Tim Pawlenty's litmus test

"...and it's going to lead all Republican comers to conclude that the way back to power is to go hard-right, and drive anyone who looks even faintly like what they call a RINO out of the party."

Cool!

Tim Pawlenty has one agenda: election Tim Pawlenty. He has been a one-note governor. His sole idea, "no new taxes" resulted in ideas like letting highway construction companies foot the bill for highways while the state looked for money to pay them. You can guess what happened - construction companies did not bid any of those projects.

It is no surprise that Tim hedged his bets. That's our Tim.

Nice hair, though. And a winning manner.

Maybe. Or, maybe the message to local Party elders will be to nominate people who could fairly be labelled as Republicans. If Scozzafava (whatever) was nominated with a primary, this would not be an issue, but she was picked by the R party elders and rejected by the voters in favor of someone more conservative. I doubt very much if every candidate will somehow learn to become Glenn Beck disciples from this isolated event.

Believe it or not, we have had very conservative people elected as Republicans before and this has not driven the Olympia Snowes from the party yet.

Time for some perspective.

The focus on Hoffman misses an important point - he is running for congress - and he is unlikely, especially as a first term congressman, to have any kind of impact on what goes on in congress or in this nation. Plus, repubs traditionally win in NY-23. If he wins what is the real consequence? Republicans keep a seat they have always had. Hardly seems worth all the attention.

I think the real contest of importance is the Corzine - Christie race. If Christie wins with his small govt lower taxes social conservativism platform - a purity test passing repub governor will actually run a state that has for the last twenty years rejected the culture warrior repub candidates. The election can give us some hint as to whether culture war rejecting voters will overlook the social conservative positions of Christie because of economic issues. It also may tell us if a state characterized by the second highest per capita income in the country and very high education attainment will buy the pure republicans message. If Christie wins and does what he says he will do we also get the chance to see just what the impact of the purity class of Republicans have on governance. So this seems a more significant election than NY-23.

Cecilia -

I mostly agree with you about the NJ gubernatorial race probably being the most significant vote today (I would put question 1 in Maine up there too).

I'm not sure how big a trend I'd read into the result (either way, but particularly if Christie wins).

However, I'm not so sure about Christie being a "purity test passing repub"; certainly Lonegan's supporters didn't think he was. Depends on the purity test, I guess. I don't remember - did any of the big right wing pressure groups (e.g. CFG, NRA, FRC, etc.) intervene in the primary on Christie's behalf? I don't think so, but I didn't pay close attention.

Bill H
November 3, 2009 4:06 PM
I reluctantly have to agree with Megan McArdle on this one.

Yep, we're at Bread and Circuses now.

Bayesian - yes I am sorry I did not mention the Maine vote which is clearly an important vote. I agree the Lonegan supporters objected strongly to Christie as not being conservative enough. But Christie is pro life, pro business, small govt, lower taxes guy so this seems to be the main ingredients of the purity test. It was interesting that gay right to marriage was not an issue at least in the general election. McArdle's comments remind me of the cliche that people get the government they deserve. The problem is that those who want more than bread and circuses get stuck with the government the other guy deserves.

Hoffman is being called hard-right because he agrees with the district's former congressman, John McHugh, about abortion. McHugh had a 100 percent pro-life voting record, whereas the GOP's designated successor to him, Dede Scozzafava, was on the Planned Parenthood board and endorsed by NARAL.

What you are missing, Lasorda, is that after the dust settles, after the voters have spoken, after someone is left standing as "the winner" for each office, we generally have a mix of Democrats and Republicans, a mix of viewpoints within the spectrum of each party, some at each end leaning SOMEWHAT closer to the views of SOME in the opposite party than some of their own fellow party members, and this diverse mix has to somehow GOVERN this country. They have to be on speaking terms to do that. Voters have never given any candidate for president more than 60%, and it is usually closer to 53%. That leaves millions of our fellow citizens, whichever way the vote went, who must be part of the solution. Congressional districts vote different ways, and even Republican districts at one end of a state vote in different shades of Republican than Republican districts at the other end of the same state, let alone half way across the country. LBJ didn't like Everett Dirksen, he wouldn't have voted for him, he would have run against him vigorously if they were in the same state, but they could sit down and do business together. Look back on a few of Rod's posts in the last month or two about how this country needs to be governed, and all our current crop of politicians seem to be able to do is sabotage each other's programs, without ever delivering much of anything to the people.

There is an interesting phenomena at work here. The NRA view represents a minority of Americans. Farmers, with their huge subsidies, are an even smaller minority. The 20% of Americans who are the base of the Republican party are able to whipsaw their views into being the predominate ones. Passion and singleness of purpose are powerful. The rest of us wonder how long before the counter-reaction, which we should hope will be rational and not extreme.

Pawlenty has always been, to the best that I can tell, a politician at his core. Nothing is wrong with being a politician but their core most be a core of principle, not politics, and I think he has to little of the former and too much of the latter.

In regards to NY-23...regardless of the outcome (I think Owens is ahead at the moment) the anti-conservative purist argument doesn't apply here. Scozzafava was simply a bad candidate all around. I disagree with those that think we need to purge the party, but come one! Scozzafava was not selected through the primary process and was in lock step with the Democrats on almost the majority of the important issues that are going to be fought out soon. This isn't a case of ideological purity...this is a case of asking too much of people...asking them to suspend all their core values in the interest of not being extreme.

My principles don't preclude moderation and include room for significant disagreements...but you can only disagree with so many of my principles before I just won't vote for you. I don't care what you call me, the Scozzafava's of the world are not getting my vote.

Hoffman lost, Owens won. Liberal bloggers over the weekend contrasted what they viewed as Owens’s gracious reaction to Scozzafava’s dropping out with Hoffman’s reaction. This was before she endorsed anyone. Until we see exit poll results, we won’t know the impact of things of that nature, or of Rush Limbaugh’s comment about Scozzafava (which Hoffman reportedly declined to denounce).

Huffington Post reports that “Owens managed to appeal to the voters with his talk of job creation and the need for more federal support for Fort Drum and farmers.” Exit polls in Virginia and New Jersey showed that voters largely retained the same views of President Obama as they had last year when he won both those states. They pointed strongly to the economy as being a factor in how people voted in those two states. The New York Times notes that Republican candidate McDonnell “avoided divisive social issues, concentrating instead on his plans to create jobs, improve the economy and fix the state’s transportation problems.” McDonnell reportedly rebuffed offers over the last few months by Sarah Palin to campaign on his behalf.

My takeaway? Tone matters as much as do policy positions. So does EQ. However one views purity tests, the candidate has to convince enough people that he’s not going to be an anger-driven, childish, or punitive avenger. Comments such as the one Limbaugh made about Scozzafava unnecessarily raised an image of a Beavis and Butthead party (as Paul Krugman said recently wrote on his blog about some GOPers) which cares more about putdowns than getting things done. The type of guys in a bar who break up over their own jokes, chortling “Yessss” and high fiving each other as most of the people around them roll their eyes and withdraw to other venues.

No matter how righteous anyone on the right (or the left) feels about their policy issues, they’re not going to win if their driving motivator sounds like hurting or punishing or putting down people rather than navigating the complex issues facing the nation. To think that the latter tone is effective is to fundamentally misunderstand human nature. And no one wants to put power into the hands of anyone who seems clueless about people.