RSS Feed MenuListening to talk radio while driving to and from work last night and this morning, and reviewing some of the conservative blogs this morning, one could not help but be struck by the level of anger at three Republican Senators – Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – who agreed to a deal with congressional Democrats on the stimulus plan.
The reasons for anger are not hard to discern or understand. If two of these three had stood with the other 38 Republican Senators and 178 House members, the stimulus bill would be dead, and most Republicans – including me – think we’d be better off if the bill were dead. I don’t want to debate the bill, however, but rather the reaction of Republicans to these three moderates.
The rage is palpable, and the call is for revenge, ousting them from the party. Not only callers and blog commentators, but also the talk hosts and bloggers, are demanding that these three be challenged and “real Republicans” put in their places.
Of course, people tend to reserve their hottest anger for “traitors,” but would it not be more constructive to devote this rage over the stimulus bill to ousting Democratic senators, who voted unanimously for passage? Surely there are many juicy targets out there, if not in 2010 (when, of the “traitorous three,” only Specter is up for re-election) then down the road. Why do Max Baucus, Byron Dorgan, Tim Johnson, Kent Conrad, and Mark Begich hold seats in what are generally reliable Republican states at every level? Is it not possible to defeat Harry Reid in Nevada, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Robert Byrd in West Virginia, or Sherrod Brown in Ohio? How is it that Democrats control both of Virginia’s senate seats? Not that long ago, Republicans controlled seats in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Delaware, New Mexico and Michigan. Is it really impossible to elect a second Republican Senator to join Chuck Grassley from Iowa or Dick Lugar from Indiana? Is there no way to defeat appointed Senators Roland Burris of Illinois or Mike Bennett of Colorado in 2010?
For a forward looking party that is prepared to tolerate some ideological diversity in favor of a more conservative Congress overall, there is no end to Democratic targets, each of whom voted for the stimulus, and each of whom has a more liberal voting record than Collins, Snowe, or Specter. So where, if talk radio and the blogs are any indication, are conservatives focusing their rage and preparing to focus a great deal of time and money? On primary challenges to Specter (in 2010), Snowe (in 2012), and Collins (in 2014). Are these seats really more winnable for “true conservatives” (whatever that means to you) than the seats listed above?
Those outraged by RINOs have had some success, if you can call it that. Linc Chafee no longer serves in the Senate, replaced by the more liberal Sheldon Whitehouse. The RINO hunters no longer have to complain about Gordon Smith, who has been replaced by the far more liberal Jeff Merkley. RINO Norm Coleman sits on the critical list, apparently to be replaced by the ridiculous and far more liberal Al Franken. The GOP is indeed becoming a small, disciplined minority, with the emphasis on “small” and “minority.”
I don’t mean to suggest that incumbents should never be challenged in party primaries. Of course they should. And there assuredly are times when a state or district would elect a more conservative Republican than the one holding office. But care needs to be taken in identifying those situations, separating them out from situations where a RINO might be the best available option, or even more, where it is better to let the RINO be and use our resources to unseat Democrats. RINOs – the dreaded “Republicans in Name Only – are almost always more conservative than their Democratic successors. A Republican in Name Only meets with other Republicans, gets info from the Republican staff, feels the pull of the caucus and party loyalty. This effort of the last decade to rid the party of RINOs has done just that – and perhaps also rid us of Congressional majorities as well. People join the party for a reason, for some sense of affinity. We should encourage that, not push them away as RINOs.
The solution to regaining congressional majorities may not be easy, but it is simple. Target liberal Democrats, not RINOs.
ireign // Feb 15, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Brad Smith wrote, -You’ll understand why that wasn’t clear to me from your earlier posts, where you wrote, among other things, that “there was almost major difference” between them on “any major policy issue.” I think that statement is flat out wrong, and that the various rankings by a wide variety of groups and organizations shows that
Reality-I was hoping to drop the topic but you seem to insist on providing either no empirical evidence to support your contentions or to provide dubious evidence without any kind of links. There was almost no major policy difference between the two. They were both anti-Iraq War, pro-labor, in no restrictions on abortion, pro-gun control, anti-tax cuts, both against Alito, both anti-drilling in the Arctic, etc Chafee reluctantly supported John Roberts who was going to get confirmed regardless and he supported a few free trade agreements that Whitehouse would not have been able to support as a Democrat from Rhode Island.
Once again, the rankings are limited in value. No one on the planet would argue that Chafee was more conservative than John Breaux, Zell Miller, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu (although she is more liberal than her voting record), or a handful of other Democratic Senators. The rankings for Chafees last few years in the Senate demonstrate that.
I supported Chafee because the procedural votes as you note have value. However, I am pretty angry with Chafees actions post-election and generally believe that his re-election efforts should have been one of the lowest priorities for the GOP.
YOU HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT AND THE LONGER YOU PERSIST IN TRYING TO WIN ON THIS POINT, THE LESS WEIGHT WILL BE GIVEN BY OTHERS ON THIS BLOG TO YOUR OTHER MORE LOGICAL POINTS.
Brad Smith wrote, On the money end, you interpret “money” more narrowly than my intention. I do not use that to refer only to NRSC money (or RNC or NRCC), but to all money that would normally go to support Republican candidates, party organizations, and allied groups.
Reality-You are making the assumption that money that went to Laffey to defeat Chafee in the primary would have gone to support other candidates. That is a dubious assumption.
ireign // Feb 15, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Chekote, Sinz, and others-Unfortunately, the limited government message is not playing well right now. In David’ Fruns previous on NRO he pointed out that Bush’s more economically liberal positions such as the prescription drug bill derived more popular support than his conservative positions such as tax cuts.
Why do you think this is?
ireign // Feb 15, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Brad Smith-On a different topic, and one that still annoys me, according to your biography, you went to Harvard Law School at the same time as President Barack Obama. According to numerous reports, Obama despite having no political record of uniting people across the spectrum had a record of uniting people based on his tenure at Harvard Law School, specifically his time on the law review where he was able to become editor-in-chief because of the backing of the conservative faction on the law review. So his whole post-partisanship campaign message was premised on his record on the Harvard Law Review (which is why there was so many articles on it). It was never put into context that he was moderate in comparison to what was then characterized by some as a radical place and that he was already contemplating a run for public office.
You and other conservatives at Harvard chose to stay silent and allow this uniter myth to perpetuate. However, the truth was that Obama won with overwhelming support. http://nymag.com/news/features/39321/index5.html No one pointed out that there was only small a percentage of conservatives were actually at Harvard at the time and thus, it was unlikely that there were more than a handful on the law review. Harvards conservative professor Charles Fried did not even vote for McCain.
The obvious context was that there were only a very small number of conservatives on the law review and so it wasnt a matter of winning over this influential faction but trying to make a few people feel comfortable. There is a big distinction between that and uniting conservatives and liberals on the law review. Yet conservatives like you at Harvard chose to stay silent. While President Obama appears to be an affable guy and probably was much friendlier to conservatives at Harvard than some of his fellow students that does not mean that one should not have allowed this myth to go unanswered.
This was an important part of Obamas narrative that conservatives at Harvard Law at the time allowed to go unchallenged and in Mr. Berensons case helped push.
Chekote // Feb 15, 2009 at 4:41 pm
sinz. Rush is primarily a economic conservative, limited government guy. He is pro-life by that’s not his main focus. Also, his basis for being pro-life is not religious. He is pro-life based on the founding principles of this country. You know? Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. SoCons make a big part of his audience, so I don’t expect him to take on Dobson. But social issues are not Rush’s thing.
Brad Smith // Feb 15, 2009 at 4:47 pm
ireign, re Harvard: I understand your point, but being realistic, it’s not like one could get a lot of media play criticizing Barack Obama’s time at Harvard Law School nearly two decades ago. I was not on Law Review, but my recollection was that the choice was Obama, an intelligent, thoughtful, decent lefty, and a nutjob lefty. I expect that Obama did treat the conservatives on law review with respect, but again, I wouldn’t much know. I did post on Obama at Harvard here: http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/002258.php. I’ve made similar comments many times. But not really knowing Obama, there’s little for me to say. I agree with you that nothing in Obama’s career shows a penchant for seriously reaching out to the other side. I published similar comments in my various commentaries at Politico’s Arena. http://www.politico.com/arena, noting that Obama’s history was not one of cooperation but conquering opponents. I doubt any of this had much to do with Obama’s election. You’re still wrong on the big point, by the way.
Chekote // Feb 15, 2009 at 4:48 pm
ireign. It is easier to tell people, the government will help you do this or that, than to tell people, we can help but you are the one who needs to do the heavy lifting. That is why it is harder to sell the “limited government” argument. Besides, we have an entire generation that has been taught to look to the government for everything. In any case, we have tried Frum’s approach with Bush and it was a miserably failure. People will always choose a Democrat over Democrat lite. And the government expansion and spending turned off all lot of Republican voters.
ireign // Feb 15, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Brad-Thanks for your response. I think the Harvard Law School narrative was an important one and one I think a factchecker would have found many holes in. Do I think it woul have changed the results? No, but I think it would have made the media which even looked into the McCain’s official marriage story more curious about challenging other facts in his biography. He is the only presidential candidate that I am aware of in recent years that did not disclose his undergraduate transcript and he has to be one of the very few Harvard Law students who got in without graduating with honors from his undergraduate institution http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/ especially since liberal made such a big deal about both McCain and Bush’s poor grades and Obama supporters claim that he did not list race on his Harvard application http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=eceb7628-27e1-461e-b3a2-ce2ff7abb3a2&p=2 I think your characterization of his tenure at Harvard, i.e. nice conventional and cautious liberal who got along well with others is probably correct. That’s a far cry from uniting different groups of people in a divided atmosphere.
I am right on the major issue but I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I look forward to arguing with you in future posts.
Egli Ha // Feb 15, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Yeah I was in Pennsylvania from 1996 to 2004 and I bet if Arlen Specter goes down, he’ll be replaced by a liberal Dem. As David Frum pointed out, Pennsylvania is moving left. (Remember when Carville (?) said Pennsylvania is Philly at one end and Pittsburgh at the other and Alabama in between? Well five years earlier Pittsburgh was Alabama too. The leftward motion of Pennsylvania, especially Western Pennsylvania, is a long-term trend.) My real bet is he’ll survive though–he’s like the Casey Dynasty, you can’t imagine Pennsylvania without him. Besides, he’s amazingly tough; he survived lymphoma and Pat Toomey.
And it was funny to watch Susan Collins, uniquely in the Republican Party, sail to victory in 2008.
Targetting RINOs is very very stupid strategy. The GOP is thinking short-term. Rush Limbaugh’s goal is to increase and maintain his listening audience, not to help the GOP or Conservatism.
ireign // Feb 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Chekote, so if the limited government argument is a hard sell, how do you suggest we make it? I guess I am little skeptical in this time of bailouts and anger at Wall Street that Republicans can win on a Reaganite economic platform of limited government without some big ideas on what to limit. I don’t agree with many of David’s solutions but I think he is right that we have a problem.
Chekote // Feb 15, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Specter, Snowe and Collins are independents. The only reason they call themselves Republicans is because of campaign money. If they were to change label tomorrow, nothing would change. They would vote with the GOP when they agreeed and vote against it when they disagree. The only difference is campaign money. I don’t want a cent of Republican money to fund them.
Chekote // Feb 15, 2009 at 10:24 pm
ireign. There are two ways to sell limited federal government. First, you say that the federal government needs to do a few things but do they well. Instead of the current situation where the federal government is trying to do everything and doing it badly. Second, you need to show how services can be delivered without the federal government’s involvement. You have to show people that eliminating the Department of Education does not mean that all public schools will be shut down, Instead, it will results in a more effective allocation of resources. We need to educate people that just because the federal government is not invovled, it doesn’t mean that it won’t get done.
Graf // Feb 16, 2009 at 12:36 am
This is an extremely intelligent and discerning take on the “problem” of RINOs. For so long as the GOP will be in the minority (which may be quite a long time), conservatives will have to use a more sophisticated calculus than they have used so far in deciding whether or not to support a “liberal” Republican. Would you rather have someone in office who agrees with you 50% of the time, or 0%? Which are the issues on which no compromise can be tolerated (sort of like civil rights for ’60s liberals), and which are the issues that are negotiable? There seems to be a lot of intellectual reevaluation and reconstruction that has to happen on the conservative side.
BradWDM // Feb 16, 2009 at 5:02 pm
One problem that is not touched on in the article (at least with repsects to Maine), is that Collins and Snowe are probably the closest to a Republican that has a chance to be elected in a state such as Maine. These two get elected based off their name brand as well as their “independent streaks”. While I would love a more conservative challenger to dethrone Collins or Snowe, the truth is that challenger would most likely be defeated by Michaud, the Democrat that was so recently crushed by Collins.
uphuffheinz // Feb 16, 2009 at 8:29 pm
For what it’s worth, let me make it clear that I agree with Mr. Smith’s point that we should devote our energies first and foremost to unseating D senators, instead of unseating R Senators. But, if Mr. Smith is asserting that the Republican base threatens to abandon its efforts to unseat Ds, and instead focus everything on a jihad against the Porkulus Three—well, I think that’s misleading. Most R activists can maintain perspective, prioritize and “keep their eye on the prize.”
Gil-Galad // Mar 9, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“Target Democrats” sounds like a great message. Why don’t you send that along to Wayne Gilchrest, who worked for the Democrat after losing his primary? Or to Lincoln Chafee, who worked to elect Obama? Or to Joe Shwartz, who campaigned for the Democrat in his old seat out of spite?