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.
Don’t forget the Maine twins and Lindsey and Larry (Craig of “I-da-ho’” fame).
Exactly the problem. The GOP "leadership" needs to learn to hold their collective nose and nominate and elect conservatives.
I will watch California to see if running one of the very conservative folks works. It might, if the feds keep attacking the Central Valley.
Yeah tell me how many third party members have been elected? *rme*
And how, pray tell, will a Republican who’s “pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-stimulus views, who favored making it easier for unions to organize” show “a commitment to returning government to its rightful place in American life, where it serves citizens rather than vice-versa” ?
Seems a bit oxymoronic, doesn’t it ?
And how many weak Republicans have been nominated because the GOP knew there were people like you who would vote for anyone they put out there?
Nominate a RINO and lose the election: we lose.
Nominate a RINO and win the election: we lose also. Only this time we end up unable to oppose weak or wrong policy.
The only only only only upside to McCaine winning was having Palin with her foot in the door. Anyone other than Palin and I would not have voted GOP presidential period.
And as it stands, voting GOP was a freakin’ waste of vote anyway AND I have the bad taste in my mouth from voting for McCain.
I feel more used than a passed out co ed at a fraternity party.
And we're ashamed to have these effete, spineless losers as our "leaders", so we're even on that count.
>>Yes, and supporting RINO’s just gets us to a Maoist style government a little slower.<<
The damage is containable and reverible. The damage being done right now is not.
Better the devil you can influene than the one who blows you off.
But, go ahead and flush the US down the toilet QUICKLY if that is your agenda.
I prefer to fight rather than die alone on a hill of insanity.
>>Obama won because of Ron Paul?
Are you that f*&^ing stupid?<<
it was a contributing factor, in that it watered down support behind the only viable candidate (nauseating as he was).
Are you that f*&^ing blind and Kool-Aid stoned?
Happy with your decision? Hows that hope and change you indirectly voted for (assuming you voted for rupaul) working for ya?
We’ve got to spend our dollars DIRECTLY on conservative candidates - might as well pull out the 401K money because as things continue and we don’t see a conservative change, we WON’T HAVE ANY MONEY LEFT to spend for our beliefs anyway!
Sorry, but if you think we are stuck with Obama because of Ron Paul, then you’re too f*$%ing stupid to even talk to.
I take issue with this statement. I no longer believe that conservatives and moderates have issues that unite them. Conservatives are for limited government that serves the people, as was the intention of those that founded this country. Moderates have become almost indistinguishable from Democrats these days, and they are in fact for big, intrusive government that often meddles in the day-to-day lives of Americans. Does anyone honestly not laugh when a moderate states that they are "fiscally conservative"? Where is the proof of this, other than going along with the occasional tax cut? I'm sorry, but until we start seeing some honesty from the moderates, I for one have no trust in anything that they say.
>>Sorry, but if you think we are stuck with Obama because of Ron Paul, then you’re too f*$%ing stupid to even talk to.<<
And, if you are too stupid to make an argument — N00B — then you are too f*$%ing stupid to be on a Conservative board.
Go back to DU where they love people like you.
Your premise is so weak that to even “argue” it would be a huge waste of time.
If you think Obama won because of Ron Paul, maybe you should be protesting outside of Ron Paul’s office, moron.
OK. When, exactly, are the moderates going to begin compromising on some of their left-wing positions, including big government? It is the conservatives that are constantly asked to compromise. Sorry, but the conservatives in this country aren't the ones responsible for destroying it. The Democrats and the moderates that throw in with them are responsible for the decline. Need proof? Have you taken a look at the northeastern portion of the country lately? Name me some conservative policies that are responsible for the decline of that part of the country. I doubt you'll think of many, though. No politician or party "leader" from either party in that part of the country should be lecturing anyone on how best to govern. The liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans have worked together to destroy what was once the most thriving section of the country. And they will do the same to the rest of the country if someone doesn't put their foot down now and say, "enough!".
>>Your premise is so weak that to even “argue” it would be a huge waste of time.<<
You seem to be able to unable to grasp my argument N00B. Go away and tell your mommy to come down to the basement and give you need a Dr. Pepper and Cheetoes refill.
>>If you think Obama won because of Ron Paul, maybe you should be protesting outside of Ron Paul’s office, moron.<<
You again are unable to grasp my argument. No surprise for someone who “argues” through 100% ad homimem — i.e. like a liberal.
Go away and bother me no more, child. Return to the arms of your beloved DU and kos.
Spoken like a true friend of Marx.
It seems that this idea would be more useful if there were specific points upon which to compromise. For instance:
Support public option?
Raise taxes?
Support Cap and Trade?
Support a second or even third stimulus?
I merely offer these as concrete starting points. And I cannot remain this afternoon to debate (sorry.)
If we can/can't compromise on specific points then we can/can't pull together for 2010...???
From the article:
What that local official overlooks is that the outgoing Republican Representative, John McHugh, had a 71.55% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. John McHugh won this seat last year with 65% of the votes cast in his race. John McCain, a compromising Moderate, lost in this district.
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.”
The candidate they selected for this race has a 15% rating from the Conservative party of New York, and she is more liberal than 46 of the Democrats in the State House in New York.
On the issues, Doug Hoffman is much closer to John McHugh's positions than either of the other candidates in the race.
This should have been checked out by the RCCC before they supported the choice of Scozzafava. There was a serious breakdown in the vetting process at the RCCC. If this decision was made by staffers, it isn’t the staffers’ fault, it is a problem with the people who delegate decision this important to staffers.
I don’t insist on complete ideological purity. But I do insist that Republican candidates, supported by donations from all over this country, donations that are supposed to support the Republican platform and agenda, candidates who get these national funds need to support most of the platform.
This race in the 23rd district in New York is an opportunity for the TEA partiers, 9-12ers and conservative grass roots everywhere to demonstrate that they do have political power in addition to their principles. This is a district where Doug Hoffman can win, with enough support from the grass roots everywhere. But it has become a national race, with national money from the RCCC, the RNC, the DNC and their congressional committee. Even Barack Obama is getting involved with a fundraiser for Bill Owens. We need to get some conservative support to Doug Hoffman to keep this race interesting.
Political power without principles is worthless. But principles alone – devoid of any political power to defend or enact them – don’t achieve much, either.
The good news is, if he can get 2/3rds of the votes that John McHugh got last year, he is in a good position to win the race. On the issues, he is closer to John McHugh than anyone in the race.
Please, send Hoffman a donation. I wish we would get behind him as strongly as we got behind Joe Wilson last month.
Markos Moulitsas, founder of The Daily Kos has endorsed Scozzafava. Dede Scozzafava has also been endorsed by NYSUT, the largest labor union in New York, and an affiliate of the National Education Association.
Scozzafava also holds these positions:
Scozzafava has also run in past elections on the Working Families Party (a progressive party associated with ACORN) line on the ballot.
This lady isn’t a RINO, she is a big “R” libeRal democRat.
There are also 17 RINOs in the house who have donated funds to this LibeRal democRat's campaign. They include Boehner and Cantor. I don’t have a full list, but I will be looking for it. These RINOs should be targeted for elimination in the primaries next year.
| From the desk of cc2k: |
Please support Doug Hoffman for Congress. Please, spread the word about this important race in New York’s 23rd congressional district. |
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.