Rubio And Crist
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Dan McCarthy had several good posts on last week’s elections and the internal problems of both parties. These are worth revisiting in light of the news that the Club for Growth endorsed Marco Rubio in his Senate primary challenge against Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.
I still don’t quite understand the idea, which some conservative bloggers have floated in the last week, that NY-23 has some bearing on the Florida Senate primary. Yes, I see the dynamic of a “moderate” being challenged from the right, but everything else is different. For one thing, most Floridians and even most Republicans in Florida like Crist. On the political spectrum, he is far to the right of someone like Scozzafava, so there are far fewer substantive reasons why conservatives would want to defeat Crist. If it was absurd to describe a liberal Republican such as Scozzafava as a “moderate,” Crist also doesn’t really deserve that label if “moderate” Republicanism refers to the politics of Sens. Collins and Snowe.
Actually, Crist’s “moderation” is to some extent a fiction that he has perpetuated to maintain his electoral viability in a state that has seen several House seats switch to the Democrats and which voted for Obama. Crist is pro-life; he’s just not very vocal or demonstrative about it. As a governor, there aren’t many things he could do on this question anyway. Crist supported the state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage last year, but did not actively campaign for it. This was actually very much like President Bush’s hands-off approach to the issue in the ‘04 cycle: he formally opposed gay marriage, but wasn’t going to spend much time on it. Partly because of George Bush’s reputation for personal religiosity, the voters who might have held this against him never cared that his support was minimal. Crist’s calculation seems to have been that there are not many voters who would punish him for being lukewarm on the issue, but he could lose many more by appearing “strident” or “intolerant,” and the measure was going to prevail regardless of how actively he campaigned for it. Simply by supporting the measure, which ended up winning 61% support in a year when Obama received a little over 50% of the vote, Crist aligned himself with a significant majority of the voters, but he did so in a way that did not identify him with one faction in his party.
I don’t begrudge Crist’s conservative opponents their desire to compel him to take positions that are even more in agreement with their views. That is their prerogative, and it may even do some good on one or two issues, but it is curious how Crist’s successful political tactics are being held against him at a time when Republicans are no longer governing very many large states and when the party has declined nationally as well. This is the same governor who campaigned actively for an amendment that reduced property taxes, so why would he be a top target of the Club for Growth? On policy, Crist is hard to distinguish from the tradition of former Gov. Jeb Bush, who angered a lot of conservatives with his liberalizing views on immigration but who has otherwise been widely respected and admired by many rank-and-file conservatives. Obviously, I am far removed from both Bush and Crist, so this does not recommend Crist to me, but what makes Crist the unacceptable “moderate” in the minds of movement activists that does not similarly tar Jeb Bush?
A large state primary for governor is significantly unlike a special House election. If nationalizing the House race was the wrong way to go, as I thought it was, how much more disconnected from Floridian political realities would a Senate campaign that has served as a protest against “moderate” collaboration with a national Democratic agenda be? As they are elections for the lower, popular chamber, House races are better-suited to enforcing a party line. There are fewer voters in these elections, which increases the impact of highly motivated and ideological voters, and this is especially true in lower-turnout special elections. A statewide race, even if it is a primary, weakens the influence of activists and ideological enforcers.
Now maybe Rubio won’t run a Hoffmanesque campaign that privileges ideology over local issues, but to a large degree Hoffman’s campaign became a cipher for national Republican and conservative objectives because his campaign was being built up by an influx of national money and the interventions of movement interest groups. If Crist can use his considerable statewide popularity (something that is all the more remarkable during a recession) to make the primary into a contest between candidates who are interested respectively in Floridian concerns and national GOP hobbyhorses, Rubio has little chance.
No one will deny that Crist has lately made something of a sport of making political moves that seem calculated to infuriate movement conservatives, so it still makes some sense that movement conservatives would have him in their sights. He gave McCain a crucial endorsement on the eve of the Florida primary that ensured that he would have a huge advantage going into Feb. 5 voting. Never mind that Crist’s abandonment of neutrality was triggered by Romney’s endless begging for an endorsement. The effect was that a critical, large primary went to McCain with barely a third of the vote, and movement conservatives were soon stuck with a nominee they didn’t trust and a man whom many of them viscerally disliked. Florida set the stage for the rout of Romney in every large state primary, and his withdrawal from the race came just a little over a week later. Crist also backed the stimulus, which is not very surprising for the governor of a state that voted for Obama, but it has been held against him and was one of the things that propelled Rubio into the race.
Dan made an important point when he was assessing the GOP’s internal problems, and it is one that I haven’t seen made elsewhere:
The Republicans, by contrast, have a one-boot-fits-all mentality, both in the primaries and in the legislatures.
Dan and I may differ on the efficacy of Club for Growth tactics, but I think his observation gets to the heart of what bothers me when I think of the Club for Growth and similar organizations that are responsible for trying to enforce conformity on GOP representatives and governors. Either they launch primary challenges against representatives who are better-suited to their districts, and end up losing the district all together, or they force candidates to hew to such a strict line that they reduce them to carbon copies of one another and deprive them of the flexibility and adaptability they need to advance local interests. The more uniform the movement and party become, the less resistance there will be to uniform and centralist national policies aimed at imposing a top-down “conservatism” that exists to secure conservative control over the Court and pays less and less attention to the Country. That doesn’t make Crist preferable or desirable as a candidate for Senate, but defeating Crist will be a hollow victory so long as the movement conservative alternative to the Crists of the party seems increasingly pre-packaged and crafted by national activists who are oblivious to and uninterested in local conditions around the country.
Filed under: politics
That’s all well and good, but a locally-grown more conservative candidate is automatically dead in the water without national money. And the money comes with the cookie-cutter playbook price. There aren’t any more local political machines, and if their were, they would surely back the more established candidate.
There aren’t many (if any) Ron Pauls out there waiting for their shot at the big time. Do you have any examples of the right way to do it?
My question is why the cookie-cutter playbook has to follow the money. The donors will have influence on what the pols do once in office, so why dictate the tone and substance of the campaign when that doesn’t help the candidates win general elections? The better question is why movement conservatives prize uniformity that gets them nowhere instead of tailoring a core message to different places that might put them in a position to influence policy. But then I am assuming that shaping policy is the goal. Maybe that isn’t the goal at all.
Well, they want their cake and eat it too. They really only need a small minority to have tremendous influence in Congress. The committee chairmen in the House and just about any old Senator. Already elected pols have to play their game to get the easy war chest money. That’s the bread and butter.
Open Republican-possible seats is where the sizzle is. The latest ingenue is the source of endless speculation. And the general election outcome doesn’t actually affect the cause much at all, it produces just another freshman. But the outcome of Republican primaries is marker of the cause’s strength in the media/culture/ideology wars.
“The effect was that a critical, large primary went to McCain with barely a third of the vote, and movement conservatives were soon stuck with a nominee they didn’t trust and a man whom many of them viscerally disliked.”
You know, out of all the issues, failures, mistakes and contradictions that conservatism has to work out…the hatred and suspicion of John McCain is probably one of the least discussed but most important of them all.
Not because McCain is all that important, but because how the frequently irrational anger and disgust at McCain was generated and how it’s been cemented into right-wing DNA. Here’s a pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, pro-military, anti-government spending conservative who’s been made persona non grata in conservatism and for what? Because he beat George W. Bush in the 2000 New Hampshire primary.
Mike
Rubio is going to be the GOP candidate come the general election. He’s gaining momentum by the day and his personal story, not to mention his ethnic background, which helps him with all voters in Florida, is just what the national GOP and its big donors are looking for. Crist has had his day in the sun (literally and figuratively) and will suffer from local GOP voter fatigue, if nothing else, come election day. Lastly, it’s ironic that you mention the gay marriage issue since for a lot of social conservative, particularly north-Florida voters, there are a lot of suspicions about Crist’s personal life with respect to this issue. We all know what the rumors are and many of my Floridian friends think, depsite his protestations to the contrary, Crist, who is too skinny and too tan to be a real NASCAR fan, is hiding something here.
Here’s a pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, pro-military, anti-government spending conservative who’s been made persona non grata in conservatism and for what?
Because he’s a self-righteous, treacherous a–hole. It’s that simple.
Conservatives dislike him for his tendency to grandstand at their expense on issues like McCain-Feingold, Amnesty, Cap’n'Trade and judicial nominations. Yes, he makes sure to punch the right numbers for his legislative scorecards–as any Republican from Arizona would have to–but he has a nasty habit of turning on the crucial issues and doing so with maximum villainization of his own side–claiming to be the “reasonable” and “honorable” person, implying that other Republicans are unreasonable and dishonorable. You don’t win friends and influence people doing that.
As for the Crist/Rubio race, what’s riled up so many isn’t so much Crist’s politics, as it was Cornyn and the NRSC’s attempt to bigfoot a contested primary. This is the parallel to Scozzafava. You have the leadership trying to shoehorn their own candidate into office based on their peculiar likes or dislikes. That’s understandable to a degree, but there are limits.
[...] Once upon a time, the conventional wisdom was that “all politics is local.” Now, it’s conservative heterodoxy to, suggest, as Larison does, that [...]
With all due respect, Derek Copold, that’s a lot of BS.
1. If being a self-righteous a-hole were truly disqualifiying…95% of conservative politicians and pundits would have to find new jobs.
2. What “treachery” of McCain compares to Palin and company sabotaging a Republican Congressional candidate and handing the Democrats another vote for advancing their liberal agenda?
3. Do you even understand why campaign finance reform became a litmus test for conservatism and how ridiculous it is?
4. On campaign finance reform and amnesty, McCain is no different than George W. Bush. I’m not sure what McCain has ever done on judicial nominations that deserves any serious scorn. And any conservative who gets more riled up over cap-and-trade than over warrantless wiretaps, horribly botched wars and the biggest expansion in entitlements in a couple of generations (the Medicare drug bill that McCain voted against) doesn’t deserve to call themselves a conservative.
5. Considering that the day after McCain won the 2000 New Hampshire primary, Rush Limbaugh went on the air and acted like Fidel Castro had actually won, it’s a bit ridiculous to get all bent out of shape over McCain’s failure to toe the party line on this or that issue.
The fact is that the day before that New Hampshire primary, McCain would have been a perfectly acceptable candidate for the vast majority of conservatives. That he’s now unacceptable, while little about McCain has actually changed, says a lot about how the emotional and intellectual health of the Right has degenerated.
Mike
With all due respect, Derek Copold..
Translation: I’m about to insult you, and..
that’s a lot of BS….
…there it is.
If you’re going to say I’m lying you should have some proof other than contrary opinions.
1. If being a self-righteous a-hole were truly disqualifiying…95% of conservative politicians and pundits would have to find new jobs.
Yes, but they’re not treacherous. They don’t go around claiming to be “mavericks” at the expense of their colleagues for the sake of approving NYT editorials. McCain has been doing that since the late 90s (when he was backing a full invasion of Serbia for the Clintons), playing up his support for the rotten McCain-Feingold abomination, and putting down conservatives for the sake of pleasing his pals on the Straight Talk express. Only a fool would go to the mat for this guy.
2. What “treachery” of McCain compares to Palin and company sabotaging a Republican Congressional candidate and handing the Democrats another vote for advancing their liberal agenda?
Uh, all of them, as they all pertain to legislation that will have a tremendous impact on my life. I don’t like Palin’s conservatism myself, but her intervention dealt with one backbencher in a special election. That candidate was arguably to the left of the Democrat. She would have advanced the liberal agenda just as eagerly, as her own baldfaced treachery made clear when–after getting nearly $1,000,000 from the GOP–she quit the race and backed the Democrat. As far as sins go, this isn’t much of one.
3. Do you even understand why campaign finance reform became a litmus test for conservatism and how ridiculous it is?
It became a litmus test because it imposes onerous restrictions on free speech. It affect advocacy groups and can even reach to local referenda. It’s an extremely important issue, and it’s exactly why McCain deserves to be loathed by any one supporting free expression.
On campaign finance reform and amnesty, McCain is no different than George W. Bush.
I’m not going to defend Bush, as I opposed the man starting in 2002. However, Bush wasn’t nearly as grating on those issues as was McCain. While he could stigmatize his adversaries as immoral (as in the case of the Iraq War), he rarely did it to his own party. McCain made his name doing just that. You’re just not going to win a lot of love that way.
Considering that the day after McCain won the 2000 New Hampshire primary, Rush Limbaugh went on the air and acted like Fidel Castro had actually won, it’s a bit ridiculous to get all bent out of shape over McCain’s failure to toe the party line on this or that issue.
First, my name isn’t Rush Limbaugh. If you want argue with Rush, go call his show. I’m sure he’d be happy to take you. At any rate, what Rush does does not excuse McCain’s behavior, which had long before grated conservatives, and since you admit he doesn’t really “toe the line” what sort of reason is there for any conservative to get worked up on his behalf?
BTW, FYI, as if it matters, my main objection to McCain has been his hyperintensive desire to intervene in every effin’ conflict in the world. Quite frankly, I couldn’t give a **** why he’s hated. I’m simply glad he is, and I’m glad he lost in 2008. As bad as Obama is, McCain would have been a disaster, as his reaction to the Georgian crisis showed.
Mike,
Moreover, I really don’t get your complaint. Conservatives did overlook their dislike of McCain and supported him. It was the oh-so reasonable “moderate” weasels, like David Brooks–the guys who in February had been urging the GOP to pick McCain–who bailed on him in 2008.
The way I see it, 2010 is very likely to an excellent year for the Republicans, much like 1994, hence any credible GOP nominee will probably win Florida’s U.S. Senate race. So why not go with the more conservative potential nominee?
A simple analysis, yes, but is it wrong?
MBungre: “And any conservative who gets more riled up over cap-and-trade than over warrantless wiretaps, horribly botched wars and the biggest expansion in entitlements in a couple of generations (the Medicare drug bill that McCain voted against) doesn’t deserve to call themselves a conservative.”
The actual conservatives involved in political debate can be counted on one’s fingers.
The radical right-wingism of Bush (and the entire GOP) was hugely popular right up until they lost the ‘06 election; *then* the cry ‘he’s not a conservative’ went up.