The American Spectator

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 3:29PM

Obama carried NJ with 58% of the vote. CTW was the last Republican to be elected to that office. Beating McGreevey in a Democrat state, even by one point, does say a great deal. The fact that Republicans haven't won since with people who are more right wing than CTW actually proves the case. Your argument is flawed, Antle. We could also hold up examples of Arnold, Bloomberg, Crist, etc. I'm trying to understand you logic, but it just ain't there....

W. James Antle III| 4.14.09 @ 4:21PM

Bob, Dick Zimmer is not "more right wing" than Whitman. Bob Franks is not more right-wing than Whitman. Doug Forrester is not more right-wing than Whitman, at least if the term "right-wing" means anything. The only major candidate for statewide office the Republicans have put up in recent years who was significantly to the right of Whitman was Bret Schundler in 2001. Left, right, and center, these candidates had one thing in common: they all lost.

Whitman was always the weakest link of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal candidates of the 1990s. Rudy Giuliani, Bill Weld (who I supported), and even Pete Wilson all registered impressive wins. Whitman barely got elected during a huge backlash against Jim Florio that resulted in Republicans (many of them more right-wing than Whitman) winning two-thirds majorities in both houses of the legislature.

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 4:35PM

Well, Antle, Zimmer was ranked the most fiscally conservative member of the United States Congress three times by the National Taxpayers Union and was designated a Taxpayer Hero by Citizens Against Government Waste every year he was in office. How you define him to not be more right wing than CTW is beyond me.

The reason Republicans lose in NJ is because there is an increasing divide between the parties and Democrats now outnumber Republicans by a significant margin. I don't understand how the logic can be twisted to say that you can get that many Democrat crossover votes by going to the right.

I understand why you are making this argument -- it fits with the political stance of AmSpec. But the facts would argue for the opposite conclusion. We also run up against the definitions of right and left. I am far more fiscally conservative than most of the posters here but I do deal with fact rather than belief. And yet, because of my socially libertarian positions, I am considered a left wing lib. As long as people are so simplistic about the definition of Republican, there is no way to win most state elections, much less national elections.

W. James Antle III| 4.14.09 @ 4:56PM

"Zimmer was ranked the most fiscally conservative member of the United States Congress three times by the National Taxpayers Union and was designated a Taxpayer Hero by Citizens Against Government Waste every year he was in office. How you define him to not be more right wing than CTW is beyond me. "

Err, because Whitman ran as a conservative on economics too. The centerpiece of her 1993 platform was a 30 percent across-the-board cut in income tax rates. Zimmer similarly ran right on economics, to the center-left on social issues. Or are you now going to argue that Republicans should jettison economic conservatism too even though you are "far more fiscally conservative than most of the posters here?"

Bret Schundler was "right-wing." Dick Zimmer was just a Republican, albeit a more consistent one on fiscal policy than most. Is even that too provocative now?

I'm not having an argument about how to win Democratic crossover votes, as my subsequent comment made plain. I am pointing out that Whitman was an under-performer during a period of Republican strength. But I am sure you will say there was "inference," etc. For someone who prefers to deal in facts rather than beliefs, your comments frequently avoid the facts in dispute to return to your beliefs about how Republicans can win as the Party of Bob.

Bill Weld won 71 percent of the vote in Massachusetts in 1994. That's impressive, though it didn't translate well to New York. Whitman was and is weak tea.

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 5:08PM

"I'm not having an argument about how to win Democratic crossover votes, as my subsequent comment made plain. I am pointing out that Whitman was an under-performer during a period of Republican strength. But I am sure you will say there was "inference," etc. For someone who prefers to deal in facts rather than beliefs, your comments frequently avoid the facts in dispute to return to your beliefs about how Republicans can win as the Party of Bob."

I thought the objective of running was to win. But you are right, that was "inference". Who cares about Democrat crossover votes in a state that is primarily Democrat?

The point is that we are now not in a "period of Republican strength". In fact, Republicans now represent less than 30% of voters. Those are the facts. I guess the "Party of Antle" will just ignore those facts.

It seems that you define "right-wing" primarily in social terms as you admit that Zimmer was more consistent on fiscal policy than most. The difference between Schundler and Zimmer was mostly social, right? Did I make the correct "inference" this time?

By the way, I never made the argument that I thought Whitman was strong -- that is an "inference" made by you.... (insert laugh)....

W. James Antle III| 4.14.09 @ 5:21PM

"By the way, I never made the argument that I thought Whitman was strong -- that is an "inference" made by you.... (insert laugh).... "

Then you are arguing about things that I have not said, because her weakness was my only point.

Bob| 4.14.09 @ 5:34PM

"Then you are arguing about things that I have not said, because her weakness was my only point. "

Then I shall take the quote from you:

"But I must say I'm always amused when someone holds up Christine Todd Whitman as an example of how Republicans can succeed."

Succeed at what, Antle? Tiddlywinks?

W. James Antle III| 4.14.09 @ 5:44PM

What was she "weak" at? Tiddlywinks? She won by one point during a high point of GOP strength. That doesn't inspire much confidence for, say, 2006. If you are going to make the case for the awesomeness of socially moderate candidates, Giuliani or Weld is a far better example than Whitman. Is that really so hard to understand?

Aaron| 4.14.09 @ 8:22PM

I have to wonder if the Jersey Girl RINO is the one who came up with $4.00 fee to walk on the damn beach? I really can't stand that state.

Bob| 4.15.09 @ 9:05AM

Antle -- good back and forth... I think you make some good points. What this conversation shows is that CTW was a fiscal conservative as you admit she was just as strong as Zimmer who was recognized as the top fiscal conservative in Congress. So what we're really talking about here is whether Republican candidates in Democrat controlled areas should be socially moderate or social conservatives. My logic is that most of the populated U.S. is now Democrat controlled, and therefore it will take a social moderate to get elected. I just have a difficult time understanding the logic of supporting a social conservative.

I don't think we will ever agree on this as I can't get past the logic/reason. You seem to be able to make this leap of faith perhaps because you think most people really are social conservatives at their core. I have difficulty finding evidence to support that contention, but since social conservatives control the Republican party, I think we'll find out in this next election.