The Tea Party movement has finally done what FrumForum has long been urging: they supported a less dogmatic Republican in a moderate state. But how long will this detente between moderate and conservative factions in the GOP last?
Every Republican in the nation rejoiced tonight at the unexpected news that GOP State Senator Scott Brown was elected to replace the late Ted Kennedy. Brown’s fundraising came largely through the wildly successful ‘moneybomb’ campaigns that he organized in the last week of the race, when Tea Partiers showed up in force to support the Republican that might provide the 41st vote against President Obama’s health care plan.
One of FrumForum’s most oft-repeated points is that the GOP must represent a big tent, and perhaps our most frequent criticism of the Tea Party movement is that they demand unblemished purity.
Tonight the Tea Party witnessed the spoils of allowing ideological flexibility; they learned the benefits of backing moderate candidates when they run in moderate jurisdictions.
After all, this is Massachusetts, and Senator-elect Scott Brown is no Tea Partier.
In an interview with FrumForum, Brown said he was a “Massachusetts Republican” who wouldn’t hesitate to cross party lines if he deemed it necessary. Brown told us that there “must be room for everybody, there has to be, in this [Republican] tent.” Excellent reporting by Byron Tau shows us that Brown thought it is “short-sighted to have purity tests.” When asked about her stance on gay marriage and abortion, Brown’s state chairman, Jennifer Nassour, said that “social issues are personal issues… I am not [for] legislating anyone’s personal views.”
Would many Tea Partiers have found this acceptable outside the context of this special election, on which the fate of Obama’s healthcare reforms presumably lay? If the stakes were different, would they not have tried to find a Rubio, or a DeVore, or a Hoffman to run against Brown? If that had happened, would a Republican have prevailed in the state of Massachusetts?
How long will it be before Tea Partiers turn against Sen. Scott Brown? This is a politician who, if not compelled by his own views, will be compelled by the nature of his state to express moderation if he wishes to be re-elected in just two and a half years.
The lesson from tonight is clear: to win in moderate states, Tea Partiers must allow for some flexibility. They must step back from an insistence on purity where to be pure is to lose.
Remember this feeling of victory tonight, and ask yourself: do I want to feel this way again for races in Massachusetts? In New York? In California? In Illinois?
12 responses so far
1 franco 2 // Jan 20, 2010 at 7:47 am
According to Tim Mak, David Frum is singlehandedly responsible for changing the minds of millions of rabid leaderless right-wing teapartiers from his obscure blog and his appearances on shows no one watches.
“The Tea Party movement has finally done what FrumForum has long been urging: they supported a less dogmatic Republican in a moderate state.”
Hmm.
It couldn’t be the Mak and friends fundamental misunderstanding of tea party folks. No, that’s impossible. Frum Forum has convinced them to “finally” do the right thing. You see these folks are partisan morons who are for party purity and will cause the GOP to lose elections nationwide and you can see by the hundreds who comment here that they have been coming around.
Frum personally went door-to-door along with Timmy to urge these morons to vote for the Brown guy. They told them nevermind the pick-up truck and forget he posed half-nekkid and don’t worry that he is pro-choice, come along with us and we can win. Despite their neanderthal tendencies, the erudition of Mak and Frum perswaded these narrow-minded apes out of their caves to the polls.
The record is clear. Look in the archives of Frum Forum and see how early they got on board the Brown bandwagon. OK, it wasn’t that early but that was because Frum and Mak were driving around Worcester in a Volvo talking to the voters in diners and taverns.
“Would many Tea Partiers have found this acceptable outside the context of this special election, on which the fate of Obama’s healthcare reforms presumably lay?”
I guess Tim Mak wants to ignore this election happened in MASSACHUSETTS. OK, Tim, got it. Tea partiers are morons without guidance and all the states are the same, and Frum is the hero.
And you get paid what to write this?
2 mpolito // Jan 20, 2010 at 7:48 am
I certainly hope these people do understand this, because MA is not a “moderate” state so much as it is a “liberal” state- a very liberal state! It is probably second only to VT (and even that is disputable) on the scale of leftism, so if conservatives want to win, they need to be pragmatic.
3 franco 2 // Jan 20, 2010 at 8:21 am
perswaded =persuaded haha.. hey, I’m a tea partier I am uneducated and I don’t proofread good…
“Tonight the Tea Party witnessed the spoils of allowing ideological flexibility; they learned the benefits of backing moderate candidates when they run in moderate jurisdictions.”
What a crock! This sentence is meant to cast tea partiers in the passive role with the centrists as the leaders and wise teachers. It was the tea party movement that advanced Brown while those like Frum and Mak were conceding Ted Kennedy’s seat to the Democrat. Had they been able to choose a candidate, it wouldn’t have been Brown – they would consider him way too conservative for Massachusetts.
No, the lesson here is that people are fed up with the status quo and people are actually more conservative than the mainstream GOP give them credit for. Moderates WILL vote for someone more conservative than they if the candidate demonstrates he/she has principles and isn’t just a GOP operative. Tea party folks are not the knuckle-dragging social conservatives Frum and Mak wish to cast them as. Brown is against partial birth abortion and for parental notification. He also wants States to decide things like gay marriage.
If Brown can win in MA Toomey can win in PA and Rubio can win in FL. That’s the lesson here.
4 Newman // Jan 20, 2010 at 8:27 am
Massachusetts a “moderate state”???? Whuh?
5 jabbermule // Jan 20, 2010 at 9:02 am
The health care bill was bad enough, but what really angered the American people was the way the Dems were trying to push it through Congress. First, the Louisiana Purchase, then the Cornhusker Kickback, and then the worst of all, the Cadillac Plan tax exemption for union members. And that’s really what sunk Coakley and brought Brown to the Senate. Brown campaigned against health care legislation and all the dirty dealings behind it, and Coakley campaigned for it. In this case, correlation = causation.
If you have to bribe people to get a bill passed, then maybe the bill isn’t worth passing…just a little advice for our Liberal Democrat friends.
And, oh yeah – see you in November.
6 Tim Mak // Jan 20, 2010 at 9:27 am
@Franco 2: When did we first notice Brown? Well, we conducted an interview with him on Nov 10. When did you first get on the bandwagon?
How can you compare Brown to Toomey and Rubio? Did the Club for Growth secretly endorse Brown somewhere? Brown is not a Tea Party conservative. He is not a talk radio conservative. He’s a reasonable, intelligent, New England Republican who knows what it takes to win in his state.
7 jabbermule // Jan 20, 2010 at 9:44 am
Tim Mak:
“Brown is not a Tea Party conservative. He is not a talk radio conservative. He’s a reasonable, intelligent, New England Republican who knows what it takes to win in his state.”
Are you saying Keith Olberman is wrong in his assessment of Brown?
“In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, TEABAGGING (emphasis mine) supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States.”
Evidently the whacko left thinks Brown is a tea-partier of the worst kind, so why should we argue amongst ourselves about where Brown stands politically? The leftists are the ones that need to be defeated…let’s stop the circular firing squad on this site and get down to the business of throwing the statist socialists out of office.
8 franco 2 // Jan 20, 2010 at 11:22 am
Tim,
How can you compare Massachusetts to Florida and Pennsylvania? That is the question.
I predicted here on January 12 that Brown would WIN. That was in a post that was predicting defeat….
John Vecciones post Dems won’t lose Kennedy’s Seat
franco 2 // Jan 12, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I don’t know much about the inner workings of MA electoral politics, and I’m sure it is true that it is a tremendous uphill battle, however I have the (anecdotal) feeling that there is a political tsunami on the way. Let this be my prediction FWIW
Brown wins the seat.”
I don’t have a political science degree to help me find elaborate ways to avoid looking at reality, like you guys.
FF may have interviewed Brown in November…woop-de-doo. FF isn’t in touch with folks outside the beltway and hasn’t taken into account how the politics have shifted from 2006 and 2008. FF doesn’t understand the “Tea Party” movement, mis-characterising it as a phenomenon of right-wing purists. In fact the tea party folks are a threat to the Statists here, and so you guys either are intentionally trying to smear/dismiss them or are in need to find refuge in denial.
Brown was “endorsed” by Rush, Beck, Levin and Hannity and more. The tea partiers were for him before anyone, and the tea party movement is useful in that it is inherently non-partisan at least it isn’t affiliated with any party, nor should it be.
Scott Brown is closer to the Tea Party movement and even talk radio, than Frum, Brooks and some of those the wimpy Republicans in the Senate. Did you hear his victory speech? It was very blunt about how Obama is handling terrorism, health care and government. If he is so “moderate” how come he is using such pointed language?
9 MildlyAmused // Jan 20, 2010 at 11:26 am
Nonsense. Scott Brown’s victory is exactly in line with the Tea Party movement which focuses less on social issues and more on economic polices. The real lesson for the GOP is that elitism and pseudo-intellectualism has been exposed. The Emperor is nude. The hard working and God fearing people of this country have had it with both parties expanding government, failing to secure our borders, and ESPECIALLY for practicing “Crony Capitalism.” The GOP needs to return to its CONSERVATIVE roots and start dismantling the bureaucracies of the federal government. A good start would be the elimination of ALL federal subsidies and bailouts. Next, scrap the US tax code in favor of some form of flat tax for both individuals and business. LIMITED government and no special treatment for ANY industry, especially Wall Street. Lets return this country to true capitalism and have the same rules and a level playing field for everyone. Elitism and favoritism, as practiced by both parties in the past, needs to have a stake driven through its heart, once and for all.
10 MildlyAmused // Jan 20, 2010 at 11:33 am
Nonsense. Scott Brown’s victory is exactly in line with the Tea Party movement which focuses less on social issues and more on economic policies. The real lesson for the GOP is that elitism and pseudo-intellectualism have been exposed. The Emperor is nude. The hard working and God fearing people of this country have had it with both parties expanding government, failing to secure our borders, and ESPECIALLY for practicing “Crony Capitalism.” The GOP needs to return to its CONSERVATIVE roots and start dismantling the bureaucracies of the federal government. A good start would be the elimination of ALL federal subsidies and bailouts. Next, scrap the US tax code in favor of some form of flat tax for both individuals and business (and for income disguised as capital gains). LIMITED government and no special treatment for ANY industry, especially Wall Street. Lets return this country to TRUE capitalism and have the same rules and a level playing field for everyone. Elitism and favoritism, as practiced by both parties in the past, needs to have a stake driven through its heart, once and for all.
11 kevin47 // Jan 20, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Tim,
Was there any organized resistance to his candidacy from conservatives? It seems to me that Tea Partiers started getting interested in the race and donating once it became clear Brown was a viable candidate.
Your argument that Tea Party conservatives are inflexible and demand ideological purity is based on a sample size of one election in NY. On this basis you are insistent that conservatives do not know the difference between a special election in Massachusetts and a primary in Florida.
I’m going to make an argument. If any conservatives here disagree, raise your hand.
Florida is a state where the Republican Senatorial candidate is almost certain to win the election. As such, it makes political sense for conservatives to favor Marco Rubio, who is the more conservative of two viable candidates for the Republican nomination.
In Pennsylvania, the Democratic primary is a mess. This is a state that has a track record of electing social conservatives, in an election where people are likely to rebel against the economic policies of this president. Further, the real moderate, new majority type in this election is Arlen Specter. If this is the year of the moderate in Pennsylvania, there is no stopping him anyway. So why not go with a conservative in the mold of Rick Santorum who, prior to a disastrous 2006, had been popular in Pennsylvania?
Conversely, in California, it seems like it might make sense to take a flier on moderate Meg Whitman. Her nomination comes with caveats, however, not least of which that her corporate past may make her unappealing to moderates. At a time when conservatives are looking for the Republican party to break from the corporate agenda that drove it into the ground, is she the right person? Possibly. Let’s see how she does.
In other words, we’re willing to compromise our values IF and WHEN we get something in return. That seems like a very reasonable position to hold.
Does anyone here disagree?
12 Tim Mak » A Lesson for Tea Partiers // Jan 20, 2010 at 4:40 pm
[...] more: http://www.frumforum.com/browns-win-a-lesson-for-tea-partiers For those who need more context on the race, here’s a slightly amended version of my piece at [...]
You must log in to post a comment.