Home › Blogs › Patrick Ruffini's blog ›

Springtime for GOP Moderates

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Wed, 05/06/2009 - 23:57
in

Arlen Specter's departure has triggered the predictable media outcry attacking the Republican Party as an increasingly insular conservative rump, a regional party at best with no foothold in the Northeast.

That is one narrative. But there's a different story being told by the likely Republican lineup of Senate candidates in 2010. It's a story of our best pickup opportunities coming in blue states from more moderate Republicans, not from easy layups in red states represented by Democrats (of which there are many). And by and large, these candidacies are being embraced by conservatives, chief among them Mike Castle (DE), Mark Kirk (IL), and Rob Simmons (CT) (disclosure, I work on the last race).

Arlen Specter's erratic behavior in the last week is proof he needed to go. But this doesn't change the fact that there needs to be a functional relationship between the conservative and moderate wings of the party, and that any situation where a blue state Republican is ipso facto disparaged as a RINO is a dysfunctional one not conducive to building a majority led by the right.

I wasn't happy with Collins and Snowe's votes on the stimulus, but it is useful to make this distinction between the Maine Senators and Specter. For them, one gets the sense that it's not about ego or entitlement. They are genuinely moderate-to-liberal Republicans (moreso Snowe) representing a deep blue state that just legalized gay marriage through the legislative process.

If it's a choice between Lindsey Graham, a headline-grabbing conservative-hating conservative, or an honest, workmanlike moderate like Collins who will not go out of their way to rip the party to pieces in the press, sign me up for the moderate. Both parties will have their moderates. And if we keep ours in line and grab some of theirs, that's the surest sign we're winning (see: card check). If we ever find ourselves in the position where moderates can't vouch for a center-right governing agenda, we are in trouble.

There is a categorical difference between egomaniacs or iconoclasts like Specter, Chafee, and frankly Lieberman who fancy themselves Senators-for-life and think of themselves as entirely above party, and those who understand that parties and ideological blocs are vital to shifting the political center of gravity. Yes, they won't be with us on stuff like earmarks, and yes, we'll razz them about that. But you know what? No intellectually honest person could ever call them a Specter. We need to take back seats in places like North Dakota and Arkansas to allow the natural Republican small state majority in the Senate to reassert itself. But I wouldn't mind planting a flag in the blue states either. And that is going to take a certain type of candidate.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Karl Rove: It's all about the politics of addition

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 06:56.

Patrick, I could easily flip your comments and, as a Ripon GOPer (and a fiscal conservative, WOT hawk) take a litany of farRight conservative ego-maniacs and make the same case about the newGOP accepting back into the Party the soc-con ingrates who stayed home on ElectionDay and directly contributed to the Obama win.  The whole RINO argument is bullsh*t; the real RINOs are those disloyal people who undermined McCain-Palin's campaign... like RushBlow and Coulter, et al.

But the real truth comes in your politically sage advice that mirrors Karl Rove's standard "where-do-we-go-from-here" line: Winning in politics is about addition, not subtraction.

I'd say that there are many on the GOP's farRight who are more interested in culling out RINOs and pursuing the political suicide of PurityPolitics & LitmusTestIssues than in rebuilding a MAJORITY Party.  I'd rather not have those folks anywhere near the GOP's tiller again.  The last time they got their grubby, corrupt mitts on the tiller it led to guys like TomDelay and DennyHastert and BillFrist and a ruination of the GOP brand.

The trick will be for the GOP leadership to steer clear of divisive, antagonistic culture war issues like EnglishOnly and TeriShiavo and gay marriage.  And the real test will come when the Nation takes on immigration reform... because that's a singular issue those farRight PurityPolitics types can't keep quiet about... for some of them, it's like kicking a can down the street or resisting the temptation to feel good about themselves by spitting in the gutter when walking the TallWalk with da' Boys... those farRight guys just can't pass up the chance to trash an illegal.

I'm trying hard to find a place in my heart to forgive those RINO rightwing types who were pathetically disloyal to the Party in the last election... and those soc-cons who practiced the Fine Art of Political Suicide that got us to today,  Your advice and Karl Rove's standard line about "winning is addition" help make the pragmatic points salient.

Thanks.

Ball park answer

Submitted by resonaire56 on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 08:24.

The analysis is quite right,president bush and john maccain were so weakened by the immigration defeat due to the hate on right wing radio, they couldnt perform on the national arena.President bush domestic agenda was quashed and that took the air out of anything he hoped to achieve,John maccain was birated by the Purists on talk radio,potraying him as a RINO,the mexican advocate,the daggers run dip and he spent more time fighting his own party than fighting the democrats.

Seriously?

Submitted by thirdeblue on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 08:43.

I laughed myself to tears knowing that Republicans thought they could win a Senate race in Delaware, Connecticut or Illinois.  Does anyone actually think Roland Burris will win the Democratic primary? You might as well spent $10 million while you're at it in New Jersey.

Tom Ridge might win against Arlen Specter.  I'd be curious to find out how Tom Ridge would do against another, unnamed Democrat or Joe Sestak.

What have the Republicans done or the Democrats done to get a Republican elected in these areas?  Seriously, I want to know.  The stimulus "debate" only applies to Republican constituencies.

Have you seen the polling?

Submitted by stanolshefski on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 08:54.

"Castle leads Biden, 55% to 34% with only 8% undecided."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/05/05/castle_would_crush_biden_in_senate_race.html 

 

"11. If the election for Governor were being held today and the choices were Christopher Christie, the Republican and Jon Corzine, the Democrat, for whom would you vote?Christopher Christie 47% Jon Corzine 36% Other 1% Undecided 16%"

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/newjersey_poll_042209.htm

 

There's similar polling in the other states.

Local != National Results

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 09:14.

Local elections don't neccessarily translate into national results.

For instance, in 2008, we elected Mitch Daniels to governor, somehow still swung for Obama for President, and every House incumbent kept their seat.

 

Yes I had, actually.

Submitted by thirdeblue on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 09:28.

Read the fine print on the Delaware poll.

"The poll of 500 registered voters in Delaware was conducted between April 27 and April 30, 2009 and has a 4.3% margin of error."    Biden has a HIGHER job approval rating, yet it also lists Castle leading Biden amongst independents 82% to 12%.  Does that strike you as accurate?  Once the Democrats come in with some money, Castle will lose 54 to 46...mark my words.

 

The Republicans very well may win the Governorship in New Jersey and good luck to them, I'm from Ohio so I don't care one way or the other.  Good luck ousting Lautenberg though.  I don't care if he is polling sub 50%.  Remember the addage, "New Jersey HATES their politicians."

Well. let's get the pesky goalposts off the field, eh?

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 10:34.

3rdEyeBlue, you discounted that GOPers couldn't win in certain blue states and when it was pointed out that, in some states, strong GOP candidates are in place and polling is indicating weakness or softness in the opponents, you dismiss the likely New Jersey win... discount the possible Connecticut win... miss the opportunity for GOP gains in blue states like Michigan and Illinois and Pennsylvania... it's like trying to play soccer with you and all you can do is keep moving the goal posts.

The pragmatic reality is that if the economy continues to sink, if bailouts are the common currency at Treasury, if the Dems keep taking the Country deeper into staggering debt, GOP candidates will win at all levels in the off-cycle year because it is a ready mechanism for voters to voice disapproval of the Dem-centered govt leadership.  And the majority of voters who show up at the polls will be there to express their disappointment and anger at the economy, not embrace SmallChange & Hype.

In Michigan, it's likely that the Dem Gov's seat will accrue to the GOP.  The GOP will likely maintain it's control over the AG, the Secy of State and State Senate... and will likely cut the Dem majority in the State House to less than 3 and may even win back 1 congressional seat in the state delegation.

It went screamingly strong for Obama/Biden this last election in Michigan.  Two congressional seats swung over in the Obama landslide in Michigan.  The MiSupremeCt went Democrat as well because of the Obama landslide.  But that ain't reality for off-cycle elections.

I'm not alone in projecting that many so-called BlueStates (based on Obama's win) will likely go Red because the majority of voters who show up in off-cycle elections aren't the easy-to-bus ACORN voters who elected Obama.

Right, I know... your response will be something like... "Yeah, but I live in Ohio and I don't care about Michigan".  Umm, right... you go with that.

Meanwhile, smart GOPers will continue to recruit strong, center-right candidates who can preach the message of RealChange, not SmallChange.  And we'll see you back here on Election Day 2010 plus Day One.

Reality bites

Submitted by skayne on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 11:07.

Those pols are vulnernable becuase of their unpopularity before Obama even entered the picture. Both Corzine and Dodd were unpopular and faced a tough fight because of that unpopularity. It is not a referendum on Obama. But a poll taken in a year and a half away the mid-terms is not a slam dunk by any case in those blue states.

Reality is going to hit like a ton of bricks when the Dems widen theiry majority in the Senate. They might lose some seats in the House, but nothing to worry about.

The GOP continues to go hand in glove with social conservatism. They will remain an impotent fringe minority as long as that's true.

I'm not concerned about state politics

Submitted by thirdeblue on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 11:24.

If it's not Ohio.  Savy?  I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that.  Republicans can and have won anywhere from New York City to Los Angelos on the local level and can and will continue to do so.  That doesn't change the fact that   Kudoes for supporting them.

I just find it ironic that pragmatic Republicans on the local level morph into some absurd parody of themselve once they run for higher office.  Anyone remember Mitt Romney?  Anyone think Mitt Romney could be governor of Massachusetts NOW?  Anyone else think that the Mitt Romney who was Governor of Massachusetts would have been a better candidate than the Mitt Romney who went down in flames in the GOP primary?

Recruit the best candidates possible and hope for best on the national level.  The referendum will be on Obama.  I think you've vastly overestimating the appeal fiscal conservatism has to the electorate.  It might be a motivating factor to you, but not to enough other people.

Morphing Politicians

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 11:42.

Politicians morphing once they get to Congress isn't new, and isn't limited to the Republicans, case in point, Kirsten Gillibrand

 

I think you've pushed your head all the way to your colon

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:05.

3rdEyeBlew offers: "Anyone think Mitt Romney could be governor of Massachusetts NOW?  Anyone else think that the Mitt Romney who was Governor of Massachusetts would have been a better candidate than the Mitt Romney who went down in flames in the GOP primary?"

Umm, I'm not sure why you'd want to start trashing the likely GOP nominee in 2012, but let's take your rhetorical questions seriously, eh?

According to an Apr 17 '09 poll done by the Boston Globe, Mitt Romney remains highly popular and well thought of in Massachusetts --71% of all voters have a favorable opinion of him -and that's reporting from a state paper that routinely dumped on everything Romney throughout his terms in office and his US Senate bid.  According to the fall '09 CPAC straw poll, Mitt Romney remains the frontrunner and prime choice of conservatives in 2012.

Mitt Romeny "went down in flames in the GOP primary"?  Really?  What spacecraft did YOU fly in on and when was the last time you had your head outside your butt?  Romney took Michigan, btw a state that was predicted to be solid McCain.  Romney bowed out of the race at the CPAC event because McCain needed a united GOP (less Mr Huck-a-boom) heading into the national race --as quickly as possible.  Romney ended up with more delegates than anyone else... except the winner.

Romney had zero --none-- nada-- problems raising $$ for the race. None managing his campaign. None addressing the issues.  He wouldn't have wasted the Veep pick on Palin.

But to you, up is now the newDown and I guess all of that constitutes "going down in flames"??  LOL.  When you get your head out of your colon, you'll recognize that he ended his campaign with class and style and grace and civility.  Something you might want to emulate the next time you de-colon-ize yourself, 3rdEyeBlind... opps, 3rdEyeBlew.

Wow.

Submitted by thirdeblue on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:41.

First bonus points for recognizing the Third Eye Blind reference.  But that's beside the point.

I guess going down in flames may not have been the most charitable way of putting it.  Guiliani went down in flames, Fred Thompson went down in flames, Romney merely lost.  Fair enough?

Romney was a bad candidate the way he ran,  a transparent bullshitter in regards to social conservativism.  If he tries that again in 2012 he still won't be the nominee.  But supposing he does win the primary...he can lose just as easily as McCain did.  I would HOPE that he wouldn't have wasted his VP pick on Palin.  But then again, I didn't think McCain would have done something so irrational either.

Romney has the tools to win, just as long he doesn't pretend to be something he's not.

You're kidding yourself if you think Romney could win the governorship in Massachusetts now against even a quasi-competent competetor.  He gave himself too much baggage in the Republican primary to win in THE blue state.

he plays CRAPS in vegas

Submitted by Maleficent on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:50.

good lord man, what were you expecting!

"high risk high reward"

that was the phrase that made mccain choose palin.

 

I'll say one good thing about McCain -- he's no coward. But man can he panic!

ppsst!

Submitted by Maleficent on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:42.

he's a liberal. he busts on you guys when you're phony creeps like Romney. You do the same with democrats. this is life.

SHHH

Submitted by thirdeblue on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 13:06.

See post.

A different thought, for your viewing pleasure

Submitted by Maleficent on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:39.

This really feels like a "Throw the Bastards OUT!" sort of election.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/it-aint-easy-being-governor.html

redstates, bluestates, we have FOUR states that are solvent right now.

If the economy keeps tanking, I predict large switches, not just for Dem-controlled states, but for ALL states/ Most particularly middle-of-the-road places like New England and the Midwest and the West, where party affiliation ain't bread into people, like it is in Appalachia, the South, and extremely-city-dominated states (massachussetts? Maryland? virginia?)

this liberal would like to note that Feingold

Submitted by Maleficent on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:35.

has won with a larger margin, and the GOP continuously runs people against HIM!

So it's a damn good idea for them to run against Beau Biden.

CT, Delaware, Illinois? -- the better point to make is that these are all high money states. That and Nate still has only one dem in the top five Senator Races. (does pollster say different?)

New Jersey hates their politicians with good reason! Shitty state, shitty politicians. Full Disclosure: I say WORSE things about philly politics!

Still Time For Differentiating

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 09:07.

It's still a long time between now and the real campaign next year.  Plenty of time for a smart candidate to show how the spend-a-thon that incumbents voted for is going to hurt their consituencies far into the future.

The principles of small government, fiscal responsibility, personal liberty, and free enterprise, should be the dividing line.  We all ought to agree to disagree on anything outside these core issues, especially when it gets to the more social policy issues.

I can understand the pragmatism of saying, well, if we didn't work with them on issue X, spending would have been greatly increased.  I don't think that argument holds when a better deal/compromise might have been brokered with more Republican unity on the issue.

We certainly ought not to suffer candidates with serious ethical lapses, and I think politicians like Stevens (AK) fall into that category.  Moderates/pragamatists should be fostered, as long as they are guided by the same principles on the core issues.  Politicians who aren't helping on the core issues, don't deserve the support of the RNC.

GOP squandered it's "daddy party" brand

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 09:32.

Christopher Buckley:

The Republican Party once could lay claim to the mantle of being the fiscally responsible, or “Daddy Party.” That reputation was squandered some time ago, but it could be regained if the party would content itself with that all-important goal, and not instead fight doomed skirmishes over gay marriage, stem-cell research, abortion and creationism, Ten Commandments in the courtroom, and other such issues that the country has by and large already decided upon. The GOP once liked to call itself the party of “the Big Tent.” But America itself is the bigger tent.

Andrew Ward, writing in the Financial Times, quotes a Democratic Party strategist: “Right now, the Republican Party is the party of Southern white males, and that is a shrinking group. You are never going to win elections if you cannot compete north of the Mason-Dixon line or west of the Rockies.”

That’s the enemy speaking. He’s giving us advice. Let’s listen.

Enemy, what enemy???

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 11:11.

I don't consider people or groups enemies, unless they are trying to kill or enslave me.

Such verbage does a diservice to debate.  In this country, we have political opponents.

While we're at it, how about another dish of political suicide?

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:12.

Jack offers: "That’s the enemy speaking. He’s giving us advice. Let’s listen."

Ok, this is really getting creepy when intelligent people begin to think that taking advice from the political opponents makes good sense or is somehow instructive.  First Jon henke does it... now you, Jack.

Honestly guys, a Campaign 101 rule is that you DONT listen to your enemies or opponents.  They don't have your best interests at heart no matter how much you might agree with their sentiments.

When did we start letting unnamed "Democrat strategists" start defining us or our agenda?  Next stop on that course is full political suicide.  Maybe we should just channel ScreaminHowieDean who's last claim to fame was a famously successful Pres bid that left him scrambling for a job to get out of Vermont.  Then he got taken to the woodshed early by NancyBotox and HarryGreed... never to be heard of again.

Right.  Let's go with that winner.

Listen to the Tea Partiers

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Thu, 05/07/2009 - 09:38.

The tea partiers are a big tent with people on all sides of the social and other issues cited by Christorpher Buckley in my previous post, but they are united in this:

  • Grievance: Chronic fiscal irresponsibility, now become acute fiscal extremism.
  • Target: An inbred, self-serving, self-perpetuating, bipartisan  political class that no longer represents the will of the people.
  • Goal:  Restore genuine representative, limited government by changing the incentives on that political class.

 

We Must Be Able to Win Nationally

Submitted by BigTentRepublican on Wed, 05/13/2009 - 15:26.

As a moderate Republican, I find myself nodding my head at parts of this- but also disagreeing with others. Yes, we need to be able to win in small states like Arkansas, but cannot be just a “small state” Party. The GOP used to be- and should be- the Party of powerhouse Northeast states, swing states like Virginia and Colorado, and West Coast states like Washington and Oregon. You acknowledged the need for moderates like Senator Collins, who indeed are often more loyal to the Party in terms of helping it win votes than, let’s say, Rush Limbaugh. However, if the GOP wants to win in multiple states it really will need to stop just paying lip service to socially inclusive Republicans. The moderates in the GOP that help win elections and are able to keep states purple-red instead of purple-blue often see their views and agendas pushed aside or ridiculed as they are called RINOs- that is, until the far-right wingers need their votes to win. As a member of the Real Republican Majority and centrist activist, I’ve seen moderate candidates targeted by Club for Growth in the primary season, and most of the talking heads and leaders of our Party cheer them on. So while I want to see a big tent, and I like that our Party is finally getting the idea that they need social moderates to win nationally and not just regionally, it’s not enough.

 

Big tent Republicanism isn't big enough...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 05/13/2009 - 16:41.

...to support Republican lawmakers who supported TARP, Obama's stimulus package or Obama's budget. If by your definition, these are moderates, good riddance to them, I say. If by moderates you mean Republicans who raise taxes instead of cutting state spending, good riddance to them as well. If by moderates you mean pro-government growth proponents, I say good riddance to them all.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Political suicide meets the Silly Theatre Season

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 11:46.

David offers a few "good riddances" to all who fail to pass his version of political purity limtus testing... I'd like to add good riddance to idiots like David trying to appear to know something about politics, political parties or the best path forward for the GOP.

David, "moderates" here mean GOP candidates able to win elections inside largely progressive, center and center-left states and Congressional districts.

Politics is about winning elections... not sitting around afterwards and feeling smug you ran a candidate who was "right" on every issue.

Good riddance is a great sentiment.  I hope all those disloyal soc-cons who sat home on Election Day and directly helped to elect Obama and take this great Nation to the farLeft and peril can sleep at night.

But of course they can... they aren't bothered with a conscience.

pandering vs. persuading

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 13:04.

David, "moderates" here mean GOP candidates able to win elections inside largely progressive, center and center-left states and Congressional districts.

But here is the problem.  If we focus on winning more than principles, then we get people like Arlen Specter.  Hell, we get people like George Bush.  That is not what we need right now.

The classic argument will always be whether candidates, with their views, should "go to people where they are", or if they should "take people along with them".  That is, should Republican candidates try to simply pander to the constituents in their districts, or should Republican candidates try to persuade them to adopt more of a conservative philosophy?  Naturally I'm more predisposed to the latter approach.  I'm not saying we need to run a Pat Toomey or a Mario Rubio in every race.  But I do think we need less pandering and more persuading.

You guys have totally

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 18:39.

You guys have totally inverted the relationship between an elected representative and his/her constituency to reflect the inherent top down structure of the right. you believe deep down that the electorate cannot be trusted and must be instructed as to what their interests should be.

you consider responding to the interests of a constituency as "pandering." the basic tenents of representative democracy  escapes you at the structural level.

it explains the stunning reversal of fortune the right has experienced in two successive election cycles.

there is a naked contempt for any action thought to be done in the interest of a constituency.

Winning the next election is not the goal.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 18:23.

Winning the next election at any cost, by any measure, by any means is the classic mentality of the corporate elite of the Republican party. Win at any cost, by any measure, by any means just so long as you capture the power necessary to pursue the corporate agenda over that of the party's political platform is exactly why the Republican Party is fighting for its life at present. The Republican Party is, indeed, a big tent. It deserves to have all of its political interests represented, not just its corporate interests.

Giving up your fiscal conservative credentials simply to win the next election not only does a disservice to your own constituency, but it denies the electorate an opportunity to learn your party's true ideology and why it is important. This is the lesson the grassroot has learned over the past thirty years. All we get by holding our nose and voting for the "moderate" Republican is more liberalism. Every time we vote for a "moderate" Republican, the center moves to the left until you arrive at an Obama.
 

No mas. No mas. The grassroot is presently in the process of purifying the party, from the ground up. Only when we have replaced all who supported TARP, the Stimulus bill, and Obama's doomsday deficit spending will the party be in a position to lead once again. Not before.

At this time I would like the record to reflect I resent the fact that this "Michigan-Matt" guy has chosen to attack me personally in his last post.

 "I'd like to add good riddance to idiots like David trying to appear to know something about politics, political parties or the best path forward for the GOP."

The only people who frame their arguments in such a manner are liberal, Democratic trolls, not Republicans, moderate or otherwise.

                          ex animo

 You can let your voice be heard by clicking on my friends above.

                       davidfarrar

 

Molotov:

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 05/16/2009 - 08:08.

You can't be serious. Your argument would make some sense if the electorate was viewed as a static, non-thinking, non-changing, non-feeling, non-living everyday experiences of life, non-recipients of their representatives' collective wisdom, which, of course, they are not.

Leadership, especially in a democracy, has its rightful place. Politics, by its very nature, is a continuum. If your criticism can be applied to any ideology, certainly the left is far more guilty of pedantism from the top down than conservatism.  I offer your very post as direct evidence of my very point.  Who thinks in these terms but the left?

          ex animo

    Let your voice be hear

 Click on the red circle above.

          davidfarrar