The Next Right

Cuccinelli, Campaign for Liberty, and shifting GOP party politics

I have written a bunch about the role of Ron Paul supporters in the party and the impact that John McCain’s military supporters may have. Yesterday, I went to the convention of the Republican Party of Virginia. The only seriously contested race was for the nomination for Attorney General. State Senator Ken Cuccinnelli, the candidate of grassroots conservatives, was the most likely winner, given who normally attends a state party convention. And indeed he won.

However, many people were shocked that he won on the first ballot over John Brownlee, former US Attorney, and Dave Foster, a Republican who sits on the Arlington County School Board. When I drove down to Richmond for the convention, I certainly did not expect that result either.

But when I got to the convention floor on Saturday, it was clear what was going on. The Virginia chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus had endorsed Cuccinelli. They were out in force. From eyeballing, people identified with either the Republican Liberty Caucus or the Campaign for Liberty seemed to be about 10-15% of the convention. They pushed Cuccinelli over the top. I think that this marks a pattern for the future of the GOP in smaller caucuses and conventions.

During the 2008 Republican Presidential primary, Paul supporters were highly organized and were able to effectively impact events smaller events like lower-profile caucuses. They got close to taking over state parties like Missouri, Nevada, and Idaho. Many more state parties were concerned with how to manage the situation. Ultimately, however, Ron Paul supporters did what you are supposed to do in politics. They brought new people to the process and organized them.

The question remained whether these outsiders would stay organized and be integrated into the GOP in some form.

This weekend in Richmond, they did. They found legitimate reasons to support the candidate whose supporters would probably constitute a near majority of a Virginia GOP convention anyways.  Tom Tinker from the Campaign for Liberty used strong language:

I had the privielege of attending the VA Republican Convention this past weekend.  Though I am usually wary of Republicans and their so-called "conservatism", I left the convention with a new hope for the restoration of Constitutional principles in my home state of Virginia.  Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling, the two nominees for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, are good candidates, and though wishy-washy when it comes to their conservatism, are far better than anyone the Democrats could put up.  But the candidate for Virginia Attorny General, Ken Cuccinelli, restored my hope in the GOP, and should give all Virginians a hope for bringing our state back to Constitutional roots, both state and national.  I will support him 100% these next few months, and I encourage you to do so.

A lot of people in Washington argue whether libertarians and social conservatives can be in the same party. Operationally, the activists were. And together they carried the day and shaped the GOP. Whether they represent a broader range of voters, we shall see. But the activists did execute this coalition. And RLC/CfL/Ron Paul supporters are likely to continue to hold an important swing role in party contests like this.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
By Soren Dayton, ago

Here comes the cavalry: McCain’s military legacy for the party

A fundamental part of political campaigns is that they mobilize constituencies and groups. Presidential campaigns are particularly interesting because they bring like-minded people into networks across the country. The level of awareness is huge, so the size of the networks are huge. Much has been made of the Barry Goldwater organization which, until very recently, has been literally the core of the conservative movement. Much has also been made of the left-over organization of the Pat Robertson campaign, which became the Christian Coalition.

John McCain’s campaign may be found to have had a lasting impact that will be comparable to Goldwater’s and Robertson’s in the network of veterans, military families, and their allies, who came together around McCain and propelled his campaign, especially in the darkest times in the second half of 2007. At any McCain rally, you would encounter vets of all ages who had gotten involved in politics because of him. These guys are often conservative, but not quite as ideological as Republican activists, just as McCain was. Frankly, it was with this base of new people that allowed McCain to bypass state and county parties that despised him.

While McCain did not become President, a new group of activists have been brought into Republican politics. They know how to work together.  They trust each other. They recognize their local and national leaders through 2 years of emails. And they have taken sides, already, in a number of state-level intra-party fights.

Let’s mix this with something Patrick had suggested: one consequence of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be that we will have candidates for Congress, just as the Dems have been doing. My additional point is that there is a national organized and mobilized network that these candidates will have natural affinities with, regardless of ideology. This network may help propel these guys through primaries. 

Let’s look at where people are already happening.

In Idaho, Vaughn Ward, who was McCain state director in Nevada and has done some tours in Iraq, is running for Congress against Democrat Walt Minnick, who managed to defeat Republican Bill Sali in one of the most Republican districts in the country. In 2008, Sali almost lost a Republican primary to another Iraq vet, Matt Salisbury, even though Salisbury raised only 5-digits of money, while Sali was an incumbent.

In Colorado, there are several candidates running. In CO-04, you have Diggs Brown, a Fort Collins City Council member and … Green Beret.  Brown is on active duty, but has been around the district on a book tour. There is a draft movement. I have heard rumors of a couple of more, including at the Senate level.

In Illinois, Adam Kinzinger is running against Debbie Halverson. All indications on the ground are that he has been incredibly savvy early on, locking up key political and party support, in addition to donors. I have heard DC operatives express astonishment at how effective he has been early on. 

In KS-3 there is John Rysavy. In OH-15 there is Steve Stivers. In GA-12, there is Wayne Mosley. And there are many more in the recruitment pipeline.

0
Your rating: None
By Soren Dayton, ago

Rule 11: Why Steele has no say on Crist

There were a series of questions about whether the RNC would endorse Arlen Specter. Michael Steele has been asked about endorsing Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. And now people are getting their underwear in a knot about Charlie Crist.

I hate to be super pedantic, but the RNC does not make the endorsement decision. A state’s delegation to the Republican National Committee control that process. And Sharon Day, RNC Secretary and Florida Republican National Committeewoman, has refused to support an RNC endorsement:

Sharon Day, of Fort Lauderdale, who holds the post of national Republican committeewoman from Florida, refused Greer’s request to sign a letter authorizing the national Republican Party to help Crist in the primary.

Party rules say the party must stay neutral in primaries unless all three members of the national committee from a state sign a letter authorizing the party to take sides. Greer, also a national committee member, and Paul Senft of Bartow, Florida’s national committeeman, have both signed the letter.

This is the so-called "Rule 11". 

Can we not play gotcha politics with Michael Steele and his endorsement of various candidates? The guy’s hands are tied.

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
By Soren Dayton, ago

Why fusionism makes sense

A lot of people ask whether fusionism — libertarians and social conservatives joined in a political movement — makes sense. It does, and there’s a behavioral/sociological basis to it that Michael Gerson alludes to in his review of Robert Putnam’s new book:

At a recent conference of journalists organized by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Putnam outlined the conclusions of "American Grace," based on research still being sifted and refined. Against the expectations of hard-core secularists, Putnam asserts, "religious Americans are nicer, happier and better citizens." They are more generous with their time and money, not only in giving to religious causes but to secular ones. They join more voluntary associations, attend more public meetings, even let people cut in line in front of them more readily. Religious Americans are three to four times more socially engaged than the unaffiliated. Ned Flanders is a better neighbor.

It doesn’t stop there. Religious poeple live longer. Married people live longer too and make more money. I am not arguing causality, but co-occurence, which is all you need in a lot of political contexts.

Basically, religious people, on average, live lives more compatible with a libertarian economy message and system than others. Note the directionality on this. If a libertarian views their economic message (that is, they are what Europeans call "right-liberals", versus "left-liberals" who focus on social freedoms), then their most fertile ground for builing coalitions is with church-goers.

Thus fusionism.

0
Your rating: None
By Soren Dayton, ago

AR GOP State Rep. Dan Greenberg has a better transparency idea

This is a follow-up to my last post. There are some ideas for transparency that seem much more reasonable to me. For example …

Arkansan Republican legislator Dan Greenberg wants to make criminal background checks of government officials accessible to the public for a fee. His rationale:

To state the obvious, public officials occupy a unique position of power and trust. I do not think that a criminal record is in all cases a disqualifier for public service, but I do think it is something that the public is entitled to know. Some criminals are repeat offenders, and I suspect that the everyday person thinks that having open criminal records is good public policy. So when I first filed a bill that would make the criminal records of government officials public, I figured most people would think it’s a good idea. And maybe it is: but most state legislators think differently.

But the Attorney General, the top law enforcement official in the state, thought it was a terrible idea:

Our Attorney General Dustin McDaniel (not to be confused with Steve Clark) also spoke against the bill; he said he thought the bill was too extensive — that letting the public do background checks on every "state legislator, Justice of the Peace and dogcatcher in Arkansas" granted too much access by too many people. We don’t actually have elections for dogcatcher in Arkansas, but it was interesting to see him say publicly what I suspect some elected officials thought privately.

He even thought that he should "protect the privacy" of criminals. Even those who work for the government:

The bill finally made it out of committee but didn’t fare so well on the floor. Attorney General McDaniel sent a letter to all legislators arguing that we should "protect the privacy" of criminals’ public records. That didn’t make much sense to me, but apparently it was more persuasive to others. When the vote was taken, government secrecy won and Freedom of Information lost; the bill failed 33-56.

I think that it would be great to know things like how many felons the Governor appointed. And how many felons work for the Attorney General. Doesn’t that seem more relevant than what lobbyists people met?

0
Your rating: None
By Soren Dayton, ago

Who is to blame for corruption? Holding government officials accountable

I am a big fan of a transparency agenda, but I wonder who is supposed to be held responsible for violations. My view of transparency is that we use it to force light on the bad actors. But the bad actors are the government officials, elected or otherwise, not the lobbyists. They are the ones who violate the the public trust. And, furthermore, if they are getting bribed, they should be accountable for that.

A couple of recent posts on the subject seem to miss this point.

In a series of posts at the Sunlight Foundation’s blog, Paul Blumenthal and John Wonderlich discuss the limitations on lobbying in the stimulus and bailout bills. Paul summarizes part of John’s post with:

The justification being given by the administration for these rules is that they do not want the stimulus funding process to be mucked up by lobbyists seeking bits and pieces of the $700+ billion bill for unworthy projects. However, as John notes, we are seeing unregistered influencers go to lobby for stimulus funds. We are also seeing this happen in other large pots of money. Take for example the $700+ billion bailout handled by the Treasury Department:

If something gets "mucked up" by someone … aren’t government officials doing the mucking? In Congress, lobbyists don’t write bills, Congressmen do. In the executive branch, either politcal appointees or civil servants write legislation. It seems to me that the incidence of accountability has to rest on the government official. Right? I mean, if someone is passing out the goodies inappropriately … they are.

For an executive branch official, lobbying mostly means educating the official and making an argument. Perhaps grassroots pressure is brought on, but that is ultimately the problem of the politicals. If there is a quid pro quo, whether an expensive gift, cash, or whatever, it is a crime and should be dealt with, very harshly and expeditiously, through the criminal system.

For Congress, there are political contributions also and political pressure from interest groups. That’s why we disclose contributions, and that’s why all the contributions should be disclosed immediately and for all contribution levels, especially online contributions. And interest groups apply pressure. That’s what they are there for. The unions are doing that on card-check. The business groups are fighting it.

IPDI’s Julie Germany writes up GWU professor Jonathan Turley (no conservative) on this point. Turley offers a much more pointed set of reforms:

Turley’s suggests that we:

  • Put 75% of the responsibility of the current political crisis on the members of Congress.

  • Go back to core principles of what we are trying to achieve in order to fix the system. Go back to Madison’s idea of democracy. Force the factions that divide us into the open. Create systems that prevent back room dealing and special deals that are hidden from the public. Part of the solution is to reform Congress, instead of trying to reform lobbyists.  

  • Force Congress to get rid of the things that cause temptation. Get rid of all gifts, other than symbolic gifts donated to the office they serve. Get rid of earmarks. Require total disclosure of all family members who work for lobbyists.

  • Address the fact that the system is too detached from its constituents and that incumbents have all the power. This city loves the fact that Congress doesn’t change, but it’s killing this country. This includes allowing other parties to rise in the political system, changing the electoral college, and reforming the way primaries are held.  

The best summary is "reform Congress"  not "reform lobbyists". Let us make Members accountable for their decisions. After all, that’s who we vote for. That is who bears the brunt of the criticism. Or should.

If someone does something wrong, we should have the information to wrap it around their necks and hang them in the public’s eye. We should be able to help their electorates destroy their careers. Ultimately, I don’t see what lobbyists really have to do with that.

When progressives get angry on Congress for doing things they don’t like, like David Sirota and the cramdown legislation, Sirota cites a BusinessWeek piece about lobbyists targetting moderate Dems:

Industry lobbyists are organizing home state bankers to pressure moderate Democrats they hope will be receptive to limiting the kinds of loans eligible for cramdown. One target: Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.

What did these lobbyists do that was so bad? Have a bunch of constituents (bankers) call him and meet with him? Did they explain the logic of this (insane) legislation and how it hurt them? Did Bayh ultimately buy that logic? If so, what is wrong with that?

Or is he alleging that Bayh took bribes, either through contributions or gifts or whatever? If so, what are they?

Or are these lefties just whining because Bayh ultimately thought it was a bad idea, and they couldn’t muster arguments that were good enough? In that case, their problem is that they should be electing "Better Democrats", that is people who share their ideas.  Some of them get that idea.

But again, what does that have to do with lobbyists?

And isn’t a transparency agenda — like Obama’s — that focuses on lobbyists, not government officials, basically intellectually bankrupt?

0
Your rating: None
By Soren Dayton, ago

GOPAC, Virginia, and center-right infrastructure

Last week, GOPAC released a video/web ad promoting Bob McDonnell for Governor in Virginia. Here’s the ad:

Another group, with "GOP" in the name" dropping a campaign ad. Ho hum, right? Not exactly.

GOPAC was founded by Newt Gingrich as a vehicle for operative training, candidate recruitment, and funnelling of money to state legislative races. The organization had a central role in identifying leaders who eventually became part of the 1994 Republican majorities.

So why is this group running an ad? That’s the key thing. I talked to Frank Donatelli, the new Chairman of GOPAC, who was previously Deputy Chairman of the Republican National Committee. (In some sense Donatelli swapped jobs with RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who had been Chairman of GOPAC)

GOPAC lives in a new context, completely different than any GOP group has in the past, and it is worth comparing to two previous points in GOP history, 1999 and 1979.

Think back to 1999, when the GOP also did not control the White House. Several things are different from then, and some things were the same. Redistricting was and is coming, and in redistricting, the composition of the state legislatures matters more than Congress for that exercise. GOPAC targets state legislatures. A complete national redistricting plan involves putting points on the board in state legislatures. But since 1999, we have seen campaign finance reform which shrunk the amount of money that could be spent on both legislative races and complicated legal operations like redistricting. Much of a national redistricting plan has to be executed outside of the RNC.

The Democrats have built new infrastructure with 527s (GOPAC’s tax status) in the form of groups like the Secretary of States Project. These can use huge individual and corporate contributions. GOPAC is part, but only part, of a complete answer to addressing the redistricting problem.

Unlike 1999, we are down in Congress. The next block of Members of Congress who get us back into the majority will come from the states. This is more like 1979 when Newt started trying to identify a new generation of Congressional leadership. And GOPAC was part of that operation that eventually delivered a majority.

I have argued that our next majority will likely come from new leaders, both for ideological and logistical reasons. GOPAC is putting together a "Rising Stars" program that is trying to identify these new leaders. One example that Chairman Donatelli told me about was Chris Saxman. Anyone who has met Chris knows that he has a great future ahead of him, in addition to his key role in the Virginia legislature.

The media is going to focus on big, splashy things like Arlen Specter’s switch of parties yesterday. But Specter is the tail end of an old phenomenon. GOPAC could well be the leading edge of a new one. It won’t be flashy for a while, but the spadework is happening now. And it is hard work.

But GOPAC and similar groups are where the action will happen. They are where we will find the next Republican majority and the new Republican coalition and message.

0
Your rating: None
By Soren Dayton, ago