In the aftermath of
the election loss many Republican leaders have said that the party must
change its stance on things like “self-deporting” Hispanics, or invading the
privacy of people’s lives or stridently dismissing anyone who disagrees with
their philosophy of tax cuts for the wealthy.
These leaders are not saying this because they believe it, but because
they want to adjust their public persona to what will win elections.
But hold on here, the
Republican party is not controlled by these leaders, it is controlled by
the radical right, the men and women who will vote to nominate the most extreme
Conservatives even if those candidates are destined to lose. And now that extreme
right is striking back, with the comforting notion (comforting to them at
least) that the Republicans need to be even more extreme to win elections.
Evangelical leaders
and conservative activists have a simple message for establishment Republicans
about Mitt Romney’s failed presidential bid: We told you so.
After nearly two weeks
of listening to GOP officials pledge to assert greater control over the party
and its most strident voices in the wake of Romney’s loss, grass-roots
activists have begun to fight back, saying that they are not to blame for the
party’s losses in November.
Yes, contrary to the evidence right in front of them these
people think the problem with the Republicans is that they were too moderate.
“The
moderates have had their candidate in 2008 and they had their candidate in
2012. And they got crushed in both elections. Now they tell us we have to keep
moderating. If we do that, will we win?” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of
the Family Leader. Vander Plaats is an influential Christian conservative who
opposed Romney in the Iowa
caucuses 10 months ago and opposed Sen. John McCain’s candidacy four years ago.
Remember Rick Santorum, the ‘man on dog’ candidate whose
near total focus was to enact legislation that removed the rights of gay and
lesbians, well he’s
not going to go away.
We
do not need to have the "rebranding" vs. "purity" debate.
That false choice is not what this is about. It's about the fact that a vast
majority of Americans want a better life for themselves and their families.
And what about the new Hispanic leaders in the party like
Texas Senator-elect Ted Cruz, as far right a person as anyone in the Party.
Cruz
falls squarely in the camp that thinks Romney was not conservative enough and
did not fully articulate a conservative contrast to President Obama, except
during the first presidential debate.
“It
was the one time we actually contested ideas, presented two viewpoints and
directions for the country,” he said at
the Federalist Society’s annual dinner in Washington. “And then,
inevitably, there are these mandarins of politics, who give the voice: ‘Don’t
show any contrasts. Don’t rock the boat.’ So by the third debate, I’m pretty
certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama.”
Yep, Texas and America
is going to find out that people like Mr. Cruz are what they say they are. And in that nobody wins.
The extremists are so stupid.
ReplyDeleteMcCain and Romney did not run as "moderates." They ran on really crazy platforms that only seemed moderate in contrast to what the utter lunatics who lost the primaries were saying. Just look at McCain's and Romney's running mates.
A truly moderate Republican could have beaten Obama in 2012 for all the reasons explained on this site. By a truly moderate Republican, I mean someone who endorsed the typical Conservative nonsense about supply side economics (otherwise he would not be a Republican), but accepted basic concepts like science and took non-controversial positions on social issues (and also did not come off as entitled or vapid).
Also, I vaguely remember a time when the Federalist Society was a respectable institution. Now it appears to be a vetting process for extremist politicians and judges.