Home › Blogs › Conn Carroll's blog ›

Early '10 Lessons from '09 Disasters

Submitted by Conn Carroll on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 10:41

Poltico's Jonathan Martin reports: 

The surging campaign of third-party candidate Chris Daggett has turned the New Jersey governor's race into a dead-heat and left Republicans divided over the seriousness of the threat he poses to GOP nominee Chris Christie.

The Hill's Reid Wilson reports:

The House GOP conference is bitterly divided over a centrist New York Republican’s run for the House seat vacated by Army Secretary John McHugh.

Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who backs abortion rights and has voiced support for gay rights, has drawn a challenger from the right who is running on the Conservative Party line. And though House leaders have urged conference members to donate, many have pointedly refused to back Scozzafava.

What do these two stories have in common? Everything. In both cases the local GOP establishment supported moderate, big government friendly Republicans who they thought stood a better chance of winning a general election.

In both cases the general election campaigns of these candiates are absolutely floundering.

The lesson: me-too big government GOP moderates are going to get washed away by the same anti-establishment wave that is going to remove mand Dems from office in '10.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Or GOP in trouble in moderate districts

Submitted by johnson springs on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 12:14.

The lesson: me-too big government GOP moderates are going to get washed away by the same anti-establishment wave that is going to remove mand [sic] Dems from office in '10.

I would caution against taking this much-hoped-for lesson too much to heart. After all, what we're seeing in both of these races are elections that are conservatives' to lose and in both cases that is what is happening as a fragmented right is trailing very weak liberal candidates.

I would suggest the following lesson can be drawn from the two races: the GOP and conservatives will likely have many opportunities in 2010 to oust Democratic incumbents in moderate and conservative districts and states but in order to do so we need to avoid self-defeating three-way races whenever possible.

Fight it out in the primary and then win the seat with whoever wins the primary heat.

Or the lesson is....

Submitted by Dean_L on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 19:06.

Yes, the GOP has gotten it wrong in many instances.  Yes particularly where they mimic the 'centrist' approach taken by McCain in 2008.  No doubt these are some serious errors.

BUT....

I've seen first hand what the consequences are of dividing the vote.  Not good.  Not good at all.

What it comes down to, is that every conservative voter going into the booth on election day has to vote not their conscience but strategically.  While the GOP is not the party of conservatism that they should be, a split vote means a Democrat win.  It's the worst of all possible outcomes.

I'm just saying...

which way are the voters?

Submitted by lgm on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 21:28.

"Centerist" McCain was too far right for most voters, which is why they chose to vote for the other guy.  You are not going to attract them by moving even further to the right. 

McCain too far right?

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 14:15.

Centerist" McCain was too far right for most voters,

Really?  Do you have some data to support this assertion?  I would counter that the larger reason McCain lost was because (1) he was not conservative enough for a large chunk of Republican voters who simply decided to stay home and not vote, (2) he was too successfully associated with Bush, and (3) he didn't have the charisma power that Obama had.  But "too far right"?  Come now.  Which of McCain's positions were right-wing-lunatic-fringe-worthy?

Which of McCain's positions

Submitted by Pogue_Mahone on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 16:33.

Which of McCain's positions were right-wing-lunatic-fringe-worthy?

 

Sarah Palin.

If each word of "right-wing-lunatic-fringe-worthy" were taken independently and applied to Sarah Palin, the only word that wouldn't fit would be "worthy."

 

Am I not correct in that the choice of Palin was supposed to rally the base?

Sarah Palin

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 17:25.

Fine - which one of Sarah Palin's positions is "right-wing-lunatic-fringe-worthy"?

Off the top of my head --

Submitted by acinphx on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 19:16.

Off the top of my head -- creationism, no abortion exceptions even for rape & incest.  But just as important (although not right-wing-lunatic-fringe-worthy):  absolutely clueless about national and world issues (can't name a Supreme Court opinion other than Roe v. Wade? not familiar with the Bush doctrine?) and proud of that ignorance.  I could go on ("Real America" nonsense, etc.) but it's essentially OT.

I don't think McCain lost because he was too far right.  The biggies for me were Palin, his bizarre reaction to the financial crisis, and a statement at one of the debates that he'd take military spending, Medicare and Social Security off the table in looking at potential budget fixes -- clearly, he was not serious about any signifcant effort to rein in spending.

The one name that sank McCain

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 20:33.

Was Dow Jones. And there's was no way to get HIM off the ticket!

Dow was key but another name plagued him too.

Submitted by acinphx on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 11:31.

And that name was Bush.  Had to have varied from person to person as to which was more influential, but the combination was fatal by early October.

Sarah Palin and Creationism

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 21:06.

Here is Sarah Palin on creationism:

'Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.'

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there," she said in the interview. "They gain information just by being in a discussion."

I missed the part where she wanted to replace evolution with creationism in public schools. I also missed the part where she wanted to impose fundamental Christian beliefs onto everyone.

Sarah Palin's views on creationism are not a fringe view.  But because she was mercilessly mocked and ridiculed, she became associated with absolutist fundamentalist views.

'Teach both... I didn't say

Submitted by acinphx on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 01:01.

'Teach both...

I didn't say she advocated replacing evolution with creationism in public schools, or that she said she wanted to impose fundamentalist Christian beliefs onto everyone.  But I don't support teaching creationism in a science classroom and as the quote indicates, she wants to have both taught.

You asked us to identify where she was on the fringe and I pointed out that many people consider creationism and no abortion exceptions to be fringe.  I stand by that.  I also think a majority don't support abstinence-only sex education, which is another of her beliefs that I would put on the fringe. 

And I disagree that it was only mock and ridicule that associated her with absolutist fundamentalist views.  She attends a fundamentalist church.  The videotape of her with the witchdoctor is readily available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl4HIc-yfgM).  Actually, the speaking in tongues and witchdoctor stuff is even considered fringe by some fundamentalists.  I'm not saying she said she wanted to impose this on everyone.  Just saying that, for my money, it's fringe, and I would be extremely leery of an elected official under this influence.  YMMV.

Creationism as "fringe"

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 15:36.

I don't support teaching creationism in the science classroom.  But it's not a fringe view.

Nearly two-thirds of those in a Pew Research Center poll, 64 percent, say they believe “creationism” should be taught alongside “evolution” — a finding likely to spark more controversy about what is taught in the schools.

So 64% agree with Sarah Palin's position.

I stand corrected

Submitted by acinphx on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 18:16.

And that surprises me.  I don't have any issues with teaching creationism as part of a philosophy or comparative religions curriculum.  It is a widely-held belief and I share it.  But it is not supported by science, as far as I know.  It is a tenet of a religious belief system and to my knowledge, no scientific evidence exists to support it that would be relevant in a science curriculum.  Short on time so no time to search, but if you can explain the science that supports creationism I'm open to learning.

"Centrist" McCain

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 21:51.

"Centerist" McCain was too far right for most voters, which is why they chose to vote for the other guy.

Correct. Bush, one of the worst reactionaries to ever infest the White House, was virtually worshipped by the conservatives--even in December, after Republicans had been as brutalized by Bush's reign, as the economy, self-identified conservative Republicans were still giving Bush a 72% approval rating. "Centrist" McCain had been with Bush every step of the way. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last year, "centrist" McCain had, in fact, voted for Bush's position 90% of the time during Bush's first 7 1/2 years in office. In the year leading into the election, he was with Bush 95% of the time, making him Bush's top ally in the congress, and in the first half of 2008, he had voted with Bush 100% of the time. The application of the word "centrist" to such a creature reveals either the profoundest ignorance or a degree of idiocy well within the parameters of outright cretinism. And that's before one gets to Palin, whose appeal seems to be limited exclusively to multi-generational products of sibling marriage who think the wrong side won the second World War. Obama defeated McCain by hanging Bush around his neck, and by McCain hanging Palin around his own.

De-value much?

Submitted by Pogue_Mahone on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 16:26.

While the GOP is not the party of conservatism that they should be, a split vote means a Democrat win.  It's the worst of all possible outcomes.

 

If I bury a Twinkie bar in a time capsule and come back in 100 years, it will still be a Twinkie bar.  A cream filled POS.

 

I don't know about you, but in a hundred years, I don't wanna eat a Twinkie bar.

 

Cheers.

that statement basically defined "non sequitor"

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 17:46.

We;ve had lefties come here and advance useful arguments. This is not one of them.

Just curious...

Submitted by Pogue_Mahone on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 18:22.

What about that statement causes you to believe that it is from a leftist?

I'm guessing that our new Democrat troll is a late version of

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 19:51.

rbottoms... you know, the commenter who went a wee bit too far and got blocked under that moniker.

"Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 16:58.  "rbottoms" insults have become gratuitous and vulgar, and his trolling has become an impediment to productive conversation. He has been blocked from further commenting."

Hey rbottoms or pogue_mahone... I'm Irish so I know what your new moniker means... in gaelic it's pog mo thoin.

Quite a witty lad you are given your last name was supposedly "Bottoms".

 

Again...

Submitted by Pogue_Mahone on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 08:23.

What is it about that statement that makes you think I'm a Democrat?

 

C'mon, Sherlock.  Answer.

How you answer will be very insightful as to who you are.

What bothers me about NY 23 is...

Submitted by Ironman on Thu, 10/15/2009 - 21:14.

There has been a third party for Conservatives in NY State for decades.  Except in NYC, the Republicans make damm sure in a contested race they get the Conservative Party line; since if you don;t, you lose a contested election.

In 2006 a party-switcher to the R's finally irritated the local conservatives in the Syracuse area enough  that they primaried her for the State Senate, then the loser ran in the general as a Conservative, peeled off about 14%, and cost the GOP the State Senate seat.

Now , in the Congressional District that overlaps that State Senate seat, the local GOP chairmen insisted on nominating the one candidate the Conservatives were adamantly opposed to.   Now, please explain, in light of the history, who was being foolhardy about this? 

The GOP has no bench.

Submitted by barbsright on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 05:31.

The GOP has no bench. It is full of vegetables. W.,like LBJ (another Texan), represented the end of  a politacal philosophy. In W's case---Republican Conservatism. I have seen Christies TV ads, and they are bad. Corzine has painted Christie as being against mamagrams, and for  the health insurance companies. I could go on, but you get the idea. If Christie really was good then  this would not have happened. The GOP needs a new 'Contract' to sell to voters across the USA, otherwise the GOP candidates  will not be able to be elected dog catcher---anywhere! The reason the D's won Congress is that they developed a 'Contract' that all their new candidates, at that time, had to agree to. It worked. Now the GOP must poll people, and do the same. That is how 'The Contract With America' came about. You cannot win if the majority of voters are not if favor of what you are selling.

Bench?

Submitted by Whitehorse on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 17:00.

We do have a great bench, the problem is that we have bad "coaches" leading the team. Choosing Crist over Rubio? Scuzzywhateverhernameis  over any other Republican or conservative, or potted plant?

 

In 2006 & '08 the Democrat "contract" was not being George Bush or Republican. The 1994 CwA was substantive, & Republicans better be developing something substantive right now. To sell it not only matters to be selling the right thing; it matters to authentically believe in what you're selling & know how to use it. The successful Republican candidates (who can turn control of congress) will be those who authentically believe in conservative Republican Values & Principles as well as be able to give real world examples of how these would work.

We got OT with Palin above

Submitted by acinphx on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 11:43.

We got OT with Palin above but there is an aspect related to NY-23 where she's relevant.  She made a lot of noise about how her PAC and her persona being available to help conservative candidates were among the motivations for her resignation as governor.  Yet I've not heard a word about her money or her presence being available to help the conservative candidate in NY-23?  It seems that would be the ideal opportunity to demonstrate that commitment on her part?  (IIRC, she said she wouldn't limit her support to Republicans but to conservatives of any affiliation).  Wonder why that is?  Another example of failing to match action to her claims?

Ya Think

Submitted by Whitehorse on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 17:02.

Maybe Hoffman hasn't asked her to appear? Or should she barge in where she's not asked to attend? Or, can Palin simply do no right in your eyes?

Why wouldn't he ask her to

Submitted by acinphx on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 18:11.

Why wouldn't he ask her to appear?  Did he/would he refuse her PAC money?

And you're correct that she's done nothing right in my eyes, at least to date.  As far as I can tell, she's simply done nothing of note other than promote her own interests.

You know, maybe we need to win this thing on the ground

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 07:07.

Hoffman needs to worry more about making sure he's got his ground game covered across this district than thinking some outside media superstar is going to propel him to victory.

On the Palin front, we don;t know what contractual obligations she's made to her publisher and she's about to launch her book. Might be a complication; might not. Again, the Hoffman camp needs to spend more time door knocking and less time whining.  

As a conservative, Im not

Submitted by EscapeVelozity on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 14:40.

As a conservative, Im not interested in the success of a non conservative candidate, whether the liberal leftwinger has an R or a D behind their name.

 

Bad Induction

Submitted by goodepic on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 16:23.

There's no doubt that two huge factors in the Democratic sweep in '08 was Bush and the charisma gap between Obama and any of the plausible GOP candidates.  And the Democrats certainly proved in '02-'06 that oppo party lite isn't a way to a resurgence for your party.  But the final ingredient needed for your conclusion is the unstated assumption that GOP establishment backing for purer, more strictly conservative candidates will lead not only to avoiding third party challenges from the right but also to general election victories.

The general environment, post-Bush, the economy, war fatigue, etc., in 2008 definitely helped swing many moderate and some conservative districts to the Democrats, and those seats are clearly in play for the GOP in 2010.  But I see no evidence that a pure Jim DeMint GOP has any real chance at national relevance.  Claims like saying the reason McCain lost is that he was too centrist really are nothing but wishful thinking.  Bush was elected in 2000, with a minority of the popular vote, on centrist rhetoric with Reaganite tax principles, and then in 2004 simply through war on terror positioning.  Where's the evidence that far-right ideologues can gain enough victories outside of the south and the plains to lead the GOP back to a national majority?

"In both cases the local GOP

Submitted by Woolly Mammoth on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 12:32.

"In both cases the local GOP establishment supported moderate, big government friendly Republicans who they thought stood a better chance of winning a general election."

You appear to have Christie and Daggett backward.

How

Submitted by Benjamin Strickland on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 05:13.

How did these Republicans think it was OK to go with the idea that big government is right? Well, they are about to pay a big price for that notion. Study after study shows that true conservatives never want big government. They want considerably less intrusion. That is the same reason McCain lost in his race for the presidency. The year 2010 should be a boom year for true conservative politicians. casino en ligne