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.
You are so right, as well. Do you agree with my post above? I hope my words were clear.
Yes. It puts Ohio in perspective, and by extension other races as well. People just didn't know who or what they were really voting for. It was a deliberate tactic by the Democrats.
I fear my words weren't very clear.
I understood them perfectly. A lot of the others probably won't - but not because they can't read them clearly enough...
Man you are so right. Fush and Vannity cost the conservatives the election.
Actually, President Bush has had congressional coattails unlike any other president in the past many decades, and kept a majority for six of eight years. The party abandoned their fiscal conservatism and the Dems succesfully leveraged a few minor scandals to get a victory in the six year of Bush' term. Presidents almost always experience significant losses at that point in their term. The GOP had nothing to run on in '06 because they had accomplished absolutely nothing in their term.
The country didn't move left. The candidates that won the House campaigned on issues of the right and neutralized advantages such as pro-gun, pro life and fiscal conservative issues.
AZ was a state that seemed to show some signs of moving left, likely due to a popular Dem governor and people moving in state who are farther left than natives. Also, the GOP has all but abandoned small government libertarian focus, which is strong in the western states like AZ, MT, and others.
Yep and he took Blackwell down with him.
Gritty, here is what some people have said to me ... On Issue 5 (smoking), I printed out the sign from the Ohio Department of Health's website that has to be posted in every public place with the phone number for reporting violations (fellow Ohioans reporting fellow Ohioans), showed it to a person who was going to vote for it, and I said, "This belongs in NAZI Germany," and their response was (angrily), "Well, it's a disgusting, dirty habit." On Issue 2 (minimum wage), a person said, "Well, I'm of the impression that when we help someone, we help everybody." I asked the person if they read the amendment that has very heavy reporting requirements by businesses (even lawyers agree with this), and of course they had no answer. That's how a vast majority of people vote. They wouldn't sign a contract without reading it, but they do vote without reading and understanding what they're voting on.
A view that happens to be unsupported by facts, given that losing pubbies spanned the political spectrum.
Please - don't cherry-pick the facts to present a case that simply isn't there. This paper is hardly a paragon of conservatism, and if they are making a case that fits your views, Luis, it means you might want to reconsider yours.
We cannot let the rubble to decide who is in power. We need a nice Latin American style oligarchical dictatorship.
Exactly. They don't vote "facts", they vote "emotion". That's why the Dems were so successful. They don't have the "facts" (or they want to obscure the real ones) but they sure have "emotion" cornered. They appeal to what people think is "good" in their own good nature and motivation play on it. This feel-good wedge of voters suck it up like they own it.
This is a herd and touchy-feely mentality mindset so increasingly prevalent in American culture and promoted everywhere, including our public schools. It's the Liberal Way and it is their ticket to permanent power.
Let me correct that for you:
VotersThe RNCC told Graf to take a hike and sent Giffords to Washington.
He never had a chance without national money, and was badly outspent by a popular Democrat.
I guess the loss of the social consetrvative is not a "fact."
My views are being repeated by editorials from both sides of the political spectrum; if it looks like a duck...
Great post.
There were a lot of various factors that soured the electorate on the GOP, and the Democrats were able to take advantage and squeak by with a narrow victory.
Very quotable!
New tagline...
What will work is optimistic conservatism, with a clearly-defined plan. That's what the GOP has when it wins big. In 2006, there was little optimism, and no plan.
We need to remind people that this is the greatest nation in the world, and that if we set our minds to accomplishing something, we can do it. And, it's not the government that makes us great; it's the American people, and our form of government.
In 2002 and 2004 - big years for Republicans - you could have gone to Kos or DU and heard the same from Democrats: "The media is giving Bush and the Republicans a pass on The War, or The Deficit", or Whatever".
2006: same media, same owners, same editors, same reporters, different winers, different losers... same excuse.
Perhaps the voters would have preferred a more conservative Republican Party. Perhaps not. What they clearly did not want, was what was on offer.
I didn't say that they cost the Republicans the election, but they both are so obnoxious, self-absorbed,sanctimonious, and self-righteous --- especially the little Arrogant 'Talking Points Vannity', that they serve to energize the opposition and turn many voters against our side.
I really dislike the effect both of them have had on the electorate for the past years.
Hannity is just plain AWFUL!!!! And Rush is a just a self-aggrandizing slug.
And I wasn't going after single moms exclusively. Welfare queens come in all shapes and sizes, some wear three piece suits.
Thanks for the ping....
I can only view some of these comments as laughable, but that is the way people respond who have not yet accepted reality. I seriously doubt they will.
What is interesting today is the responses from the early primary Republican caucuses that indicate a refusal to support moderate candidates who do not pass the social conservative litmus tests on abortion, gays and Mexicans. They essentially said...."No way Hosea".
I predict a total rout in the '08 general. Maybe this will convince them.
No, actually it won't........LOL:-)
I think I have now shifted from a participant to a spectator role that will likely give me a lot of laughs in the next two years. One has to be a bit sarcastic and perhaps masochistic to enjoy the coming freak show, but it is the only way I can maintain my sanity.
Have a good day Louis, and i must admire your courage for taking all these fools on, day after day. Be careful that you don't take it too personally.
They know not what they do. They really don't. They came to a political fight, armed with uncompromisable personal convictions, and they will pay dearly for that mistake, but they will not understand why and likely never will.IMO.
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.