411 Politics Reader's Roundtable: The Rebuilding Of The Republican Brand
Posted by J. Alexander Mitchell on 11.07.2009
We know how we feel... now tell us how YOU feel!
Our 411 Politics Roundtable experiment continues! We will change things up a bit this week by having you, the reader, give your thoughts and respond to the thoughts of others! We will have slightly fewer questions this week based on the feedback given last week. Simply tell us your thoughts in the comments, and let everyone know what you think of the thoughts of others. Here is our subject for this week:
An interesting drama playied out in the New York congressional race this week. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava - who was chosen by party leaders - was forced to leave the race for the New York 23rd District after falling behind both her Democratic opponent as well as her third party opponent, Doug Hoffman of the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party felt that Mrs. Scozzafava was too liberal, particularly in regards to social issues such as abortion. Ultimately, the Democrat, Bill Owens, won.
Meanwhile, in a Florida 2010 Congressional race, Governor Charlie Crist received the endorsement of former Presidential candidate John McCain, while his former running mate Sarah Palin is expected to endorse the more-conservative Marc Rubio.
Finally, as climate change legislation begins makings its rounds through Senate sub-committees, the Republican members of the committee have begun their own form of filibuster - actively boycotting the sub-committee hearings with the knowledge that at least two of them will be needed to get the legislation out of sub-committee unless the Democrats invoked special exception rules. These exception rules have been dubbed a "nuclear option" in much the same way that reconciliation has been dubbed a "nuclear option" to get past a Senate filibuster of health care reform. Ultimately, the Democrats moved forward with the legislation without any Republican input.
Do these events mark a new direction for the Republican party, or are they merely the result of the minority party doing what it can to have as much influence as possible to push legislation that they feel is best for the country? Let's discuss...
(1) Does the Republican boycott of the climate change hearings official mark them as the "Party Of 'No"", or does their boycott mark a line in the sand drawn to protect the best interests of our country?
(2a) Does Scozzafava's resignation from the campaign signal that the conservative arm of the Republican party is more influential than the moderate arm of the party?
(2b) It has been bandied about many times that the independent voter is the key demographic in our country. How does this ideological movement of the party help or harm their appeal to the independent voter?
(3) In reference to the Scozzafava backlash, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the following: "This makes life more complicated from the standpoint of this: If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we'll make [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee [President] Obama's re-election... I think we are going to get into a very difficult environment around the country if suddenly conservative leaders decide they are going to anoint people without regard to local primaries and local choices." Is he correct in his statements?
(4) Is the rise of Doug Hoffman as a viable "third party" candidate a reflection of the rise of grassroots, non-Red/Blue politics in the United States?
Newt is finally starting to grasp the magnitude of the monster he created as it begins to eat itself.
He's absolutely correct though. As long as the Republican party is splintering into factions and jockeying for power between the Palin branch and the actually electable branch, how do they plan on beating the Democrats in the years to come?
The power play by the teabaggers cost the GOP a seat that has been consistently Republican for over a century. I don't see how that's a good thing for their national standing.
I believe that when faced between a reasonable candidate and a complete lunatic, a plurality if not outright majority of voters will tend to pick the non-insane candidate. This is why the teabagger candidate in the NY district did not work.
If the GOP keeps catering to the Bachmanns and the Palins, and keeps treating the Limbaughs and the Becks as anything more than shock jock entertainers, they are truly and royally fucked.
Posted By: Raptor (Guest) on November 07, 2009 at 02:42 AM
1) Neither. The fact of the matter is even though the Republican Caucus has gone out of its way to embrace the role of complete obstruction to anything and everything that Obama and the Democratic Congress has brought forth, staking claim to the "Party of No" label, there have been a few members of the Republican Caucus who have been willing to work with Democrats at some level.
Even if the Republican Caucus plans to block everything, from ARR Act, to the efforts on energy, financial reform, healthcare, judicial appointments and a host of issues, there are still some Republicans who want to actually legislate and try to find some level of compromise.
Whether it be Snowe/Collins on the ARR Act, Snowe/Grassley/Enzi on healthcare, Graham on energy, Shelby on financial rules, McCain on immigration, or a host of other issues, there are a handful of Republicans who actually want to see progress made.
2a) Yes.
The fact that the selection was made by a cluster of 12 people, rather than giving the citizens of the 23rd district to decide their own nominee, did serious harm, IMO, to her campaign.
Still, the fact that the "conservative movement", backed mainly by people with no real ties to the district, pushed her out of the race and replaced her with "their" candidate, who followed conservative orthodoxy to the T, but had entirely no handle on the issues that were truly important to the people in the 23rd district, in addition to not even residing in the district, proved that the conservative "cleansing" that's been going on since 2006 still has a ways to go, and the "conservatives are continuing this push.
2b) It kills their appeal to the "independent voter"; all you have to do is look at how the races in Virginia and New Jersey went, and compare them to the race in New York's 23rd district.
Gov. elect McDonnell(R) is as socially conservative as any conservative in the caucus, yet instead of boasting about his conservatism and bashing everything that the Democrats have been trying to do, he ran a campaign on ideas and his plans to help Virginians across his state.
Instead of standing on his perch, preaching orthodoxy, he put forth concrete plans of what he'd like to do for the state. Simple as that.
3) Yes.
And people on the "far-left", heed Newt's warning as well; targeting conservative Democrats, in states where a "far left" candidate has no chance of winning, does the party no favors.
4) No.
For the simple fact that Hoffman ran as a symbol of a movement with no basis in how it affected the community he was trying to represent (promising to freeze spending at all points, in the face of having Fort Drum as the primary job creator in the area).
Now, if the question was about the rise of Rubio(R-FL), that's be a different question.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on November 07, 2009 at 04:34 AM
Republicans losing one seat in New York is worth the sacrifice to make a very loud statement to the National Party. (And to the Democrats too). Dede winning would have been just another Democrat as far as votes go. Republicans need to stand on Founding Father principles - if that is the party of "no" - so be it. We need to support Conservative candidates (like Rubio) regardless of their party affiliation. When did party start to matter over principle? I highly recommend the book "The 5,000 Year Leap" to anyone who needs reminded where we came from originally. The hour is late but we can turn this nightmare around if we speak with one voice. Newt, McCain and that old guard need to get on board or get out of the way. I, for one, am sick of the pandering and posturing. The "teabagger" candidate in NY came very close to winning with no money and no national support. If Dede's name had not been on the ballot he probably would have won. We are the majority in this country - and they have awakened a sleeping giant. I, for one, think it's long overdue.
Posted By: Kelly (Guest) on November 07, 2009 at 09:06 AM
(1) Does the Republican boycott of the climate change hearings official mark them as the "Party Of 'No"", or does their boycott mark a line in the sand drawn to protect the best interests of our country? Everything they've throughout this year labels them as the "party of NO". No progress. No ideas. No chance of winning anytime soon.
(2a) Does Scozzafava's resignation from the campaign signal that the conservative arm of the Republican party is more influential than the moderate arm of the party? Yes, and that is bad for the GOP. Running out all your moderates will lose you more power. After this past week's "tea party" in DC, the leadership of the Republican Party has aligned itself with people carrying racist, offensive signs. They have officially linked themselves at the hip to those who are seen as "fringe" and "crazy". Bad move.
(3) In reference to the Scozzafava backlash, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the following: "This makes life more complicated from the standpoint of this: If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we'll make [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee [President] Obama's re-election... I think we are going to get into a very difficult environment around the country if suddenly conservative leaders decide they are going to anoint people without regard to local primaries and local choices." Is he correct in his statements? He has a valid point. Look what happened when Palin, Rush, and their ilk stumped for Hoffman. It wound up crushing him, and turning off the people of NY-23. And it cost them big. If they do the same to Crist in Florida, they'll lose there too. They are splintering their party in half. And that will kill them.
(4) Is the rise of Doug Hoffman as a viable "third party" candidate a reflection of the rise of grassroots, non-Red/Blue politics in the United States? No. He wasn't a true "third party" candidate. Look at who was backing him. Any real "third party" candidate would have never gotten the backing Hoffman did. The sad thing is his loss makes "third party" candidates look weaker. He did a disservice to them.
As a liberal, I have to say, while I do not want one-party control, if the GOP is going to keep doing what they are doing they deserve to lose. It's their own fault. Forcing out moderates for hardcore far-right is bad. The Dems learned that, and became more moderate as a whole. That's why we won in 2006, 2008, and will likely continue winning in 2010 and beyond.
Posted By: CMatt666 (Guest) on November 07, 2009 at 02:55 PM
Any Republican that tries to dump the 40% of voters that are conservative and seek the votes only of the 36% of voters who say they're moderates...is DOOMED TO FAILURE. The mods will never break 80-20 toward one candidate which is what a Rhino would have to secure to even hope to win an election. It's not gonna happen.
Posted By: Crimefighter (Guest) on November 08, 2009 at 12:17 AM
(1) I remember in an old Marx Brothers movie, Groucho Marx had a song "Whatever it is, I'm against it!" That is the mantra that the Republican Party overall has embraced. Frankly, I think the Republicans are hoping and praying that Obama and the Democratic party will be wrong on some issues so they can point out and say "See, we didn't support that!" Frankly, the Republicans have nothing to gain by playing ball, so they can only hope for the Democrats to fumble it.
(2a) Yes. The moderates are being forced out of the party and/or silenced. You've heard the expression RINO thrown around. The wacky wing of the party has decided they are the ones who are going to ideologically shape the party, which means any disagreement is not welcome or not "Republican enough". The Dems have the opposite issue, they are much more diverse, to the point that they are their own worst enemy and roadblock when it comes to getting any kind of legislation passed. Blue Dogs vs. Moderates vs. Left Wing Liberals. THAT is what is keeping things like Health care from being passed. You don't have that in the Republican party.
(2b) Overall, based on some polls that I've seen the country seems to be leaning more Libertarian than anything. They want government out of their personal lives. Things like abortion should stay as they are. But they also want to keep their guns. So the center seems to be leaning more towards fiscal conservatism, but socially liberal (ie, less government in our lives)Because of that, sticking to pure right wing ideology with no room for compromise, you will lose the Independent voters.
(3) Its not just a Republican problem. Remember what happened to Joe Lieberman a few years ago why he decided to go Independent. The Democratic party decided they didn't want him running, but the people of Connecticut still wanted him. But if I like a candidate, I will have no problem voting for them regardless if they have an R or D after their name. But Newt is correct. For example, I live in Florida. I can definitely potentially see myself voting for Charlie Crist for the Senate. He is a fairly popular governor in a time when the Republican brand overall is poison. I have disagreed with him on several issues and decisions he has made, but overall I thought he did a fine job as governor; even better than Jeb Bush. Florida is a diverse state. North Florida tends to be much more conservative, while South Florida tends to be more liberal. Moderation is the only way to successfully run a place like Florida. And if the Republican brass continues to run "conservative only, no room for moderates", they might win the battle that is the party primary but they will lose the war that is the election.
(4) I would love to see a viable third party come to fruition, but I find it
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on November 08, 2009 at 02:07 AM
4) I would love to see a viable third party come to fruition, but I find it highly unlikely to happen. Whether we like it or not, Americans tend to be very traditionalist and since the beginning of our nation, we've been basically a two party system. Sure, political parties have evolved and changed over time, or died out with others to step in and take its place and grow. Sure, there have been smaller political parties here and there, and they may have gotten a small time candidate elected, but they usually don't last long. Frankly, the two parties in power have too much money and are too powerful to ever let a viable third party come to be. Most of the time, if there has been a third party candidate, he has been more of a spoiler than anything. Remember back in 1992, Clinton vs. Bush Sr. vs. Perot? Some people argue, had it not been for Perot, Bush Sr. probably would have won the election. Remember 2000? Gore vs. Bush Jr. vs. Nader? Had it not been for Nader, Gore would have undoubtedly won the election (some would argue that he actually did...but that is a whole other can of worms.) I mean, look back at the election of 1860. The only reason Lincoln won the election was because the Democratic party at the time was so fragmented and a couple of candidates ran in the general election against the incumbent, which allowed Lincoln to win the election without a majority. So yes, a third choice would be nice, but history tells us that this third party candidate would be nothing more than a spoiler.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on November 08, 2009 at 02:20 AM
"Republicans need to stand on Founding Father principles -"
Which ones? Remember it was disagreement among the Founding Fathers on many issues that lead to the creation of Political Parties to begin with. Not simply being obstinate, but actually offering alternative ideas and interpretations of the Constitution and law.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on November 08, 2009 at 02:24 AM
I think the minute the GOP stop pandering to the religious right, and the morons who listen to crackpots like Limbaugh and Beck, and stop listening to that hypocritical bag of shit, Newt, they may become worthy of grudging respect.
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on November 08, 2009 at 04:47 AM
"Any Republican that tries to dump the 40% of voters that are conservative and seek the votes only of the 36% of voters who say they're moderates...is DOOMED TO FAILURE. The mods will never break 80-20 toward one candidate which is what a Rhino would have to secure to even hope to win an election. It's not gonna happen."
Right, but you fail to realize something. Ss that conservative candidate going to vote for the more liberal leaning Democrat or the more moderate Republican? If he's going to be completely obstinate, he'll not vote or choose an independent. Or if he decides to go with the lesser of two evils, he'll choose the Moderate Republican. The democrats figured this out. A moderate Democrat is more attractive to a far left liberal than a Republican of any stripe (barring some individual exceptions). In less liberal areas of the country, a far left liberal won't shoot themselves in the foot by putting their own candidate who they know has no chance of winning. At least a moderate democrat might throw them a few bones. The far right conservatives have not figured this out. It is called compromise. It might not be their ideal candidate, and he might push through their entire agenda, but he would at least throw them a few bones.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on November 08, 2009 at 11:56 AM
(1) The Republicans have been the party of no all year. The Democrats have been inviting them to the table to compromise on legislation (if only to make themselves look better to the public) but they have refused time and again. The Republicans (mistakenly) believe that by derailing the Democrats on anything they make them look bad, and by proxy, themselves look good. All it does is make BOTH look bad and only serving their own interests. It just helps that the Republicans don't give a crap about climate change anyway.
(2a & 2b) Yes, the ultra-conservative wing has become the most influential part of the Republican Party, but only because they are the loudest. The sad part is they can now surround themselves with only those that agree with them (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.), which means that they never hear dissenting arguments and only become more conservative and grow to hate even moderate Republicans. How many refused to get behind McCain because he was "too liberal"? They're digging their own hole, though, because if they only put up extreme candidates, they will alienate independent voters, and if they put up moderate candidates then they don't have a united party, and can't win either way. But it seems they can't help themselves, and the more Obama (and by proxy the Democrats) pushes himself to the center (and he has), the more the Republicans push themselves to the fringe. I guess they're under the impression that they have enough pull to form a legitimate 3rd party, which would divide the conservative vote and essentially guarantee Democrats always win, which is a loss for everybody. They 2 party system only works when there are 2 parties.
(3) Newt is absolutely right. See previous answer. Its been pretty obvious for about 10 years now, though, that the Republicans have no control over the extremists in their party (and seem to have done everything in their power to empower them). If they can't get them under control, then the Republican party will probably die.
(4) I don't know if I would call it grassroots, since he's getting a lot of support from major Republican players like Palin, Tim Pawlenty, and Steve Jobs, but I guess you could say it is non-Red/Blue politics at work, in the sense that it goes against the 2 party system. A multi-party system could be great (and would probably give many more people a voice instead of having to decide between two people you may barely agree with) but a multi-party system doesn't work when it is 2 conservative parties against 1 liberal party. If they form an official "Conservative Party" and the Republican push towards the center it could work in the long run, though.
Posted By: General Sandoval (Guest) on November 08, 2009 at 01:44 PM
"I think the minute the GOP stop pandering to the religious right, and the morons who listen to crackpots like Limbaugh and Beck, and stop listening to that hypocritical bag of shit, Newt, they may become worthy of grudging respect."
Posted By: MaZZacare (Guest) on November 08, 2009 at 03:06 PM
Sorry, opening line was supposed to read. "Right, but you fail to realize something. Is that conservative VOTER going to vote for the more liberal leaning Democrat or the more moderate Republican?"
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on November 08, 2009 at 04:06 PM
Last line was supposed to say "It might not be their ideal candidate, and he might NOT push through their entire agenda, but he would at least throw them a few bones."
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on November 08, 2009 at 04:07 PM
In my opinion, in a perfect world there would be 70 Demoratic senators in the Senate and 270 Democrats in the House; a true governing majority.
Left, center, and right. Liberal, progressives, moderates, and conservatives, all Democrats under the same umbrella.
The fights in the caucus are going to give Fox and other "right of center-right" publications some entertaining fodder to fill their TV programming, but the Democrats are going to be able to legislate, proving that government can truly work for the people.
60/70 votes.
I honestly could care less if the Republicans eat themselves, with the conservatives tearing down the GOP.
Let the Democrats find real solutions to many of these issues that the Republicans have been neglecting during their time in power.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on November 08, 2009 at 05:47 PM
"I think the minute the GOP stop pandering to the religious right, and the morons who listen to crackpots like Limbaugh and Beck, and stop listening to that hypocritical bag of shit, Newt, they may become worthy of grudging respect."
So then the sooner they become liberals, the sooner people will vote for them?
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on November 09, 2009 at 12:05 AM
The Republican Party isn't a true conservative party anymore, and hasn't been since Reagan. Become what they should be, and all will be good.
Posted By: w. (Guest) on November 09, 2009 at 01:18 AM
Thinking that anyone who isn't Limbaugh, Beck, etc. is a liberal is why you fail.
Posted By: Rook (Guest) on November 09, 2009 at 01:42 PM
1.No. Cap and trade is one of the worst pieces of legistlation ever to come out of the house. It will "neccessarily skyrocket" peoples electricity rates, even if you deny Obama ever said it will. This turd of a bill would be a economic killer during a recession and most Senators were pissed it got sent over. What are republicans supposed to do, support shitty legistlation so the Keith Olbermanns and JAMs of the world will approve? Your crazy if you think that.
2.Scozzafava was a liberal plain and simple. She was Rachael Maddow with a R next to her name. Every one of her stances was left of center. She was picked by a committee of 12, hardly the democratic way. She showed her true colors when she endorsed the democrat after dropping out.
2b. Jam, did you pay any attention to what happen in New Jersey and Virginia? As usual, you did not becuase you did not like the results. Obama won Virginia by 6 points, the republican won by 20 in the governors race this year. 26 point swings should tell you what the independant voter is thinking. Same thing for New Jersey.
3.What local choice? 12 knobs who nominated a liberal for the republican seat? Have a primary or nominate someone who represents the republicans not the MSNBC watchers.
4.This guy was a tool. He needed to brush his yellow teeth, study local issues and learn how to give a public speech. The fact that this moron could get 40 % of the vote should tell you something. Remember, if you took his totals and the totals for the Maddow wanta be, they beat the democrat. The Rebplicans screwed this one up plain and simple.
I find it funny Jam, you have a article about how to fix the republican party and what questions do you ask? Questions about cap and tax, and New York 23.
I guess waht your insinuating is that we need to be more liberal. 2010 is going to be a hell of a wake up for you. Now go watch Olbermann and next time there is a article about what should happen with the republicans, have Grant write it.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 09, 2009 at 02:33 PM
1. They, like most of the american people think the "cap and trade" bill will be a disaster, and ultimately hurt... middle and working class families. If trying to block legislation that will do a LOT of harm to this country (not to mention do nothing good for the enviroment) makes you the "Party of No" then so be it.
2a: Lets review this for a second. There was no primary. A backroom deal was made by the "moderates" of the party to make her the candidate. Again let me emphasize. No Primary. She was a loser candidate to begin with, and should be a democrat (after all she endorsed the the democrat candidate). People are making way too much over NY 23. The fact is, if the party leaders got behind Hoffman from the beginning, he woulda won going away. The fact that he got 45 % of the vote after being in the race for roughly 3 weeks, is more of an indictment on the democrats barely inching out a win over a complete unknown.
2b: If you look at Virginia and New Jersey (both won by Obama, and in New Jersey's case, one of the most liberal states you can find) the indys went to the GOP. As was the case in the 2006 and 2008 elections, the indys tend to vote against parties, moreso than for parties. They didn't like what the republicans were doing for the first 6 years under Bush (nor did someone who would classify himself as right of center like myself), and cleaned house. And if the democrats keep going down this route, then I predict similar results going the other way. Lets not forget the recent gallup poll, that showed that in EVERY state, more people classify themselves as conservative, than they do liberal, by nearly 2 to 1. This country is Center-Right, and for 8 years under Bush, and now under Obama, we are seeing reckless spending, and enormous debt.
3. Newt is correct, but mis-interprating the whole NY23 situation. Dede was more left than Owens. The bottom line is if you're gonna put liberal-lite vs liberal, most voters are gonna want the real thing. She was a loser candidate. Look at the people in the GOP that have been getting beat in elections. Almost all of them are RINOS. You need to take 2 steps back sometimes to take 3 steps forward. The GOP needs to clean house, and then build back up.
4. No, for the same reasons as above. NY 23 is being looked at in totally the wrong way, both by the right and the left. He was only a "viable" candidate because the GOP candidate should have had a D by her name instead of an R. Again, Democrat vs Democrat Lite. Even as someone that is Right of center, I would vote for the real thing, or not vote for either.
To sum it up, if the GOP wants to continue to lose, then keep nominating guys like John McCain or Dede Scozzafava. Pure and simple. You don't win elections by being the same as your opponent.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on November 09, 2009 at 09:25 PM
For the record I live in NJ and this WAS NOT a Vote against Obama or the dems in power...it was a vote Against a HORRIBLE governor in Corzine. I voted for Obama in the election and would vote for him again in a heartbeat if the election were held again tomorrow.
I voted for Christie in the election simply because Corzine was so bad in charge (even though i'm 100% against Christie's views on gay rights). Overall Corzine was horrid as Gov. so if Christie is just bad its an improvement.
Be REALLY careful looking for things in these governor elections. Sometimes the guy in charge is just that bad and in no way does this reflect the national attitude for or against a party or sitting president.
Also if the Republicans want to get their mojo back how about accepting moderates in their party? Is that even possible anymore? Since when were people either JUST liberal OR conservative in this country? When did this happen?
It would also help if they would get off this whole religious right bandwagon, I mean for a party that is all about personal freedom they sure have an awful lot to say about what people can and cannot do in their personal lives.
Posted By: billy (Guest) on November 11, 2009 at 03:13 PM
1. Can't we do both?
2a. Yes. Yes it does. Scozzafava represented the slice of the Republican party that is both pro-choice AND backed the trillion-dollar stimulus plan. That's not very many people.
2b. The party of No helps with the independent voter. When YES means giving away a trillion dollars to Wall Street last year and then following up this year with a trillion-dollar giveaway to Democratic interest groups, a three point plan of 1. No 2. Hell No 3. No, God damn it!! looks pretty good.
Question 3&4. This was a strictly New York phenomenon. Gingrich talking about local choices is ironic, since this could pretty much only happen in NY. NY has long-established third parties. They are allowed to "cross-endorse", so for example Guiliani was elected Mayor from votes on both the Republican and Liberal "lines." (IIRC, the Conservative party ran a token candidate in 1989 and left the line blank in 1993 rather than endorse the pro-choice Guiliani. The blank line was negotiated.)
To the people talking about how out-of-touch with the district Hoffman was, etc., I ask you how he got 46 or 48% of the votes, then? Why was he beating the living hell out of Scozzafava before she withdrew? The case against Scozzafava was that she wasn't a real Republican. And guess what? She dropped out and endorsed the Democrat.
Doug Hoffman was not an example of non-Red/Blue politics. It was an example of very Red politics. And it was something that would be very, very hard for Tea Partiers to replicate in other states that don't have a century-plus tradition of third parties and Fusion tickets.
Posted By: John Bragg (Guest) on November 16, 2009 at 04:05 PM
STAY CURRENT