Shifting the blame around

The other night I was reading the blog done by the Republican Study Committee, which is on the site of Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. On this I came across a press release from the rival Republican Main Street Partnership, claiming the far right as “soley (sic) responsible for Democratic gains” because they “push(ed) a legislative agenda cow-towing to the far right in our party”; in particular blocking measures to raise the minimum wage, expand embryonic stem-cell research, and “real” ethics and lobbying reform.

For those of you who don’t know and haven’t figured it out, the RSC represents the conservative wing of the House Republicans, while the Main Street Partnership caters to the more moderate in the party. While the RMSP members are mostly in the House, a smattering of Senators and state governors also claim membership, including luminaries such as Sen. John McCain and California’s Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Also included among RMSP politicians are local House members Wayne Gilchrest and Mike Castle, along with outgoing Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich. Representing the Republican Study Committee in Maryland is Sixth House District Congressman Roscoe Bartlett.

So I looked at this short press release, misspelling and all, of this group which lays claim to the legacy of Ronald Reagan despite talking about “ignor(ing) centrist concerns (and pursuing the) far right’s legislative agenda.” Then I decided to look at who REALLY lost the House.

Of the two competing groups, the RSC is by far the larger, with 102 House members on their roster. Of these 102 members, 90 will continue on to the next Congress. Using the American Conservative Union ratings that are done annually as a guide, I found that all but one of these 102 members had a rating of 80% or better, and the odd member had a 92% rating in 2005 (to bolster his overall 64% rating.) In fact, all but nine of these Congressman have maintained a 90% or better ACU life rating since they began their service.

Further, when you look at the election results, 54 of these 90 winning Congressmen won their seats with over 60% of the vote and 9 of those had better than 70% – obviously most of these members were reelected by a clear mandate. Of the 12 who are leaving Congress, three vacated their seats to run for other posts, and 9 were defeated for reelection. The other 3 seats split 2-1 Democrat.

The Main Street Partnership as a group has a much worse ACU rating, with only 16 of the 48 members achieving an 80% rating. Just five reach the 90% mark lifetime, and none exceed 92%. (Our Congressmen, Gilchrest and Castle, rank at 62% and 57% respectively. Across the Virginia line, Congresswoman Thelma Drake, a member of the competing RSC, has a solid 92% rating.)

Now, here’s the results for the MSP membership. Coming into the election, they had 48 House members in their group. They lost 11 members of their 48, with seven of those losers coming out of northeastern states and three from the midwest. Only 14 of the 37 survivors won with 60% or more of the vote, topping the list was Wayne Gilchrest with 69%. The RSC lost the other GOP seat vacated by Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, that seat flipped to the Democrats.

But as a whole, almost all of the seats that switched from Republican to Democrat control came from the northeast and midwest; mostly RMSP members in the more liberal northeast and disenchantment with a Congress deemed not conservative enough in the midwest, particularly in Indiana. Also, three seats were lost to Democrat and media-stoked scandals in Ohio, Texas, and Florida (Ney, DeLay, and Foley respectively.)

If anything, I think the RMSP needs to look in the mirror if they want to find someone to blame. Many items on the Bush agenda have been held up or watered down by Main Street members, particularly the eight in the Senate. Democrats took advantage of the infighting and managed to find more “conservative” candidates because what’s considered the “center” in this country has taken a rightward turn in the quarter century since Ronald Reagan took office. However, I doubt any of these new Democrats will be Reagan Democrats, I’m certain they’ll be pretty much following the marching orders given to them by Pelosi and company.

The election results have spoken. Almost 1/4 of the members of the Republican Main Street Partnership were ousted from Congress, while barely 10% of the Republican Study Committee group was. Something tells me the mandate from the people is for a conservative opposition to thwart and temper the extreme liberalism sure to be attempted by the Democrats in the 110th Congress while working to regain a majority in 2008 and elect a more conservative President.

Afterword: I was thinking about the 69% of the vote Gilchrest received. Imagine if the Democrats had recruited a candidate not as far left as Dr. Jim Corwin was and placed some dollars behind his campaign. (Someone like our County Executive candidate Tom Taylor comes to mind, pretty much a Reagan Democrat.) Honestly, I think Gilchrest would have lost that election.

In many instances where the Democrats picked up seats, they got candidates that were at least perceived to be as conservative as the GOP incumbents they replaced, but weren’t tarred with the “culture of corruption” brush or tied to President Bush (read: the War on Terror) – ideas hammered into the average voter on a daily basis by the partisan, “drive-by” media.

And many conservatives deserve a good share of blame about being tied to the Abramoff scandal because it showed clearly how they had strayed from the ideals of the “Contract With America” that got them elected. After all, if government is truly smaller, lobbyists will follow the money someplace else. We never did follow through on ridding ourselves of the Department of Education or the frivilous spending. Instead of rebelling against the system, these Congressmen embraced it, and it cost them.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

One thought on “Shifting the blame around”

  1. Pingback: Staunton News

Comments are closed.