Posted on 12/11/2006 11:06:46 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
Our view: In Arizona and nationwide, voters rejected rigid ideologues in favor of those who promised moderation, dialogue.
The picture that emerged from last month's elections, at both the state and the federal level, showed a majority of voters weary of hard-line, intransigent ideologues on the far right.
We know that, because voters turned both houses of Congress over to the Democrats and for the first time in many years gave Democrats 27 of the 60 seats seats in the Arizona House of Representatives.
They also re-elected Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, giving her a 27 percentage point victory over her ultra-conservative challenger, Republican Len Munsil.
And so there is some irony, to put it kindly, in the comments from some Republicans who believe the party suffered because its candidates were not conservative enough. That line of thinking suggests that what voters really wanted were tougher, more rigid conservatives. If that were true, then candidates like Republican Randy Graf, an aggressive conservative who was running for Congress in District 8, should have trounced his Democratic opponent, Gabrielle Giffords. But the opposite happened. Voters told Graf to take a hike and sent Giffords to Washington.
It is remarkable, then, to hear Republicans like Bill Montgomery, who did so poorly in his race against Attorney General Terry Goddard, declare: "The Republican Party took a hit because we strayed from the principles that make our party so strong and that serve to unify our membership, which consists predominantly of fiscal and social conservatives."
This is the same as saying Republican conservatives should stick to the principles that made them unpopular and that voters, for the most part, rejected.
Montgomery was quoted by reporter Daniel Scarpinato in a Star story last Wednesday. We are more inclined to agree with Steve Huffman, a Republican moderate who ran a primary against Graf and lost.
"I think the most important conversation we have to have right now is: 'Are we where the voters are?' " Huffman said.
It's an important, practical question that suggests that candidates should be responsive to voters' concerns. It makes perfect sense, and if other Republicans were to accept reality they would see that there was nothing mysterious about the election results. Voters rejected the fringes and moved toward the political center. The Republicans in District 8 who rejected Huffman didn't get it.
Many of them would undoubtedly agree with Montgomery, a political novice, who told Scarpinato, "I've always had a problem with the term 'moderate.' If you always take the middle ground, I don't see how that's a virtue. That's not leadership."
On the contrary, we would say that it is both a sign of leadership and a necessary asset to realize the wisdom in compromising on 10 or 20 percent of the issues in order to achieve success on 80 percent of the others.
Compromise is not a dirty word, nor is it fatal to try to understand another viewpoint in the hope of negotiating an issue that gives both sides some of what they're seeking. A case can be made that compromise is a sign of wisdom and maturity.
The point that hard-liners like Montgomery miss is that public service does not require rigid adherence to a personal ideological agenda. It requires an ability to remain flexible enough to respond to the people who elected you as their representative, not their emperor.
Failure to accept the fundamental message of the last election will eventually dilute Republican power at the state level as sure as it has at the national level. Voters want a change, not a restatement of the same old manifesto.
Can I guess ? Is it someone who supports Tancredo for president ?
Some of it he takes credit for things he had no control over, like killing Kyoto. The Senate ratifies or rejects Treaties, not the President.
Besides Kyoto died under Clinton, 95-1 IIRC.
As I said, those moderates will be back telling us all the wonderful stuff we'll get two years from now.
Then they'll spend the two years after that telling us what ungrateful SOBs we are and that we should sit down and shut up.
Two years later the cycle will repeat itself.
L
Your wit and intelligent remarks truly impress me.
I didn't say conservatism lost. Luis did.
I say since conservatism wasn't actually used by the Republicans for the last 6 years there's no way to tell if it would have won or lost.
I'll tell you this, though. From the way folks like Luis are talking conservatism may not be dead but it sure as hell doesn't seem to have a home in the Republican Party any more.
But I've always been pretty wary of folks who say they just want to help the Republicans but we have to (insert Carl Sagan type voice here) "Abandon those silly notions about fiscal responsibility, limited Constitutional government, national sovereignty, and secure borders. They're old outmoded ideas which have no place in the modern world."
From what I can tell, it ain't just me thinking along those lines.
L
Brevity is the soul of wit.
L
Lurker wrote: "From the way folks like Luis are talking conservatism may not be dead but it sure as hell doesn't seem to have a home in the Republican Party any more."
Well said. Actually, the moderate Republicans who seem to dominate the party's leadership have a home for us conservatives...on election day. They are fine with us as long as we do that voting thing, then get out of their way.
Didn't you notice the AMAZING shift by McPain and other Republican presidential hopefuls after the election? I swear they'd wear Reagan masks if they thought it would help them win the nomination, but then comes the sellout.
No, conservatism did not lose, but nanny-stating Christian Socialists did.
Finally, I'm always amused when the American people are called "Lemmings" and "Sheeple" when Republicans lose elections but not when they win them.
Wow, the editorial board of a newspaper wants to help out Republicans. I can believe that. Not.
When did you cross the border?
And if I have the temerity to point this out, somebody chimes in with a pithy little shot calling me a 'Buchananite'. Hence my equally pithy shot right back.
Charming people, aren't they.
I swear they'd wear Reagan masks if they thought it would help them win the nomination, but then comes the sellout.
Nixon put it well. "Run like Hell to the right to get nominated. Then run like Hell to the middle to get elected."
Well our work is cut out for us as far as the 'civilized', read RINO, wing of the party goes. We've got to crush 'em in the Primaries. If that fails we let 'em go down to defeat in the General.
Let's see if the Country Clubbers can get their precious 'majority' back without those looney tunes small government types.
L
Oh yes, the ones who just want to use the levers of power for their ends. They're another equally dangerous bunch if you ask me.
Oh they just want to get back to that ole timey religion but in the end they'll mangle the Constitution just as bad as the lefties will.
Maybe even worse.
The election was in the end about Iraq, no matter how you slice it, and the scandals.
Those played a part to be sure, but what really did 'em in was the fact that they were just playing 'catch up liberalism' with the Dems.
Couple that with the absolutely inept leadership of Hastert and Frist and the disaster was inevitable. I will admit that I predicted the Pubbies would hold Congress albeit barely.
I was wrong. They lost and we lost.
And we have no one to blame but ourselves.
It's not the fault of the press or some individual idiot Pubbies who couldn't keep their hands out of the till or their peckers in their pants.
The Republican Party traded its soul for power and in the end lost both.
L
LOL, you're that mouse who shows up looking for cheese from time to time.
Go play in the street.
time will how you wrong.
Don't forget to write.
Luis' at the trough and doesn't care who's throwing cabbage into it.
That seems to about cover it.
L
Not at all.
I supported George W. Bush for president before he was even sworn in as governor of Texas because I though he would kick the "moderates" and RINOs in the teeth...
GW is not really much of a "conservative" at all...
Well, I don't want to be harsh here, but I knew old El Rushbo very well in the early 70's when he was disc jockey Jeff Christie for radio stations WIXZ and KQV here in Pittsburgh, sometimes even finding myself at a couple of parties where he was also there. (If you think Clinton was funny saying that "he didn't inhale", you should have seen Rush/Jeff) LOL.
He was a young 21 or 22 year old and then, and I was about five years older. He was a very nice, sweet, but incredibly insecure fellow. As he behaves now, you might not recognize the gentle and good fellow he was.
Nevertheless, I must say I don't care what Rush Limbaugh has to say about much of anything these days. He's just part of the problem. His self-agrandizing, sanctimonious manner is absurd and hurtful to conservative causes in the end (jmo). His continual ridicule of the opposition is a bad joke. It's "conservative" spokesmen like he who contributed to these election loses. Sean Vannity is even worse as a self-righeous spokesman......... at least Rush is somewhat funny at times and has a degree of intelligence. Vannity is just like fingernails on the blackboard.
****
Put Mark Steyn on three hours a day/five days a week and the conservatives just may have a chance in future elections.
But, that won't happen. Rush is a tool for the media ...... and he loves it.
It's all theatre. Enjoy it.
;-)
Very true.
The socialist/Marxist/liberal media is the most destructive, relentless, and ruthless enemy of this Republic.
****
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.