Newt Gingrich makes strategic sense

I now vote only for people of integrity who appear to share my most basic values. In other words, I would never vote for Newt, nor for any of the people (Riordan, Whitman, or Giuliani) he champions as exemplary "moderates." If these people are held up as the face of the Republican Party, it's no surprise that the party appears to be dying--even as the percentage of Americans supporting conservatism and a "traditional values" agenda is on the rise.

Gays aren't strange any more, and pressing 1 for English isn't some horrible imposition.

But having kids is, so don't lay claim to the future too, too quick, SWPL.

those different from themSELVES. It's late in the workday.

Gays aren't strange any more, and pressing 1 for English isn't some horrible imposition.

But having kids is, so don't lay claim to the future too, too quick, SWPL.

Am not sure why pressing 1 for English will become a horrible imposition after having kids, if it's not one before? Nor do I think people that are comfortable with gays and have gay friends will suddenly become uncomfortable with their (I guess now former) friends after their firstborn. Care to elaborate

First of all, if this is a "conservatives outbreed liberals," that's a non-issue. Most people of all backgrounds are exposed to those different from them just by virtue of living here. The old biases just lack the oomph they once did.

When you have lobbies that insist on dispensing political goodies on an ethnic basis, your blurring of differences just isn't likely to appear. Quite the opposite is more likely. The modern left is irretrievably welded to those groups whose existence utterly depends on those ethnic lines being very sharp. Given historical precedents, it will get worse. Observe, for example, the continuing and mostly voluntary racial segregation in our country. But the SWPL contingent will have diminished within the white population as they have a lower fertility rate, leaving the more ethnocentric the field.

Second, and I know I've said this before, you can see the age of the tea partiers and town hall people, clear as day. It's hard to deny.

Health care issues and taxes affect older demographics. When those in the younger generations who bother to have kids hit that level, they'll get upset as well.

...and pressing 1 for English isn't some horrible imposition.

BTW, the idea that this is as far as the costs of immigration will go is laughably wrong. Where you're at, that may be the extent of the situation, but where I'm at it's getting to the point that you need to be fluent in Spanish to get work. Now maybe that makes you feel all SWPLy and multicultural, but there are a lot of people who will never be able to master two languages, and they're not going to get all happy-clappy about it.

Polichinello: I think you're reducing the support for Democrats/liberal positions to a cartoon of what they actually are. The SWPL demographic is vanishingly small, generally a minority in the towns they live in. Of course, they love talking about themselves, so it seems larger than it is.

The truth is that most conservatives and liberals live similarly. Maybe this comes from growing up and living in one of the bluer parts of America, but it seems absurd to me to think that a party large enough to win the last two major elections is a bunch of prissypants tofu-eaters who treat their dogs like babies and black nationalists mau-mauing the flack catchers.

Your average Democratic voter in, for example, New Jersey, lives in a manner very similar to your average suburban Dallas Republican voter. Sure, there may be some differences on religion and the correct way to prepare brisket, but the two voters would probably see a lot of themselves in each other.

And frankly, ethnic interest group politics have been around forever and both parties play the game. There are a lot of folks out there (well represented at the tea parties especially) who see white folks as an ethnic group entitled to its piece of the pie, which makes sense if you think you deserve the whole pie. Do they not count?

The truth is that most conservatives and liberals live similarly.

Well, if you put aside the fact that the former has a higher fertility rate and that kids are a large part of how one lives, I guess that can be said.

Maybe this comes from growing up and living in one of the bluer parts of America, but it seems absurd to me to think that a party large enough to win the last two major elections is a bunch of prissypants tofu-eaters who treat their dogs like babies and black nationalists mau-mauing the flack catchers.

The Democrats have won the past two elections because of the War in Iraq. It's as simple as that. However, the party is still deeply dependent on ethnic minorities, and that dependence is growing, just as you see the same thing with the GOP. Meanwhile, the white base of the Democratic party will decline, which means Democrats will have to cater more and more to ethnic minorities. Perhaps you think this is just and right in a cosmic way. No matter, it will provoke a counter-reaction. Fussing over pressing one for English will probably seem a quaint problem.

And frankly, ethnic interest group politics have been around forever and both parties play the game.

The game will become far more intense as the mix changes. What you're seeing now really will be a tea-party. You can still cow people with the charge of racism (no matter how unfounded), but that's not going to work for much longer.

Ditto Irenaeus. Personally, I'm never again voting for a GOP libertarian. "Moderate," in the sense that Newt likes to use it, means the worst ideas of both parties immoderately applied.

Irenaeus: Really, Rod? Really? I don't doubt that there are many on the right coming off the rails, but unless I'm reading things wrongly, this looks like grassroots conservative activism supporting a candidate that shares their values against a candidate who is rather liberal on cultural issues. I mean, goodness, Rod. Good f-ing grief. Save the fire for Glenn Beck.

Now, now. I'm sure that I would prefer the grassroots guy over the official Republican nominee. But I am a Southern conservative. People with my worldview are as scarce as hen's teeth in New York state. We have got to find a way to make room in this party for people who are more liberal than mainstream Republicans. Even here in Texas, I'm a social conservative, but I think it's just crazy for the social conservatives to anathematize the Log Cabin Republicans, the green Republicans, and anybody who doesn't hew strictly to their agenda. We've got to have some flexibility, or we're not going to be in a position to do anything for the big issues we believe in. Would you rather see that New York House seat go to a liberal Democrat, or a liberal Republican? At least the liberal Republican Scozzafava, who polls say has a significantly better chance at winning that district than Hofmann, would help bring back a Republican majority.

One reason the Democrats are running Congress today is the party's liberal purists held their nose when Rahm Emanuel recruited fairly conservative Democrats to challenge vulnerable Republicans in reddish districts. There's a lesson in that.

Liberals aren’t your problem, it’s the moderates and Independents. Like it or not, there are many people who lean conservative on some issues but not all. Some feel as if the Republican party has left them. If you look at the posted comments under E. J. Dionne’s musings at “Post Partisan” in today’s Washington Post about the recent poll results on identification as conservatives, liberals, and moderates, you see a number of people saying they are fiscally conservative but socially moderate or even progressive. Some describe themselves overall as conservatives but add an emphatic, “keep out of the bedroom.” As one poster pointed out, some of these posters actually may be libertarians. Orthodoxy and heretic hunting isn’t likely to appeal to them any more than it will to moderates.

Despite declines in other areas some areas since he was inaugurated, the latest polls show President Obama with strong likeability numbers (one October poll shows that two-thirds of the American people think he has the personal qualities they like to see in a President).

It’s not just policy, likeability does matter. Voting involves trust. What the harshest heretic hunters overlook is that for most well balanced people, it simply goes against human nature to submit themselves, by voting for someone, to governance by someone they fear. People are unlikely to choose to vote *for* someone whom they hear condemning their choices or beliefs or values or lifestyle. It doesn’t work that way. How many of us chose our spouses or life partners because they sought to make us conform rigidly to what they wanted and who intimidated and scolded us while we first were dating or getting to know them? Not many! Most of us ditched people like that after the first date.

Nagging, finger wagging, excoriating and “othering” one’s fellow Americans may fire up the base. It just won’t win over many moderates. Positive salesmanship and persuasion work much better. You’re not just running to represent the people who voted for you, you’re going to represent a district, a state, a nation. You have to convey a sense of “trust me to deal fairly and humanely and with integrity with all I govern, not just the people who voted for me.” That’s not the vibe RINO hunters convey.

It all comes down to whom you regard as expendable. If moderates and fiscally conservative but socially moderate Independents are expendable, then RINO hunting is the way to go. If they aren't, it isn't.

Newsbusters reports polls that have Hoffman in front. He's the only candidate who doesn't support killing children in the womb and is according to Tom Peters of AmericanPapist in DC, a fiscal conservative.

What is the issue?

I understand what you're saying, but I think the person the GOP picked there is more liberal than the Republican who she intends to replace. New York state is not all like New York City. Not all of New York City is even like the Bronx or Manhattan.

I think the party should be more open to moderate Republicans, but I don't know if it really must cater to outright liberals.

Rod’s larger point about young city-dwellers is well taken. Not only does RINO hunting potentially affect party building, some of the angry rhetoric and tactical choices make Republicans look more misogynist and anti-women or unfriendly to gays than need be the case. Even local races get national coverage. People are watching. There are ways to argue your issues and remain true to principle without turning off younger voters in urban areas on the East and West coasts. Polls show abortion is opposed by more people, including younger people, than in past years. If more people are trending anti-abortion, why would two male Republican state legislators introduce a law in Oklahoma that would require listing of detailed information, such as marital status and number of previous pregnancies, about women undergoing abortions—with no required publication of the information (including marital status and number of times they’ve impregnated women) about the men who participated in the acts that led to the pregnancies? Not only do you have to consider principles, but also tone and tactics and national image as well as regional differences. And most importantly, you have to fight for your issues as if you’re in the 21st century, not the 19th.

There is a limit to how far any group should stray from its core beliefs, and you and Newt are simply too far from those core beliefs.

Chris Christie is a good analog to Witman. He's certainly not a radically conservative candidate, but nobody is screaming about heresy. Rudy Giuliani only further underscores the fact that most Republicans *are* willing to bend, to a point. Rudy is still held in esteem by most Republicans.

Scozzafava is simply too far. She is, in fact, ridiculously too far. The RNC should have never backed her, even if there are parliamentary advantages to having an (R) win.

The RNC is a joke, and it is reaping what it has sown. Like most Reagan Republicans, I look forward to seeing them receive an absolute thrashing next week - hoisted by their own petard.

At least the liberal Republican Scozzafava, who polls say has a significantly better chance at winning that district than Hofmann, would help bring back a Republican majority.

Rod, how closely have you followed the polling in this race? The last two public polls (albeit conducted by conservative organizations) have shown Hofmann leading the race. Going back to late August, there has been a steady trend in all the polling upward for Hofmann and downward for Scozzafava. The Democrats in the past week have refocused their negative ads almost entirely on Hofmann rather than Scozzafava.

At this point, it's nearly certain that Hofmann will win more votes on election day than Scozzafava, and that he has a much better chance to win the seat than she does.

In general, I tend to agree with your and Gingrich's point about the counterproductivity of "RINO-hunting." But this particular election doesn't illustrate that point well. Scozzafava was the choice of local GOP activists. She didn't win a primary, and there's no indication that she is more electable than Hoffman.

As an Obama supporter, I am enjoying this kind of thing immensely. Speaking more objectively, I have felt for the last year that the most interesting political story of the next few years is where the Republicans are headed. I suspect they are likely to go the route the British Conservatives took after Tony Blair rode in. The Tories fought the next two elections on the basic premise that Thatcher hadn't gone far enough, and the "tea party" element of the GOP seems headed that way, dedicated to RINO hunting and the premise that George W. Bush was too liberal.
Eventually the Tories got it out of their system, and have righted themselves under David Cameron. How many wallopings will the Republicans subject themselves to before they find an American Cameron?

We have got to find a way to make room in this party for people who are more liberal than mainstream Republicans.

Well, that's very true, but isn't there already room for such people? It may not be true on the Presidential ticket, but there are plenty of such people at the legislative, local, and state level.

Furthermore, that is really not the issue here. In upper New York, it seems like the "mainstream" Republicans there are rising up to choose a different candidate than the party elders chose. To me, you should reword your response to say that Party officials need to make room in this party for the typical Republican voter, not the typical Republican favored by people in Washington or at the news desks.

Scozzafava has been endorsed by NARAL because she supports the right to abortion in all circumstances. There are plenty of people in upstate New York, including the former House member and current Obama administration appointee, John McHugh, who do not take that position. Why should they be abandoned because of the cynicism of people like Newt Gingrich? The Daily Kos poll is at variance with others, and I put little stock in it. Doug Hoffman, the pro-life Conservative candidate, deserves your support.

Continuing the trend of the past week's polling in NY 23, Daily Kos today has the race at:

Owens (D) 33%
Hoffman (C) 32%
Scozzafava (R) 18%

The widely respected GOP political analyst Stuart Rothenburg just described the official GOP nominee as "an afterthought."

Heading into the election, it's Democrat vs. Conservative in NY 23, with Scozzafava now reduced to the role of a spoiler who may get the Democrat elected.

You guys are right that I haven't been following this race closely, and if the new poll numbers are correct, then obviously the Conservative Party candidate is the more competitive one. I would rather see him elected than the Republican. So I withdraw my complaint. Nevertheless, as a general rule, I endorse the idea that Republicans shouldn't be afraid to field more liberal candidates where that makes strategic sense. I would rather have a Republican that voted the way I prefer 50 percent of the time than a Democrat who voted my way 30 percent of the time. On the other hand, I'd be more likely to vote for a pro-life, socially conservative Democrat than a socially moderate, pro-big business Republican. But that's me.

*The founder of DailyKos has endorsed the Republican nominee in NY-23 -- that speaks volumes as to who the real liberal, moderate and conservative are in this 3-way race.*

Yes, but did you read the reason for that endorsement? And did you read today that the endorsement was withdrawn? The purpose of the endorsement at the time it was offered was to do EXACTLY what happened...cause the GOP candidate to stumble and the Conservative candidate to rise, thus embarrassing the GOP.

The endorsement was withdrawn today in yet another effort to stir the pot.

hlvanburen
Yes, but did you read the reason for that endorsement? And did you read today that the endorsement was withdrawn? The purpose of the endorsement at the time it was offered was to do EXACTLY what happened...cause the GOP candidate to stumble and the Conservative candidate to rise, thus embarrassing the GOP.

Ssssshhh...you're ruining the joke.

The endorsement was withdrawn today in yet another effort to stir the pot.

In totally unrelated news, Markos today endorsed Mark Kirk in Illinois, Rob Simmons in Connecticut, and Charlie Crist in Florida for their moderate political positions. (And he's endorsed David Vitter just for fun.) Quick, someone primary against them!

I think everyone here should head over to the article, and then go ahead and read the comments also. The debate is over whether having insane people on the Republican side screw up their election is a good thing or a bad thing.

But most people on the left are just laughing their ass off. The Money quote from a 'TrueBlueMajority':

if Scozzafava wins, she will face the same problem in 2010, only worse, which will lead to more R infighting. Good.

If Hoffman wins, the teabirthers will be emboldened to come up with more bat crap crazy candidates, which which will lead to more R infighting all over the country. Good.

If Owens wins the mass media will have to spin this as a win for the Dems in spite of him being a blue dog. Only those of us who play inside baseball will worry are that it will encourage more blue dog candidates in 2010. Meanwhile, all of the power brokers (and wannabes) in the R party will be furious with each other.