Is Republicanism in New England Dead?

When I was growing up in Connecticut, my hometown was predominantly Republican, and the party itself was strong throughout New England. Now, it's influence is like a distant memory. What happened? This article from the AP has a look at that question with some possible explanations:

GOP a dying breed in New England

HARTFORD, Conn. – A generation ago the Republican Party was the dominant political force in New England, populating the region's congressional delegations with moderates like Connecticut's Lowell P. Weicker Jr. and Rhode Island's John Chafee.

But today's GOP, led by a more socially conservative wing of the party, is finding votes harder to come by.

[...]

New England's decision to "go the other way" in recent elections is a dramatic transformation for a region considered a Republican stronghold a generation ago.

The Republican Party and New England have a long history together.

At their first presidential convention, in 1856, Republicans nominated John C. Fremont on a platform of abolishing slavery in the territories — a widely held view in the North. While Fremont lost, he carried 11 Northern states. Later, Abraham Lincoln captured the presidency by winning 18 Northern states.

By the late 1940s, Republicans held 21 of 28 of New England's seats in the House of Representatives. But the turning point came in 1964, when the Republicans nominated conservative Barry Goldwater for president, said Gary Rose, a political science professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.

Known for being fiscally conservative but more socially liberal, Northeast moderates — dubbed the Rockefeller Republicans after the former New York governor — started to be eclipsed by the more socially conservative wing of the party.

"The eastern establishment got weaker and weaker," Rose said. "Today, there's really no eastern establishment to speak of."

[...]

"There is no longer, to speak of, a moderate voice within the party," Rose said. "It's a party that's becoming more narrow and there's really no sense of compromise within the party."

Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College, said she believes the GOP can still come back, at least in independent-minded New Hampshire where the state motto is "Live Free or Die."

"It depends on the state. I don't really think you can look at it as a regional phenomenon," Donahue said of New England politicians trending Democratic. "The further north you get, the colder it gets, the more the voters look at (races) on a case-by-case basis."

[...]

Lawrence J. Cafero Jr., the Republican leader of Connecticut's House of Representatives, blames the image of the national Republican party for hurting the GOP in New England, where Republicans historically have often favored fiscal responsibility, abortion rights, protection of personal liberties and strong environmental policies.

He believes the problem worsened with the 1994 so-called "Republican Revolution," when midterm congressional elections added 54 Republican seats in the House.

"They lost their way and I think more and more New England people, especially those who were Republicans basically because of smaller government and less government intrusion into our lives, started to see their party led by people whose foremost issues were social issues, religious and values and morals, etc.," Cafero said.

"I think that turned a lot of people off in New England and they didn't feel the party was really with them," he added.

Carrie James, a regional press secretary with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which supports Democratic congressional candidates, said bad feelings about President Bush, the war in Iraq and the weakened economy have helped to persuade New England voters to support Democrats over the past eight years.

One bright spot for the GOP in New England has been their control of governorships. Republicans are governors in Connecticut, Vermont and Rhode Island.

"A big part of our strategy this cycle was to link Republican incumbents with the failed policies of the Bush administration and it's not applicable in a governor's race," James said. "But certainly President Bush damaged the Republican brand across the board." [...]

(bold emphasis mine) I think New England Republicans expected a lot more of George Bush, and what he delivered was not what they were wanting.

It's a good article that covers a lot of points, it's worth reading the whole thing. It ends by saying that Yankee Republicans are more moderate than the Religious conservatives who have been trying to dominate the party; that moderate Republicans have no home in the GOP, and therefore, the brand is dead in New England. And 8 years of George Bush put the nails in the coffin, as evidenced in this last election.

It also talks about hopes for a Republican Revival in New England, but the national GOP would have to become more moderate, more open and expansive, to accommodate them. Right now, it's simply too small.
     

A challenge to four statements that Obama repeats at almost every campaign rally

These statements really do need to be debunked. Neal Boortz has done so, and I'm reprinting them here in their entirety:

AT LEAST KNOW WHO YOU'RE VOTING FOR -- A CHALLENGE

The election is now eight days way. If you've made up your mind for Obama; or if you're trying to noodle through some of the things he's been saying on the campaign trail, this should help. I've taken four statements that The Chosen One repeats at almost every campaign rally. Now these statements are pretty powerful ... if unchallenged ... and we know that the MoveOn Media isn't exactly what we would call "eager" to challenge God's Candidate on any of these issues.

So, here we go again .. this simple talk show host (right wing, hate-filled shock jock, I believe they call us) is going to use some basic logic and the ability to actually read newspapers to catch you up to speed on just what the Big BO is saying here. Now if you're educated in our wonderful government schools you may find this challenging. Stick with it. In spite of what the government has done to you, you can generate some new brain cells that will help you deal with this stuff. It would also help if you got your campaign news from somewhere other than Saturday Night Live.

Here we go, front and center with Barack Obama!

"I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans."

This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media. The problem is that it hasn't been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight. Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama's supporters won't know the truth.

And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don't pay federal income taxes in the first place. This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes. What Obama has done here is change the definition of "tax cut."

It used to be that when the government walked up to someone who had just received their paycheck and said 'Gimme some of that," and the government then gave that money to someone else who had not earned it; that was called welfare. Now apparently you can't get welfare if you're working ... so we'll just call it income seizure and redistribution. Under Obama a couple earning, for example, $70,000 and owing no federal income taxes at all will get several checks from Obama's federal taxpayer-funded treasury. These checks will be called "tax cuts."

So .. for those who don't pay taxes, here are some of the "tax cut" checks you'll be getting from The Chosen One. I'm taking some literary license here and replacing the words "tax credit" with the word "payment." That literary flourish brings us much closer to the truth. Here are your goodies; come and get 'em:

• A $500 "make work pay" payment.
• A $4,000 payment for college tuition.
• A payment equal to 10% of your mortgage interest
• A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you put into a savings account up to $1000.
• A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you pay for child care up to $6000.
• A payment of up to $7,000 if you purchase a "clean car." By that Obama means an environmentally correct car.
• Plus ... an expansion of the earned income tax credit .. increased payments on top of your earnings if the government doesn't feel you are earning enough.

There you go ... Obama's "tax cuts." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it. Well, I guess it is, if you're not too successful it IS pretty good. Remember, the harder you work the lower these payments get. Barack Obama's tax plans are all about punishing success and rewarding failure. He understands that if it weren't for failures, Democrats would be scrounging in the alleys for votes.

It's rather ironic that the Obama campaign will go to the mat with critics over the definition of "socialist," but feel absolutely free to change the definition of "tax cut" to anything that suits them.

"95% of small businesses won't pay any more taxes."

Once people started hearing that the very people that Obama wanted to raise taxes on are the people we depend on for jobs, The BO campaign had to come up with a line to neuter the "small business" argument. Barack Obama knows he's in trouble if the voters find out that 70% of all extant jobs are in the small business sector and that 80% of all new jobs are coming from small businesses. So, Obama comes up with this line about 95% of small businesses not paying any more taxes under his plan.

Here's the trick. Let me illustrate reality with a simple comparison. Let's say that we have 1000 small businesses. About 950 of them, that would be 95%, employ one or two people each for a total employment figure of 1,200. Now let's assume that the other 50 businesses employ anywhere from 20 people to hundreds of people for a total of about 250,000 workers. If someone comes along and says 95% of small businesses won't be affected by his tax increases, how do you feel? You know that the tax increase is going to slam those businesses that employ 250,000 workers, while leaving the 95% of businesses that employ just 1,200 people alone. Quite a deal, huh. Aren't you impressed?

The point here is that it's not the percentage of small businesses your tax increases hit, it's the percentage of small business employees. Unfortunately that nuance is lost on the majority of voters educated by the government, and the MoveOn Media sure isn't going to take the time to explain it to you. Obama's tax increases are going to hit the small business owners who employ the most people. They are the ones that make the most money. These business owners are going to respond to the tax increases one of two ways. They'll increase prices -- which hit all of us -- or they'll cut expenses. Their number one expense? Personnel. Vote for Obama, say TTFN to your job. Makes perfect sense to me, but then I was government educated too.

"John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time."

First of all, George Bush doesn't cast votes in the U.S. Senate, though McCain and Obama do. The best way to judge how they vote is to see how often they vote with their respective parties. You might want to get those nuisance resolutions proclaiming the need for a colonoscopy every once in a while out of the way. That would leave some key votes for you to consider. The Congressional Research Service did the work. They looked at votes for Obama and McCain on KEY issues. The results? Barack Obama voted with Democrats 97% of the time. John McCain voted with the Republicans 79% of the time. Now .. just sit on your hands and wait for the MoveOn Media to report that one. Sit on your hands, but for God's sake don't hold your breath.

"John McCain wants to tax your health insurance benefits."

He's right, but here's the rest of the story. Let's say that you and your brother work for different companies. Your company provides you with health insurance. Your brother has to buy his own. Your boss gets a tax deduction for the cost of your health insurance. Your brother does not get a tax deduction for the cost of his health insurance. In effect, he is paying much more than you are for the same policy. Not fair. There's a reason for this. For decades government has wanted to coerce you into getting insurance through your employer. This gets you acclimated to the idea of someone else -- someone besides yourself -- is responsible for your health care. The end result is that the government, in effect, subsidizes the cost of your health insurance, but not your brother's. Now McCain has this idea of a $5,000 tax credit for every family to pay for their own health insurance policy. To make this work everyone has to start from the same starting line. Remember, you're subsidized, your brother is not. So McCain takes away the tax deduction your employer gets for your health insurance. There ... now we're all of equal standing when the $5,000 tax credits start coming out.

Now that wasn't too hard, was it?

Now .. just in case you've read something here, heard something on my show or gathered some information from some other source that might cause you to switch your vote from Obama to McCain ... just remember. You're a racist. There is only one reason NOT to vote for Barack Obama, and that's if you're a robe-wearing, cross-burning Klansman. Just so you know. You're going to have that on your conscience.