The Republican Agenda: Subpoena Everybody

For those of us that crave a real Republican agenda, one that deals with issues like, you know the economy, expect to be sadly dissapointed if the GOP takes the House come November. Congresswoman Michelle Bachman said recently that a Republican house would basically issue subpoenas and hold endless hearings:

“Oh, I think that’s all we should do,” Bachmann said. “I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that is going on. And it’s very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership because the American people’s patience is about this big.”

On the one hand, I can't believe she is saying this. On the other hand, I've observed her long enough to know that she would say something this stupid.

Listen, I'm not a big fan of Obama, and I have some issues with the health care plan and some other legislation. But I really don't think it's necessary or wanted to hold basically hold a witch hunt at the people's expense while the economy is still perilously weak.

Ugh.

Rise of the "Homocons"

I don't normally like to sites like Big Government or its sister site, Big Journalism. They tend to be a bit too bombastic for my tastes.

That said, this post by Bruce Carroll makes a strong point about the whole Ryan Sorba incident last weekend. He goes as far as saying that it was a "tipping point" within conservatism. I don't know if it has made that big of a difference, but I do think it is an important event. But as Carroll points out, many on the Gay Left tended to do what Andrew Sullivan did, focus on Sorba's incendiary comments on not on the response of the crowd.

There was a time that I scratched my head about something like this. I used to think that those on the Gay Left truly wanted to see an American Right that rid itself of homophobia. I still think there are a lot of people on the left that do want a homophobic-free Right, but many don't seem to care and want to focus on the dark side and nothing else.

It reminds me a scene from C.S. Lewis' last book in the Chronicles of Narnia, the Last Battle. In that book, several people were tossed into a dank stable. At least that's what the elves thought. For the others that were in the stable, they saw a wonderful meadow. They rejoiced at their surroundings, while the elves remained huddled in what they thought was a stable.

I think there are many that will still see conservatism as a hateful collection of individuals who plot to destroy gays. Of course such people exist, but there are others that are fighting to stand up to hatred with in conservatism. I don't know if what happened this last weekend made any difference or was a "tipping point." Nevertheless, it should be celebrated. Whenever people stand up against hatred, it should be welcomed, not ignored.

The Young Conservative Doth Protest too Much?

I find it interesting that every time that I want to think that American conservatism is going down the tubes, something happens that gives me a spot of hope.

There was a lot of news made when the Conservative Political Action Conference allowed the John Birch Society to have a presence at the event. But another group was also allowed that might make some heads turn. GOProud, a gay conservative group which happened to split off from Log Cabin Republicans about a year ago, was welcomed to CPAC as well. Of course, that didn't please some folks. Ryan Sorba, a young man with a big chip on his shoulder, spoke out against GOProud and against homosexuality in general. You might expect that there were would a lot of cheers from the crowd, but that wasn't really what happened:



It's nice to hear that there were people at CPAC who rose to GOProud's defense. It's a reminder that not all is lost with American conservatism.

You might also want to read openly gay conservative Alex Knepper's meeting with Ryan Sorba. It's a hoot.

The Epic Failure of Conservatism

Mike over at the Big Stick and I have had a little argument about the role of social conservatism (or social liberalism) in the current state of the Republican Party.

In a recent post he talks about how one camp within the GOP has not taken any blame: the national security conservatives. He then goes on to say that it is because of that national security conservatives and how the have prosecuted the war in Iraq that the GOP is in such a sad shape. He then adds that social liberals and fiscal conservatives should place their anger at the national security conservatives who basically got us into this mess.

I have to disagree. I do think that the misadventure in Iraq is a factor for why the party is in such a mess, but it is not the only reason. What has happened in 2006 and 2008 was an "epic fail" of conservatism in America. It failed on all accounts: socially and fiscally as well as in foreign policy.

I think sometimes each of the different parts of the conservative family wants to place all the fault on one area. I know that I tend to focus on social conservatism, and Mike focuses on national security. But what is needed is not just a little remodeling: conservatism needs a total teardown and rebuild.

Republicans need to build trust on fiscal matters again after 8 years of reckless spending. They also need to find a way to be more accepting of those who are more socially liberal and more willing to accept those who are gay, those who support gay marriage and abortion rights. Finally, they must find a way to not go on wild goose chases in foreign lands and ways to work with other nations in achieving objectives (kind of like what Bush the Senior did in the Gulf War).

Everyone's sacred cow will have to be sacrificed in rejuvinating the party and the philosophy. Scapegoats are not going to solve the problem.

Southern Strategies

So, is President Obama trying to sabotage the Republican Party? That's the question Politico is asking today in the wake of Obama's selection of Republican Congressman John McHugh to be secretary of the Army. Obama has been making a habit of getting moderates in the party to join his administration and Political Wire has made a lists of all the GOP appointments so far which includes former congressman Ray LaHood, Utah Governor John Huntsman and working to get Arlen Specter to switch parties.

According to Politico, the reason the President is doing this is to box in the GOP:

Between high-profile conversions from the Northeast to the Midwest to the Rocky Mountain West — not to mention Obama’s warm relations with the nation’s two most prominent moderate Republican governors, California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida’s Charlie Crist — it’s beginning to look like a strategy that isolates conservatives, reinforces the impression that the GOP is defined by the borders of the Deep South and all the while underscores Obama’s stated goal of working across party lines.

“Boxing the Republicans into a South-dominated party is very good strategy, because the more you reduce the Republican Party, the more conservative and reactionary it will become, and thus less attractive to moderates,” said Tom Schaller, a University of Maryland-Baltimore County professor and the author of “Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South.” “The Midwest and the Northeast are the places where there are still remnants of old-line Rockefeller Republicans. And these are the places where the Democrats will build durable majorities.”

To me, this makes perfect sense: pick off some of the more vulnerable Republicans, eliminate potential threats, weaken the opposition party and do it all the in the name of bipartisanship. Brilliant.

Some might not want to believe that Obama could be that calculating ala Karl Rove, but face it, this is politics and any politician wants to optimize their political power. Karl Rove was roundly criticized for the tactics he employed, but in a way he was doing what any politico regardless of party tries to do: make sure the party wins. The only difference is that Obama might do it with more a smile.

That said, Obama is only taking advantage of an opportunity. The GOP has made it very hard for anyone who doesn't toe the rigid conservative line to want to stay in the GOP. When a far right candidate like Pat Toomey, who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to win in very blue Pennsylvania decides to challenge Arlen Specter, when a prominent blogger decides to stage a boycott of the National Republican Senatorial Committee because they decided to support the moderate Charlie Crist in the race for a Senate seat in Florida, when the head of the Republican National Committee muses about witholding funds from three Senators because they voted the "wrong way" on a bill and when a talk radio host dresses down a veteran and longstanding Republican like Colin Powell, it's pretty easy to see why some would want to jump ship.

It's been said before, but the biggest enablers of the Democrats have not been the so-called Republicans in Name Only or RINO's, but intolerant conservatives who say "my way or the highway."

Way to go, guys.

On George Tiller

When I first heard the news about the murder of Dr. George Tiller, two feelings came to the fore: one of shock and the other of dread.

I don't have explain the shock, but I feel I need to share the reason for the dread. My reasoning is that once the news of this spread, bloggers and columnists would start pointing fingers and using this shocking event for political ends. And of course, it has begun.

Now, I have to say that I am pro-choice. But I am always amazed at how some use this as a way to paint those who are pro-life as zealots waiting to lead the next crazy person to shoot a doctor. Or, that if they think abortion is murder, that they must support the killing of Dr. Tiller.

This is nonsense. I disagree with those on the pro-life side, but I have enough sense to know that most of them are good, decent folks. They would not hurt a fly.

So, what about the Bill O'Reilly's of the world who have used pretty strong rhetoric over the years? Well, let us remember that those who opposed President Bush also used pretty harsh language over the past eight years as well. If something had happened to the President at that point, would we hold those who used passionate speech responsible?

I'm not saying that people should say what they want about issues. I think we have become a very uncivil society in many ways. But I have a hard time seeing a direct link between those who call abortion doctors, "baby killers" and those who actually end up committing violence.

The sad fact is, whether it's the abortion, or war or any other push button issue, you are bound to find someone who uses over-the-top speech to stir up those in the crowds. But that doesn't mean that it will lead to someone getting a gun and it should not be used as an excuse to shut down the other side.

Maybe the unconfortable thing about this is that there might be no good answer. It could be a troubled mind that just decided to kill someone for no good reason, I don't know.

But I wish the finger pointing would stop. Unless O'Reilly and others told this person to kill someone, then we to not provide an answer as much as greive with those left behind after this tragedy.

Quote of the Day:Meet the New Voice of the GOP!

This quote is a few weeks old, but it still carries heft:

A decorated four-star general has no place in the Republican Party ...

A decorated hero with thirty years in the Senate has no place in the Republican Party ...

And his mother, who held what the Navy calls its "toughest job" for forty years -i.e., Navy Wife- has no place in the Republican Party.

... so say the party's new spokesmen, a draft dodger and a drug addict.

I hope the V.F.W. and the A.L. are paying attention.

Why A GOP Blowout Might Be A Good Thing

The blogosphere is chatting about former McCain and now former Huntsman advisor John Weaver's fears a 2012 GOP Blowout if the party's guiding lights are Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney.

There is a lot of talk that if the party doesn't start appealing to moderates soon, 2012 is going to be bloody.

That prospect used to bother me, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's not a bad thing. Let me explain.

As Ross Douthat explained a few weeks ago in his case that Dick Cheney should have ran in 2008, I am beginning to think that maybe we should let the Limbaugh wing have its way for a few years.

That wing of the party has spent the last few years blaming others for the Republican Party's problems. In 2006 and 2008, it was that George Bush was not a true conservative because of his big spending. Or it was that the Republican-controlled Congress was seduced by the tempting ways of Washington. In 2008, they said McCain was a moderate. They look at the losses in the past elections and think the problem was that the party was "too liberal."

They refuse to listen to the data which says the GOP is losing support. They brand anyone that thinks it's okay to have civil unions or thinks the environment might be an issue, a Republican in Name Only or RINO. The brush off concerns that the party must be allowed to run more moderate candidates in blue states and pick off the moderates that are in office.

This far right wing has wanted to run the show in the party and I am sorely tempted to say, "It's all yours." Let them select candidates for Congress that will go down to defeat. Let them select a Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin, candidates who have no chance in hell in winning in 2012.

The thing is, after such a devastating loss, ala Mondale and the Democrats in 1984, the far right will have no one else to blame. They could no longer live in denial that they only need to be "more conservative." Maybe, just maybe, they would finally know that they need help and that the party needs to change.

Maybe. We will see in 3 years. Hopefully, it won't be too late.

Why John Huntsman Jumped

Upon hearing that Utah Governor John Huntsman was taking Obama's offer to become Ambassador to China, I was saddened. Huntsman was a conservative that didn't live in the GOP echo chamber and could see the change that needed to happen in the Republican Party if it is to be viable force in the age of Obama. He was for civil unions for gays, and was pro-environment. He was considered the one candidate that the Obama team was afraid they would face come 2012. As Andrew Sullivan has noted, he was the "un-Cheney."

Which of course, meant that the current base of the GOP was never going to go for him. I don't know if I agree as much that Obama co-opted Huntsman as much as it was Huntsman realizing that now is not the time to consider running for higher office. A few weeks ago, Huntsman went to my home state of Michigan which seemed like an obvious attempt to test the waters for a presidential run. As David Frum notes the reception was far from friendly. The Republican Party of Kent County, which contains the state's second largest city, Grand Rapids, canceled an event with the Utah Governor because of his support for civil unions.

Grand Rapids and indeed, much of Western Michigan, is considered a GOP stronghold. If Huntsman could not get a hearing in the town that was once represented by Gerald Ford, he wasn't going to get far.

The thing is, the way the party is structured now, Huntsman would have to contort himself in order to be a viable candidate. Rudy Giuliani, who is considered a moderate Republican, had to drop his socially liberal views during the 2008 campaign. John McCain, a conservative more or less like Huntsman, had to also make himself more in the mold of the far right to be at least acceptable to them and then had to accept a less than stellar running mate because she was a social conservative.

I think the way the party is constructed now meant that Huntsman would have to have done the same thing. The Limbaugh wing of the party of sinking ship, but they are still the king. My guess is that after the debacle in Michigan, Huntsman decided to say "nuts to that" and take the post in Beijing. Dealing with the Chinese is far easier than dealing with Sean Hannity.

Obama's gain is the GOP's loss....again.

When the Good is the Enemy of the Perfect

The base of the Republican Party is making a clear message: only candidates that fit our criteria can run for office.

Senator John Cornyn, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is hardly moderate Republican. However, as head of the group that helps get Republicans elected, his goal to get more Republicans in the Senate. Since the Republicans are about a senator short of losing filibuster power, Cornyn is more than willing to be pragmatic in who they are willing to support in the upcoming mid-terms in 2010. Cornyn supported Flordia Governor Charlie Crist in his bid to replace Mel Martinez in the Senate next year.

That has not pleased the purists in the GOP. Real Republican Majority notes that groups and bloggers on the far right are not pleased with Cornyn's willingness to support moderates and are calling for a boycott of the NRSC. This is what Real Real Republican Majority has to say about the whole issue:

Today, it appears that RedState is
answering Daily Kos’s plea for help. RedState, a conservative blog that touches
on a number of issues, including some that RRM agrees on and others we don’t,
has asked its readers and members to boycott donating to the National Republican
Senatorial Committee until Sen. John Cornyn (TX) steps down. Their reasoning is
that the NRSC is supporting primary candidates, such as Florida Governor Charlie
Crist, and had supported Senator Arlen Specter when he was still a member of the
GOP over former Rep. Pat Toomey.

The NRSC has had a long policy of supporting incumbents over challengers,
which Cornyn reiterated while being asked about Toomey's challenge before the
Specter switch. However, RedState seems to be far more upset that Crist is being
supported by the NRSC over Marco Rubio, the former FL House Speaker who is much
more extremist in his views. RedState is charging that Crist is “abandoning his
Governor’s seat to Democrats”- to challenging Rubio, who is a “rising Republican
star” (Crist being an established, popular Republican star).

The post by Dan McLuaghlin at RedState is one that seems to take place in some alternate reality, where true conservatives, who could win, you know, are being shut out by feckless moderates:

Moderate Republicans can complain all they want about the Pat Toomey primary challenge to Arlen Specter, but make no mistake: in this race, it’s the moderate picking a fight to muscle out a conservative in a state where there is no serious question that conservatives have won and can continue to win races statewide...

...John Cornyn has proven that he has learned absolutely nothing from the fiasco of 2006, when the GOP lost close Senate races elsewhere after pouring millions into a primary race to prop up Lincoln Chaffee. You don’t cannibalize key offices like the Florida Governorship to recruit candidates, and you certainly don’t do so to poke a stick in the eye of the party’s base by creating a contested primary against a rising star who appeals to a crucial demograpic. It’s a loser move all around.

Again with the we-lost-because-we-weren't-conservative-enough and the we-conservatives-are-the-victims memes. Let's point out some facts. As David Jenkins has shown, folks like Pat Toomey, the former head of Club for Growth, has had a history of going after moderates in primaries and either leaving them too weak to win the general or picking them off in the primary and then having the more conservative candidate go down in a ball of fire to the Democratic candidate. McLaughlin says that the NRSC wasted money in supporting Linc Chafee in his reelection bid in 2006. But McLaughlin forgot to mention something. Jenkins explains:

In 2006, the Club strongly backed Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey’s primary run for the Rhode Island Senate seat held by then-Senator Lincoln Chafee. The bloody primary battle depleted Chafee’s campaign coffers and increased his negatives, enabling Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse to eke out a victory.

Regardless of how much conservatives were annoyed by the moderate to liberal Chafee, the reality is that a less moderate Republican would have virtually no chance to capture that seat. A recent survey by Gallup found Rhode Island to be the most pro-Democrat state in the nation, with Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters holding a 37 percent advantage.

If the NRSC wasted money, it was because they had to pour more money to help someone who had a chance of winning win a primary against someone that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell to win a such a blue state.

As for Rubio, it's a big gamble to run as conservative in a state that gave Obama 51% of the vote. It might work in Texas, but not necessarily in Florida.

But then, the purists don't care. They believe that somewhere out there the silent majority will rise up and vote for a purist Republican. But that's living in a fantasy world. In the end, the GOP has to be about winning elections and tailoring their message in certain region of the country. One size doesn't fit all.

One last thing: it appears that Club for Growth is sending some love to Marco Rubio. The Democrats must be in heaven over this.

What Color is the Sky in Your World, Huck?

Former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee is smart guy. I mean that. He had a fairly good record as governor of Arkansas.

But that said, when it comes to the future of the GOP, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Recently he has stated that the Republican Party should not "moderate." If they do, they will be as vital as the Whigs.

"Throw the social conservatives the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs," he said in reference to the American political party that largely disbanded in the mid 1800s.

I find it interesting that everytime someone talks about the party being more accepting of moderates, social conservatives start thinking that we are asking them to leave the party. No one is saying that. If they want to run social conservatives in areas that are socially conservative, then let them. But you can't run a pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-stem cell research person in areas like the Northeast, Upper Midwest and the West. It just won't work.

The following paragraph is killer:

"They'll basically be a party of gray-haired old men sitting around the country club puffing cigars, sipping brandy and wondering whatever happened to the country. That will be the end of the party."

Funny, but the party is pretty much already looking like a bunch of grey haired men. They are just sitting in a church instead of in a country club.

I think more and more, others are starting to see that such a hard-line social conservatism isn't going to fly anymore. Relying on it to the extend that we have, has damaged the party.

Michael Steele's Phony Hospitality

Back in January, there were many people who hoped that Michael Steele would become the next chairman of the GOP. He had worked on the centrist Republican Leadership Council and had made some pledges to work hard to include moderates in the party.

Five months later, I now see the former Lt. Governor of Maryland as a joke. Instead of standing up for moderates, he has caved in the far right.

But in his mind, the party is still open to moderates: as long as they sit down, shut up and know who is running this party. He said as much in an interview with National Public Radio last Wednesday when asked if there was room for pro-choice Republicans:

Yeah, sure, why not? Look, I'm not going to stand at the door with a little checklist and say, well, you can be a Republican and you can't. I welcome everyone to this party. But understand, it's like — you know, when I come to your house for dinner, all right, and I sit down at your table, what do you think of me when I look at your wife or look at you and go, "You know, this is a nice meal but I would have preferred chicken. And if you could take this plate off, I think I'd like a different type of china." It is what you serve.

NPR Host Robert Siegel pushes him on this statement by wondering if the pro-life people are the hosts of the party:

And well, it's not just that they're our guests. It's just that you're welcome into their house but understand, you know, when you come in that there's some core principles and values. And it's not just pro-values and pro-family; we're talking about pro-markets. We're pro-business. We're talking about the empowerment of individuals to take ownership and keep more of their hard-earned money. And if those things matter more to you than what we see unfolding right now with this administration, you're welcome to come here.

A few days later in Wisconsin, he makes a similar statement, that all are welcome but...

"All you moderates out there, y'all come. I mean, that's the message," Steele said at a news conference. "The message of this party is this is a big table for everyone to have a seat. I have a place setting with your name on the front.

"Understand that when you come into someone's house, you're not looking to change it. You come in because that's the place you want to be."

Blogger Rick Moran notes what happens when you come into the GOP house and actually do say something:

Everyone can come in and sit down for the feast but if you are pro-choice, or pro-gay marriage, or pro-amnesty, kindly realize that no one is going to listen to you so you might as well keep your mouth shut. Meanwhile, your cousins and other relations can publicly chastise you for your different opinions, actively seek to undermine your re-election by running a primary challenger against you, deny you party support, and will stay at home on election day so a Democrat will probably defeat you anyway.

An exaggeration? Not by much if you listen to many conservatives on talk radio and the internet. For these activists, war has been declared on those they consider “establishment” Republicans or “elitists.” Just what makes these animals dangerous is never articulated to a satisfactory degree. Sometimes, the transgression is as small as praising President Obama for something he’s done. More serious violations include working with Democrats in Congress to solve problems, being pro-choice, or daring to say that the party has become too ideological and even too conservative to win in many states and districts around the country.

I really don't know who Mr. Steele thinks he's fooling. What he is offering is phony hospitality, likening the GOP to some kind of club where if you follow the club rules, you are okay, but woe to the one that doesn't.

But political parties are not exclusive clubs: they are coalitions of varying interests. The problem here is that a few or one member of the Republican coalition has started to think that they are it and that to be in the party means everyone must be like them.

And Mr. Steele who once talked about how the far right must be more tolerant of moderates is now offering this shuck and jive faux hospitality that says we can be part of the group as long as we toe the line

That's not hospitality; that's bullying and Mr. Steele should know better.

Call this what it is, Mr. Steele. Stop pretending you are being welcoming to us moderates. You aren't.

The GOP Purity Experiment

Over the last few decades, an experiment has been taking place within the Republican Party. It has been conducted not by party leaders as much as by the rank and file or so-called base. It has been an experiment as to whether a politically pure party can be a viable party. To my knowledge this has never been done before.

Over the years, groups such as Club for Growth have sought out those who were considered apostates and targeted them for inter-party challenges. In many cases they have picked off those moderates and have made the party more pure.

These groups tend to be inward looking and wary of the outside world. For them, the reason the GOP last in 2006 and 2008 was because they were not pure enough. George Bush? He spent like a drunken sailor. John McCain? He was too feckless. No, there is no need to change and to expand the coalition, there is only the need to be more faithful and more pure and purge those who don't agree.

Ross Douthat, in his debut column for the New York Times, argues that maybe Dick Cheney should have run for President last year, so that the purists would have their way- and when they lost, no longer have the excuse that they were not pure enough in their ideology.

Arlen Specter's decision to leave the GOP for the Democrats might have many conservative purists shouting Hallelujah today. But it means that they probably have resigned the GOP to a rump status, but hey, at least they are a bit pure than they were before.

Will being pure be the winning strategy for the GOP? I'm gonna say this: you can be an ideologically pure party or you can be a majority party, but you can't be both.

What the Tea Parties Can Teach Moderate Republicans

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
-Martin Luther King Jr.

In reading some of the blogs as of late, it might seem that moderate or progressive Republicans are finally getting some love. The recent speeches by Meghan McCain and former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt, have given people the impression that maybe, just maybe, that those in the upper levels of the Republican Party are finally paying attention to us moderates. Maybe they will finally not focus on being against gay marriage and focus on more moderate issues.

Don't bet on it.

A recent article in Politico states that while there has been some beliefs and opinions that believe the GOP should change, the reality is that the so-called base of the party is still very much alive, even after two drubbings:

Rank-and-file Republicans remain, by all indications, staunchly conservative, and they appear to have no desire to moderate their views. GOP activists and operatives say they hear intense anger at the White House and at the party’s own leaders on familiar issues – taxes, homosexuality, and immigration. Within the party, conservative groups have grown stronger absent the emergence of any organized moderate faction.

There is little appetite for compromise on what many see as core issues, and the road to the presidential nomination lies – as always – through a series of states where the conservative base holds sway, and where the anger appears to be, if anything, particularly intense.

"There is a sense of rebellion brewing," said Katon Dawson, the outgoing South Carolina Republican Party chairman, who cited unexpectedly high attendance at anti-tax “tea parties” last week.

Politico goes on to give a passing statement on the vitality of three moderate groups:

Liberal Republican groups like the Main Street Republican Partnership and the Republican Majority for Choice remain essentially irrelevant, and even the main gay GOP group, the Log Cabin Republicans, is fending off a challenge from a more conservative gay splinter faction.

Ralph Reed, the longtime Christian conservative activist and former chair of the Georgia GOP, predicted that opposition to same-sex marriage would become, like abortion, a litmus test, if a lower-profile one.

"There used to be muscular and vocal disagreement in the party on our pro-life plank," he recalled. "That has largely been resolved. Nobody raises the issue of changing the pro-life plank."

In a recent op-ed also in Politico, Matthew Dallek states that the GOP needs to remember it's moderates. It follows a ton of articles by various writers accross the political spectrum that urge the same thing: The GOP needs to be more accepting of moderates and be able to moderate their views on social issues.

That is an important message to hear, but it's incomplete at best. The fact is, people have been saying that Republicans needs to be more tolerant and open minded at least since the the 1992 GOP Convention in Houston when Pat Buchanan and others presented a very right wing face to America. And in the ensuring years, not very much has changed.

The problem is that many of the writers fail to understand the notion of politics and how it operates. I will go even further and say that many moderates both within and without the GOP also fail to understand how politics truly work and as long as this takes place, there will never be a revivial of moderates in the Republican Party.

In many of the articles that fault the Republican Party for not supporting moderates, the plea is usually to the party in general. It's a nice statement to ask those who are in power to please let moderates in. It based on a belief that if the party leadership (those in the Republican National Committee and also at state and local levels) would simply appeal to reason and logic, then party leaders will see the light and by jove, they will let moderates in.

But politics is never about reasoned discussions. It is in the end about power, coalitions and organizing. The Left has understood this for a long time, as have those on the Religious Right. Moderate Republicans are wont to say that the GOP has been "hijacked" by the far right. Now, I have no love towards the far right which I believe have ruined the GOP. But such belief in a "hijacking" is simply a nice fantasy that we moderates can console ourselves with. It isn't real.

The fact is, the Religious Right for all the bad it has done, did things the right way: they got involved at the local and state level. They got on platform committees and inserted their agenda. The created political action committees to elect their candidates. Yes, they took over the GOP, but they did it fair and square, through good old fashioned organizing.

And such organizing has results. We complain that John McCain transformed himself into a right-wing candidate in 2008. If only, some moderates claim, McCain ran as he did in 2000. The fact is, the people that hold the power in the GOP is the far right. If McCain wanted to have the backing of the party he had to bend to where the party is. Yes, McCain could have ran as he did in 2000, but we saw what the power players did to him then and since they were still power eight years later, they would do it again.

Dirty? Yes. But it's also politics.

Then their was the task of picking a Vice Presidential candidate. McCain was leading towards former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. But when McCain sent a trial balloon that he was considering a pro-choice candidate there were howls of protest. In the end, we got Sarah Palin, which wowed the far right, but turned off moderates.

Same goes for Mitt Romney, who ran in 1994 as a moderate Republican against Sen. Edward Kennedy. He was pro-choice and earned the support of Log Cabin Republicans for gay-friendly stances. But when he started thinking about running for President, his stances changed. Why? Because the current GOP isn't going to elect a pro-gay, pro-choice Republican governor as their nominee. To the victor belongs the spoils.

That's what's missing from the moderate faction (what's left of it) in the GOP. It is barely organized. There are groups that I think truly "get it" such as Log Cabin Republicans and Republicans for Environmental Protection. But for the most part, moderates seem to be waiting for the GOP to come to its senses.

But that isn't going to happen. Yes, a candidate like George W. Bush will come along and sprinkle a few words here and there about being a "different kind of Republican" that will woo just enough moderates,but in the end, once they are in office, they will dance with those that brung 'um.

The great moderate revival in the GOP will not happen unless those of us that are moderates make it happen. If we believe that the Republican Party needs to be more tolerant and accepting of same sex marriage, then we must be willing to get off our couches and out from behind our computers and go to the next meeting of our local Republican party and demand it.

I don't totally agree with the Tea Party folks. I think their message is to unfocused and not really for anything. But I do have to hand it to them: they were willing to get mad enough to get together and create something. The same goes for all the Ron Paul folk. Again, they might be just plain crazy, but they at least aren't waiting for someone to give them permission.

Politics is about having a good ground game. It's about getting into the arena, but we moderates perfer to stay on the sidelines.

Yes, there needs to be more diversity in the GOP. Yes, the party needs more moderates. But it is up to us to for that to happen. It will not happen because the leadership granted it to us; it will happen because we demanded it- because we got organized and went to city, county and state conventions, because we got on platform committees and because we created PACS to support our candidates.

Will that happen? I don't know. There is a part of me that is always hopeful, but I'm also a born pessimist.

But I want to be proven wrong. I want to see the flowering of a new moderate movement. But it's up to my fellow moderates. Please don't let me down.

Pat Toomey: A Democrat's Best Friend

Pat Toomey, the former head of Club for Growth is running against Arlen Specter in the 2010 Pennsylvania GOP Senate primary. A lot of conservative purists are probably saying "good riddance" to the moderate Specter who voted for the Obama Stimulus package and is a social moderate. Toomey has made career out of going after "RINOs" or "Republicans in Name Only." But as David Jenkins shows, while he might have purged the party of moderates, he isn't good at getting his purist candidates to get to Washington and stay there:

In 2006, the Club strongly backed Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey’s primary run for the Rhode Island Senate seat held by then-Senator Lincoln Chafee. The bloody primary battle depleted Chafee’s campaign coffers and increased his negatives, enabling Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse to eke out a victory.

Regardless of how much conservatives were annoyed by the moderate to liberal Chafee, the reality is that a less moderate Republican would have virtually no chance to capture that seat. A recent survey by Gallup found Rhode Island to be the most pro-Democrat state in the nation, with Democrat and Democrat-leaning voters holding a 37 percent advantage.

Also in 2006, the Club helped Tim Walberg defeat incumbent Joe Schwarz in Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, and backed the intemperate Bill Sali in a crowded GOP primary field vying for Idaho’s 1st District seat. Both managed to win the general election that year, but were swept out of office in 2008.

Schwarz was a far better fit for the evenly balanced Michigan 7th than Walberg. In 2004, Schwarz beat Democrat Sharon Renier by 22 percent (58% to 36%), while Walberg in 2006 edged her out by only 4 percent. In 2008, Walberg lost the seat to Democrat Mark Schauer by 2 percentage points.

And if you think Toomey isn't that great of political gamesman, the following is truly a craptastic piece of art:

It takes a truly magical reverse Midas touch to identify and elect a Republican who cannot hold onto Idaho’s 1st District seat that, with a Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI) score of R+18, is one of the most heavily Republican districts in the nation to now be represented by a Democrat.

Toomey's "magic touch" has only been magic in sending more Democrats to Congress. There's a few lesson in this: the first being that those who make an enemy of the good over the perfect ends up losing.

Is the Religious Right Dead?

It seems that whenever the Democrats are back in power there is talk about the demise of the Religious Right. Kathleen Parker, decides to bring up the end of the Christian right in her April 5 column. Blogger John Armstrong also wonders if this is the end of the road for the symbiotic relationship between the GOP and the Right. He, along with Parker, thinks there is a generational shift afoot that is changing the Christian Right:

The "deals" made with the GOP took most evangelical Christians out of the Democratic Party for more than three decades. This is changing. I would maintain that both parties are deeply flawed, on different points and directions. Christians can and should be found in both parties, working to influence and change their party accordingly. But the Christian right absolutized issues into "moral" vs. "immoral." Thus a pro-life Democrat became a virtual impossibility until the last ten years. Large numbers of young people are now seeking a new way, many of them energized by Obama's campaign. (Boomers from the Christian right believe this is the equivalent of a massive apostasy!) Time will tell what all this means but I maintain the last thirty-plus years was a net loss to the cause of Christ and his kingdom in the culture. I also maintain that the mission of the church suffered huge loss in the process.

Speaking as a gay Republican who has dealt with the Religious Right for a few years, I would be glad if the Religious Right were not as big a force in the GOP and in American culture. But I am not so convinced that this is the end of the Christian Right- at least not yet- for a few reasons.

First, it's hard to determine the future of a movement after one setback. We have only had two elections where the Republican Party has loss seats and the White House. That could be a trend, but then again, it might not be. The far right still has power in many parts of the GOP and they aren't going to give up anytime soon. It might not happen, but what happens if Obama and the Democrats make a huge blunder between now and the midterms in 2010. We could see the Republicans come back into power and look for people like James Dobson to be happy again.

Second, there is no visible counter movement in the GOP. Even if the GOP is weak in the wider society, as long as no one in the conservative movement is mounting an effective challenge against their hold on the Republican Party, then they will remain in power. If the Religious Right is losing power, then groups like Log Cabin Republicans, Real Republican Majority, Republican Majority for Choice, Republicans for Choice and the Republican Leadership Council should be working like mad to fill the gap and make sure they are no longer a force in the party. But most of these groups are either not taking the advantage or are so weak as to not really make a difference, at least at this time.

All of this is to say that the Religious Right will not go quietly into that good night. If conservatives who don't identify with the Religious Right want to limit their influence, then we need to make sure of that and not just hope for the best.

Wanted: An Anti-Limbaugh Big Mouth

This post over at Conventional Folly was a bit annoying at first blush, but then made sense:

I went and listened to the on-air debate between David Frum and Mark Levin at the urging of Massie and Sullivan, and I came away with the surprising conclusion that Levin definitely got the best of Frum (all use of the mute button aside). I think that’s because Frum is not acknowledging a sad fact: the dearth of charismatic political leaders on the right means that Levin’s incessant digs about relevance, as measured in “audience” for their respective work, actually matter. What good is the “idea leadership” espoused by Frum, Douthat/Salam, Brooks, et al. if it has little resonance with the mass of voters who make up the core of the Republican electorate?

The retort that Frum was unsuccessfully trying to make is that demagoguery, which is what Rush Limbaugh, Levin, and their ilk regularly engage in, is a sorry substitute for leadership. And, while that may very well be true, wonkery is an even more sorry substitute for leadership. The people don’t want nuance, substance, or even good ideas. They want something they can easily understand in sound-byte form, something that resonates with their simple, innate notions of justice, something they can repeat around the water cooler and feel good about. That’s something that writerly, intellectual types all too frequently miss. And, I hasten to add, it’s exactly what Barack Obama has been able to provide for the Democrats. (Emaphasis mine.)

I think he has a point. Frum, et al. are good writers, but in the world of politics, there needs to be someone that can take all this wonkery and distill it down to something that can be placed in a soundbite. As Marusic notes, Obama had a good way of taking all the Democratic wonk and distill into a wonderful speech. Bill Clinton could do that. So did Ronald Reagan. The thing is, someone like a Ross Douthat is not something that the average joe is going to get excited about. Which is why so many among the base like Rush: he can take "conservative" notions and make them easy to digest.

What the GOP needs is somewhat that can be "wonky" and accesible at the same time.It might be that someone like a Utah Governor Jon Huntsman could be the guy that takes thoughts from Frum, Douthat, Salam and others make then ready for mass consumption.

In the end, to reach out beyond the base that people like Frum (including myself) want to do, they need to find people who can translate that and make it presentable to the a water cooler conversation. Until that happens, the reform-minded conservatives will be on the losing end of the battle.

Why Does Rush Matter?

It's interesting that other conservatives are now realizing what I've known for about 15 years: that Rush Limbaugh is a windbag that is more concerned about boosting his ratings than he is about trying to rebuild the GOP.

But now, that conservatives and liberals are chatting about the rotund radio announcer, I am left wondering something:

Why Does Rush Matter?

Why have so many bloggers spent so much time writing about this guy?

Yes, I know that he seems to hold a big sway over a lot of conservatives. Yes, he made a big speech at CPAC which is the big gathering of movement conservatives. But why have we made Rush and CPAC the be all and end all of American conservatism when they aren't?

Rush's message is a damaging to the GOP- I get it. CPAC is big, it is what made Ronald Reagan. But if Rush is not going to listen to reason and if CPAC is more interested in Joe the Plumber than in trying to build from the ashes, then maybe it's time to start to build a counter movement. Maybe it is time to build a new kind of CPAC that is more inclusive and more focused on solutions than in slogans. Maybe we need to ignore Rush and his blatherings and get our own ideas out in the open.

Think about it: the Democrats created new vehicles to carry their message. Moveon.org used the internet to get the message out. Yearly Kos became the liberal version of CPAC with progressive bloggers coming together to find ways to get the progressive message out there and pick candidates who could win. When the party and ideological apparatus was not responsive, they created their own structures.

It's interesting talking about how conservatism is dead and all that; but I know it is alive in people like David Brooks, David Frum, Reihan Salam, Ross Douthat and others. What it needs are new structures to carry that new message along. Rush won't do it and neither will CPAC or for that matter, Michael Steele and the RNC.

The GOP and American conservatism can survive; it just needs stop focusing on Rush. As Dr. Suess once said: "Those who matter don't mind. Those who mind, don't matter."

Rush Limbaugh doesn't matter.

The Mythical Minority Social Conservative

Every so often, I have heard conservative Republican operatives talk about how the GOP has an inroad to persons of color because in many of those communities, there is strong opposition to gay marriage.

Since there hasn't been a flood of black people to the GOP based on their stance on gay marriage, I have always found that argument bogus if not bigoted. Being someone who is African American (and gay to boot) I've always believed that most African Americans are concerned with bread and butter issues instead of whether I and my partner decide to go to the justice of the peace and get hitched.

Finally, a conservative has shown this belief to be false. Zac Morgan, writing in today's New Majority, shares that the evidence doesn't line up with the rhetoric coming from leading conservatives:

Let's look at the black vote first, and put aside whether or not large portions of an ethnic group with a median income that is barely over half of that of white Americans (and shows historical antipathy to the GOP) could be swung on moral issues.

First of all, while it is true that blacks came out very heavily in favor of Proposition 8 (70 percent), they also had no problem voting heavily for President Obama (McCain only winning 5 percent). On the issue of Proposition 8, Obama made it very clear during the campaign that he opposed it; McCain made it just as clear that he favored it. As of now, there is simply no evidence that this issue has the potential to move significant numbers of black voters into the red column. Even if it did, younger African-Americans are somewhat more likely to embrace gay marriage than their elders. According to a 2007 study by the University of Chicago, 58 percent of black youth were opposed to same-sex marriage.

As for forging an electoral coalition with Latinos over gay marriage, this seems far less likely. Whites and Hispanics had little difference in their support for Proposition 8 (49 percent for whites, 53 percent for Latinos), and the Chicago study indicates that younger voters in both groups are moving away from opposing same-sex marriage at the same pace (35 percent of whites and 36 percent of Hispanics).

So if the vote among younger minority voters is trending away from opposing gay marriage and if these constituencies have voted consistently Democratic, what is leading conservatives to think they can create a "moral coalition?" Well, it has to with appearing to reach out without having to change:

For years, conservatives have entertained this fantasy that the GOP could woo over ethnic minorities by appealing to "religious" or "cultural" values, particularly on the issue of gay marriage, without having to change any other aspects of the pachyderm appeal. This is an urban legend to retire to the Snopes page. In recent years, Hispanics have very conclusively shown that their political allegiance is tied to other issues, particularly immigration (it would be foolhardy not to note that the last two extremely successful Republican candidates to win Hispanics at a national level, Reagan and George W. Bush, both openly supported some form of amnesty). Successful Republicans who have won the black vote, such as Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, did so by engaging in a constant, heart-felt dialogue with black groups and churches, and addressing the poverty question head-on. As he once noted to an audience at an event I attended, he came at the issue from the angle "Just because you were born in a crummy neighborhood doesn't mean your children have to go to a crummy school." (In this sense, perhaps half of Mr. Johnson's observation, regarding GOP support for urban charter schools, shows more promise.)

Take Latinos for example. Most Latinos tend to view immigration or English-only/official language efforts as important issues. Leading Republicans have made it standard that any immigration reform has to start with sending all 12 million illegal immigrants back to whence they came. When George Bush (who made some inroads into the Hispanic Community) and John McCain showed support for a Guest Worker plan, it was immediately slammed as "amnesty." It is a high sense of disconnect with reality to push for immigration reforms that boarders on xenophobia, and the turn around expect Latinos to work with you on banning gay marriage.

If the GOP wants to bring more black and Latino folk into the party, they are going to have to meet them on their own terms. Many communities are dealing with lack of basic services and economic opportunity. What the Republicans should be doing is listen to what these communities need and fashioning conservative solutions ala Jack Kemp, rather than as Morgan ends his essay, "bring the culture war to minority churches."

Join Us or Die

When Michael Steele was chosen as the Chair of the Republican National Committee, I was pleased to see someone who had said they wanted to reach out and include moderates at the GOP table.

And then you hear something like this:

This one passed unnoticed last night, but it’s definitely noteworthy — yet another measure of the degree to which the Republican Party has bet all its chips on opposing the stimulus package.

On Fox News, Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele said he was open to withholding RNC funds from the three GOP Senators who backed President Obama’s stimulus package...

Speaking of Senators Arlen Specter, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Steele said that the Senators were likely to face primaries as a result of their vote for the stimulus bill.

Then Steele was asked by Fox’s Neil Cavuto: “Will you, as RNC head, recommend no RNC funds being provided to help them?”

Steele confirmed that he would “talk to the state parties about.” When pressed on whether he was open to it, Steele said: “Oh, yes, I`m always open to everything, baby, absolutely.”

So, I guess that inclusion of moderates only matters if they vote the right way all the time.

I find this maddening. I didn't agree with the stimulus bill, but I also don't think that the three Senators should be punished simply because they decided to work with the Democrats. As usual, the GOP risks eating their own because of a representative didn't toe the line and giving seats over to the Democrats.

And the GOP "death spiral" continues...