GOP 2.0

Posted at 2:01 PM on October 4, 2007 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)

Recommended listening: Today's first hour of Midmorning featured Jackie Calmes, chief political reporter for the Wall Street Journal. Her article on the Republican Party shifting its "brand" from the party of business appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. She was joined by James Guth, professor of political science at Furman University.

The show picks up on the themes outlined by James Dobson a few days ago, suggesting conservative, evangelical Republicans may bolt from the Party and nominate another candidate, should Rudy Giuliani walk out of St. Paul next summer with a nomination.

Among the factoids I found worth chewing on is the assertion (for which I have no evidence that says it's wrong) that most independent voters lean Republican. Is this true in Minnesota? And, if so, how is it that the third party candidates, the convention wisdom suggests, keep drawing enough votes away from DFL candidates to get Republicans elected?

What remains undefined, at least to me, is the coverage of Dobson's remarks and its focus primarily on abortion. It seems to me that there is at least as much dissatisfaction in Republican circles with Republican candidates who are not "fiscally responsible," as there is dissatisfaction over abortion. And, beyond that, how to quantify the split? Are people bolting the party for a single issue -- and is it always the same issue? If it's not, how does that "bloc" coalesce into a single new party?

But the broader issue is a good one: standing by one's values even if there's absolutely no pragmatic political reason to do so. At least in this election cycle. A woman who called in the middle of the show to talk about why she's not a Republican anymore (i.e. immigration policy, lack of strong defense for the country, and fiscal mismanagement, she says) was enough to send chills down the party's spine, and highlights just how willing many Republicans are to destroy the party in the short term in order to save it.

Comments (3)

"And, if so, how is it that the third party candidates, the convention wisdom suggests, keep drawing enough votes away from DFL candidates to get Republicans elected?"

Who's wisdom? Explain the 2000 Grams, Dayton, Gibson outcome.

It's only the bigger loser that blames the 3rd party.

Just because the DFL have lost is not the result of the 3rd party’s influence, they, the DFL, have run bad campaigns or candidates (as opposed to not as bad on the GOP side).

Posted by brian hanf | October 4, 2007 3:22 PM

The organization that is threatening to split the Republican Party should Giuliani be nominated is called: the Council for National Policy.

It was a meeting of the CNP that group of its most prominent members (including James Dobson) drafted a resolution that threatened a split.

The CNP is the “brain” of the conservative evangelical political movement. It is a secretive organization. Many of its members are well known to the public as leaders of the religious right (founder Tim LaHaye, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, etc.) but many other members are not generally identified with politicized Christianity. For example, conservative activists like Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich are members.

The group is a crossroads for powerbrokers in politically conservative evangelism and the Republican party. The leading GOP presidential candidates have all come to the CNP in person to court their support: Giuliani, Thompson, most recently Mitt Romney. President Bush and Dick Cheney have also addressed this group. The CNP includes members that control evangelical broadcast media; these were instrumental in securing millions of votes for Bush in the last two presidential elections. This, despite the fact that most evangelical conservative voters have never even heard of the CNP.

Organizations controlled by its members are also active at the local, state, and congressional level. They can play “kingmaker” in districts where conservative evangelicals are a significant presence. For example, CNP member Dobson organized a “get out the vote” drive for congressional candidate Michele Bachmann. Over the years, Bachmann has promoted her various candidacies and political agenda on local evangelical radio station KKMS, which is owned by Salem Communications (a national chain of broadcasting stations run by CNP members.)

Now, the opinion part. What “pragmatic reasons” would the CNP have for threatening a split if Giuliani is nominated? 1) It is very likely that the GOP candidate will lose. They do not want to be associated with a failure; they would much prefer to claim that they had cost the GOP candidate the election by withholding their support. 2) The CNP’s issues are commonly described as wedge issues. These include “war on Islamofascism” (they’re for it) “God, guns, and gays”, and perhaps the most important issue for their evangelical base: abortion. The most prominent members of the CNP control various media ministries and “family values” groups; they simply cannot endorse a pro-choice Republican candidate without sacrificing some of their base. It would be wrong to mistake their refusal to support a pro-choice candidate as “altruism”—endorsing a pro-life Republican for the presidency would weaken them, would diminish or split the evangelical vote that they direct.

Thus the statement that the bolters may be “standing by their values even if there's absolutely no pragmatic political reason to do so” is misleading. There is definitely a pragmatic reason for these particular political players not to compromise on abortion. It would cost them power and influence to do so.

Posted by Bill Prendergast | October 5, 2007 1:11 AM

Independent voters LEAN REPUBLICAN?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDC1E3FF93BA35752C1A9609C8B63&n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Iraq

I'm really disappointed that you would write this without doing even cursory research.

(Collins: Read it again. That was the assertion of the guest on Midmorning. Take it up with the Wall Street Journal)

The "conventional wisdom" about independent candidates is wrong, and some research could have shown this, as well. DFLers are winning and losing on their own merit; for example, in none of the 2006 statewide races did an independent candidate make a really significant difference in the outcome. Can you give three examples of an IP candidate changing the outcome for a DFLer in the last four years?

Posted by North Star Politics | October 5, 2007 12:11 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories