Party Divided? Not The GOP

(Weekly Standard)  Gary Andres is vice chairman of research at Dutko Worldwide in Washington, D.C., and a regular contributor to The Weekly Standard.

---

Drenched in crocodile tears, many in the pundit class now portray the GOP as hopelessly divided by fringe groups and internal dissensions.

Democratic leaders like Virginia governor Tim Kaine eagerly fan these flames. According to Politico, he told the American Democracy Conference last week that the tea party movement and insurgent conservative candidates are "devouring" the GOP. Kaine said these divisions are "corrosive" and will prove "deadly" to the Republican party in years ahead.

Similar narratives populate left-wing commentaries about Republicans such as Sarah Palin. Writing in the New York Times, Frank Rich notes that the former Alaska governor and her "Hitler-fixated" followers will doom the Republicans in 2012.

If hyperbole sold subscriptions, Rich might single-handedly save the newspaper industry.

Poor Republicans. What's behind all this faux trepidation about the GOP's future? Actually it's a diversionary scheme, born out of panic. Democrats and liberals point fingers at the other side to draw attention away from their own divisions, which already are creating real problems and could prove politically devastating down the road.

Notwithstanding the commentary in the press, Republicans in Washington are more unified than ever. Part of it is due to their institutional position. It's easier to unify as the opposition than corral a majority in Congress. Democrats did it well between 1995 and 2006.

Republican leaders, including John Boehner of Ohio in the House and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky in the Senate, understand their circumstances well. The minority party "communicates," while the majority "legislates," Boehner often reminds his colleagues. He and McConnell comprehend this subtle difference.

But GOP unity extends beyond Washington. Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey won in states where Obama prevailed a year earlier without running "corrosive," ultra-conservative campaigns.

If you had to assign the label anywhere, it's the Democrats that suffer from division. Consider just a few of the current cleavages. Democrats face major divisions on the abortion issue in the health care legislation. The bill passed the House only after the chamber adopted a pro-life amendment. Some liberal House members--enough to affect the outcome--now say they won't support the bill unless the pro-life language gets stripped. Politics may trump conscience in the end, but the abortion fight will prove extremely divisive for the Democrats.

Previously hidden rifts between the Congressional Black Caucus and the White House are also exploding. Several articles over the past week underscore this. House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers of Michigan told Politico last week he is disappointed with Obama's level of attentiveness to African-American needs. The article also notes many members of the Black Caucus believe White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel often works against their interests.

The so-called Blue Dog Democrats--largely rural, more conservative House members--have their own ideological disagreements with both the White House and the bulk of their own caucus. These bitter fissures emerge regularly, but were particularly ugly this year on spending, health care, and cap and trade legislation.

Intra-party differences on the way forward in Afghanistan create even more splits within the Democratic party. Anti-war liberals are at odds with other Democrats who want to support their president. The majority will likely need Republican votes in Congress to ensure continued war funding.

These fissures are wide and deep. They span geography, ideology, and race. Democrats control all the levers of power in Washington, but they clearly don't agree on which way to pull them.

Politicians like Tim Kaine understand the perilous nature of the Democratic coalition. It's a house of cards, glued together by the slender reed of recent electoral success. And it's starting to collapse.

It's crumbling because elections are executed with rhetoric, but governing is zero-sum. Liberals want to end war funding; Blue Dogs can't afford to cut and run. Pro-life Democrats voted for health care after the abortion issue was fixed; liberals won't support the legislation unless the fix is removed. The Black Caucus says Obama caters to the Blue Dogs; but moderates feel betrayed by an ultra-left White House agenda.

It's not in the Democratic party's interest to highlight these differences. That might undermine their political and legislative momentum. Pointing the finger at alleged Republican divisions diverts attention from the real rifts--the ones tearing the Democrats apart.

By Gary Andres :
Reprinted with permission from The Weekly Standard

[kcsteak2]

I have never believed one word any lib has ever spoken.

[kcsteak2]

I have never believed one word any lib has ever spoken.

[chrisbieber]

the arguing about the symptoms...

the logical results of co-opting the tenants and philosophy of socialism by BOTH allowed parties....

faster and blatant socialism or slower and "conservative" socialism.....

and the utterly oblivious and conditioned American Idolized and Footballized debtridden serfs continually condoning the sad charade...

while Rome(American liberty, freedom and independence is wasting away....bipartisanly replaced with an oligarchical surveillance Empire....

a plague on both your houses....

[noloyalisti]

The ignorant failed party of death and spending all drank the same Kool Aid. How else could they stand listening to the morons at the right wing think tanks and on Faux News? These uneducated, greedy idiots act as if they actually have a point of view that means anything to human life forms. And their hero Reagan started the disaster we are in now.

[mypitts2]

Following is a blog title over at Red State, one of the most influential conservative sites: "The Very Necessary Republican Civil War." It was written by the editor, Erik Erikson, and has been getting hits and comments all day long.

So, yeah, along with NY-23 and red-on-red drama in Florida, California and Utah, I really *believe* Andres that there's no split within the GOP. Right.

[engineer001-2009]

NY 23rd was not the rejection of a GOP candidate that wasn't conservative enough. It was the rejection of a zgop candidate that was actually a liberal much more closely aligned with the Democratic Party than the GOP. This spin about "not conservative enough" is another liberal diversion from reality.

[koko98-2009]

But who LOST a seat that had been Republican since the Civil War? Funny how this corrosive race was never mentioned. The conservatives just don't and won't appeal to the center.

[ssvanguard]

It wasn't an issue of not conservative enough but was instead an issue of too liberal? I fail to see the difference. Assemblywoman Scozzafava was legitimately selected by the local county chairs of the Republican party to be the nominee and was summarily rejected by the national level GOP. That's reality.

[lakota2012]

"It's not in the Democratic party's interest to highlight these differences. That might undermine their political and legislative momentum. Pointing the finger at alleged Republican divisions diverts attention from the real rifts--the ones tearing the Democrats apart."
======================================================






While there is no doubt a difference of opinion amongst the Dems, especially with a few moderate blue-dogs from RED states, it just goes to show you that they haven't marched in lockstep like the GOP from 1995 to 2007. Seems as if they can have a mind of their own and think for themselves, instead of having pseudo-party leaders like glenn beck and rushbo push their agenda.

You can try all you want gary, to deny that the miNOrity party is not splintered after the debacle in NY's 23rd district, especially after caribou barbi supported the ultra-conservative teabagger that lost, and gave the win to the Dems for the first time in 150 years! Don't forget, the GOP candidate was forced to drop out of the race for being moderate, and seems as if the GOP is trying to cleanse the party by moving even further to the right.



Tea Party Beats GOP In Generic Ballot: Rasmussen Poll

In another sign that the Tea Party movement could cause electoral headaches for the GOP, a new poll shows the new conservative brand doing better than the Republican party on a three-way generic ballot.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.

[sunday42]

Great news! Maybe we can ditch both of these corrupt parties the Repubs and the Dems alike and start with something fresh.

[brianblogger]

@Lakota: Your post doesn't make any sense. How is the GOP "cleansing" the party by moving further to the right? That would mean the Tea Partiers are moderates who are angry that the GOP didn't move to the Left.
Also you're wrong about NY23. Conservatives achieved our victory: By letting the liberal Democrat win. The objective is to get rid of liberal Republicans, and it worked. The Democrat has already become Pelosi's lapdog and will be beaten next year after lying to voters.

You also ignore that the Dems have lost tons of independents voters.

[gtwildfire]

The Democrats, as defined by their actions are not one party. They act more as three parties under the same name, whereas the Republicans have shown they can tow the party line and run through legislation in a very coordinated manner when they have the majority. The Republicans can form a very coherent legisliation machine. The Democrats cannot and likely will never.

Is this coordination, this coherence beneficial to the country? Depends on what's being done, but it boils down to a choice of each politician thinking as himself and not just placing his vote in the party bin... or each politician haing his say but in the end agreeing to vote in a manner that will achieve some progress vs. being one voice in a cocophany of dissenters.

What Politicians all fail to do is look beyond the trees before them and choose the best path through the forest. Because of this we will be forever lost... no matter which party has the majority.

[wackobasher]

Come on kids this is a BushVader appointee trying to pretend that what we all see and hear with the current grand ole party is not really happening. How many more of the past administrations cronies are we going to hear from that they really were not as bad for the GOP as we know they were?

[us_1776]

The GOP is DEAD. Over the past thirty years it has morphed from a secular fiscal-conservative party into a ultra-social-conservative party that caters to "corporations" and spends money foolishly like drunken sailors. The GOP is reaping the rewards of inviting a host of fringe groups within its membership over the years and now these fringe elements feel "entitled" to represent the GOP brand. They have driven out many of the centrists and they're not coming back. They moved the party way to the right socially but not fiscally. And now the GOP represents the antithesis of the GOP of old. The GOP needs to drive out the social-conservative fringe groups and get back to pure secular fiscal-conservatism.