More conflicts between Republican moderates and conservatives in this article... I have three quesitons for Republicans (I'm being sincere, no snideness): 1. Which of these candidates would you vote for (limited info I know, but from what you know). 2. Would you personally rather see the Republican party move to the right, or become more moderate? I don't see much chance of it remaining as it is, since it's sort of fragmented right now. But if you think it might, that's fine too. 3. Would you rather the Republican party compromise to win more of the moderate electorate? How can one make the Republican party more "inclusive?" Bush succeeded in doing so during the election, but most normally Democratic groups that helped him out are now reverting in polls. So? New Jersey governor's race exposes GOP split June 14, 2001 Posted: 1:54 PM EDT (1754 GMT) TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- After almost eight years under GOP moderate Christie Whitman, the question now in New Jersey is which Republican Party will advance to the governor's race. Conservative GOP candidate Bret Schundler is anti-abortion, for school vouchers and against what he calls intrusive gun-ownership laws. His opponent for the Republican nomination, Bob Franks, is a moderate four-term congressman who supports abortion rights and environmental causes. "Quite frankly, you're seeing a struggle for the heart and soul of the party," said Republican consultant David Murray. The winner of the June 26 primary will probably face Democrat Jim McGreevey, who in 1997 was a little-known suburban mayor who lost to Whitman by fewer than 25,000 votes. With Virginia the only other state electing a governor this year, both national parties are sending money and staff to New Jersey, hoping a win builds momentum for 2002 midterm elections. New Jersey Republicans are traditionally more liberal than national party leaders and candidates in other states. Some state party leaders fear Republicans at the national level are pushing a conservative agenda on New Jersey. Schundler, for example, has drawn money and attention nationally from gun-control opponents and anti-abortion rights activists. Republican state Senate President Donald T. DiFrancesco, who became acting governor earlier this year when Whitman left to become head of the Environmental Protection Agency, dropped out of the race in April after coming under fire for his business dealings. Whitman, who supported abortion rights, has hardly been mentioned in the race for the GOP nomination. Instead, the two Republicans have likened themselves to Ronald Reagan. Schundler, a Wall Street investment banker has told voters he is a Reagan man despite working for Democrat Gary Hart's presidential campaign. A three-term mayor of Jersey City, the state's second-largest city, Schundler wants more charter schools, tax benefits to parents who pay private tuition and major cuts in state debt. Front-runner Franks backed Newt Gingrich and the Republican right and says he is a Reagan conservative while portraying himself as a reformer who wants referendums, changes in campaign financing and an elected state auditor. Franks was little known outside his congressional district until November, when he came close to beating Jon Corzine, an investment banker who shattered campaign spending records to win a seat in the Senate. A May 10 poll by Quinnipiac University, the most recent independent survey, put Franks ahead of Schundler 46 percent to 24 percent. But the poll, which had a 5-point margin of error, said 28 percent of voters were undecided. Franks and Schundler have each raised approximately $6 million. McGreevey, 42, campaigns on familiar ground: cuts in auto insurance, property tax relief, limited state debt. "If Schundler should win, there would be between him and McGreevey one of those clear ideological differences," said Maurice Carroll, a Quinnipiac political scientist. "If it's Franks versus McGreevey, you have two fairly centrist guys." Copyright 2001 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. New Jersey governor's race exposes GOP split June 14, 2001 Posted: 1:54 PM EDT (1754 GMT) ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment... [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 15, 2001).]
haven -- this kind of talk surfaces all the time. How many times have I heard people complain about the Democratic Party and how it needs to move more to the left...or more to the center. I have some democrat friends who want the democatic party to essentially be the socialist party of america. Others are more moderate. To seek "inclusion" is to bring in all of those voices...sometimes that's simply not possible...but I don't see any third parties making any legit runs. For all the crying about the two party system, third parties don't even come close to winning elections on a national scale. Clinton ran as a moderate to distance himself from the old Carter ways...and all of a sudden, the "dead" democratic party was resurgent again. And then just 2 years later, the GOP rocked the mid-term elections and assumed control of Congress. This thinking...largely led by the talking heads who like to write dramatic stories about how this party or that party will never win again...is cyclical. I think the Republican Party should stay exactly as it is...control of the House, the White House, and a big presence in the Supreme Court is fine with me. ------------------
1. Schundler 2. I would rather see the party move to the right, but unfortunately as years pass both parties become more and more liberal. 3. Not sure ------------------
Yeah, Max, I seem to remember a lot of post-Dukakis and post-Republican House Takeover requiems for the Democratic Party. It's a cyclical thing. We're getting our asses handed to us right now. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited June 15, 2001).]
MadMax: I disagree. I think there really is a subtle, but real ideological struggle going on in the Republican party. Until Reagan, the Republicans really were the fringe party. Yes, the won quite a bit, but they always did so by getting a particular issue and running with it. If you look at polls, more than 55% of Americans considered themselves Democrats from the New Deal until Reagan. Reagan, while I detest him, was brilliant in forming a coalition of the religious right and fiscal conservatives. Formerly, the religious right had little influence in politics, but Reagan's backers harnessed them into an effective force. The "Moral Majority" and such (that was Bennet, right?). But a lot of these people really don't have much in common. Fiscal conservativism has almost nothing to do ideologically with social conservatism. Now, all of those leaders who like the idea of giving tax cuts, but don't really like the Christian coalition are getting a little annoyed at the monolithic treatment by party leadership. The Republicans have controlled congress for a few years... but these things go in cycles. They're, in fact, in a great deal of trouble there. More people voted Democratic than Republican in the last election, and it was only through funds-mismanagement that the Democrats didn't gain (I have that from a VERY good source) control of the House. Even assuming the current percentages stay true, the Democrats will have the House and the Senate next time. Bush isn't helping things: polls show he's already alienating the electorate, which is hard to do in your first term short of a scandal. The Republicans, in a sense, are facing the same problems the Democrats did after 1994. In 1994, the Democrats had obviously lost their roots, and were trying to redefine themselves. They haven't finished, but they're better off than they were. The social climate changes. Economics change. Parties have to adapt as well, in order to survive and flourish. Republicans are going to have to make a choice. I'd actually rather they stay to the right - since I think that would ensure Democratic majorities for quite a while . ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
haven -- ok..not much else to say...i recognize that's your opinion. But again..I heard these very same things before about both parties. It's easy to get excited about them when they're calling for the death knell of the opposite party. It just doesn't end up working that way. Economic conservatives and social conservatives do share common ground...they deplore the policies of the democratic party. That should be enough. If you're asking me personally...I'm much more concerned with the economic issues than I am the social issues of the Republican party. What I believe, personally, puts me in line with many social conservatives..but I don't vote for those issues. Ultimately, there can not be a perfect candidate...I would not like a McCain presidency...but I'd be damned if I would withhold my vote for him if his opponent was someone along the Gore line. That's why I think ultimately the whole "inclusion" B.S. is just that...B.S. ------------------
MadMax: Do you really think that parties never undergo radical changes? Certainly, the Democratic party completely changed with Roosevelt. Likewise, it was a completely different Republican party after Reagan. Why can't there be change now? A party has to be more than simply rejection of the someone else's ideology. My *big* problem with the Clinton-democrats is that they seem to define themselves as "Not Republicans" more than Democrats. I have an issue with that. Here's a question, then: what do you think, *would*, provoke radical change for either Democrats or Republicans? Just losing for a long period of time? Or is there anything else, iyo? BTW, that was a Republican strategist they quoted... not a Democrat. For that matter, doesn't the recent defection sort of make the case for some sort of schism? Or how about this, an email I received from my Republican cousin yesterday: I can't believe I'm typing this, but I think we need a democratic senate with this blithering idiot in office. Dad pointed out that Bush is too rough on the environment and I defended Bush but it does seem like he (Bush) does just ignore scientific facts. It seems like he does not care how many people he pisses off as long as the people that he works with and cares about still like him. Of course oil guys will like you if you allow them to sell the waste from their plants to lower class school cafeterias as nutrition sludge. Ok so that’s an exaggeration I hope but you get the picture. I just wanted your input on our President I figured it would be comical. See ya at Christmas. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment... [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 15, 2001).]
i'm sorry your cousin is misguided! I think it takes losing for a while, for the most part, to bring forth real radical change. I posted earlier on another thread today, politics is ultimately the quest for power. If change is necessary to win elections, then change is what will happen. I don't think we're on the verge of a major change. I'm active in more than a few local republican groups, and I don't sense this inner friction at all. Of course NJ Republicans are more liberal than Texas Republicans...fine...but when it comes time to vote, we'll see what lever they pull. ------------------
haven: the historical change in the Democratic party was towards Roosevelt, right? The historical change in the Republican party was towards Reagan, right? Why would this historical change in the Republican party be AWAY from Bush? Isn't that what you are setting up? ------------------ Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.
RichRocket: I'm not really sure. I think it could go either way, honestly. I just can't see this sitting on the fence, indefinitely. Either the fiscal or social conservatives will win out... they just don't seem compatible to me, given the somewhat liberal predilections of many fiscal conservatives. I wanted to ask people who actually are conservative for their opinions, since anything I predict might be tempered by what I'd rather happen. Of course, the same might prevent you from thinking of radical changing in the Republican party, if you're very loyal. *shrug* ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment... [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 15, 2001).]
I've always personally found the Bush Presidents to be far different from Reagan. Bush Senior was more of an Eisenhower/Country Club Republican. He never believed in the Reagan Revolution and started dismantling it pretty soon after he entered office. His economic policies were far closer to Keynes than to Laffer. And he gave in too easily to the Dems (mostly because I don't think he believed in the things that Reagan would've fought for). The Current Bush is not exactly the same as his father, but I don't get the feeling that he is a true believer, either. Maybe it's because he isn't a true believer in anything beyond wanting to be President (and therefore, he allows himself to be pushed around a little by the PTBs in the Party), or maybe it's because he doesn't articulate his feelings well enough for me to believe that he believes. The thing that Reagan always had going for him was that he believed every word of what he said and he could articulate those beliefs to the public. That goes a long way toward winning people over to your point of view, believe it or not. To me, the thing that the Party is truly missing right now is leadership. It's often not about ideas. A good leader can bring the disparate wings of the party together. On the Democratic side, look at a guy like Clinton. He did a good job with the Democratic Coalition. He held together conservative elements of the Party and liberal elements of the party. He was able to do that because he, like him or not, really was a pretty good leader (for the most part). He effectively communicated his position, and even though he tended to stretch the truth a lot, you'd still get the feeling that he truly believed the things he said (even if that wasn't always the case). The problem, as I see it, is that the Party has no leader. We didn't have one in 1989-1992, and look where it got us. We haven't really had one since Gingrich stepped down (Newt was an effective leader, like him or not. He lost a good bit of his effectiveness later on, though, as he lost his focus. I also think he was a little too conservative to really lead the Party beyond where he had led it. He wasn't a Big Tent guy), and look how we've done since then. It we want to get back to 1994 or to 1982-1988, there has to be an effective leader at the top. Unfortunately, I don't think Bush is it. And I don't think a better leader can emerge while Bush is in the White House. It's just too bad that Jack Kemp didn't win in 1988. Had he done so, the Democrats might never have been able to rebound in 1992, and the Republican Party would likely be better right now had that happened than what we really are (even with holding the White House and the House of Representatives). ------------------
