David Postman recently covered the primary defeat of Congressman Joe Schwarz by Tim Walberg in the GOP Primary for the 7th Congressional District in Michigan. I've been known to take a dim view of some conservative challengers to leading Republicans, but in this case it was a good turn of events.
This post at NRO's The Corner notes President Bush carried the district with 54% of the vote in 2004. In contrast, to some northeastern Congressional districts won by John Kerry, where Republican moderates are the only hope for a Republican victory, this district should be sending a solid Republican to Congress. The aforementioned post also spells out a brief comparison of issue positions between the two candidates that leads me to believe the better overall candidate won - particuarly given their separation on federal budget issues, where Republican voters should be holding their candidates most accountable based on Congressional action the last several years.
Normally, I'm a bit hesitant when the Club for Growth or the Americans for Tax Reform try knocking off established, moderate Republicans in primary fights. Such attempts often occur in moderate-to-Democratic districts/states where moderate Republicans candidates are the only chance of having a Republican seat. Walberg's victory certainly doesn't fit that bill. Congratulations to him.
Which reminds me of that little race in Rhode Island this year...I'm inclined to want to see Steve Laffey knock off Linc Chaffee in the Republican primary given that Chaffee has gone beyond the pale in his repeated abandonment of the Republican party and President Bush. Indeed, Chaffee makes other northeastern Republicans look conservative. It should be a robust race, definitely worth watching, especially in light of Walberg's victory.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 10, 2006 09:30 PM | Email ThisThe other Michelle
Posted by: Michelle on August 10, 2006 10:38 PMI can't even figure out what the Bush led Republicans are anymore. They aren't liberal, they are not conservative, they are not moderate they only seem to represent the inept - Tony Snow was refreshing for about 2 weeks, but now he is getting confusing too.
Let's let Isreal fight, no ceasefire, no fight, no ceasefire, no be responsible, no ceasefire, ... These people are just idiots.
I say we go to Al Queda tell them they won and sue for peace and start attending the mosque. Our government is so dispiriting, it is hard to imagine a more idiotic way to fight a supposed war. Defeat the Taliban only to give them the Sharia law they wanted -- talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by: John McDonald on August 11, 2006 09:13 PMOn this topic: in a key area populated by Democrats, considering the overarching atmosphere at the DNC, wouldn't a "moderate" Republican would have to look and sound a helluva lot like a Democrat to win a seat in such a district?
How then would the GOP go about "conservatizing" (bringing such a district closer to the core Republican values) that district?
If such is not the ultimate goal of the GOP, then why should should conservatives like me bother supporting a party that supports what amounts to merely a liberal with an (R) behind his/her name?
It's a valid question. What's your answer to that?
Posted by: ERNurse on August 11, 2006 11:02 PMOn this topic: in a key area populated by Democrats, considering the overarching atmosphere at the DNC, wouldn't a "moderate" Republican have to look and sound a helluva lot like a Democrat to win a seat in such a district?
How then would the GOP go about "conservatizing" (bringing such a district closer to the core Republican values) that district?
If such is not the ultimate goal of the GOP, then why should should conservatives like me bother supporting a party that supports what amounts to merely a liberal with an (R) behind his/her name?
It's a valid question. What's your answer to that?
Posted by: ERNurse on August 11, 2006 11:03 PMMy response would be that the overall change to conservative thought you are looking for is driven by larger trends in society than single elections (though individual elections can play a role). For example, the shift of the Democratic party to the McGovernite wing from the more muscular tradition of FDR, JFK, and even LBJ caused a long-term shift of the national American electorate to the Republican party (repercussions of Watergate excluded). It is possible the Lamont-Lieberman election is the beginning of another such shift where Democrats are viewed disfavorably on a number of important issues of the day for quite some time.
In the end, however, individual elections are not about such trends. Generally, I would rather see a Republican in office, no matter how moderate, because that is one more vote for a Republican majority. That being said, Schwarz is a great example of a moderate that deserved to lose (he only won a plurality in the Republican primary in 2004, not a majority) based on his record.
For example, I don't like how the Senators from Maine vote often times, but they are a vote for a Republican majority (though Collins is more of a team player than Snowe). Also, Sen. Specter drives me bonkers, though I don't think Toomey could have actually won the general election so that's a tough one for me. Chaffee on the other hand has gone so far to the left I would say he deserves to go regardless, even though I still support other northeastern Republicans who I might disagree with on a number of issues. Better Speaker Hastert than Speaker Pelosi.
That being said, I am very unhappy with Congress' performance on fiscal issues, especially entitlements and the lack of reform. I might not necessarily agree with how some strong conservatives might choose to emphasize social issues, but it seems undeniable to me that even the Republican majority needs a slap upside the head in a couple key races to keep them in line on the fiscal issues that cross party lines for many average voters.
When you boil all those thoughts down to Washington state, with its leaning-blue statewide vote and many swing legislative districts, that means I'm more inclined to support moderates here than my own personal preferences might desire. I'm willing to accept part of what I'd like in a candidate rather than expect a more perfect candidate who loses, then I get nothing.
I hope that helps. Thanks for the thoughtful comment and question.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 11, 2006 11:26 PMAre you confused. I'm not voting for a third party candidate, that will only take away a R vote. I'm voting for the D's too hurt doubly bad and encouraging my circle of R friends to do the same. Most have agreed too, my wife is still refusing to vote D, but won't vote R.
We will party when this liberal whitehouse and congress takes a historic beating, when you have spent worse than any democrat in modern history ... who the hell cares about saving anything.
Look at the polls man, 29% for congress, 35% for Bush. Now remember 15% would be supportive of any question asked. So about 1 in 5 thinking Americans support Bush and the Republicans. Note: even with the major terrorist catch in England Bush's numbers move only 1-2%. This is because real conservatives are completely pissed off - you folks just don't get it and continue to pour gas on the fire. Rather than hold the leadership accountable you keep praying for a repeat of 2004 - ain't gonna happen (I and 10 million more conservatives were 2004, and you've insulted, disrespected, thrashed our values, made fun of us, told us how wonderful Islam is, put our men in prision, been completely inept in so ways for the past two years.
Posted by: John McDonald on August 14, 2006 06:59 PM