 |
|
|
Message to DC Republicans: Your pragmatism is not too pragmatic By Rizzuto Tue Oct 27, 2009 - For months now the message from the GOP has been simple; err on the side of pragmatism or get used to a permanent minority status in Washington. Every step of the way, we’ve been told that establishment backed candidates who represent the “moderate” wing of the GOP were the only chance of regaining a majority in the House and Senate, and every step of the way it seems that the GOP has been mistaken. First, we have the case of Pat Toomey in the Pennsylvania senate race. After polling very well in the primary, largely due to the efforts of grassroots activists who were fed up with him, Arlen Specter decided that his Senate career would not be ended by an insurgent conservative movement and jumped ship like a drowning rat. GOP stalwarts heralded this is a blow to their chances of reclaiming the Senate as they insisted that a conservative like Toomey had little chance of victory in purple Pennsylvania. When news of Specter’s defection came out, Lindsey Graham went on Fox News and announced his intentions to recruit Tom Ridge to throw his hat into the ring and challenge Toomey in the primary. He assured us that Ridge represented pragmatism. Today, Rasmussen has Specter trailing Toomey by 5 points in a 2010 matchup. It seems that the conservative Pat Toomey was and always has been the most pragmatic candidate. Next, we have the case of Marco Rubio in the Florida senate race. Jumping the gun, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee threw its support behind Governor Charlie Crist’s bid for the senate. We were assured, or course, that the young conservative Rubio would have little chance of taking Florida’s senate seat and that Crist’s “moderate” politics represented the only pragmatic choice. Today Marco Rubio, who is slowly gaining in his primary battle against Crist, wins by a greater margin against the expected Democrat contender in the general election than Crist does. It seems that the conservative Rubio was and always has been the most pragmatic candidate. Finally, and recently most notably, we have the case of Dede Scozzafava in NY’s 23rd district. The local GOP nominated the NY Assemblywoman, who is no less than an orthodox Liberal, and she was quickly supported by the national party. Her most notable supporter, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, assures the electorate that support of Scozzafava represents the pragmatic approach to the election. Today, Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman has turned the race into a two man show, one that does not include Dede Scozzafava. It seems that the conservative Doug Hoffman was, and always has been the most pragmatic candidate. The message to conservatives from the GOP is clear, we don’t trust you. But this approach seems to be completely backwards, as it’s not the base that needs to earn the trust of the party, it’s the party that cannot afford to lose the trust of the base. How many times will this party need to be proven wrong about its chosen candidates before it decides to allow its base, those people who fill its campaign coffers and provides the manpower necessary to achieve electoral victories, choose its own candidates? It seems to me that had the party thrown its support behind conservative candidates in the first place, these races would not be nearly as tight as they appear to be now, and the Republicans would be sailing to smooth victories in 2009 and 2010. Without the motivation of candidates that the base finds attractive, party member’s loyalty will wane and malaise will infect the GOP. As long as the establishment continues to stand in the way of these candidates, they will continue to be seen as out of touch elitists; and out of touch elitists do not inspire people to action. Of all of these races, NY’s 23rd congressional district proves that if ignored, true conservatives are willing to abandon the party in search of a candidate they feel reflects their values. The party would be smart to hear this warning loud and clear; that the conservative bases loyalty lies not with those who simply have an R next to their name, but with those with whom they agree. That between pragmatism and principle, principle is unmatched as a motivator. In the end, it is motivating the electorate and their most ardent supporters that is the most pragmatic thing the party can do. Choosing a candidate you simply predict can win is not pragmatic in the least. Choosing a conservative candidate is. Principle, as it turns out, is becoming more and more of an asset on the campaign trail. It’s not surprising then that the establishment in Washington DC, a city that has a deficit of principle, is having a hard time recognizing that.
Comments : 0 Comments |
|
|
    |
del.icio.us
