Is it a GOP comeback? Or lesser of two evils?

It's an interesting trend, but if people are merely voting against the Democrats by voting Republican, then the GOP had best not get over-confident, by trying to count their chickens before they've hatched:


G.O.P. Envisions Northeast Comeback

[...] The independents who swing New England elections abandoned the party as the Bush era drew to a close. They were in revolt over the war in Iraq, the struggling economy and the strong strain of Southern social conservatism that was dominating national Republican politics. It was crushing for the remaining Republicans in a section of the country that once saw itself as the foundation of the party.

But Republicans see Mr. Brown’s win — and an earlier victory in the New Jersey governor’s race — as evidence that independents are moving back their way, a possible harbinger of good things to come.

[...]

But they should not get too far ahead of themselves. They still face difficult challenges in most of those states, given Democratic demographic advantages. And off-year and special election Republican victories in Democratic territory offer no certainty of winning in the more heavily contested midterm elections, with their accompanying greater turnout. Also, ideological divisions being exhibited in primaries in Connecticut and New Hampshire in particular could ultimately cost Republicans.

Still, they have reason to be optimistic after being nearly wiped off New England’s political map. One reason is that the current national political fight is centering more on the economic issues that are part of the fabric of New England political ideology, rather than the divisive social issues that can drive less conservative Republicans away from the party.

“What’s fueling the resurgence of Northern Republicans is public anger over the economy and an impression among New England voters that ‘big government’ is back with a vengeance,” said Bob Stevenson, a former senior Senate Republican aide who has long worked in New England politics. “New Englanders tend to believe in fiscal restraint, self-rule and self-sufficiency.”

The addition of even a few moderate Republicans to the Senate could change the dynamic in that institution. Conservatives are so dominant now that Ms. Collins and Ms. Snowe face intense pressure to vote with their party, particularly after they broke ranks to provide the crucial votes to pass the economic stimulus measure early in 2009. Mr. Castle, should he prevail, would add another strong and experienced moderate voice.

The philosophical direction Mr. Brown intends to take remains to be seen, but even his fellow Republicans said he could not compile a heavily conservative voting record and expect to be re-elected in Massachusetts in 2012 when his partial term ends.

Ms. Snowe, typically a favorite target of Democrats as they try to build a 60-vote bloc to break filibusters, said that Republicans representing Democratic states — or vice versa — tend to push the debate toward the middle to appease their diverse political constituencies.

“Having those countervailing voices really creates the inclination and propensity for drafting centrist-based positions,” Ms. Snowe said. [...]

Maybe what we are seeing is a victory for centrists.

The Republicans have an opportunity here, but they could easily blow it, if they insist on making the Republican party a purist ideology, instead of using it as a political vehicle to be cooperatively used by a large diverse base, to achieve goals the members all have in common.

This means not kicking people out when they are not ideologically rigid, being flexible, letting states make their own choices about how they want their Republicans to be.

We don't need a GOP dominated by the South, or the North either. What good would it do to gain the North, but then lose the South? If we emphasize fiscal issues as our spearhead, and keep social issues, the culture wars, primarily fought in our culture more than our legislature, I think we have a good chance of a comeback. But if the Republicans continue to support big government, and continue to push legislation to control controversial social issues, then I doubt we stand a chance.

I've posted before in detail about the Death of Republicanism in New England. There are lessons to be learned from that. This potential Republican Revival we are seeing now will only succeed if the voters of each state can use the party as a political vehicle, instead of having to join an inflexible ideology.

There has been a lot of criticism by GOP Uber-conservatives of Republican Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine. I visited with family in Maine last year. I read in the newspaper there, in a political article, a comment by a voter addressing that criticism, who said: "We sent Snowe and Collins to Washington to represent the State of Maine, not the GOP". I think that is very true of the voters in Maine; they tend to not be rigidly partisan, and like their politicians to reflect that.

I think it's largely true for New England as whole; they expect their senators to be loyal to their state first, their party second. They are expected to compromise when necessary, to please the voters of their state.

Brown of Massachusetts knows this. If he turns into a GOP Uber-conservative, he will be toast. He won by listening to his constituents, not the GOP ideologues.

Here in Oregon, we had a wonderful GOP senator, Gordon Smith. But then the GOP ideologues began to complain he was a RINO, and undermined him, just enough to help the Democrats defeat him. Now we have two Democrat senators, and some of the highest income taxes in the nation, second only to NYC. Way to go... NOT!!!

I already am hearing the GOP Uber-conservatives complaining that Brown is a RINO, not good enough, not pure enough. Are we as a party going to shoot ourselves in the foot AGAIN, ending the Republican revival before it's begun?

If Democrats and Republicans keep sticking to ideological extremes, then perhaps a third party will have a good chance of forming. One that could attract independents, and both Republican and Democrat moderates might actually succeed, especially if WE continue to flail and fail.
     

How many people are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? Nearly 60% - the Majority?

How Many Libertarian Voters Are There?

In our new study, David Kirby and I round up various estimates on the number of libertarian-leaning voters. Our own calculation, 14 percent, is actually the lowest estimate.

We use three questions on political values from the generally acknowledged gold standard of public opinion data, the surveys of the American National Election Studies, and find that 14 percent of respondents gave libertarian answers to all three questions. But other researchers have used somewhat looser criteria and found larger numbers of libertarians: [...]

One can split hairs over the definition of "Libertarian", but most people seem to relate to the idea of fiscal conservatism combined with social liberalism, which goes against both the politically ideological Left and Right. In other words, most people are in the moderate, non-ideological center.

For too long this majority has been battered between two extremes. Both Left and Right has been pushing for bigger government to enforce their ideology. Now, it's time to do something about it.

     

The GOP is presently a large minority. Will it stay that way, or can it grow into a coalition?

GOP's choice: Purity vs. power?

[...] The message is clear: Republicans need to work hard on a reform platform that attracts both conservative and moderate voters.

Armey and his friends have a reason to feel comfortable sticking to their conservative line. Gallup just announced a survey that showed that conservatives make up the largest voting bloc in the country, 40 percent.

But, and I hate to break this to my conservative friends, in America, 40 percent of the country is not enough to gain a working majority in Congress. Without the help of moderate and independent voters, conservatives will stay in the minority, keeping the reins of power in the hands of liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Conservatives seem to be mystified that these liberals hold the reins of power even though they make up a small minority of the country. Most polls show that only about 20 percent of the American people consider themselves to be liberal.

But it shouldn't be any mystery. It is all about building a majority coalition, and the Democrats for the last two elections have been better at it than Republicans.

In order to build a governing coalition, the Republican Party must exhibit one over-riding philosophical trait: flexibility. What makes sense in New York and New England may not make as much sense in South Carolina and Texas. I know this is blasphemy to hard-right activists. But it shouldn't be. Building coalitions is an essential party of any democracy.

Having political flexibility doesn't mean becoming a sell-out or a squish. It does, however, mean having an understanding of our unique political system, where sometimes it is better to vote with the head and the heart rather than just the heart. [...]

That 40 percent of people who call themselves conservative, includes a lot of libertarian minded people who are fiscally conservative, but more moderate, not rigid, on social issues. But as the article points out, even 40 percent is not enough to win.

The Dems made a coalition. Where is ours? Where is it?


Also see:

The return of the angry independent

     

Arlen Specter completes his metamorphosis

No real surprise here, but the worst part is, it may give the Democrats their 60 vote filibuster:

Longtime GOP Sen. Arlen Specter becomes Democrat

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veteran Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter told colleagues Tuesday that he switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party, Sen. Harry Reid says.

The Specter party switch would give Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 seats if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race.

"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right," Specter said in a statement posted by his office on PoliticsPA.com. [...]

He was trailing in the polls as a Republican, so I suspect switching parties mostly expediency. Anything to stay in the game. Thanks Arlen, for Nothing.

Now as for the filibuster predicament we now find ourselves in, I partly blame conservative pundits like Michelle Malkin and the rest of them. They urged conservatives not to vote for moderate Republicans, and they followed that advice. Here in Oregon, many of the conservatives voted for the Constitution Party instead. As a result, we lost Gordon Smith, our Republican senator. If he had been supported and won, we would not be in this predicament.

The "Uber" Conservatives wanted to purge moderates from the party, and they have succeeded. They wanted All Their Way or Nothing, and they got it. Michelle and the rest, Thanks for Nothing.

Welcome to the The Incredible Shrinking Party.
     

Is John McCain the ultimate centrist?

There are various groups, on both the left and right, that endorse senators based on their voting record in the Senate. But each group tends to only select the issues that are most important to that group, and use that as the ruler to measure the candidates worth to the group. That's fine. But what happens if the ENTIRE record is taken into consideration? From Fox News:

McCain in the Middle?

[...] There are a number of organizations on the left and right that evaluate congressmen and senators on how they vote each year. These conservative and liberal groups pick the votes that their fellow liberals or conservatives most care about and figure out what position best supports their own views.

Two well-known organizations that rank congressional voting are the American Conservative Union on the right and the Americans for Democratic Action on the left. There also is the League of Conservation Voters, which ranks politicians from a liberal environmentalist position.

These three rankings from 2001 to 2006 paint a fairly similar picture, putting McCain to the left of most Republicans and to the right of most Democrats in the Senate, though usually much closer to the average Republican. [...]

You can read the rest of the article for a further detailed breakdown. I realise he isn't the ideal of what many conservative Republicans want. I also disagree with him on several issues; he was not my first choice. But the more I consider the larger picture, the more it seems like he might be the IDEAL choice for THIS election.

I normally prefer Governors over Senators for presidential candidates, but they are all Senators this time. None of them are perfect. But both the Democrat candidates have way too many negatives for me. John McCain has a long history in the Senate, a very good record on many conservative issues, and fortunately he's extremely well-connected politically, and has a broad appeal to moderates in both parties.

Neal Boortz believes the winner of the Clinton/Obama debate last night was... John McCain:

NOT TOO EARLY FOR A PREDICTION ...

He gives some excellent reasons why, and I agree. McCain has so much going for him in comparison to the competition. On a good day, when I'm feeling optimistic, I think it very likely that John McCain will win. It's not a certainty, but he has a lot of things going for him that no other Republican candidate would have. He enjoys a broad appeal among moderates and independents, and I think they may well decide this election. I'm going to do my part in the coming months, not only to hold on to my optimism, but expand and share it too.