-
The Origins of Romneycare and Coultercare
February 9, 2012 | 14 comments
-
Rick Santorum Pulls the Trifecta
February 8, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Mark Levin on Clint Eastwood
February 7, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Ninth Circuit Court Panel Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 | 79 comments
-
Obama Flip-Flops on Super PACs
February 7, 2012 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
On the main site, Jeffrey Lord has a great exclusive story on Arlen Specter's decision to stand and fight Pat Toomey for Pennsylvania's Republican senatorial nomination in 2010. Toomey is obviously going to focus on Specter's votes with the Democratic majority. For his part, Specter is blaming Toomey for the fact a Democratic majority exists in the first place:
Without missing a beat, speaking without notes, Specter zeroed in specifically on Toomey and the Club, charging the latter with "cannibalistic tactics" that had lost the GOP control of the US Senate in 2006.
"Toomey represents the Club for Growth which has engaged in cannibalistic tactics. When they fought [now defeated GOP Senator Lincoln] Chafee in the Rhode Island primary, spent all his money, beat him in the general, that cost us control of the Senate. In the Senate...we would have controlled the Senate had we retained Chafee's seat in 2007 and 2008."
In the interest of full disclosure, I did not support a primary challenge to Lincoln Chafee in 2006 because I personally wanted the Republican Party to maintain some diversity of opinion on the Iraq war, which was then the biggest millstone dragging the party down, even though I was closer to conservative challenger Steve Laffey on almost all other questions. But Specter's conclusion is debatable, to say the least.
For starters, if you look at the polling Chafee was in the same position both before and after the primary -- competitive but clearly in trouble. Chafee was last over 50 percent in April; the Republican primary was held in September. Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse first took the lead in June. The general-election contest again tightened at the tail end of the campaign, with Chafee and Whitehouse effectively tied in the final polls. Maybe Chafee would have pulled it out if he could have spent all his money and focused all of his attention on Whitehouse. More likely, the undecideds would have been swept up by the Democratic tide and broken against a GOP incumbent anyway.
Second, despite the contentious Chafee-Laffey primary exit polls showed Chafee winning 94 percent of Republican voters against Whitehouse in November. Chafee also took 74 percent of conservatives while Whitehouse carried 76 percent of liberals. Chafee also drew 88 percent of those who approved of the job George W. Bush was doing as president.
Finally, if the GOP's control of the Senate came down to Chafee how secure would that control have been? Chafee was so liberal that he made Arlen Specter look like Jesse Helms. His lifetime American Conservative Union rating was 37 out of 100. In 2005, he scored just 12 out of 100 -- the same rating as Hillary Clinton, a point worse than Russ Feingold. That same year, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action rated Chafee 75 out of 100.
That means even if Chafee caucused with the Republicans, the party would have had no better than nominal control. And there is no guarantee Chafee would have caucused with Republicans. Shortly after losing his Senate race, he suggested he had remained a Republican only to help Rhode Island secure federal funding from a GOP majority. He answered yes when a reporter asked if he thought his defeat by a Democrat helped the country by costing Republicans control of the Senate. And he eventually bolted the party, becoming an independent. Had Chafee been re-elected, there would have been enormous pressure on him to pull a Jim Jeffords and not much reason to think he would have resisted.
Now, the decision to invest resources in Laffey's primary campaign can be reasonably second-guessed (the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee obviously reached a different conclusion). Chafee was likelier to retain the seat; Republicans who can win in Rhode Island are rare (though Gov. Donald Carcieri held on in 2006 despite being to Chafee's right). Similarly, I'm not sure that now is the time to primary Specter.
But a Republican Party that owes its power to Lincoln Chafee isn't going to be in power for very long. In his campaign against Toomey, Specter needs to make sure his fellow Republicans don't reach the same conclusion about him.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/16/di-pat-toomey-give-us-a-democr
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- Current Wisdom
- The United Nations' Rogue Agency
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 4.16.09 @ 8:40AM
Did Pat Toomey Give Us A Democratic Senate? | But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Becky| 4.16.09 @ 8:55AM
Sometimes you have to cut of your hand so the body doesn't get infected, or something like that. Chafee needed to be let loose from the herd. Like all who profess to be moderates, they are dangerous because they will sell out, and you don't know for sure on what. It shows a weakness of character to me, an undeveloped set of values and beliefs. I know there is not a politician out there that mirrors my value and belief system exactly, but that I have to find the best fit. Electing a moderate, who says one thing, then does another, is like being cheated on. How can you really trust them.
Bob| 4.16.09 @ 9:00AM
"But a Republican Party that owes its power to Lincoln Chafee isn't going to be in power for very long."
It seems to me that while Chafee was there, the Republicans WERE in power. Antle, your logic escapes me. Let me get this right, with Republican voters down to 29%, the only way you can win is to move further away from crossover voters? In addition, in a primarily Democrat state, it is best to run a hard right conservative?
Certainly, your "logic" is that with people like Chafee, the definition of a "Republican" is no different than a Democrat. Is that right? That's where I must disagree. In many exchanges, you and others have proven that your definition of a Republican is tied closely to social conservatives. It makes no difference if you are a fiscal conservative as you have proven with Christine Todd Whitman. If you are not a social conservative you cannot be a Republican. You deride people like that as RINO's. The only way Republicans can win and be defined distinctly from Democrats is to drop this line of thinking and rally around fiscal conservatism without the millstone of social conservatives. The Dems will never get the vote of social conservatives, so what do you lose?
Fiscal conservatism is a winning issue, but social conservatism is not. Developing fiscally conservative plans for the future is a winning issue, but hero worship of Reagan is not. Supporting education and the achievement of college degrees is a winning issue, anti-intellectualism is not. Being positive about the future and presenting new ideas is a winning issue, being the "party of no", is not. Listening to everyone is a winning issue, listening only to Limbaugh and Hannity is not.
Remember, Antle, the person who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. That seems to be your answer to this problem.
loulou| 4.16.09 @ 9:33AM
Bob: You speak like a true RINO.
"the achievement of college degrees"--what nonsense.
Actually, your vacuous verbiage makes you more like Obama than a RINO.
Tim| 4.16.09 @ 9:46AM
If, If,IF!
If the Republicans had governed responsibly, they'd still control the Senate-and the house. Get bent Arlen.
Bob| 4.16.09 @ 9:48AM
So, loulou, you post nothing of substance and then have the temerity of accusing someone of "vacuous verbiage". You are what is wrong with the Republican party.
The point on education is that it is difficult to promote education when you elect a President who achieved a "C" average in school and a Presidential candidate who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class. Both of them bragged about not doing well in school. Then you listen to people like Limbaugh and Hannity who are not college graduates -- not even close.
Our children learn by example. If you want to support education, then our leaders must be those examples.
And yes, I am a proud RINO who was against the bailouts of Wall Street and auto companies, against much of the stimulus package, am serious about the debt problem so much that I am willing to accuse both Reagan and Bush (in addition to Obama) of the immorality of increasing the debt. I have pushed a flat tax and abolishing the corporate tax in favor of a consumption tax. Yeah, I am a very proud RINO.
Let's face it, you are NOT fiscal conservatives, for if you were, you'd want my vote even if I am pro-choice.
W. James Antle III| 4.16.09 @ 11:09AM
One hesitates to argue with Bob, because he simply leaves the same comment again and again regardless of the content of what he is posting on. He consistently ignores or misreads what I actually write and proceeds to ride his own hobby horses. He rails against the prejudices of others but is blind to his own.
But for the benefit of other readers, I'll summarize. I did not say that Republicans should generally run "hard right" candidates in Democratic states. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. I did not personally support the challenge against Chafee.
What we are specifically discussing here is the charge that Steve Laffey's Club-supported primary challenge cost Republicans control of the Senate. That argument is flawed for four reasons: 1.) It ignores evidence that Chafee might have lost without the Laffey challenge; 2.) It ignores overwhelming Republican and conservative support for Chafee in November; 3.) It ignores the fact that Chafee was voting against Republican positions across the board -- not just on social issues -- which means Republicans would have been no more capable of passing legislation or confirming nominees than with a 51-49 Democratic Senate. The only advantage of having Chafee would have been on procedural votes and committee chairmanships; 4.) The argument ignores the incentives Chafee would have had to bolt the party, as he eventually did despite winning renomination and Republican general-election votes, and caucus with the Democrats. Unlike his father, who was both a liberal and a loyal Republican, Lincoln Chafee was with the Republicans most often when his vote did not matter.
Let's recap once more: Chafee was not a fiscal conservative any more than he was a social conservative or a foreign policy conservative. Chafee had been part of Republican majorities and minorities, but had never previously been the deciding vote.
If Bob or anyone else can rebut the four reasons I've given for why Laffey and Toomey can't be blamed for the Democratic Senate after 2006, that's a real argument. Anything else is blowing smoke.
Tim | 4.16.09 @ 11:18AM
JIM JEFFORDS.
W. James Antle III| 4.16.09 @ 11:21AM
While Bob and company are diligently researching rebuttals to points I've actually raised, I'll give three bonus questions. If Chafee's defeat is proof that social conservatism kills while fiscal conservatism rules, then:
1.) Why was Chafee opposed by a fiscally conservative group in the primary? It's the Club for Growth, not the Club for Life.
2.) Why was the Democrats' first choice to challenge Chafee Rep. Jim Langevin, who is pro-life?
3.) Why did Republican Gov. Donald Carcieri, who is pro-life, win reelection at the same time Chafee was going down in flames?
Just to avoid a misconception, I'm not arguing Republicans will do better if they consistently nominate social conservatives in socially liberal states. In fact, I've said the opposite. But the answers to these questions show that the political reality isn't as simple as Bob and company would like to make it out to be.
Teleprompter Messiah| 4.16.09 @ 12:05PM
Fiscal conservatism is the unifying force on the Right and will be the winning electoral formula in 2010 and 2012. The Republicans who can beat back and retake red or purple districts are those who will hammer home the message of spending discipline.
The meme among the Left against those urging fiscal conservatism is "where were you for the last eight years?" That criticism can be answered by running candidates not tainted with Bush era deficit spending votes around their necks. In other words, "clean break" fiscal hawks.
Specter is way too compromised on matters fiscal to be a "clean break" candidate. Toomey, being in the wilderness is not.
Cornyn has killed his chances for building up a good sized war chest for the RSCC because of his endorsement of Specter in a primary challenge. I for one won't donate if a penny goes to Mr. RINO.
Bob| 4.16.09 @ 12:09PM
Antle, I agree totally with your last two posts. To me, for whatever the reason (perhaps it is my "inference" problem), what you were saying was not clear. It is now clear and I have no argument with you. I agree with you about Chafee as well.
The point for me is that being a fiscal conservative does not seem to be enough for most of the posters here to value you as a Republican vote. Furthermore, I believe those viewpoints are marginalizing the Republican party.