- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Newt Blasts Conservatives' "Purge" Mentality
Asked about his support for liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava in the New York-23 special election, Newt Gingrich said on Fox last night:
GINGRICH: Well, there's no question, on social policy, she's a liberal Republican.
VAN SUSTEREN: On such as abortion?
GINGRICH: On such as abortion, gay marriage, which means that she's about where Rudy Giuliani was when he became mayor. And yet Rudy Giuliani was a great mayor. And so this idea that we're suddenly going to establish litmus tests, and all across the country, we're going to purge the party of anybody who doesn't agree with us 100 percent -- that guarantees Obama's reelection. That guarantees Pelosi is Speaker for life. I mean, I think that is a very destructive model for the Republican Party.
The problem is that Gingrich is making a valid point in general, but one that doesn't apply in this specific instance. There's no doubt that if you want to build a majority, you have to be willing to accept less conservative candidates in certain regions where a conservative has no chance of winning. As many problems as I have with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, I concede that it's unrealistic to believe that we could get a genuine conservative Senator elected in Maine, which Obama won by 17 points. In the case of Giuliani, you were dealing with a city that hadn't elected a Republican who remained a Republican in over 50 years. He was conservative on economic issues, and uniquely suited to deal with the most pressing problem facing the city -- rampant crime. The only option was to support him, or allow David Dinkins to have another disastrous term as mayor.
But the New York Congressional race is entirely different. Scozzafava isn't just a social liberal -- she's an economic liberal, too. She supports card check legislation that would allow labor unions to expand their ranks through intimidation. She called the cops on a conservative journalist who was asking her questions about her position on taxes. And there's actually a conservative in the race who has a realistic chance of winning.
Gingrich made a clear mistake here. Maybe he privately realizes it, maybe he doesn't. But his efforts to double down and explain his decision keep making him look sillier.
Comments
Leave a Comment
S.L. Toddard| 10.27.09 @ 12:40PM
"The problem is that Gingrich is making a valid point in general"
No, he is not. If the GOP can not win elections without running conservatives, then they will run conservatives. There is simply no reason to return the GOP to power until they embrace conservatism again.
democratsarefascists| 10.27.09 @ 4:48PM
Go home, Newt.
Just go home.
You can kiss your buddy Nancy Pelosi on the way out, but you're out of touch with America, so it's time to shut up and go home.
Teflon93| 10.27.09 @ 12:51PM
Establishment Republicans never learn.
The 2008 election showed precisely what happens when Republicans reject conservative candidates in order to appeal to the press and "moderates". The most liberal and extreme Democrat whipped John McCain's butt and Democrats had huge gains in Congress. Why? Because many conservatives---whom Gingrich and his ilk seem to think the GOP does not need---simply stayed home.
Given that twice as many Americans claim the mantle of conservatism as liberalism, and given that the actual governance of liberals has turned the very label "liberal" into a perjorative such that very few liberal candidates indeed will admit to being liberals, how does Gingrich's advice make any sense?
Pingback| 10.27.09 @ 12:52PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Newt Blasts Conservativ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob| 10.27.09 @ 1:06PM
Even though I am a social libertarian that most of you call a RINO, I too have a problem with Scozzafava and her brand of economic moderation. As with Newt, I don't like the litmus test on social issues, but on fiscal issues, there can be no compromise as that is what should differentiate Republicans from Moderates/Liberals.
That does not change my opinion, however, on the misstatement of facts we see on Fox, AmSpec and other right wing outlets. The truth -- not shaded by ideology -- will support fiscal conservatism. Right wing extremists who are birthers, talk show hosts, or extreme social conservatives only hurt the party, however.
Teflon, your wording is imprecise.... It's not that twice as many Americans "claim the mantle of conservatism", it is that they consider themselves "conservative". Half of the Democrats I know consider themselves "conservative" and yet believe in pro-choice, gay marriage, AND government run health care. I think you've been listening too much to those right wing extreme mouthpieces in the media.
Eric Damon| 10.27.09 @ 1:25PM
What does Fox News or talk radio have to do with this? Nothing. Stick to the topic without throwing out the usual liberal red herrings, okay?
As for the idea that a conservative can be a Democrat who believes in abortion, gay marriage, and huge government interventions in our lives...that is crazy. They can call themselves "conservative", but they're not...they're liberals trying to change the definition of what a conservative is.
And you can be libertarian on social issues, because as I understand it the libertarian position is for the government to generally stay out of the private lives of citizens as much a possible, and that doesn't mean you can't be a conservative as well. But where you and Mr. Newt get it wrong is when you assume that there shouldn't be a "litmus test" to tell whether someone is conservative or not. There are certain principles that conservative embrace and define themselves by, namely smaller government; fiscal responsibility; a robust defense/security stance; free market economic principles; personal responsibility. If a candidate cannot honestly say that they believe in those things, that candidate should be shunned by conservative voters. If the GOP wants to support such candidates as Scozzafava and Charlie Crist that's their right...but they better understand that conservative voters are not going to support the candidate with votes or the party with their money!
JP| 10.27.09 @ 1:26PM
"I don't like the litmus test on social issues, but on fiscal issues"
And virtually all Republicans who are social liberals evolve into economic liberals over time. Never once has there been an economic and liberal Republican who evolved the other way (into a economic conservative).
If you want the truth, economic conservatives have always been in short supply. But if you look at the RINO Hall of Fame, you will see the majority of RINO's support or supported higher taxes, more entitlement spending, etc...
In less than a decade we will come face to face with the dual banckruptcies of both Social Security and Medicare. When that day comes, we will see how conservative this nation really is.
Ben| 10.27.09 @ 1:27PM
It's simple: American's will support people of integrity who tell them the truth. This is what Newt doesn't understand, we used to fall for people who tell us what we wanted to hear. We now recognize what that has brought us and are rallying full tilt against our own mistakes. We now recognize we have to be involved if we want to roll back the erosion of our liberties, and we will do just that.
Ben| 10.27.09 @ 1:28PM
Whoops, another comment degraded by an out of place apostrophe.
Drat.
Teflon93| 10.27.09 @ 1:28PM
Bob, you're the one arguing without evidence.
Where's the evidence that those identifying themselves as "conservative" in that Gallup poll support gay marriage, etc?
Let's see it.
Teflon93| 10.27.09 @ 1:30PM
Olympia Snowe-job and Arlen Specter bear out your point amply, Ben.
I laugh at the libertarians who claim to be small government types then have no problem with these RINO's taking over a sixth of the economy thru socialized medicine.
Read some Hayek, for God's sake!
Davis Anderson| 10.27.09 @ 1:33PM
Philip gets it exactly right. Gingrich is no doubt right as a general matter, but wrong in this particular case. While Snowe and Collins make perfect sense in Maine, Scozzafava makes no sense in NY 23.
Bob| 10.27.09 @ 1:43PM
So, Teflon, do you have any evidence that the polls say that these people "claim the mantle of conservatism"? I thought not. Specifically, the polls asked if someone was "conservative, liberal, etc.", not that they were "conservatives". There is a big difference.
As proof, here is the Gallup poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120.....group.aspx
The numbers do not show a huge change over time and, as I've said before, rise slightly during economic downturns. Perhaps you should learn to do some analysis before you make statements (or believe them from Fox/Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh).
Furthermore, 22% of Democrats consider themselves "conservative" while 73% of Republicans consider themselves "conservative". From your perspective, if you add up "moderates" and "liberals", they total 56% of the sample.
Is this the "proof" you need directly from the source, or are you going to believe those extremists on TV/Radio?
Drider| 10.27.09 @ 1:57PM
I disagree, Newt doesn't make a valid point.
Most everyone that I know who are center and right of center want to avoid the Olympia Snowe types at all costs, even if that means fewer seats.
The tent is big and the people in it welcome those from the center with welcome arms but to try and force feed people who are blatantly left of center is over.The "people" don't need a politician with an R over his or her head sitting in a seat and doing there best to advance the left of center's agenda.
"We" want change and demanding that our elected leaders be of the center's to right of center's mindset is at the top of the change list.
Teflon93| 10.27.09 @ 2:02PM
Bob, you haven't provided any evidence to support your contention that those who replied "conservative" in this poll are in fact social liberals such as yourself.
All the rest is the usual blather because you can't support your claim.
It may surprise you to note that ideological and party affiliation are not 1:1. There remain southern Democrats who hold a tribal loyalty to the Democrat party. These types don't tend to go to gay pride parades as a general rule.
The fact that the numbers "do not show a huge change over time" is irrelevant to your argument.
But then, so is everything else in the post above.
As for "claiming the mantle of conservatism", I trust you can read English even if you can't think clearly in the language.
When someone says they are a conservative, that is precisely what they are doing---claiming the mantle of conservatism.
Kind of like those self-styled libertarians who don't care if economic freedom is squashed so long as high quality narcotics are available at rock-bottom prices.
Bob| 10.27.09 @ 2:19PM
Well, Teflon, it seems as if logic is not your strong suit. Look at the question carefully, it asks if their political views are "conservative", not if they ARE "a conservative". You did have English in school, right?
Furthermore, the fact that the numbers have not change dramatically over time is very important. It means that having a higher "conservative" number does not necessarily convince people to vote Republican/Conservative.
And by the way, many of we social libertarians are staunchly economic conservatives. But it seems that you don't seem to understand the subtleties of analysis...
BillF| 10.27.09 @ 2:31PM
It's time for Newt to take up peanut framing along with that other has-been, former, but still wannabe, "politician" from Georgia.
Pingback| 10.27.09 @ 3:01PM
Southern Appeal » That RINO label links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nick| 10.27.09 @ 3:33PM
Teflon93,
You're wasting your time with 3/5 Bob.
In case you didn't know, until recently (last June), 3/5 Bob thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.
He also doesn't know when biological HUMAN life begins because he is not sure when "ensoulment" takes place.
He is a pseudointellectual RINO, not worth your time.
Bob| 10.27.09 @ 3:40PM
Just like an extremist, Nick, taking my statement out of context. I've learned to expect that from the uneducated.... Instead of addressing the issue, you descend into ad hominem attacks unrelated to the subject matter.... Hmmmm....
Bruce| 10.27.09 @ 4:11PM
Kind of like calling everyone who disagrees with your rather interesting world view an "extremist", eh, Bob? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
SoCon| 10.27.09 @ 4:21PM
Nick's not an extremist, he's a conservative; something you'd know nothing about, HuffPo "RINO" Bob. Go back under your slimy rock.
Ben Holmes| 10.27.09 @ 3:43PM
This classical conservative Democrat is loving the raging schism in the GOP. Keep up your "purge" mentality of moderates so the Democrats can keep on winning, even in the most right wing of areas.
You DO realize that Nancy Pelosi couldn't have had a majority if she hadn't had Democrats who REFLECT the values of their regions? God bless reasonable compromise. No Republican Party in power for another 20-40 years!
Bob| 10.27.09 @ 3:43PM
And by the way, Nick, I do not believe that human life begins at conception when you just have a couple of cells developing. By the way, why don't you consider a sperm or egg human life????? Are they plant life???? Do you even know what human life is?????
SoCon| 10.27.09 @ 4:24PM
Too much time on your hands, old man. You should take up bird-watching or some other irrelevant (like you) hobby.
Not to worry, your "Death Panel" time is coming soon.
Nick| 10.27.09 @ 6:47PM
Oh, 3/5 Bob. (sigh)
When you stick your glass jaw out there, you know I'm going to slap it.
"[...] why don't you consider a sperm or egg human life?????"
Umm, because they are not. You may know how to spin economic data, but you obviously know nothing about basic human biology. How can something that doesn't have 46 chromosomes be human life?
The human sperm has 23 chromosomes from the father. The human oocyte (egg is not a scientific term) has 23 chromosomes from the mother. When the two combine, a completely new human being with 46 chromosomes (just like you) is created, biologically. He/she has their own DNA, half from the father and half from the mother.
When the soul is implanted is a THEOLOGICAL discussion. Not a scientific one. Stick to science 3/5 Bob.
It is you who doesn't seem to know what "human life is." Which is why you are willing to kill unborn babies (fetus in Latin) and try to claim ignorance on when "life begins."
Which is the really scary part. You pseudointellectuals say you don't know when, EXACTLY, human life begins. This means you are perfectly fine with the idea that some humans are going to be killed during an abortion.
Because you don't have the intellectual curiosity to actually find out when life begins.
But on the off chance you have changed (not likely) and have the guts, I dare you to read this article:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writ.....egin1.html
WestWright| 10.27.09 @ 4:23PM
Bob, you are such a predictable little troll, always revolving back into trollishness....look the poll is just an indication of how the electorate is moving along the continum of basic ideology. The movement is certainly away from the left side and towards the right side and that should be very logical after the reality that an extreme leftist has been elected. The real note is the record speed that the electorate is moving away from the President's party. The Electorate is repulsed and I expect these next elections to show haow much.
SoCon| 10.27.09 @ 4:28PM
Newt, keep digging--your defensiveness is assuring your future political irrelevance.
I thought Newt was a smarty pants, doesn't look too clever now.
Tim| 10.27.09 @ 4:41PM
Newt Blasts Conservatives' "Purge" Mentality
Conservatives Blast Republicans' "Binge" Mentality.
Pingback| 10.27.09 @ 4:50PM
That RINO label | The Cranky Conservative links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Soso| 10.28.09 @ 2:38AM
Maybe you are right,or maybe you are wrong.But it's justified. blackberry cases