The Base

The man pictured above is Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) who you probably haven't heard of, but who's at the center of what's probably the most under-covered political story of the day. Ron Brownstein's taking note:

This ideological inquisition among Republicans isn't confined to the presidential race. The two House Republicans most critical of the Iraq war (Walter Jones of North Carolina and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland) have drawn serious primary challengers from the right. So had Nebraska's Chuck Hagel, the Senate Republican most critical of the war, before he announced his retirement last month. Virginia Republicans recently decided to choose their next Senate nominee by convention rather than primary -- a move that favors conservative former Gov. Jim Gilmore over moderate Rep. Tom Davis. [...]

On problems ranging from health care to energy, they have retreated to a reflexive denigration of government and praise of unfettered markets aimed squarely at hard-core conservatives. Tellingly, the GOP hopefuls have broken with Bush primarily on the policies -- comprehensive immigration reform and the Medicare drug benefit -- that he consciously formulated to expand the party base.

Arnold Schwarzennegger and perhaps more plausibly Charlie Crist in Florida show there are templates for very successful versions of Republicanism out there, but the GOP's base's bizarre view that defeat in 2006 stemmed from insufficiently dogmatic adherence to the gospel of spending reductions, so that budget cuts plus doubling down on the war will redeem the party, is forcing everyone to walk off the cliff.

Comments

Show business for ugly people, indeed...

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 11:46 AM

I'm sure all of the Ned Lamont supporters out there agree wholeheartedly with the idea that a party shouldn't be purged of those who disagree with the base about the war.

Posted by Al | October 26, 2007 11:52 AM

I get the feeling that the Republcans will run a balls-to-the=wall anti-immigrant PR blitz, including all kinds of stories about immigrants who raped babies. There may even some Willie Hortonesque ads as topping on a large anti-immigrant push.

And, of course, it's the immigrants one has to fear blowing up large buildings too!

I'm betting it'll help some of them win seats they otherwise would not. Immigration is not a settled issue, it can be demagogued effectively, and the Dems haven't come up with an effective way to hit back on it.

I hope I'm wrong but I hope Dems are prepared to take an onslaught.

Posted by blatherskite | October 26, 2007 11:53 AM

It's happening here in New Mexico, too. After Pete Domenici announced his retirement from the senate, and the state let out a huge sigh of relief, his annointed successor Heather Wilson announced for the seat immediately.

Unfortunately for her, Rep. Steve Pearce (NM-2) has decided he wants the seat too. He's a fire-breathing wingnut and has already started campaigning to her right. Now, Heather is no moderate, but she plays one on teevee and in the local papers. Now she has a serious primary threat coming at her from the right, and I'm sure that by the time the primary actually takes place, she'll be compared favorably with Jane Fonda.

Popcorn sales have skyrocketed.

Posted by merciless | October 26, 2007 11:59 AM

Some data: Gilchrest won his seat in 2006 by 35 points (compared to 50 points in 2002 and 2004). But the district has 50/50 Republican/Democratic registration. Doesn't sound to me like a district that's pining for a hard-core conservative.

Posted by MattF | October 26, 2007 12:01 PM

I'm sure all of the Ned Lamont supporters out there agree wholeheartedly with the idea that a party shouldn't be purged of those who disagree with the base about the war.

I don't think that's the force of Yglesias's criticism, Al.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 26, 2007 12:07 PM

Anti-illegal immgrant. Come on, blatherskite, you can say it: "Illegal".

It's not a hard word to remember.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 26, 2007 12:13 PM

but i thought Dems were the only ones who purged the infidels from their party !

Posted by cleek | October 26, 2007 12:18 PM

OK, what's the point, SCMT? That a party coming off of a loss should be tacking to the middle rather than to its base? How is Gilchrest 2007 different than Lieberman 2005?

Posted by Al | October 26, 2007 12:27 PM

Brent Bellmore has helped me make my point. It really gets some people worked up.

Thanks Brent!

Posted by blatherskite | October 26, 2007 12:31 PM

Al:

For one thing, there is a difference in whether the general public agrees with the base or not. As far as I'm concerned the GOP is welcome to purge the few members who actually have views most of us don't find moronic and/or abhorrent. Even though the Democrats lost in 2004, the country, and Connecticut even moreso, was trending against the war throughout 2005 and 2006.

I think one should also note that Gilchrest hasn't been on CNN telling everyone how the Republicans' Iraq policy is playing into the terrorists' hands. I wouldn't disagree and I would admire him for saying it, but he seems to have enough sense to disagree with the base without calling them fools or traitors. Not that that's enough to prevent a primary challenge from the right, but if Lieberman had shown some good faith he certainly wouldn't have drawn the same kind of opposition from the left.

Posted by ibid | October 26, 2007 12:35 PM

While Al's original point is a perfectly fair riposte, what ibid said.

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 12:38 PM

Gilchirst is my rep. I voted for him in 2004, based on his generally sane policies, but voted against him in 2006 based on the generally insane GOP party policies that his existence was facilitating.

I don't know for sure about the district, but my impression is that it definitely trends Republican. I also don't know if the Dems have a decent candidate lined up to challenge for the seat in case Gilchrist loses--given the huge margins he's won by in the past, they probably were just writing the seat off.

I'd vote for him in the primary, but MD only allows registered Dems or Repubs to vote in their party primaries.

Posted by Doug T | October 26, 2007 12:42 PM

Gilchrest was also kept off of the committee on climate change because he wasn't a die-hard denialist.

Al, Matt's point is not that OMG THE GOP IS PURGING WHICH IS HORRIBLE AND BAD but just that it's interesting and noteworthy. I don't think anybody's arguing that this is, like, illegitimate. I think what Matt is saying is not that this is offensive and morally wrong, but rather that it's a dubious electoral strategy for the party as a whole.

MattF, the district may be evenly divided in registration, but it gave Bush like 65% in 2004. Gilchrest is about as moderate as the district is likely to get.

Posted by SDM | October 26, 2007 12:45 PM

Al and Brett Bellless competeing to see who can be scummier. I say Scummy Brett for now, but crazy Al is always up there.

Posted by Jennifer | October 26, 2007 12:46 PM

Also, there is a pretty good D candidate, a State's Attorney named Frank Kratovil. This isn't going to be a top-10 race or anything, but he might have a somewhat better shot against a super hard-righty.

Posted by SDM | October 26, 2007 12:51 PM

Where are these "spending cuts" of which you speak?

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | October 26, 2007 12:54 PM

Deficit spending has definitely hurt the GOP with both GOP voters and the socially liberal, fiscally conservative center. The Scaife-owned Pittsburgh-Tribune Review, for instance, refused to endorse Rick Santorum over that very issue (telling it's readership to not vote for any Senator in 2006).

It's hurt. Just not as much as the war.

Posted by Shinyk | October 26, 2007 1:08 PM

"How is Gilchrest 2007 different than Lieberman 2005?"

Well, Lieberman was challenged not so much because of his views, but because of how he acted in response to them. Instead of merely supporting the war in almost every single way, he would attack and undermine those Democrats who didn't. He would offer full-throated support of the Bush administration and disparage his Democratic colleagues for simply disagreeing. He acted as if his position was superior and that anyone who disagreed with him was not only ignorant and amoral, but effectively against the interests of the nation, indirectly if not explicitly. After years of putting up with this bullshit, the Democrats in Connecticut had enough, particularly because he couldn't even use his state to justify his actions.

Of course, that's what primaries are for. I don't have a problem with any sort of measure like this, even if I disagree with certain reasons behind it. It's part of the political process. I merely have a problem with the unbelievably hypocritical responses from the Republicans who act like the Democrats try to purge anyone who even thinks about disagreeing with the party platform.

Posted by Brian | October 26, 2007 1:51 PM

Arnold is sui generis. He's not a template for anybody else.

Posted by Jose Padilla | October 26, 2007 3:34 PM

Coming from Florida, I have to say that there is an awful lot to dislike about Crist. Sure, he's kind of going to allow felons to vote, and he seems mostly driven to be fiscal conservative rather than a "values" conservative. But still, as a fiscal conservative his views are just nuts and have really started to hurt the state a lot.

In the midst of a state budget crisis which has lead the governor to demand that all state departments cut their budgets by 10%, he has called the legislature into a special session. What does he hope to have the legislature do to help in this crisis? Implement "tax relief".

What is so bizarre about this is that the big issue that drove the 2006 campaign was not taxes. The big issue was a crisis in home owners insurance rates. The governor has done next to nothing about this and instead proposes to lower taxes in an already low tax state in which no one outside of the Chamber of Commerce and my right-wing father was complaining about taxes.

Yes, there are serious structural issues in Florida's tax system that need to be addressed. For example, there's a ridiculous provision in the state constitution preventing home valuations used to determine property tax rates from going up more than a given amount per year for a given homeowner. This means that if you bought your house in 2005 and your neighbor bought hers in 1990, and your houses are exactly the same, you pay MUCH higher taxes then your neighbor. And, no, the governor's plan does nothing to address this problem.

So if you think corporate money Republicans are better than religious right Republicans then I suppose Crist is an improvement. So maybe he's only half as bad as your average Republican. I don't care. He still is pretty much a disaster.

Posted by Rob Mac | October 26, 2007 4:48 PM

Re: What is so bizarre about this is that the big issue that drove the 2006 campaign was not taxes. The big issue was a crisis in home owners insurance rates.

It was both, if by taxes you mean "property taxes". Due to the huge run-up in home prices property taxes are way out of line in Florida and have helped put home-ownership out of reach even for many solidly middle class (but non-home owners) persons like me.

Re: The governor has done next to nothing about this

!?!! The governor called a special session of the legislature which passed an insurance reform bill that was widely (and reasonably expected) to result in double digit (percentage) rate rollbacks. Well, the governor got rolled by the insurers who for the most part have dug in their heels and refused to roll back their rates, even requesting increases in some cases. So now the governor is hauling insurance execs in to testify under supoena as to what they are up to. This is going to be a long-running drama. Stay tuned.

Re: ...and instead proposes to lower taxes in an already low tax state in which no one outside of the Chamber of Commerce and my right-wing father was complaining about taxes.

PROPERTY taxes, not taxes in general! And they are NOT low in this state, they are exorbitant. Apparently you are either someone who pays a very low tax bill on your home due to being grandfathered in under the old Save Our Home Act (which keeps taxes from soaring for existing homeowners, but also locks them into their current abode) or perhaps you are a renter who is content to remain such and has not looked into the cost of home ownership.

On the larger topic, is Crist a perfect governor? No, absolutely not. But compared with Jeb Bush, heck, compared with 99% of the wingnut GOPers running both Forida and the USA as a whole, he's a saint.

Posted by JonF | October 26, 2007 5:19 PM

The issue that lost the 2006 elections was the war, plain and simple.

Tellingly, the GOP hopefuls have broken with Bush primarily on the policies -- comprehensive immigration reform and the Medicare drug benefit -- that he consciously formulated to expand the party base.

I'm sorry. Immigration is not a losing issue for the GOP. I can see breaking with Bush on the Medicare drug benefit hurting candidates, but not opposing "comprehensive immigration reform" (amnesty).

Why are some people so eager to import millions and millions of poor people from other cultures?

Posted by Glaivester | October 26, 2007 8:00 PM

Re: Immigration is not a losing issue for the GOP.

Long-term it is a loser because unless you planon deprting all Hispanics (including the majority who are American citizens) playing that card will drive the growing number of Hispanic voters into the Democrats' waiting arms, much as the infamous Southern Strategy cemented Blacks as part of the Democrat coaltion.
Don't believe me? Look at California where the GOP tried to play the nativist card and is now a permanent minority unless it can run movie stars like the current governor aho are pretty much liberals in most things.

Posted by Jonf | October 26, 2007 9:24 PM

"Arnold Schwarzennegger and perhaps more plausibly Charlie Crist in Florida show there are templates for very successful versions of Republicanism out there..."

Actually, Schwarzenegger tried to be a Republican for almost 3 years and failed miserably - most of his policies were rejected by the people as well as the legislature. Then he turned into a Democrat in practice and was re-elected. Do you think he could win a Republican primary now? (Of course the voters' preference for movie action heroes would be in his favor whatever his policies).

Posted by skeptonomist | October 27, 2007 11:20 AM

Long-term it is a loser because unless you plan on deprting all Hispanics (including the majority who are American citizens) playing that card will drive the growing number of Hispanic voters into the Democrats' waiting arms, much as the infamous Southern Strategy cemented Blacks as part of the Democrat coaltion.

The Hispanics are not going to vote GOP anyway, so the goal ought to be to stop their population from increasing. Limiting immigration to

As for California, the GOP lost California because so many Hispanics were allowed to come in, and becasue the whites left. This would have happened the same way without Proposition 187.

Posted by Glaivester | October 27, 2007 2:54 PM

Re: The Hispanics are not going to vote GOP anyway, so the goal ought to be to stop their population from increasing.

That sounds kind of scary you know. People who talk about stopping populations from increasing may start talking about Final Solutions when the first idea doesn't work. Why not just accept these people among as they way others once accepted your ancestors? (I assume you are not Native American here).

Posted by Jonf | October 27, 2007 11:50 PM