A House Divided: (Un) civil War Within the Republican Party

[SirJosephPorter]

In what could be a repeat of the New York 23rd District (and a nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials), conservative activists are gearing up to challenge leading GOP candidates in more than a dozen key House and Senate races in 2010.

Uncivil War: Conservatives to challenge a dozen GOP candidates - Yahoo! News

The most prominent case is that of Florida Senate seat, where the moderate Crist is being chalked by the ultra conservative Rubio. But there are plenty other cases.

Activists predict a wave that could roll from California to Kentucky to New Hampshire and that could leave even some GOP incumbents — Utah Sen. Bob Bennett is one — facing unexpectedly fierce challenges from their right flank.

The tensions between the two visions threaten to limit the party’s gains in an election year that is shaping up in its favor.

New York 23, on some scale, is the first battle of a larger internal Republican debate over how to define the party,” said former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio,

Rubio’s case is particularly instructive. Crist is comfortably ahead in the primary as well as for the Senate seat, he leads the Democratic candidate by a comfortable margin. Still he faces a serious challenge by Rubio.

And the conservatives don’t care if Republicans win a seat or not. Rather than elect a moderate Republican, they would prefer to lose the seat to a democrat.

To Wilkinson (a Florida tea party organizer), he’d rather burn the house down if it means saving it.

“We would lose if Charlie Crist got elected or if another person who doesn’t support our policies got elected,” he said. “Our members are actively going to get out there and create awareness of the governor’s actions.”

So if Crist wins the primary, a third party challenge by Rubio certainly cannot be ruled out. If that happens, Crist probably would lose the seat to the Democrat (currently Crist is the favorite to wit he senate seat).

Indeed, conservative base may derail Republican hopes in may states, including California, Illinois, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky etc. Illinois is a particularly interesting case. Republicans have found Mark Kirk, who may be highly competitive in a state where Republicans have found it very difficult to win a Senate seat as of late.

However, he is not ideologically pure enough for the Republican base.
“We’re going to work hard as hell to make sure Mark Kirk doesn’t win,” said Evert Evertsen, an Illinois tea party organizer. “Mark Kirk is about as liberal as Arlen Specter was.”

It will be interesting to see how the civil (or rather, the uncivil) war plays out, and how far it hurts the Republican chances in 2010.

 

[YukonJack]

What a silly nonsense!

The Democrats have the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Yet, they can't pass a bill that should be a shoo-in.

Why? Because the REAL civil war is within the Democratic Party.

 

[taxslave]

Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of a third party in the US. The wacos on the extreme right are working towards a theocracy no different than the taliban and every bit as dangerous. Moderates from both parties may eventually form a government. The other possibility is that it will still be a two party system and since the Democrats are basically a center right party the moderate Republicans will join them keeping the wacos out forever. The prospect of good leaders like Clinton and Obama for years to come may just save the US from imploding.

 

[Niflmir]

Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of a third party in the US. The wacos on the extreme right are working towards a theocracy no different than the taliban and every bit as dangerous. Moderates from both parties may eventually form a government. The other possibility is that it will still be a two party system and since the Democrats are basically a center right party the moderate Republicans will join them keeping the wacos out forever. The prospect of good leaders like Clinton and Obama for years to come may just save the US from imploding.

Maybe. Hopefully.

I am not a big fan of party politics: parties choosing who the people could elect? Is that really democracy? Sure, the situation in the US is different, and I am not as familiar with it, but it is bad enough here.

If all parties put forward the same candidate... is there anything to stop such a tyranny?

 

[Cannuck]

Charles Mahtesian it Politico's national politics editor and a member of the far left. His opinion is meaningless.

 

[FiveParadox]

It would be interesting to see a third party emerge in the United States of America.

I have to wonder, though, whether the United States system is really one that has evolved to be able to accomodate (effectively) the politics of more than two parties. The rules in the Senate of the United States already make it incredibly easy to filibuster legislation to death, shutting down the legislative process. The introduction of a realistic third party, and therefore the greater splitting of the vote between the two traditional parties, could cause serious problems for the effectiveness of the debate and passing of bills.

 

[Tonington]

His opinion is meaningless.

No more so than any other 'news' commentator. Are you trying to be the ying to SJP's yang?

 

[Niflmir]

It would be interesting to see a third party emerge in the United States of America.

I have to wonder, though, whether the United States system is really one that has evolved to be able to accomodate (effectively) the politics of more than two parties. The rules in the Senate of the United States already make it incredibly easy to filibuster legislation to death, shutting down the legislative process. The introduction of a realistic third party, and therefore the greater splitting of the vote between the two traditional parties, could cause serious problems for the effectiveness of the debate and passing of bills.

Well, idealy it could improve things, because it would be necessary for at least two parties to work together to actually get things done.

Of course, our current parliament is an example of how the real is never ideal.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What a silly nonsense!

The Democrats have the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Yet, they can't pass a bill that should be a shoo-in.

Why? Because the REAL civil war is within the Democratic Party.

Really YJ? Can you refute anything that is said in the article? You can’t, because it happens to be the truth (however much truth may hurt to you).

He has talked to tea party supporters; he got the story from horse’s mouth, so to speak. There is really very little of his opinion, for you to call it utter nonsense. For the most part, he has let Republicans speak for themselves, of moderate and conservative variety. In case you are not aware, this civil war lost Republicans a very safe Republican seat in the 23 district of New York. A Democrat was elected in a seat that was held by Republicans since the Civil War (the one about slavery, not the one currently being fought).

I think Republicans have a real problem in 2010, unless they get their act together.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Indeed, the problem may be even more severe in 2012. They may do all right by declaring an uneasy truce in 2010. Voters don’t expect anything from Republicans in 2010; it really will be a referendum on Democrats. Republicans may do OK by simply criticizing Democrats; both moderates can conservatives can do that.

The real problem may come in 2012. At that time Republicans will have to articulate a vision for the future of the country. If one or the other faction is not satisfied with that vision, there could be a major schism in the Republican Party.

Besides, what kind of vision would it be? Would they want to cut taxes (and thereby raise deficit even further, as Bush did)? Would they want to reduce the deficit? Then they cannot cut taxes. Would the want to gut (or even abolish) programs like Medicare? Conservatives would want to, moderates wouldn’t. What about social issues, abortion, gay rights, marijuana etc.?

Republicans could have major problems in 2012, unless they can find some way to heal the rift between moderates and conservatives.

 

[Francis2004]

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) criticized conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, on Friday, for drawing comparisons between President Obama and Adolph Hitler. And, in a sequence that seems rare in modern Republican politics, the Virginia Republican seems eager to publicize his rebuke.

Cantor's office sent over a write-up of the congressman's interview with Bloomberg News, in which he praised Limbaugh as a voice of the conservative movement but condemned his use of Nazi imagery and analogies to chastise the president.

"Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?" Cantor said. "No, I don't, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

Speaking out against the Hitler comparisons -- even when they are made by conservative voices -- would seem like an utterly non-controversial posture for a Republican leader (and a Jewish one at that) to make. But Cantor and his colleagues in the House have, to this point, walked a fine line in rebuking Rush -- fretting about the pushback they might receive from his listeners. The Congressman is the lone Jewish Republican in the House. And aides stress that he has consistently lamented any use of Hitler or Nazism to make a political point.

The issue, nevertheless, emerged once again on Thursday after a tea party protest that Cantor attended featured several signs equating health care reform with the Holocaust. Democrats jumped on the imagery -- alongside Cantor's presence -- by insisting that the extremist elements of the party had taken over the event.

On a more emotional and honest level, decorated writer and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel tweeted (yes, he's on Twitter) that the signs at the Capital Hill protests were an "indecent and disgusting" form of "political hatred."

Cantor, of course, can't be held responsible for the actions of a widely attended health care protest. But clearly, both he and his advisers saw the need to demonstrate some distance.

"The Republican Party in its roots is a party of inclusion and we ought to be promoting that and making sure that voices are heard," Cantor said in his interview with Bloomberg Television.

Cantor Pushes Back Against Limbaugh, Hitler-Obama Analogies


Indeed can the Republicans bring it together in time.. There is no doubt they will eventually but time is a problem and at this rate it is not on their side..

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, why can't the regime, ruled by a Democratic President, a House lead by a San Francisco Democrat and a Senate bossed over by a Democrat from Nevada pass a bill that is supposed to be the salvation of 46 million Americans?

Internecine warfare, perhaps?

 

[FiveParadox]

I do believe because the Republican Party of the United States in the Senate is being unco-operative.

It isn’t like our own Canadian Senate, where a simple 53/105 can force legislation to pass.

 

[YukonJack]

"I do believe because the Republican Party of the United States in the Senate is being unco-operative."

So, why can't they pass the bill in the House?

BTW, in the Senate the Democrats have a veto-proof 60 votes, if the stakes are right.

Republicans have nothing to do with it, because they don't have the power to do anything about it.

This is strictly a Democratic affair.

 

[Niflmir]

Indeed, the problem may be even more severe in 2012. They may do all right by declaring an uneasy truce in 2010. Voters don’t expect anything from Republicans in 2010; it really will be a referendum on Democrats. Republicans may do OK by simply criticizing Democrats; both moderates can conservatives can do that.

The real problem may come in 2012. At that time Republicans will have to articulate a vision for the future of the country. If one or the other faction is not satisfied with that vision, there could be a major schism in the Republican Party.

Besides, what kind of vision would it be? Would they want to cut taxes (and thereby raise deficit even further, as Bush did)? Would they want to reduce the deficit? Then they cannot cut taxes. Would the want to gut (or even abolish) programs like Medicare? Conservatives would want to, moderates wouldn’t. What about social issues, abortion, gay rights, marijuana etc.?

Republicans could have major problems in 2012, unless they can find some way to heal the rift between moderates and conservatives.

I am not at all sure that governments care about deficits. One can always depend on the fact that at some point, you won't get reelected and then your opponent will have the unenviable task of raising taxes.

That seems to be the irresponsible way of the tax reducing crowd: the crowd that always wants to reduce taxes, no matter what.

 

[DaSleeper]

Why is everyone blowing smoke at the republicans....the democrats have enough people in the house and the senate to pass anything they want, yet some people want to divert the attention to one single state lost by the republican to divert attention from the troubles that the democrats are in...
That is the most obvious straw man I have ever seen......somebody is getting desperate for a winnable argument:roll:;-):lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am not at all sure that governments care about deficits. One can always depend on the fact that at some point, you won't get reelected and then your opponent will have the unenviable task of raising taxes.

That seems to be the irresponsible way of the tax reducing crowd: the crowd that always wants to reduce taxes, no matter what.

Sure they don’t, Niflmir. The problem is some tea party organizers are ranting and raving against the deficit. Will they stay true to their beliefs and demand in 2012 that their candidate lay out a blueprint for deficit reduction? That will probably mean no tax cuts.

Or will they stay true to what Republican party has stood for so far, which is, tax cuts at any cost, even if it increases the deficit? I think it is going to be difficult to put together a Republican vision for the party in 2012 as it is. The rift between moderates and conservatives will make the matters worse.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter, why can't the regime, ruled by a Democratic President, a House lead by a San Francisco Democrat and a Senate bossed over by a Democrat from Nevada pass a bill that is supposed to be the salvation of 46 million Americans?

Internecine warfare, perhaps?

Why are you asking me, YJ? I am not a Democrat. If you think that there is a civil war within the Democratic party, post a separate thread about it and we will discuss it. Here we are discussing civil war inside the Republican Party.

 

[Niflmir]

Sure they don’t, Niflmir. The problem is some tea party organizers are ranting and raving against the deficit. Will they stay true to their beliefs and demand in 2012 that their candidate lay out a blueprint for deficit reduction? That will probably mean no tax cuts.

Or will they stay true to what Republican party has stood for so far, which is, tax cuts at any cost, even if it increases the deficit? I think it is going to be difficult to put together a Republican vision for the party in 2012 as it is. The rift between moderates and conservatives will make the matters worse.

I am actually sympathetic to the tax cutting cause because of some libertarian leanings. The problems arise when you cut taxing to appease this faction superficially while not reducing the size of the government at the same time.

If the libertarians were not aligned with the republican party, I wonder what the drive for reducing taxes would be? Since the remainder would be fairly "Big government, but still cut taxes," which is unimaginable.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am actually sympathetic to the tax cutting cause because of some libertarian leanings. The problems arise when you cut taxing to appease this faction superficially while not reducing the size of the government at the same time.

That exactly is the problem with tax cuts, Niflmir. It is easy to cut taxes (and even popular), but it is totally irresponsible to cut taxes without cutting spending. And that is very difficult to do. Spending cuts usually tend to be unpopular. Those not affected by cuts don’t really care one way or other, and those affected get mad at the government. There is no upside for spending cuts.

Now, the responsible thing to do would be not to have any tax cuts until spending cuts are achieved. Unfortunately, the tax cut crows is far from responsible. They attitude is, tax cut at any cost, damn the consequences.

Bush is a classic example of how not to cut taxes. He did not cut spending (he actually increased spending); borrowed massively and enacted tax cuts, thereby replacing healthy budget surplus with huge deficit.

So tax cuts are well and good, but must not be implemented without corresponding spending cuts.