The next Republican civil war
A brewing melodrama in Florida
The next Republican civil war
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
How quickly the calendar turns. Scant weeks ago, it appeared that Pennsylvania would be hosting the ultimate Republican steel-cage death match between its dominant conservative wing and its recessive moderate wing. But the anticipated Senate primary duel between conservative Pat Toomey and moderate Arlen Specter was short-circuited by Specter's abdication. Conservatives were thus deprived of the opportunity to demonstrate their ideological purity by knocking off Specter and nominating a guy who is virtually unelectable statewide in 2010.
But conservatives can now take heart, simply by shifting their focus 1000 miles to the south. In the swing-state of Florida, they will have the opportunity to knock off a popular, electable Republican in a Senate GOP primary, and instead nominate an ideological conservative who would give the Democrats a chance to pick up yet another Senate seat. This scenario is not exactly the winning formula for a party comeback, but apparently it would allow the conservatives to marinate in their purity as the party shrinks further.
Charlie Crist, the moderate Republican governor with the deep tan and the 71 percent statewide approval rating, announced yesterday that he will run next year for the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Mel Martinez (who was deemed unacceptable by the conservative base because of his support for path-to-citizenship immigration reform). Crist has two assets that Republicans dearly need these days: he attracts Democratic and independent support (at a time when the Grand Old Party is increasingly saddled with its image as the Cheney Limbaugh Party), and he is a proven fundraiser who can raise the big bucks necessary to blanket Florida's multiple media markets (thus freeing up the national Republicans to focus their money efforts on Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri - states where the GOP is at serious risk of losing more Senate seats in 2010).
The hitch, naturally, is that Crist is deemed by conservative activists to be unacceptably impure, and thus a threat to wind up in the Senate and become the GOP's new Specteresque irritant...which is why they're already lining up behind the upstart conservative challenger, the guy who will play the Toomey role in Florida. That would be Marco Rubio, the former state House Speaker, a young, eloquent Cuban-American who spent yesterday in full campaign mode - twittering that Crist is a faux Republican, telling Fox News that Crist is a faux Republican, and releasing an ad that shows Crist cozying up to Barack Obama (the ultimate sin).
Right now, it's hard to imagine that Rubio can defeat Crist. The governor has universal name ID (whereas Rubio is not even in public office anymore), and the early polls show Crist winning the primary in a landslide. But that contest is 15 months away, plenty of time for Rubio to work the conservative base. Democratic connoisseurs of Republican infighting will have ample opportunity to sit back with popcorn and enjoy.
Indeed, Crist has already failed the right's key litmus test; a few months ago, he not only decided to take all the federal stimulus money that had been earmarked for Florida, he actually shared a platform with the president and told NBC that "in the Florida way, we work together in a bipartisan fashion." Such behavior - agreeing to take billions of dollars to help the beleaguered citizens of his state - has naturally garnered kudos from a landslide majority of Floridians, but Crist's move could be a deal-breaker for the conservative voters who will dominate the Florida GOP primary...a contest that will be closed to Democrats and independents.
Actually, Crist's stimulus stance is merely the latest perceived miscue. Even though Crist has won some conservative praise for his fiscal policies, there is already a long list of heresies:
Crist appointed a black Democrat with a strong civil rights record to the state Supreme Court; he thinks that global warming is real, he wants a big reduction in auto emissions, he sponsored an environmental conference keynoted by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and he once discussed green issues with Sheryl Crow; he doesn't believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned; he refuses to push for a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage ("I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy"); he supports voting rights for felons who have completed their sentences ("I believe in forgiveness and atonement"); he wants to raise more state revenue by expanding legal gambling; he has taken on the insurance companies by slapping a lid on homeowners' insurance premiums.
And that doesn't include the innuendo about Crist's private life. Rubio won't need to touch it; his Christian conservative allies will take care of it. They can even reference Outrage, a new movie documentary about closeted gay politicians, which names Crist as one such denizen. That's not the ideal profile for a candidate in a Republican primary. Crist insists he is straight, but he is widely disbelieved. Conservative journals have long used code while writing about Crist; early last year, The National Review, in an attack piece on Crist, mentioned that, around the time he was graduating law school, "he married his college girlfriend. They divorced half a year later, and he's been single ever since."
Actually, Crist recently got married again, but a lot of conservatives think it's only for show. By contrast, Rubio is being touted as a fertile heterosexual; in the words of The Weekly Standard magazine, which has an adoring profile in its latest issue, Rubio "married his longtime girlfriend Jeannette, once a Miami Dolphins cheerleader and now the mother of their four young children."
Top that one, Charlie.
Given Rubio's personal profile, and his core conservative convictions on everything from immigration to the environment to abortion, his followers are incensed that the Washington Republican establishment has so speedily embraced Crist. Fifteen minutes after Crist announced his candidacy yesterday, the GOP's Senate campaign arm - the National Republican Senatorial Committee, led by Texas Senator John Cornyn - rushed to embrace Crist and pledge its support in the 2010 GOP primary. It's unusual (or it used to be) for the national party to take sides in a primary, but Cornyn has the wild and crazy idea that maybe the Republicans should staunch their intramural bloodletting and support candidates who can actually win in politically diverse swing states.
Cornyn got nowhere with that one. A twittering activist at the conservative American Spectator promptly declared yesterday that it's time to "fire Cornyn," a blogger at the popular redstate.com wrote that Cornyn's rejection of Rubio was akin to "a stick in the eye," and another blogger at the website urged all conservatives to financially boycott Cornyn's campaign committee. Meanwhile, online yesterday, talk-show host Glenn Beck summed up his feelings about Crist thusly:
"BARF."
Let the games begin.
NEP, could you please make it easy for us by supplying us with a list of what we can and can't discuss?— PhightinPhan- phightin, we can discuss anything you want, just not the same story 6 out of 8 days in a row! What we can't discuss is how old & hittable Jamie Moyer looked last night? It a shame as I was looking up to him as a hero for guys my age! Oh well, all good things must come to an end, right?— NEPhilly
- No, NEP, it's much harder to make decisions when the previous administration leaves you a pile of foreign and domestic sh*t to deal with.— Djoko Pritza
- NEP, on the torture photos, he's listening to his military leaders. Isn't that what you were advocating in commenting on policy toward Iraq? You don't want it both ways, do you?— Djoko Pritza
- djoko, I agree with the President on both counts (although I would just leave them at Gitmo)! Do you? I was wondering where the outrage was on the left over these issues as there certainly would have been if a repub was in the White House! Or is the left afraid if they disagree with this president on any issue, their taxes might get looked into or worse:) Any thoughts?— NEPhilly
- Why is Polman obsessed with the Repubs when they are totally out of power? The Democrats control EVERYTHING in Washington? The Democrats are the Establishment, they are the powerful! It's all on them. So...let's see some results. The phrase "Obama inherited it" will only last so much longer.— Frito1
- SMike: Why is it that Cons like yourself scream incessantly about "blue collar welfare" (individuals collecting), but tend to be mute about "white collar welfare" (businesses collecting)? You're right, I am willing to spend your & my money IF it benefits everyone, OR if it lowers the long range dollar cost to taxpayers. How long have the mega-farm collectives been soaking the taxpayer? Oil companies getting money for "research"? How about the brilliant NeoCon idea of dropping pallets of cash in Iraq? Sheesh! The incredible inequities of the Bush tax breaks? I'm more than happy to pay for things like a clean environment, police & fire services, better schools, improved regional & national mass transit, etc. That's what elections are all about. The Bushies screwed up, so the Dems will get their chance until the GOP gets its act together & can show that the Dems aren't cutting it.— yobill626
- yobill...I just love your statement "the inequities of the Bush tax breaks". I am still laughing. You are one funny dude.— tom - wilmington, de
- NEP, you really hit at the heart of the matter: Why did people get so upset at Bush, but not at Obama when they do virtually the same things? There was such rage at Bush because he had demonstrated incompetence over a long period of time (forget the small number who were mad at him off the bat, much as with those angry at Obama from Day 1). With Obama, there is a mixture of hope and good will. Give the guy a chance, people are saying. People, except for Rush maybe, want things to go well, the economy to work and the country to be safe. Bush wasn’t unpopular all at once. He worked at it. Obama may reach the depths Bush had. But people will give him more time. Even when he does the same things. We’re looking for performance, not ideology.— Djoko Pritza
- NEP, on Gitmo, I’m not totally sure how I’d handle the trials of the remaining detainees. I haven’t followed it closely enough to know how good the evidence we have is. As far as shipping to the states those we want to continue to hold, I have no problem with it. All the demagoguing over NIMBY sickens me. The Repubs make it sound as if we’d be “releasing” the militants into our neighborhoods, rather than placing them in max-security prisons. In fact, not only would I move them all out of Gitmo, in some fashion to be worked out, I’d work to close Gitmo and return it to the Cubans in a long-term negotiated rapprochement. If we have normal relations with Cuba, we don’t need a base there. I also think the criticism from Repubs (let’s face it, if Obama leapt over tall buildings, the Repubs would find something about it to criticize) and some dumb Dems that he shouldn’t have announcedGitmo’s closing till he had a plan is plain wrong. The deadline gives us an incentive to work it out; if there are lingering problems, we’ll just extend the deadline. What’s wrong with that?— Djoko Pritza
- Tom--are tax breaks that result in the richest 100 taxpayers paying income tax at a rate of 17% fair and equitable? Apparently they are from your perspective.— liberal
- Gitmo--first of all, we need to realize that Bush released the majority of the Gitmo prisoners, so it's only a fraction that remain to be dealt with. Bush's brilliant justice department immunized most of the rest against prosecution by using force in the interrogation process, making a great deal of the evidence inadmissable in a regular court. So those who are criminals can't effectively be prosecuted under the laws of most civilized countries. If their status were recognized as POWs, however, as they should have been in the first place, they can be held until the war against the Taliban is finished.— liberal
- Smike, you are free to complain about what does or does not get written about (yet you still keep showing up), but once again, this was hardly a "hit piece" in the style you often find at other, angrier, more extreme blogs (left or right). Secondly, I see little to no supposed "bragging" that your cute, quoted paraphrase claimed. After reading countless posts of yours, it is my (very) humble opinion that you see things too much in black and white. You have proven that your views are lockstep with Rush, and anyone who disagrees, you call "liberal". I'm sorry to say, but Rush is extreme. Political affiliation works on a continuum, which you do not seem to understand, and in fact, Polman's piece is about how the Republican party will decide to manage this continuum. However, I too agree that this topic is getting stale.— puttinonthefoil
- swede and NE--in your future polemics, you can save some time if you realize that liberals aren't really interested much in welfare, giveaway programs, softness on crime, and all that other stuff that Limbaugh uses, partly as racist code words, to scare the middle class. That tactic for demonizing liberals doesn't work so well any more. Liberals are concerned with the environment, healthcare educational opportunities, energy independence, etc. You'll find it harder to scare mainstream Americans with that program, but I hope you will try harder because good political dialogue, as opposed to sound bites and code words, is fun.— liberal
- Wake me when Obama is actually going to take ownership of his Presidency. I say go fix it already and quit whining about what you inherited. Reagan inherited Jimmy Carter's 20 percent mortgage rates and 14 percent inflation. Bush inherited a security situation that was derelict of it's duties and hamstrung by a " wall " that forbade the sharing of intelligence between the various law enforcment agencies.
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
