Erick Erickson, over at Red State, fights back against critics who say that he’s shrinking the Republican tent by calling for Parker Griffith to be primaried. He points out that William Daley of the Chicago Machine agrees with him that the GOP is growing — independents are turning against Obama, they provided the margin of victory for Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, and besides, Democrats are turning Republican — see Griffith — but not vice-versa.
Now, every time I write something critical about a liberal Republican or point out that maybe we should aggressively primary Parker Griffith, the whiny little girl [David Shuster] on MSNBC and Rachel Maddow both mock the GOP as a small tent growing smaller.
In fact, whenever an unkind word is said about Olympia Snowe, it is just further proof that the GOP is a party made of intolerant, close minded white guys.
But here is the thing — the one story the media can never report is the flood of Republicans becoming Democrats. Why? Because it does not happen.
Under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama we have seen lots of Democrats become Republicans. We have seen lots of liberals become conservatives. But we rarely, rarely more rarely than a snow leopard in the Himalayas see a Republican or a conservative going over to their side.
In other words, they are projecting.
Nope.
While independents are fleeing the Democratic Party and Obama, they still hate Republicans. They are not fleeing Democrats to join Republicans — they’re just pissed off at everyone now. We’re still down by 2 in the generic ballot in the latest Wall Street Journal poll. In the latest Quinnipiac and Pew polls, Republicans in Congress have a 29% approval rating. We’re not winning anyone over. We’re just becoming the lesser of two evils. Getting everyone to hate the Democrats doesn’t sound like victory to me.
Individual candidates will have to fill in where the party cannot — but candidates that might appeal to moderates and independents, like Mike Castle and Mark Kirk, for instance, cannot win the endorsement of our party’s base because they don’t pass the purity test put forward by people like Erickson. Sarah Palin denied overtures from Kirk to endorse him, to take one embarrassing example.
Additionally, why invite Democrats to join the GOP if we’re just going to kick them out as soon as they arrive? Let’s wait to see how Parker Griffith votes before we decide whether we can do better. When Democrats switch, they usually become remarkably more conservative. If he votes with us 70% of the time, why on Earth would you primary him in a historically Democratic district? Can’t we just wait?
The base is once again reading something into the polls that just isn’t there. There’s movement away from the Democrats, but not movement toward the GOP. We’re just creating a society of disillusioned independents. We could grab them — we really could! — but we haven’t yet. And it’s not going to happen by kicking out people like Mark Kirk and Parker Griffith.
Talking Point: Polls show that while independents are moving away from Obama, they are not moving toward the GOP.
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
December 26th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
When did she “deny” such an overture?
December 26th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Did you miss that story? http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/16/kirk-palin-snub/
December 26th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Alex,
Two more points though I don’t really disagree with the “talking point.”
1) GOP favorables are low because more Republicans dislike the party than the number of Democrats who dislike their party. However, the Republicans that dislike their party are going to vote for their party anyway.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-on-politics-of-health-care.html
2) We will almost always be behind the Democrats on the Congressional ballot because so many people consider themselves Democrats but have no intention of voting for Democrat candidates. They simply don’t want to identify as Republicans for cultural/historical purposes.
December 26th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
No, I did not miss Think Progress’s lame attempt to create division in the party.
But you did miss the following from Palin regarding Kirk:
http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/6718647044
December 26th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
1) True, but the numbers amongst independents are still abysmal.
2) That’s just Party ID, which is not the same as a generic ballot. WSJ asked who voters wanted to control Congress: Dems or the GOP. We were behind by 2.
December 26th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
4 – Certainly, she agrees with him on that. But that does not an endorsement make. The woman wants to primary Lindsey Graham, for God’s sake; you shouldn’t be surprised that she won’t endorse Kirk (although I’m sure she will in the general).
December 26th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Incidentally, I don’t see a problem with housing Gitmo detainees in the US. I want Gitmo to stay open, but there’s not really any danger in housing them in the US. Supermax prisons are incredible.
December 26th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
#6 You are referencing her interview with National Review. I don’t see the issue with primary competition (I know you disagree with this point). In fact, she’s not even saying she wouldn’t endorse Graham in a hypothetical primary. She’s just calling for competition.
In fact, I’d argue that the reasoning used against competitive primaries wouldn’t apply to Graham because of how conservative his home state is (though it applies to Kirk, Castle, etc.).
December 26th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Wow, that makes perfect sense — Support a primary against Lindsey Graham, and then…endorse him? But why primary him? Has he done something wrong? He’s an independent voice, he’s articulate, he’s a good face for the party. I don’t see the problem. I like Lindsey Graham. (Would Sarah Palin have supported a primary against herself?)
December 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
#9 She probably would support a primary challenge against herself, heh heh. You read the book.
As for Graham, he is still pushing this cap-and-trade nonsense and is helping mainstream the concept.
I don’t have an issue with Graham overall though. But he’s a guy we’d run in Illinois.
We want DeMint/Coburn types in SC. Isn’t that the reasoning that you’ve used agaisnt primary challenges…that we shouldn’t run ultra-conservatives in states where they cannot win. If we accept that argument, then we should get the most conservative Senators possible from states where they can win.
December 26th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
#9 It doesn’t make much sense though to support a Rubio challenge against Crist in a state that is significantly less conservative than South Carolina while not supporting a challenge against Graham.
Of course, the counterargument is that Crist would be a lot less conservative than Graham is and he doesn’t present as good a face for Republicans as Rubio.
However, what if Jenny Sanford or Nikki Haley primaried Graham? Do you really think Graham presents a better face than those two ladies?
December 26th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Alex,
I’ll first note that I haven’t yet studied that race in Alabama, and so I’m currently indifferent. That said, Erickson has a better record than you on this sort of thing, and your article here is noticeably incomplete.
Remind us: You’re the guy who was for Charlie Crist, and is now for Marco Rubio, right? Who called groups/people like Club for Growth and Erick Erickson unreasonable for supporting Rubio over Crist, but who later realized they were correct?
There’s one simple reason why independents aren’t yet supporting Republicans: elected Republicans aren’t yet following through with the words that come out of their mouths. They’re not acting like conservatives.
I find your condescending comments about Erickson’s “purity test” to be annoying.
This “test” is about the role of government. I’m not necessarily opposed to having Mark Kirk be the nominee in Illinois, but I’m also absolutely not opposed to Illinois voters being critical of Kirk’s decision to listen more to Al Gore on Cap and Trade and to not listen less to the voters, science, and business.
Your comments about an “historically Democratic district” ignore history: a pattern is a pattern until it’s not, anymore. Re-alignments take time, and then those new re-alignments are only “permanent” until they again change at a later time.
In my neighboring state of Missouri, whose voters elected John Ashcroft to be governor twice during the 1980s, Republicans recently won control of both houses of the legislature for the first time in over 100 years.
The way back to winning independents is not have a NON-ideological party. Rather, it requires having a party that stands for something. A party that stands for something does not automatically support a Democrat who, in middle age and when it’s convenient, decides to become a Republican.
December 26th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Furthermore, I recall that Erickson — repeatedly — has stated that he does not necessarily oppose Kirk and Castle. So you’re effectively mis-stating Erickson’s position.
December 26th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Fixing a typo in #12: “This “test” is about the role of government. I’m not necessarily opposed to having Mark Kirk be the nominee in Illinois, but I’m also absolutely not opposed to Illinois voters being critical of Kirk’s decision to listen more to Al Gore on Cap and Trade and to not listen less to the voters, science, and business.”
Should be “I’m also absolutely not opposed to Illinois voters being critical of Kirk’s decision to listen more to Al Gore on Cap and Trade and TO LISTEN LESS to the voters, science, and business.”
December 26th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Incidentally, I don’t see a problem with housing Gitmo detainees in the US. I want Gitmo to stay open, but there’s not really any danger in housing them in the US. Supermax prisons are incredible.
I’m happy to be wrong about this, but isn’t the whole argument about Gitmo that prisoners would be subject to certain Constitutional rights if housed in a U.S. civilian prison, rather than a military one?
December 26th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I’m not taking a position on Kirk yet, but, I will say it is not entirely honest to put the cap and trade issue on him, unless you disbelieve that he no longer supports that. I was on a phone interview with him and he said he would not support that any longer, and that he was doing so representing his liberal/green constituency. If you recall, representative government is supposedly to reflect the will of the people, given that it is constitutional. Abraham Lincoln said he would vote the will of the people unless he knew not what their position was, in which case he would vote his own conscience.
December 26th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
It’s not just HOUSING the people in the USA that is a problem, it is giving them civilian trials which is completely wrong and stupid. GITMO should stay open for that reason.
December 26th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Alex,
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Gitmo is exactly where these terrorists should remain. There is no reason whatsoever to bring terrorists onto US soil.
December 26th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
18 – Agreed. But there are some scaremongers making noise about the “dangers” of having “terrorists on US soil.” But we already have terrorists on US soil. They’re in Supermax prisons, and they make no noise. People from David Lane to the Unabomber were/are harbored in such prisons.
December 26th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
I’ll first note that I haven’t yet studied that race in Alabama, and so I’m currently indifferent. That said, Erickson has a better record than you on this sort of thing, and your article here is noticeably incomplete.
Incomplete in what regard?
Remind us: You’re the guy who was for Charlie Crist, and is now for Marco Rubio, right? Who called groups/people like Club for Growth and Erick Erickson unreasonable for supporting Rubio over Crist, but who later realized they were correct?
Er, me. I’ll agree for the sake of argument that this is a damning piece of evidence against me; this does not affect my argument.
There’s one simple reason why independents aren’t yet supporting Republicans: elected Republicans aren’t yet following through with the words that come out of their mouths. They’re not acting like conservatives.
This is an ideological piece of propaganda that everyone’s been mouthing for a long time, but it’s not (entirely) true. It’s true when it comes to the deficit and debt — but how aren’t we being conservative on those issues, right now? It’s not true when it comes to health care — the voters loathe us as much as they loathe the Democrats (some polls say even more).
I find your condescending comments about Erickson’s “purity test” to be annoying. This “test” is about the role of government. I’m not necessarily opposed to having Mark Kirk be the nominee in Illinois, but I’m also absolutely not opposed to Illinois voters being critical of Kirk’s decision to listen more to Al Gore on Cap and Trade and to not listen less to the voters, science, and business.
Well, he already said he’d stop supporting it. Anyway, there are many who are very concerned with Kirk being the nominee, because he’s not conservative enough. If you can figure out who can win in Illinois who’s to his right, please call him up and tell him to run.
Your comments about an “historically Democratic district” ignore history: a pattern is a pattern until it’s not, anymore. Re-alignments take time, and then those new re-alignments are only “permanent” until they again change at a later time.
Sure. But it did just elect a Democrat last time around, you know. And again: let’s wait and see how he votes. Let’s not try to sway people to our side…only to kick them out. Yeah, that’ll help us sway more Democrats in Congress to switch sides: Come to our side for a bruising primary! Um…
The way back to winning independents is not have a NON-ideological party. Rather, it requires having a party that stands for something. A party that stands for something does not automatically support a Democrat who, in middle age and when it’s convenient, decides to become a Republican.
OK, so you don’t want people to switch? What message does it send to independents and moderates if we immediately primary anyone who decides to come to our side? “Come to our side, but don’t do it if you can’t pass the purity test!”
December 26th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
I’d LOVE to replace that weasel Graham with a solid conservative.
December 26th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
By the way, Ben, I supported Crist for like…three weeks. My gripe with Rubio was that I wanted him to run for governor instead, and I never claimed that Crist would be some amazing senator. So let’s not overstate things.
But I’m always open to being persuaded. I was persuaded in the case of Crist, because (1) I was convinced that Crist is not trustworthy, (2) I was convinced that Rubio can win, and (3) I was convinced that it would be better to end Crist’s career, lest we be stuck with a moderate from Florida when we can get by with a conservative. Crist is not entitled to the nomination. He is not the incumbent and should not be given the benefit of the doubt. He is one primary challenger amongst two.
December 26th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
21 – Graham is a conservative.
In what sense is he a “weasel”?
December 26th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
I think that kicking out Parker Griffith is EXACTLY what we need to do to gain independents. Two years ago the GOP bashed Griffith’s integrity, trustworthiness and basically called him a murderer. Now they open their arms to him. The hypocrisy is blatant. That turns people off. Current Republicans as well as Independents. (maybe someone already made this point, I’ll admit that I didn’t read all of the comments family is waiting on me to go to the store)
December 27th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Independents aren’t looking for a purity party, they are really far less ideological than conservatives think. Only perhaps 10% of voters would think this way, and most are already Republican.
Defections like Mr. Griffith only go to show which side is winning this game, which has more potential and enthusiasm, which has its team gunning 100%. That would be of course the Republicans right now. An average voter would think it absolutely insane to hear that the Republicans want to kick out someone that wants to join them, because the average voter isn’t a conservative partisan.
That’s why the Democrats are trying over and over again to paint us all as a bunch of John Bircher-style nuts, and why its nuts that half of the party, the same half that cried that we chose media-beloved John McCain as nominee, wants to fall lockstep into that line of thinking.
I agree with you 100% elsewhere Alex, but I do take issue with this. A conservative propensity is really no better or worse than a moderate one. They are merely two sometimes-conflicting sets of priorities within the party that shift with time, neither of which are always correct, and a sanctification of one will cause the other to be neglected overly so. I think Rubio, a conservative, would do good things for our party to advance it, whereas I think Crist, a moderate, would probably not do so to the same extent. In this case, Rubio’s clearly the better choice, but not because he’s more conservative.
That being said in other cases it should be amply apparent (like McCain vs. Hayworth) that the moderate is the better of the two. This I think conservatives struggle some with, cases like McCain and Graham from generally conservative states that are great moderate leaders precisely because they refuse to compromise on their beliefs (and have often been right in the end) and have ample opportunity to make it known.
We need a party of strong moderates and strong conservatives. No hacks, no cheats, and no dirty dealers, regardless where they be from.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:19 am
McCain represents something that Crist does not, I think. The initial test that all must pass is “Can he win?” but after that…
McCain is center-right, a respected voice, and is vitally important as a public face of the party. Crist does not have the “courage of his convictions,” so to speak — I see in him a Romneyesque desire to go with the flow of the political tides. If he were a hack like JD Hayworth, I’d sooner vote for a principled moderate who is willing to stick his neck out. From South Carolina, I’d sooner see another Lindsey Graham than another Jim DeMint, quite frankly. But back to Crist — Do you expect Crist types to put their necks out for something like the surge? — Of course not. Additionally, Rubio is important because, to be blunt, he’s not white. And, like it or not, that image matters. We need more minority faces. Is it fair that that’s how it should work? No. But we don’t live in a fair world.
So perhaps it was wrong of me to say that I was merely convinced that we can win with Rubio; that we should simply take what we can get based on how conservative the candidate is. Crist doesn’t pass the smell test for honesty, conviction, and non-hackery, and Rubio mostly does. His centrism is only another nail in the coffin for him, for me, I suppose.
Ramble ramble…
December 27th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Alex:“I see in him a Romneyesque desire to go with the flow of the political tides.”
I would think, Alex, that you would understand the cruelty of unfair caricatures better than most people on this board.
December 27th, 2009 at 6:46 am
“let’s wait and see how he votes. Let’s not try to sway people to our side…only to kick them out.” Fair enough, but at the same time, among others things let us also me how he votes (and behaves) before we endorse him totally. In fact, let us see what the people of AL-5 have to say. If he can win their appoval, he must be doing something right and he must be Conservative enough.
December 27th, 2009 at 9:11 am
That’s one of the smarter things you have said lately Ohio Joe.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Just because Graham is not YOUR kind of ‘conservative’ does not mean he is not a conservative.
there are times when we as a GOP loves to shoot that gun into our own feet.
December 27th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
marK – I’m sure there has been a thread in which Alex commented where he didn’t unfairly characterize Romney … I just can’t remember one.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Republicans accused Griffith of horrible personal conduct. I can’t see how we can remain credible if we embrace him.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
??
Sorry — that’s new to me. What “horrible personal conduct?”
December 27th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Bob,
I think the following is what Doug is recalling about what the NRCC claimed about Griffith’s personal conduct as doctor:
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20091227/NEWS02/912270314/Republicans+quickly+change+views+on+Griffith
December 27th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Alex,
And that’s the vibe I get with Crist too, that he’s a moderate of convenience rather than a moderate of conviction like McCain and Graham are. Rubio on the other hand is very well polished and focused, and strikes me as something much better than a conservative hack, so I’m happy to see him on board.
As to Griffith,
The real question is, does anyone believe that? That he was sent back would seem to suggest not. I’m not sure just how credible those claims are, since any party is apt to toss dirt hoping it stains their opponent somehow (re Like Ohio said, the voters there know him best, they can decide. If he isn’t going to be a suitable representative of the Republican Party I think they’ll know it better than Erick Erickson does.
If he does get tossed, it better be because folks have lingering doubts on that issue, not off of some ideological litmus test.