A preview of the GOP circular firing squad to come

The right wing is coming apart before our eyes:

The Family Research Council Action Political Action Committee is protesting the National Republican Congressional Committee's decision Wednesday to cancel $400,000 of advertising it had planned over the last week of Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's re-election campaign. The FRC accuses the NRCC of "abandoning social conservative candidates" after it scaled back spending plans for Musgrave and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn...

"You have made a grave error in judgment by pulling your funds from the Michelle Bachmann race in Minnesota and the Marilyn Musgrave race in Colorado.

"The left is attacking both of these outstanding women because they are true conservatives. They vote pro-life and pro-family. Both Congresswomen are against taxpayer funding of abortion. Both oppose embryonic stem cell research, and both are for a Marriage Protection Amendment. These are issues that motivate voters. These are issues they and other conservative candidates have won and can win with.

"I will urge supporters of the FRC Action PAC to stop giving to the NRCC until it starts supporting and fighting for conservative candidates in close races.

Of course the NRCC isn't going to defend Musgrave and Bachmann because they're both nutcases -- everyone in Washington knows it -- and in an election like this the GOP suits can't be bothered with nutcases. But the right wing (in this case, the religious right) isn't accustomed to being brushed off like that, and they appear to be getting upset. After the election, watch for internecine warfare that'll make this argument look like peanuts.¹

--

1. I like to imagine a scenario where the spark turns out to be Sarah Palin -- because the paleocons might well adopt her as their standardbearer, if Huckabee decides he likes his TV show too much to run again, and then Palin '12 will alienate everyone else and tear the Republican Party apart. Fun!

--

BONUS SCHADENFREUDE: Read this fabulous Politico article for lots of anonymous Republican strategists saying bitchy things about the McCain campaign. These stories are the political equivalent of pulp-fiction novels, but still.

You know things are getting weird when Bill O'Reilly makes sense

If you watch one political video this year:

I love this clip, because it's a perfect embodiment of the Republican coalition imploding.

O'Reilly, in his clumsy right-wing way, is trying to tap into the overwhelming public anger at big business and a government that lets it run amok (he does so by blaming a "lack of leadership," which is not quite right, but it's a start). That's what O'Reilly does; he's a rabble-rouser. And watch as Cavuto, who is ostensibly on the same team, gets not just upset but righteously indignant at the suggestion that oil companies aren't playing nice -- and, amazingly, inveighs against the New Deal in the process. Hilarity results. Clearly, both of these people are crazy, but it's two different kinds of crazy that can't stay on the same planet for much longer. (Watch for the glorious moment where O'Reilly calls Cavuto a "pinhead" and Cavuto responds by saying "I'm not going to buy your next book." I'm amazed these people can communicate at all.)

For almost 30 years, Republicans have constituted themselves around the Reagan coalition: a shotgun marriage between wealthy urban/suburban capitalists and religious/alienated lower-income whites. It was never a good fit, and lately they've had more and more interal flareups (see: the immigration issue, which clove them neatly in half), but right now there's a potential death blow lurking. This economic crisis is tearing the GOP's two driving impulses -- millionaire free-market-ism and popular xenophobia -- apart from each other. And if the crisis gets more serious, and base Republicans begin to see the financial elite not as their allies but as their enemies (which, by the way, is exactly what they are), watch for some serious carnage.

And the Obama campaign has the perfect opportunity to maximize it, scoop up as many disaffected struggling Republicans as possible, and potentially redefine the partisan coalitions for decades to come. God, I love election season!

(Both videos via Al Giordano.)

GA-Sen: Woah! Chambliss at 50%, Dem Martin within 6

I follow the Senate races pretty closely but I have to admit this surprises me. Rasmussen has Sen. Saxby Chambliss of GA (the man who, you may recall, beat Max Cleland in one of the most depressing elections ever six years ago) just clinging to the magic 50% number, with challenger Jim Martin rapidly closing the gap. Who would have possibly expected this race would be competitive?

Of course, Rasmussen is right to point out that this could just be a bounce produced by Martin's finally winning the primary, and we are talking here about just one poll. But look how well it fits the trend:

And it's also true that Chambliss has like eighty bajillion dollars in his campaign account and Martin has, I don't know, $10. Which, regardless of close polls, makes the odds of a Democratic win here pretty microscopic. But it could happen if Martin picks up momentum (and remember, the presence of Bob Barr might cause screwy things downticket in Georgia)... keep an eye on this one.

--Another indicator of growing dissatisfaction with Republicans in unlikely areas: Oklahoma. A DSCC poll (and, yes, consider the source) has Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) at that same 50% mark, up 9 against his opponent Andrew Rice. Even if national numbers do now appear to be stalling, the picture in downticket races just keeping looking better for Democrats...

The Topeka Catch-22

This story should probably be Sam's turf, but I can't resist. Apparently the Kansas Republican Party, which is in tremendous electoral pain (not only is Kathleen Sebelius one of the best Democratic governors in the country, but they unexpectedly lost Jim Ryun in the '06 landslide and their moderates are jumping like rats from a sinking ship), has gone Soviet:

The state Republican Party is forming a loyalty committee so that it can punish officers who endorse or contribute to Democrats.

The GOP's conservative-dominated state committee also is accusing a prominent moderate of trying to undermine the party's fundraising. It has adopted a resolution criticizing Steve Cloud, a Lenexa businessman and former legislator who represents Kansas on the Republican National Committee. [...]

"It gives me pause for thought anytime someone requires a loyalty oath of anyone from any organization," said Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh. "I'm somewhat uncomfortable with a group sitting in judgment of other members."

[political scientist Bob] Beatty said forming such a committee could be seen as an attempt to purge moderates from the party -- something Kobach said isn't true.

But Andy Wollen, president of the Kansas Traditional Republican Majority, a moderate group, mused about the GOP creating a "grand high inquisitor."

Now, leaving aside the hilarious image of the Kansas Republican Party having a "grand high inquisitor", there's a lesson here on the position of today's conservative politics. From the left, Kos laughs at how obviously they're shooting themselves in the foot:

I won't pretend to be distressed at the Kansas GOP's abandonment of the moderate center. I think it's fantastic -- their rightward tilt has had an objectively negative impact on their electoral viability (unlike our own efforts to create a strong, proud, and unified Democratic Party).

One word of advice, though -- skip the creepy loyalty oaths and stick to the democratic process -- elections. It makes for much better optics and really, it's the right thing to do.

And then keep ousting your moderates until you deliver to us Democrats your state on a platter.

But over on the right wing, at RedState, diarist MartinAKnights points out quite rightly that having moderates doesn't really seem to help them either:

"Moderate" and/or Rockefeller Republicans (I exclude proper Republicans like Rudy Guiliani and William Weld) may win elections here and there, but at the end of the day, they are basically slow acting poison...

It is extremely rare to find a Rockefeller Republican as either an elected or party official who leaves office with the party in his district or state stronger than when he/she met it. It is far more common to find the exact opposite, e.g. Bob Taft in OH, George Pataki in NY, Christie Whitman in NJ. I have looked for instances where it is proven otherwise but those instances are very few and far between. In fact, in recent times, the immediate after-effect of electing a "moderate" Republican into any public office is an increase in Democratic strength in the area affected.

Witness Kansas - a state which has long had a traditional strong preference to the Republican Party; the state GOP long ago decided to cater to "moderates", in the process essentially violating post-Watergate Reagan's admonition that a party must have certain principles and beliefs that must remain inviolate. Worse is that after having crippled the GOP by basically cutting it free of its philosophical moorings and rendering it without purpose or direction, these "moderates" are switching over to the Democrats i.e. the Kansas Republican Party State Chairman from 1999 to 2003 switched parties (to Democrat) last year.

Let's be honest; how often do "moderate" Republicans have coat-tails? How many actually hand over to another Republican after their terms are over? Usually they hand over to a Democrat (often they do so more gladly than they would have to another Republican) because during their terms they would have conceded so much of the basic premises that define what it means to be a Republican that they basically render the average Republican unelectable for being "extreme." i.e. does anybody honestly believe that any Republican would be able to win a statewide race in CA for a long while after Arnold steps down?

This is one of the reasons why I have become convinced that allowing Republican "moderates" to achieve high positions in the GOP is basically slitting our own throats, trading in short-term gain (if any) for very long-term pain. To be blunt, I personally consider Christie Todd Whitman's (who ironically won her first Governor's race in New Jersey by running as a strong fiscal, law and order conservative) particular off-shoot of Republicanism to be akin to streptococcus on the body of the GOP. It's basically guaranteeing sabotage from within until the Jeffords' moment when they switch.

(Frontpager Erick concurs with a post wonderfully titled "Snakes in the Kansas Grass".) This is all, frankly, true; while of course I despise everything the RedStaters believe, I quite agree that their party (like ours) requires a clear and vigorous message in order to win. It's political common sense.

Problem being, that message sucks. These days, with resentment of Republicans and conservatism at all-time highs, you have to have a hell of a song-and-dance routine in order to make these ridiculous ideas look palatable, and right now that means showing your moderate side. So the Kansas GOP, like its compatriots across the country, is in what I propose to call the Topeka Catch-22: either they stick to their beliefs and look psycho, or they compromise their beliefs and look weak and gutless. Neither of these situations, one might add, is particularly conducive to winning elections.

...This problem is going to break national as the GOP primaries heat up; we're already seeing cries of "Real Conservative!" behind pretty much everyone that isn't Rudy Giuliani, and if the right can coalesce around someone to focus their rage on him, LOOK OUT. For decades, and especially post-Gingrich, this festering rage between far-right fundies and pragmatic Republican "moderates" has been more or less hidden because their coalition worked politically; but apparently it doesn't play in Peoria anymore, and from there it's only a couple steps to outright GOP cannibalism. (Which, considering how conservative the party is anyway, amounts to a snake eating its own tail, but whatever.)

This can only mean good things for Democrats; plus, intellectually it'll be interesting to watch this paradox play out. As they often say in the pages of RedState when our party is infighting: folks, get the popcorn.

The Incredible Shrinking Senator

Fifty bucks and a bag of donuts says you hadn't heard of Senator David Vitter, pictured right, prior to this little incident. (Or should I say, David Vitter '83, Ec concentrator, Rhodes scholar. Seriously.) In fact those of you who do interesting things with your time may not even have heard of him today, in which case, executive summary: HE'S A MAN, AND HE HAS NEEDS, DAMMIT.

But here's what gets me: the way this story was covered. When it first came out that David Vitter liked hookers there was a great collective shrug among the media; it sat on the Washington Post's page A3 alongside the National Hurricane Center and an obtuse story about executive privilege. Considering that we are talking about a SEX SCANDAL here, this is rather surprising, don't you think? It's like you offer Wimpy a free hamburger and he says "ehh, how about a salad?" Headlines focused on Vitter's solemn apology for his transgression, the bestowing of forgiveness by his sainted wife, and just generally the genteel Southern grace with which they handled it all. (In unspoken contrast, of course, to a certain other down-home politician, who apparently had the special Democrat kind of sex and thus unfortunately could not be saved.)

(...Maybe you get bonus points if you pay for it, because then, at least, it's capitalistic.)

IN FACT there seemed to be an active attempt to beat the story down altogether -- Tucker Carlson, of all people, gave a vigorous and slightly unhinged defense of Vitter on the radio that morning, culminating in this interesting statement:

Men when they lived apart from their wives and children tend to commit adultery as you know. That is just the way men are.

Well, then, that makes it all better! But Tucker's odd c'est-la-vie defense was dwarfed by Senator Jim DeMint, who (presumably with a single tear running down his cheek) said:

I think all of us have to look at it and say, ‘We can be next'... This can be a very lonely and isolating place.

To which the only possible response is "Uh, Senator, is there something you'd like to tell us?"

Between Tucker and Jim Boy there seemed to be more than a little irrational, fevered desire to defend Senator Horny McWhorehouse from any kind of moral condemnations--- of course, far be it from me to make insinuations about our respected leaders' private lives, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck---

Anyway. Here's where it gets interesting. As the news week went on, the story slowly picked up steam, gaining traction on the blogs and the regular media as more and more info leaked out. TPM dug up those deeply ironic campaign ads to coincide with Vitter's being linked to a New Orleans brothel that specialized in something I really don't want to think about. Then they started talking about Vitter's wife -- not so sainted, apparently, comparing herself to Lorena Bobbitt -- and the suddenly questionable future of Vitter's manhood. By the time the blogs were writing about a potential impact on the Louisana governors' race and rising young star Bobby Jindal, you knew the damage had been done and this was, for better or worse, A Story! Today I saw Wolf Blitzer sitting behind a chyron that screamed "SEX IN POLITICS!", and the Louisana Republicans are fiercely denying rumors they're planning to have Vitter replaced. It has become a full-scale public roasting that shows no signs of abatement. For his part, Vitter has made the wise decision to bugger off until things quiet down; but you have to imagine that, down there in his Louisiana bunker, he's more than a little shell-shocked.

After all, this is NOT how it's supposed to happen. Republicans have been getting away with this kind of stuff for decades; when their guys say "let's put a lid on the story", they PUT A LID ON THE STORY and that's that. It was working here for a day or so, too, before for some reason things started sliding and then went all to hell -- now Vitter might actually be finished, kaput, and heaven only knows who's next. Any one of their senators or congressmen might be weeping on Larry King within weeks. (They are all perverts, after all, that's been understood in Washington for some time. Democrats too. The problem comes when the usual quiet recourses don't work, and that may be what's happening now.) Simply, the Republicans no longer have control of the narrative.

And so the most serious consequence of this whole incident is: if you can't be confident in the Republican media machine, you can't be confident in the party. Certainly, if I'm a big-time GOP donor, I'm not going to be cutting a check to Jim DeMint anytime soon; and this is probably just the first incident of many. Republicans already lag in fundraising -- money follows winners, after all. From here it's not far to a chain reaction that has the big money totally drying up, and friends, you can guess what happens from there. We saw in the spanking of 2006 that the wheels had come off the Republican bus; but now there's black smoke pouring out of the engine and cops catching up at the back.

Anyway I'm straying from the point. The fact that Republicans, as an organization, are in trouble is not exactly news these days; let's just take a moment to appreciate the thought of conservative senators being publicly emasculated (metaphorically and physically). I'll give James Wolcott the last word:

I wonder if Mrs. Vitter has given thought to what she will do with her husband's penis once she lops it off. Tossing it out the car window a la Lorena Bobbitt is a bit declasse and unworthy of a senator's spouse. Perhaps she should consider packing it in ice and preserving it in a Baggie before deciding on final dispensation. Perhaps she could have it bronzed and carry it around in her pocketbook as an admonitory keepsake, though the unseemly bulge of a bronze penis might conflict with the sleek contours of her designer bag. Then again, she may simply wish to hold it hostage. Should they divorce, Vitter's lawyers will certainly fight on their client's behalf to regain and retain custody of his penis for possible reattachment later after a suitable "cooling off" period.

Male solidarity would seem to dictate that I harbor some sympathy for Vitter and his endangered penis, despite his trespasses, but when I read in the ABC story, "Vitter quickly became the Louisiana delegation's most conservative member... against abortion even in cases of *rape and incest*," (my emphasis), I thought, Even a hypocrite needn't be that backward and hateful. So cheers to Larry Flynt and let the penises fall where they may.

Better Luck Elsewhere

Democrats were the ones to shake up (ever so slightly) their primary calendar this season, but maybe it should be the Republicans who consider the wisdom of beginning in New Hampshire. After all, before you know it, there aren't going to be many Republicans left in my fair state, the onetime conservative belle of New England. Of course, on the flip side, this means that the Platonic ideal of "reaching every voter" may indeed become possible for the Republicans, as, in a few electoral cycles, they will have no more than 15 doors to knock on in the whole state.

That being said, I am a registered Independent and will be voting in the Republican primary as well as the Democratic one. I hereby open myself up for courting. How much do you care about my vote, Sam?