunes had bottomed out in the region…

…But 2002 seemed to disprove that assessment, as voters ousted Democratic governors in South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia, as well as a Democratic Senator in Georgia.

Democrats also failed to recapture targeted House seats in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas, and the party couldn’t capitalize on open Republican-held Senate seats in North and South Carolina, Tennessee or Texas.

Even the Virginia gubernatorial victory of Mark Warner (D) in 2001, and the election of Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and re-election of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) last year couldn’t alter the conclusion that Democratic victories in the region were the exception rather than the rule.

…Of course, Democrats are far from conceding defeat in any of this cycle’s Southern contests…

…While Democrats hope to woo back Southern white swing voters by pointing to the Bush administration’s failures with the economy, the region’s cultural conservatism, combined with its deeply held patriotism, gives President Bush and the Republican Party important weapons to use against the Democrats.

And Democratic hopes of holding onto the party’s Senate seats in the region could vanish well before next November if national Democrats embrace the liberal label by nominating Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry or former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean for president.

"Fair points. Social and economic conservatives need to make peace if we want a durable and winning constituency. I have no patience either with any Republican who scorns other Republicans to win points with Democrats. It's disgusting to watch and we see it time and again from people like McCain."

You're absolutely right. The folks that BE & myself are mocking are neither social conservatives and are often phony economic ones as well (claiming to be "fiscal conservatives", but then championing either tax increases of some sort or expensive propositions that would require a tax or "fee" increase). Arnold Schwarzenegger is typical of that. These types of faux Republicans that champion the 'Rat agenda should have absolutely no place at our table for the simple fact that they're destructive to the party, while we should go after a lot of what are termed "non-traditional" (at least as thought of in the GOP) voters that either vote for the 'Rats out of habit or misinformation or peer pressure while not necessarily agreeing with their agenda (if not even knowing what their agenda really is, and most don't follow politics like we do on FR).

"Winning in a center-left state though is a balancing act."

True, but too often we make the mistake of going wishy-washy on what we stand for, and we end up losing as a result. I've been in umpteen threads with folks that think running an Ah-nold type or a Riordan type is the only way for Republicans to win in places like CA. If running liberal or "moderate" Republicans is the answer, then how come we haven't made a clean sweep of major races in the last decade with people like Matt Fong or Mike Huffington or Tom Campbell, et al ? Usually, they don't have an answer and scream about how Bill Simon was a bust, and therefore "Conservatives can never win." Simon was one candidate, and it turned out, not a very spectacular one at that (setting aside the fact that he was kneecapped by all the usual suspects), but that's not an indictment that Conservatism in a state like CA is a loser. Perhaps if we ran on an unapologetic Conservative platform with an unyielding, tough candidate who doesn't want to go hiding in a closet when the 'Rat yells "he's against a woman's right to choose !" we might actually win. Unfortunately, as has already been said, there are a lot of interests within the GOP that don't want that kind of candidate winning at all because it discredits them greatly (and they know who they are). If Bush is serious about CA, he (or "his people") need to tell those RINO jerks to take a hike, but as long as the ugly specters of Ah-nold and Riordan loom in a potential recall and Pete Wilson (PETE WILSON ?!?) in a Senate contest, and Parsky holding the purse-strings, well...

Look, it is not for nothing that today's YRs are being characterized as "stand patters" on a website like GOPUSA. The bottom line questions which you understandably refuse to answer are as follows. Does the Republican Party in California have any excuse for its existence or any principles whatsoever other than the discomfort of what YOU described as the "investor class" (which you somehow see as critical politically) over their personal taxes, the refusal of Democrats to shift the "investor Class" tax burden onto poorer folk, and perhaps a few matters of wasteful management practices by Greyout Davis. Neither Muffy needs a tax cut nor Republicans: We can be better managers than Grayout Davis seem likely as war cries that will draw much attention. Heck, even today, Boss Tweed could manage California a lot better than Gray Davis and probably a lot better than Ahhhhhnold or RINO Riordan and Tweed has been dead for quite some time.

A second question: Do you really think that showing up for photo ops at naturalization ceremonies for immigrants even BEGINS to constitute precinct work necessary among non-white ethnic groups? Since California will, by demographics, be the first state to have a plurality and then a majority of non-whites (unless DC is admitted, God forbid) what do YOU advocate as party policy to make inroads among this rapidly growing sector of California's electorate? Reminding La Jolla that Gerald Parksky, Ahhhhhnold and Riordan favor a woman's right to choose the killing of her child? Perhaps hectoring them as to their obligation to take the bread off their table and the roof from over their heads to meet part of Muffy's tax obligation?

Third question: Do you think that abortion, as we have known it under Roe vs. Wade, is acceptable public policy?

Fourth question: Do you think that Bruce and Lance should be allowed to marry and given the status of married people for all purposes possible for them?

Fifth question: Married or not, do you think that Lance and Bruce should be able to adopt children on an equal basis with legitimately married couples consisting of one and only one heterosexual man and one and only one heterosexual woman?

Sixth question: Isn't it true that California's last "Republican" governor was pro-Planned Barrenhood and anti-immigrant lily-white and lily-livered Wilson (BTW, I am English, Irish, Scottish and German). You don't see a logical connection by any chance between his despoicable RINOsnob regime's errors and the current state of the California GOP. Apropos of your question as to the political condition of Connecticut, tell me about your successes in electing Republicans statewide in California since George Deukmejian (the last actual Republican governor) retired. Matt Fong? Tom Campbell? Lavender Huffington?

Seventh question: WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE on such questions or DO YOU DRAW A LINE? Are there limits to what is misperceived as political expediency on issues (actually party surrender) for the sake of getting your gang the jobs and the contracts, however temporarily? In politics, is that all there is?

If unaffiliated voters could not vote in California Republican primaries, if Demonrats could not immediately switch over to vote in California Republican primaries, would we be having this discussion? My involvement in Connecticut against Lowell Weicker was to stop his scheme to admit people not REGISTERED as Republican voters from voting in GOP primaries as state convention floor leader against changes in party rules to allow outsiders a say in GOP primaries. We won. Connecticut has a nominally Republican governor who occasionally stumbles into acting like one, especially at election time. California does not. Both states have two Democrat US Senators, of whom Lieberman is marginally the best of the four, especially if one does not watch his voting record too closely. 60% of Connecticut's U.S. Representatives are nominally to lukewarmly Republican. Demonrats have the lion's share of your Congressional seats.

Illinois, where I now live, has a Republican majority in the Congressional delegation including Speaker Dennis Hastert, my Congressman Don Manzullo, Phil Crane, Henry Hyde, etc., a genuine Republican U.S. Senator in Peter Fitzgerald, and we would have more but for the God-forsaken and forsaking brief regime of Governor George Ryan, RINO extraordinaire who campaigned on opposition to gun control, opposition to taxes, opposition to abortion, opposition to lavenderism, and then stabbed all those constituencies in the back and commuted each and every death sentence while he was at it. We will survive and we will thrive again and not by cultivating an image of elitist social revolutionaries.

As to Connecticut, I am no longer there and I am ashamed to say that an unprincipled RINO like John Rowland is governor but Connecticut RINOs apparently beat California RINOs in getting elected. Rowland, to get elected, promised to repeal Lowell Weicker's state income tax (Rowland lied and had no such intention), to restore the death penalty (which I think he has managed to do), took the endorsement of the National Rifle Association and stabbed them in the back, etc. At least Rowland understood that his campaign lies had to be that he would govern conservatively. You will also not likely find him supporting lavender marriages or adoptions like Ahhhhnold and Riordan, door-to-door gun confiscations like Riordan, etc., etc., etc.

You wound up posting: "Win any way you can, then legislate any way you like." That about sums up the RINO position. Unless you are an outright social AND fiscal leftist, with Caiifornia's legislature, no Republican governor is going to be legislating (serving essentially as a fall guy for Grayout's fiscal and policy disasters) and you aren't even going to be legislating. All your governor will be able to do is use the state's line-item veto. If he is a surrender-monkey, he won't even have the nerve to do that. Why are you in politics anyway, much less in the GOP?

Eagerly awaiting your answers to these questions but not holding my breath.

Wow, you have a lot of free time on your hands. Because I don't, I'll respond to a sample of your comments.

>Look, it is not for nothing that today's YRs are being characterized as "stand patters" on a website like GOPUSA.

Nothing better than back benchers who do nothing criticizing those who are actually out in the field doing something.

>Does the Republican Party in California have any excuse for its existence or any principles

We have run "principled" Lungren for governor in 1998 and it was a disastrous failure. We ran "principled" Simon and he got destroyed. Principles are not the problem. The problem is that we have a party leadership that has no political sophistication. Winning elections is a science and these people refuse to educate themselves on the subject: you have to know which issues to spotlight and which to soft-peddle. Once in office, you can govern freely.

>Neither Muffy needs a tax cut nor Republicans:

"So-and-so doesn't deserve a tax cut". You sound like a liberal. It's not up to you to determine who deserves a tax cut or not. As Bush says "It's the people's money".

>naturalization ceremonies for immigrants even BEGINS to constitute precinct work necessary among non-white ethnic groups

Considering I'm speaking to someone who doesn't actually do anything in the way of politicking and outreach but criticizes constantly, I'll be brief. Yes, it begins to address the demographic shift in California by educating latinos before they can be pulled into the Democrat party's vortex.

>Third question: Do you think that abortion, as we have known it under Roe vs. Wade, is acceptable public policy?
Fourth question: Do you think that Bruce and Lance should be allowed to marry and given the status of married people for all purposes possible for them? Fifth question: Married or not....

None of this is important in electoral politics. You communicate your positions on these issues to the base. Spotlighting your stance on these divisive issues to the public just makes it easier for the opposition to characterize us as reactionary conservatives- which is the kiss of death in a center-left state.

I could go on responding to your tome but I think it's safe to say that you are a purist who doesn't appreciate the nuances of running elections. Anyone who disagrees with a fraction of your ideology is a RINO (and usually gets a bizarre sounding moniker). Why am I in the GOP? Because it's too important to trust to people like yourself who would otherwise return the party to minority status.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll address some of this...

"We have run "principled" Lungren for governor in 1998 and it was a disastrous failure. We ran "principled" Simon and he got destroyed."

But then it begs the question "why" ? Their conservatism didn't lose them the election, it was poor campaigns, and add to that the media ready to sabotage any Republican running, a RINO establishment ready to kneecap any non-RINO, and Gray Davis's own 'Rat thug machine whose sole purpose in life is to destroy Republicans at all costs. You need a practically superhuman individual to even run for office in CA these days as a Republican. Problem is, most aren't, and as soon as one takes a thwack at 'em, they cry like a baby.

"Principles are not the problem. The problem is that we have a party leadership that has no political sophistication. Winning elections is a science and these people refuse to educate themselves on the subject: you have to know which issues to spotlight and which to soft-peddle. Once in office, you can govern freely."

Yes, this is often true. I think the problem again is, in "downplaying" these issues, is the person really intending on pursuing them at all once in office, or are they just going to continue the status quo ? A lot of them don't bother and the "governing freely" ends up being anything but free.

""So-and-so doesn't deserve a tax cut". You sound like a liberal. It's not up to you to determine who deserves a tax cut or not. As Bush says "It's the people's money"."

Hey, I say tax cuts for everybody, even for the 'Rats and the RINOs. If they don't want 'em, let 'em check off a box on their tax form to remain taxed at the usual obscene rate. ;-)

"Considering I'm speaking to someone who doesn't actually do anything in the way of politicking and outreach but criticizes constantly, I'll be brief. Yes, it begins to address the demographic shift in California by educating latinos before they can be pulled into the Democrat party's vortex."

In all fairness, I don't think you know what BE does in the way of politicking or outreach. What I'm interested in is specifically what the CA GOP is doing in the way of outreach ? From at least one CA activist, I'm told the grassroots have been allowed to atrophy, and that everything is done there with a top-down approach. That is a recipe for disaster.

"None of this is important in electoral politics. You communicate your positions on these issues to the base. Spotlighting your stance on these divisive issues to the public just makes it easier for the opposition to characterize us as reactionary conservatives- which is the kiss of death in a center-left state."

Some of us would disagree that it is rather important. The problem is our failure to address "divisive" issues and we allow the 'Rats to get the upper hand. I say hammer them hard as they do to us. Rather than allow them to paint us into a corner with this absurd "anti-choice" (as if THAT is an immoral position to take !) tack, slam them back and ask why do they think in a country that proclaims it is the best in the world that it can allow millions of abortions each year, and the abomination of partial-birth abortion (which is CLEARLY opposed by the majority of people nationwide) to continue ? That if the Democrats so truly care about "the children" and "families" champion special rights that not only undermine traditional family units, but now clearly no longer protect minors from being sexually molested or worse (as per the recent Supremos ruling) or say that different racial groups should be treated differently and unfairly, Whites & Asians who perform above-average don't get the same shot as an African-American who underperforms, or that the latter, regardless of how well or how lousy they perform, continue to be treated as if they are genetically incapable of competing with non-Blacks, all of which is an utter perversion of Dr. King's dream of a color-blind America. Damn it, we need to slam these people hard, and hard as hell. That's what we did in what was likely to have been a losing contest for us in GA. We slammed Max Cleland so hard that he was reduced to bellyaching about "mean-spiritedness" after he lost in an upset (as if the 'Rats never engaged in that in their entire lives, the whole party is built upon it !). You want to take the soft-touch approach, and I'm saying that's a risky approach that might not compel voters to even bother to turn out, and you've got to inspire people (including those not accustomed to doing so) to turn out. Yup, you will also turn out the opposition, but hopefully you'll get more people to turn out for you.

"I could go on responding to your tome but I think it's safe to say that you are a purist who doesn't appreciate the nuances of running elections. Anyone who disagrees with a fraction of your ideology is a RINO (and usually gets a bizarre sounding moniker). Why am I in the GOP? Because it's too important to trust to people like yourself who would otherwise return the party to minority status."

He's a purist only in that he is, like myself, tired of seeing "R" candidates running on either 'Rat-lite platforms or platforms that don't seek to change the direction of government for the better. You say that following his lead will reduce the party to minority status when evidence indicates that it's the RINO tendencies of many state parties from coast to coast that end up costing us. Playing it safe in CA netted us precisely nothing. It would be nice for once to take the audaciousness and boldness of the 'Rats and put it into our GOP candidates to stand up for our values for a change. It's time to be bold and to take no prisoners.

My credentials in Young Republicans are statewide and national. How about yours? I have been a Republican nominee for Congress against a Demo House Budget Committee Chairman and did better than any non-incumbent Republican in Connecticut in that election and that was in a district which has elected one Republican (a pro-lifer but moderate otherwise) in 45 years. I also was floor leader in keeping Connecticut GOP nominations in the hands of Republicans only lest Weicker bring in left interest group voters to make the GOP mirror the Demonrats. How about you?

Lundgren caved on the pro-life position by late September. No guts. Simon lost by 5%, doing a hell of a lot better than your average RINO.

Tell us where your "front bench" location is. If you are saving the GOP from minority status, why are you worse off than almost any major state? Is New York center-left? It has a GOP Senate and a GOP governor and many conservative GOP Congressmen. Santorum does OK in Pennsylvania. Could you be ignoring blue collars and social conservatives?

If you think that weak tea like Muffy's tax cuts are the key in California and that social issues will not bring out vote you do not otherwise get, good luck. You are in the GOP because you want a non-black, non-Latino party of the "investor class" (your term not mine) which will mirror the Demonrats on social issues and save you a few bucks. That is not why I am in politics. The GOP was meant for more than this. You can have tax cuts as part of the overall package or not at all. With your legislature, it will be not at all because you are too busy with the yacht club and the polo club to elect legislators. Contributions are no substitute for issues and precinct work.

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.