Archive for the ‘Moderates’ Category
Romney Wins, Santorum Second: Here’s To Being Wrong!
Wednesday, January 4th, 2012
So the race is down to a one-term moderate governor who framed the architecture of Obamacare and a Senator from Pennsylvania who couldn’t get re-elected. The latter is conservative; which is something.
The problem with Santorum is money and ground game. He has neither. His plucky Iowa victory is invigorating for his few national supporters and I might be surprised and see that he’ll be able to whip up grassroots support and get funding.
Santorum gave a beautiful and touching speech; deeply personal and affecting. Romney hurriedly, frenetically rattled off his stump speech from the morning. Ann Coulter loved it.
Anyone who pays attention to conservative politics is profoundly disappointed. Santorum is an uphill battle many ways: name recognition for one. He’ll get it now, but will it be enough? Can he energize anyone? He’s not the energize type, is he?
The other candidates fell away. My gut tells me that for Gingrich, it was his personal issues. For Perry, it was illegal immigration. For Bachmann, it was Bachman. She was like the crazy ninja who cut herself every time she slashed.
Ron Paul and his ardent young supporters will have influence again soon–disrupting CPAC and acting like college students loosed on a bender. Sarah Palin is right that the GOP needs to listen to the foundational concerns of many of Paul’s supporters: Fear of an over-reaching government, fear of too many wars in far-flung places for reasons not exactly clear about America’s interest, fear of fiscal insanity (completely rational).
On a personal note, I am profoundly disappointed at the result for Rick Perry. He gave a gracious speech. He has cancelled his South Carolina appearances. It seems over. It makes me sad. He’s a good man. He’s leads Texas in significant and beneficial ways. I can’t help but think we’ll be wishing for a guy like him when results are actually measured down the road.
Thankfully, I believe more is at work here than pure human folly–even though this primary season and President Obama’s fiscal policy have been shot through with nonsense.
And so ends a miserable Iowa caucus. If I were a guessing woman, I’d guess that Mitt Romney will be the eventual nominee.
His moderate, liberal even, stances will be portrayed as crazy-eyed conservative by the media–which is a patent lie.
Mitt’s Romneycare debacle in Massachusetts will neutralize the horror that is Obamacare. Mitt’s legendary flip-flops will trump, in the media’s eyes, Obama’s flop after flop after flop.
DC talking heads will be stunned to see a listless and apathetic base disgusted that the GOP cannot put forth a Republican with any principles.
The race will be close and some sort of defining moment will push people toward Romney or Obama, but the election won’t be the nuclear blowout it should be.
And if my record holds true, I’ll be wrong about this all and you all can take comfort in my horrible predictions. Let’s hope this is a George Costanza post and everything I write is exactly opposite to what will actually happen.
On a more negative note, I was right about McCain and no one listened to me then, either.
So, here’s to being wrong! 2012 is going to be a very long year.
Rick Perry, Government Reform, & Moving The Conversation
Wednesday, November 16th, 2011
Governor Perry freaked out the political class this week by suggesting bold government reforms like these [it's only 19 seconds long]:
Oh wait! That’s not Governor Perry! That’s Ronald Reagan and he was suggesting the same thing. He even talked specifically about getting rid of 75,000 government employees.
Doug Mataconis, resident cynic and Outside The Beltway (misnamed–should be Conventional Wisdom) blogger, says this:
In reality, though, much like Perry’s own chances to win the Republican nomination, there’s very little chance any of these ideas would ever see the light of day. To the extent Perry intended to propose a real plan, he failed here. Instead, all we’ve got are gimmicks.
Gimmicks, eh?
Rhetoric is not a gimmick. And a Ron Paulian purist like Doug Mataconis should feel slightly ashamed for attacking a candidate that has little chance of success. I would wager that Rick Perry’s chances are far greater than Ron Paul’s.
But back to the point.
America has been pushed leftward both rhetorically and policy-wise for years. Bush senior, Clinton, and then George W. Bush all believed in a sort of government care-taker state. Most damaging to the body rhetoric was “Compassionate Conservatism”–a phrase that ceded rhetorical ground to the mean ways of big government and socialism.
It’s frankly rather astonishing that a libertarian would complain about a plan to get rid of government departments, but then, that’s what libertarians do. They complain.
For too long, self-reliance, ingenuity, creativity, personal responsibility, American exceptionalism, optimism, and all those other plucky American values have given way to Obama’s maudlin mealy-mouthed malaise.
Words matter. Rhetoric matters.
No one wants empty words. Words and ideas push in the opposite direction, lead the mind and heart different ways and open the policy world to ideas that have been long maligned are NOT empty. They’re purposeful.
Just like Ronald Reagan knew what he was doing when facing Debbie Downer Jimmy Carter, Rick Perry knows what he’s doing facing Bob the Blamer Obama.
Politics is about deeds AND words. Rick Perry has the deeds covered. One only has to look at his Texas record of reform and conservative (and yes, libertarian) change to see that.
A leader, though, must also use words and push ideas. For those having trouble with Perry’s government reform plan, pretend you’re a teenager again. Perry’s plan is like a kid asking for a 2 am curfew when he really wants 1 am or even midnight. He’s still getting to stay out later than he wanted.
Rick Perry is pushing the envelope and he knows it. So did Reagan, though, and Reagan’s words and ideas pushed America into a couple decades of growth and prosperity.
Words and ideas matter. They are the precursor of policy. The libs know this, which is why they’re howling. What’s confusing is why a libertarian would be bothered by small government rhetoric and a plan to match it.
Election 2012: More New Blood: Harrington, Liljenquist, Mourdock At BlogCon
Tuesday, November 15th, 2011
At Blogcon 2011 in Denver, Colorado, some fresh U.S. Senate and House hopefuls visited with bloggers. Here’s a little info on all of them:
Karen Harrington: Tough lady. Owns three restaurants. Bawdy, smart, funny and determined to win a tough election against Debbie Wassmerman-Schultz. Consider the following: If redistricting goes as planned, that shifts her district more favorably to Harrington. More importantly, a tight races keeps DWS from flitting around the country on behalf of Obama. She’ll have to stay back home and fight for her seat. We want her to have to work. Taped interview here.
Dan Lilenquist: Dan is a state representative in Utah and just won Legislator of the Year for how he has dealt with entitlements in Utah. Rumor has it that he may primary Orrin Hatch and win that seat. I’ve heard people I respect shrug and say that we shouldn’t be primarying Republicans this year. Hogwash. The new blood in the Senate has made a significant difference pulling the Senate to the Right. We need more constitutionally-based folks in there. Suck it up and get back to work Tea Party! Interview here.
Richard Mourdock: Richard is Indiana’s state treasurer and running against Obama’s favorite liberal Republican Dick Lugar. Again, tired of your ideals being sold down the river by a guy who works for the other side? Well, we need to continue to hold these Republicans accountable. See why here. Interview here.
With the national presidential election turning into a hot mess, keeping eyes on the Senate prize and adding seats there is an encouraging endeavor.
Meanwhile, Mitt Still Can’t Win
Monday, October 31st, 2011
In all of the Herman Cain hub-bub, George Will’s very thoughtful (and obvious) point that Mitt Romney can’t win the nomination gets lost.
For those who missed it, here’s what George Will said:
Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.
Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” (although there is precious little to support Romney’s idea that in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants is a powerful magnet for such immigrants) and who believes elections should be about (in Dukakis’s words) “competence,” not “ideology.” But what would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?
No one wants to talk about this little detail.
Romney will do fine with some independents but 75% of his own party does not like him. This matters. This matters for volunteers, ground game and enthusiasm.
Anyway, I said this a month ago and I say it again, Mitt is a problematic candidate for Republicans and a dream for Democrats.
The Purpose Of The GOP Debates
Tuesday, October 25th, 2011
There’s only one purpose for the Republican debates and none of them are as follows:
1. To inform
2. To educate
3. To enlighten
The ONLY purpose for the GOP debates is so the media can make all the candidates look like complete unelectable idiots.
So far, they’re succeeding. Gotcha questions and stupid expressions are heightened by a GOP-hating media meanwhile all of Obama’s ignorance and mistakes are minimized and avoided. For those not paying attention, it might seem like Obama is the only rational alternative.
GOP folks look at them and think that the purpose is to influence primary voters. Really, that’s tangential. What’s most important is gathering as much data for Obama’s media team as possible.
For the media, it’s a win. For the GOP, it’s a net loss no matter who the nominee ends up being.
NOTE: If the GOP really wanted to educate the public, they’d sit down in front of conservative audiences with Republican and conservative moderators and answer questions and the media would be forced to show up. The side benefit would be that people could actually make an educated decision.
Mitt Romney Is Not The One
Wednesday, October 12th, 2011
I’ve disagreed with voters, both GOP, Dem, and Independent a lot recently. There’s kind of an axiom that the voter, like the consumer, is always right. Give him what he wants. What the voter wanted was John McCain and then, Barack Obama. We can see how that worked out. Can we admit those voters were wrong?
Right now, a chunk of the GOP primary voters want Mitt Romney. Like John McCain, nobody really wants wants Mitt Romney, they just fear that the media is right and that he would be electable.
In 2008, I felt that John McCain was wholly unelectable, that it would be a laborious, futile, uphill slog. Many of my DC friends vehemently disagreed with me. I feel the same about Mitt Romney. Yes, even against the Carteresque Obama, Romney would be weak.
At the GOP Fox/Google debate, I had an eerily reminiscent discussion with another DC GOP friend about Mitt Romney. What’s wrong with him? Well, nothing, if you’re a DC, big-government Republican. Mitt Romney is awesome if you secretly buy all the media’s premises about Republicans: That they’re heartless, gun-crazy, Bible-thumping, science-hating, economically stupid cretins who can barely find their way out of their sad middle-class existence to get to their sad middle-class jobs doing sad middle-class tasks. Ew. I mean, like, really.
The Meghan McCain incoherent diatribes about her fellow Republicans are really repackaged versions of what Peggy Noonan, and often, Charles Krauthammer think. Those conservatives! So gauche! (Except Meghan McCain doesn’t know what the word gauche means.)
These are also the same people who couldn’t find a bad words to say about Barack Obama. The media, the left, the independents and the big government Republicans loved Barack Obama. Meanwhile, conservatives saw an incompetent. But he was clean and articulate!
So now, the people who were wrong all ways in the last election are trying to push the GOP cart in the Mitt Romney direction.
Mitt Romney neutralizes every Obama criticism. TARP? Both for it. Gun control? Both for it. Stimulus? Both for it. Obamacare? Romney’s staff helped Obama’s staff to craft the legislation based on the Massachusetts model. How, pray tell, is Mitt Romney, silver-tongued as he is, going to debate Barack Obama and not sound completely inauthentic. Remember the flaccid McCain responses to Obama? Expect those.
Ironically, I felt that Romney would have had more of a chance in 2008 than now. He would have been a better candidate against the untested Obama. Not now. The Republican party has changed. America has changed. Massachusetts and the country struggles under the weight of big government “solutions” that have done nothing so much as added debt to the next generation. When looking back and forth between Obama and Romney, it’s a matter of worse and worser.
Here’s something I find distressing, too, while we’re on the subject. Commentators on the left are clearly riding on the Obama bandwagon. They chose him over Hillary. They enthused about him. On the right, commentators try to be value neutral, as though any candidate would be great. Some seem to just want to be able to say when the Republican fails (and since they’re human they all will), “I told you so.”
We’re not in “I told you so” territory here. We’re in “America is about to go off a cliff” territory. This is no time to enjoying the sport of politics. Or is cynicism called for? Do some on my side believe we’re so far gone that it won’t matter who gets elected? They’re all so bad that the best we can do is criticize the descent?
Well, I’m not to that point which is why I won’t concede to Mitt Romney. Someone told me that Rudy Giuliani was way ahead at this point in 2008. There is still time. And that gives me hope. Because Mitt Romney is a flawed, weak candidate. The GOP can do better.
The country needs better.
Mitt Romney: The New McCain
Wednesday, September 7th, 2011
Last night, conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham made news for telling Sarah Palin, “To fish or cut bait.” A friend on Twitter said,”If Sarah Palin has lost Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter….” To which, I responded that Sarah Palin never had Coulter or Ingraham. Ann has been jonesin’ for Chris Christie–whom I would bet she doesn’t believe it’s too late for him to enter the race. Laura is predisposed to Romney.
What struck me about the talk about Sarah Palin, though, was that it really wasn’t about Sarah Palin at all. The Ann-Laura analysis was only about Sarah Palin to the extent that Ann and Laura believe Sarah Palin, or conservatives like her, are unelectable.
Many, if not most DC conservative pundits believe that only a moderate, middle-of-the-road guy can win the election.
I disagree. In fact, I think a center-right moderate is very nearly a sure loser in the 2012 election. Specifically, I think Mitt Romney is a troubled candidate. Here’s why:
Social conservatives don’t trust Romney.
Think that’s no biggie? Social conservatives voted against John McCain in the Republican primary. They thought he was weak candidate. They found him untrustworthy. Sound familiar? Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on the abortion issue depending on what’s politically convenient. A great way to suppress turnout among social conservatives, again, is to have a weak candidate, again.
Small government types (aka Tea Party) don’t trust Romney.
They see Romneycare and flee for the hills. It’s not that they mind Massachusetts residents binding themselves with their own velvet handcuffs, it’s that they don’t like the big government impulse Mitt Romney has that would see the government as a better solution than the private sector. Over and over, the government has shown itself to be unwise stewards and yet Mitt Romney trusted the government to control a big portion of each citizen’s life. Romneycare is a failure.
Evangelicals don’t trust Romney.
I live in Texas. Don’t shoot the messenger. Many religious conservatives see the Church of Latter Day Saints as a cult. My choice after Fred Thompson in 2008 was Mitt Romney. Evangelicals? Well, they loved Mike Huckabee–who I viewed as a charlatan. No matter. People worry about a conservative winning the north. Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about Romney winning the south?
Romney as milquetoast.
John McCain refused to go negative on Barack Obama. Afraid of being cast as racist? Probably. Still hoping for fawning press? Definitely. I see the same streak of public weakness in the face of what’s going to be a brass-knuckled campaign from Romney. Now, the Romney campaign is dirty. No fear there. It’s the perception that I’m talking about. Passive aggressive, below-the-belt punching by proxies will be de riguer with a Romney campaign. Fine. That’s politics, too. This year, though, the GOP candidate needs to be willing to scrap openly with Obama. This is, of course, why people like Ann Coulter yearn for a Chris Christie candidacy. They know that the populace wants to see some fight. They want a happy warrior. Mitt Romney seems like a bland banana in contrast to a rather boring Obama.
A word about, strategy and messaging. In 2008, one of the arguments against Sarah Palin as Vice President, and the only one I saw as even mildly valid, was that Sarah Palin’s short term as Governor would undermine the experience argument with Barack Obama. No, it was not fair, because she’d been in public service for years, because she was the Vice Presidential nominee and he was the presidential nominee, etc. Still, the people who blew up that argument (namely Dems and the DC GOP Smartypants Set) are the same ones saying Mitt Romney is an awesome candidate.
Well, a Romney candidacy effectively neutralizes the single most hated legislation ever passed in the history of America. From a strategic perspective, having Romney as the nominee is just stupid. The left can say, accurately, that Obamacare was built off the Romneycare template and Romney loves (and still defends) Romneycare.
A conservative candidate, in contrast, will be able to show the differences both rhetorically and in action. Rick Perry is ideally suited to do this. Conservative policies have created a haven in Texas. The contrast to liberal policies nationwide, and in Massachusetts, is easily defined and patently obvious.
It’s conventional wisdom that a Romney campaign is a shoe-in to win in the general election. The conventional wisdom is, as it was with McCain, wrong. Mitt Romney has a deeply flawed campaign–one that counts on an awful Barack Obama, rather than a great conservative message. Again, this is reminiscent of the McCain candidacy. The “I-hate-Bush, too” wink-wink straddle wrapped in mild words for opponents and harsh words for allies does not win elections. The candidate this year will need the base to be fired up.
The base won’t be fired up with a Romney campaign. They’ll be angry at more of the same. They view the problem to be not just Democrat policies but the Republican acquiescence when faced with these policies.
A Mitt Romney candidacy would dishearten and fracture the Republican base.
Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about that?
What Was Wrong At The Southern Republican Leadership Conference?–UPDATED
Monday, April 12th, 2010What a weird conference. There. I said it. The Tea Party received the biggest cheers. The Republicans bashed their own party. Attendees were optimistic and cheerful. Politicians were purposeful and focused on 2010–a marked shift from the usual perspectives at SRLC which has been a conference that gives voters a first look at potential Presidential candidates. Ron Paul’s groupies were suitably worshipful and idealistic. Mitt Romney’s posse were mission-focuses as always. But something was off.
It wasn’t the city or weather. New Orleans was more beautiful than I have ever seen it and the weather was perfect. Food? A+. Gambling? I wouldn’t know, but people had fun. A shooting did clear a friend’s restaurant, though–so it’s the same old New Orleans we know and love.
It wasn’t the venue or organization which was okay–although the scheduling was unorthodox. The speakers didn’t get going until the afternoon every day while the delegates had various brunches. It made for an excellent blogging schedule.
What simmered below the surface of the event, though, made me uneasy. And it was who didn’t attend the event that concerned me.
Eventually, Mitt Romney is going to have to show up at an conference with other political contenders. Will he get more cheers than Newt or Sarah or Mike Pence or Rick Perry? I know he’s hoping to wait them all out, gather to himself a gagilliion dollars and be the presumptive nominee. That method worked in the past, will it work now?
Haley Barbour endorsed Charlie Crist who is miles behind Marco Rubio. Barbour was RNC chair during the 1994 revolution. Many of these old dogs are still around and enjoying power. They remember sweeping in and they don’t want to be swept out.
The recent arm wrestling being done by the NRSC and NRCC against the RNC might actually be wasted effort. If donors are by-passing all of them and funding the Rubios of the world, the party bosses might matter less even as the give full-throated endorsements to establishment candidates who have zero chance of getting elected.
One Republican said to me, “It’s like the Republicans are ten years behind the times. They’re looking for women candidates, when the voters are beyond that.”
What he meant was, the voters now, men and women, want a good candidate who follows, as Rick Perry mentioned, first principles. Gender matters little anymore. Beliefs matter most.
But first principles are inconvenient when an old-guard politician is trying to keep power and money. And so beneath a placid, optimist surface, there is struggling. The struggle would seem to be philosophical: big government Republicans against tax-assailing and small government conservatives with some Tea Party help.
Unfortunately, the struggle seems to be more base than that: who is going to man the ship when Republicans get power back in November? There are lots of Republicans angling for chairmanships and sweet deals and that seems to be a more important fight to them than fighting Democrats and a President who are trying to do to dismantle freedom and the American way.
Politics, like business, has many aging boomers who love their jobs. They don’t want to give them up. Terrified of becoming relics and irrelevant, they fight like badgers to hold on to personal power while not paying attention to what they’ll even be owning after they “win.” If the establishment Republicans rip the party apart, they may have power in a party that no longer matters. Do they recognize this reality?
Many of the old guard are suspicious of the Tea Partiers and conservatives in general. Cozying up with small government types, makes keeping a big government difficult.
Bottom line, the leadership of the party isn’t at the top anymore. The grassroots are leading, amoeba-like, toward a philosophical goal of smaller government, less taxation and more freedom. So far, no presumptive presidential candidate has taken on that mantal.
After the November mid-term elections, I expect a very wild presidential campaign. And while Mitt stuffed the ballot boxes at the Southern Republican Leadership Council, I don’t think his place as the new face of the GOP is anywhere near certain.
The Republican party will change, people will give them one last chance, because voters burned themselves with Ross Perot going third party. But if the party isn’t responsive to the base’s concern after the last two years, I’m afraid there will be a new party building and the old guard will be manning an empty ivory tower.
Tabitha Hale has more. She has a controversial take on the opening speaker who decided that the most important issue facing the nation is gay marriage.
Here are some interviews I conducted at SRLC:
Texas Governor Rick Perry Talks Texas….And A National Run? Also here.
Ted Cruz, former Texas Solicitor General who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court (and won) discusses the possible legal approaches to get rid of Obamacare. Also here.
A great Republican running against Deborah Wasserman-Schultz: Learn about Brian Reilly here.
I also got to spend 10 minutes with Herman Cain. That video is still loading, but I’ll add it to the cue.
UPDATED:
Liza over at Culture Kitchen gives me a back handed compliment and then dismisses a Rick Perry run for President because of his secession hyperbole while extolling Mitt Romney.
One word: Jobs
Texas has them. No other state comes close.
One phrase: It’s the economy stupid.
Rick Perry gets that, the Democrats don’t.
Now, Perry may have no chance to get elected, I don’t know. But please let’s not pretend that Romney doesn’t have baggage.
Can you say RomneyCare? And much as it pains me, his religion will still be a stopper for many people.
The press likes Romney way too much. Remember how they loved McCain? Yeah.
Uh Oh, Bayh To Go Bye-Bye
Monday, February 15th, 2010Another moderate Democrat in what is going to end up being a very Red State in November goes down in a ball of flames. Phillip Klein says:
A popular former governor in Indiana with a long family history in the state, he would have been the strongest possible candidate. This is further indication that moderate Democrats running in red states are eager to jump ship in what they expect to be a rough November.
And here are my words to the wise in the Republican party: Don’t put up moderates in these races. The American people are going to be inclined to go Republican on principle. So, do NOT dilute strength by putting up a moderate candidate that begs for a Tea Party contender. Just don’t.
Americans are hungering for fiscal restraint. Give them what they want.
Conservatives Pushing Back: Illinois, Florida and California
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010This will be a good year for not just Republican gains, but for conservative gains. Consider Marco Rubio in Florida:
Marco Rubio, who began last year as a total unknown, has pulled ahead of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in the Florida Senate Republican primary for the first time, in a new Quinnipiac poll released today.
The poll shows Rubio leading Crist by three points, 47 to 44 percent – a lead within the poll’s 3.8 percent margin of error. In last June’s Quinnipiac survey, the little-known Rubio trailed Crist by 31 points.
Crist still is viewed favorably in Florida, though his approval ratings are on the decline. A bare 50 percent majority approved of his performance in office — down from 59 percent last October — with 38 percent disapproving.
And then, there’s the Illinois race where Mark Kirk is trying to portray himself as conservative–while he voted for Cap-N-Trade. Patrick Hughes is the obvious choice here, too. Over at Furthermore:
The simple mention of Kirk’s name has consistently drawn louder boos at IL Tea Parties than the names of Dick Durbin and Roland Burris. For the record, Kirk voted YES on Cap and Tax, NO on the Surge and he is NO friend of gun owners. Kirk also was against the partial birth abortion ban!
But, we are down to seven days. That’s 7! I sure hope the Tea Parties can act together in time to help! Conservatives across the country are seriously considering a last minute ‘air drop’ of support into Illinois for Pat Hughes. Please help.
A money bomb today over at Hugh’s site.
And then there’s California where Carly Fiorina speaks Democrat lingo:
Former Hewlett-Packard CEO and Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina found herself in political hot water Friday after speaking warmly of Jesse Jackson and saying democracy won’t be “truly representative” until “at least” half of elected officials are women.
In a speech that became public Friday, Fiorina fondly recalled the Rev. Jesse Jackson — a controversial figure across the political spectrum but anathema to many on the right — “very graciously” visiting her at HP years ago, when the two worked together to boost diversity among Silicon Valley’s work force.
“I like to remind people that women are not a constituency — women are a majority,” Fiorina said during her Wednesday night speech in Sacramento, hosted by California Women Lead, a nonpartisan group that encourages women to seek public office. “Women are the majority of voters and we will never have a truly representative democracy unless women make up half, at least, of our elected representatives.”
At a time Fiorina is seeking to appeal to conservatives, the most reliable voters in Republican primaries, her remarks could prove costly. Critics on the right, including one of her opponents in the GOP Senate primary, argued that her speech smacked of identity politics and bristled at her ties to Jackson.
And Chuck De Vore has been there, from the beginning, laying the groundwork for a conservative to capture Barbara Boxer’s seat.
The wonderful thing about these hardcore primary challenges is that establishment, bloated-government Republicans are having to answer for betraying the Republican brand (whatever that is).
Ultimately a new slew of “Reagan conservatives” will remake the party into a more fiscally restrained, responsive party.
The general election will also be bruising and rigorous. Good. Both Democrats and Republicans have been way too self-satisfied and unresponsive to their voters–they give the impression that the only way to have influence is to buy it.
Maybe a serious threat to their seat will wake politicians recognize their role as a representative, not an imperious leader.
