Would a divided GOP help Republicans in Massachusetts?

On April 14, a contributor to conservative activist Patrick Ruffini’s blog TheNextRight.com argued that splitting the GOP into two parts would actually improve the party’s overall prospects. “The remedies to the GOP’s slide proposed thus far follow the same basic paradigm,” the contributor wrote. “The purists say that the GOP needs to purge the RINOs and create a clear distinction between the parties. The problem is that the American public sees the difference between the parties and is choosing Democrats. It turns out that the endless harping on pork and nomination battles nominally related to abortion drive the base, but seems petty and shortsighted to most everyone else. On the other hand, the reformers are more interested in creating more conservative and market-based solutions to problems Democrats are also addressing, but they are scorned by a base that sees them as part of a cocktail-sipping Northeastern elite, thus apostates unworthy of attention. Moderate Republican candidates who have shown their ability to win in blue states are targeted by the Club for Growth. They may hardly better than Democrats on some issues, but they contribute to creating a majority of seats.

“So how do you hold on to a base that holds increasingly unpopular ideas on social policy while reaching out beyond so-called ‘real America’ where many voters agree with our foreign and fiscal policy but can’t stand the anti-intellectualism and public moral posturing of the hard-right southern wing? Set it free! Why not split the GOP into a regional southern party while creating a new fiscally-conservative, socially-moderate party in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West?… If the goal is not a GOP revival for its own sake, but the implementation of conservative governance, it’s worth looking at.”

These thoughts are quite similar to those expressed by former Massachusetts Board of Education chairman James Peyser, a Republican who wrote a Boston Globe op-ed piece shortly after President Obama’s election calling for the establishment of an “Independent Republican Party” in the Northeast.

“Reviving Massachusetts’ Republican Party is in the best interests of everyone, not just Republicans,” Peyser wrote. “One-party rule, especially when it’s as lopsided as it is here, inevitably leads to intellectual laziness, excess, and, all too often, corruption. The recent spate of subpoenas and surveillance photos on Beacon Hill suggests that we may already be sliding down that slippery slope.”

Peyser further noted that “…[the] underlying problem for Republicans is the absence of a compelling conservative vision for the future that is aligned with New England’s more tolerant and civic-minded political sensibilities. Typically, political observers say that the national Republican Party has moved too far to the right for moderate New Englanders. But I think a more telling way to frame the problem is that the national party has drifted away from the core conservative principles that used to unite Republicans from all parts of the country, in favor of policies that appeal to an increasingly narrow, albeit fervent, base.”

“If the national party no longer reflects the views of Republicans in Massachusetts,” Peyser continued, “what does the local GOP leadership stand for? I think today the only fair answer is ‘less’ – less tax, less spending, less (I know, ‘fewer’) Democrats. Take whatever the Democrats want, subtract about a third, and what’s left will usually be the Republican position on the issue. This is hardly a rallying cry for the party faithful or potential candidates, and it is certainly not an effective appeal to independent voters.”

“Lacking a governing philosophy of their own, Massachusetts’ Republicans have been tarred with the increasingly unpopular (and often unconservative) positions of the Bush administration and its mostly southern and western allies in Congress.” The Bay State GOP has to have a “governing philosophy…grounded in the basic tenets of conservatism: limited and accountable government, individual liberty and responsibility, and free markets.” However, this philosophy alone “…may not be enough to change the tarnished Republican brand. A name change might also be in order, to symbolize the fresh start and create some distance from the national party. In Minnesota, the local Democratic Party is called the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Maybe here in Massachusetts – or across New England – the GOP should start calling itself the Independent Republican Party.”

“Now, some dyed-in-the-wool Republicans might blanch at the idea of splintering the national party. But if this is the only way the GOP’s Massachusetts branch can make a comeback, then it would seem to be in the best interests of the national party, too. Equally important, a vibrant state party that is generating new ideas and winning elections could spark a needed reappraisal of conservatism and expand the Republican base in other parts of the country.”

Establishing a clear separation between the Republican Party in this region and the national Republican Party would have tangible benefits, both psychological and political. Such a separation would signal to independents and moderates that Republicans in this region recognize the national party’s flaws and wish to actually deliver on promises, as opposed to breaking them. An “Independent Republican Party” would also avoid the usual lefty accusations of slavish devotion to talk radio and Fox News.

Is there a potential downside to having an “Independent Republican Party” in this region? Perhaps. While the Northeast lacks large numbers of social conservatives, those on the social right who live in this region might feel disenfranchised by the establishment of a putatively conservative political entity that clearly wishes to deemphasize the importance of social issues. If an “Independent Republican Party” is established in this region, the party’s leaders must make clear that they are not hostile to blue-state residents with red-state sensibilities.

Having said that, the creation of an “Independent Republican Party” in the Northeast could be the vaccine that cures the disease of one-party rule. The GOP’s diminished presence in the Northeast is sickening. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could get well soon?

The GOP circular firing squad comes to Massachusetts, as the operators of the conservative site MassResistance.com tear into newly elected Massachusetts Republican Party chairman Jennifer Nassour for her recent remarks in Bay Windows.

“Newly elected Republican Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour has wasted no time making it clear where she wants the party to go,” Mass Resistance writes. ”Last week, in a front-page interview with the hardcore homosexual newspaper Bay Windows, she told the homosexual community that they didn’t need to worry about the Republican party opposing them on `social issues’ or ‘the culture wars.’”

The Windows article does note that “…those looking for Nassour and her colleagues at the state GOP headquarters to rally the base by campaigning for social conservative causes such as opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion will be disappointed.” However, the article further notes that “…there are no plans for the party to take more progressive positions on social issues. Nassour said the state party would steer clear of social issues under her leadership, and would support candidates for office regardless of what side they take in the culture wars.” (It must be noted that at no point in the article does Nassour endorse abortion or same-sex marriage.)

Mass Resistance claims that “…People are particularly upset that Nassour (and the others quoted in the article including politicians and pro-family leaders) would participate in an interview with a newspaper that is so extremely profane, obscene, and anti-family as Bay Windows. Among other things, Bay Windows is well-known for its vicious anti-Catholic rants, its hideous demonizing of pro-family individuals, it obsessive promotion for all kinds of deviant sexual practices, and its general pornographic content. (Besides Nassour, why are Sen. Robert Hedlund, Sen. Richard Tisei, Rob Willington, and Kris Mineau talking with Bay Windows — as if it were a legitimate media outlet?)”

Obviously, I’m not a regular reader of Bay Windows, so I have no idea if these assertions are true. However, even if Bay Windows does have this sort of content, one must ask: would it be wrong for Nassour and the other officials quoted in the piece to speak to the Boston Phoenix, which also has, uh, questionable content?

Of course, Mass Resistance can’t resist a little Mitt Romney-bashing (the unifying trait of those leading the GOP circular firing squad). “Under Mitt Romney, the party strenuously avoided social issues, particularly the homosexual ‘marriage’ issue, even though that was the hottest issue of the day. That led to some absurd situations in the 2004 elections. For example, Romney’s people gave huge financial and organizational support to Steven Howitt, a Republican who was running to unseat then-Rep. Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth). Although a Democrat, Travis was a leading pro-life, pro-family rep. Howitt was pro-choice and endorsed by several homosexual PACs. At one point the Republican Howitt even sent out flyers warning people that the Democrat Travis wanted to ‘take away a woman’s right to choose.’ (Luckily Travis won the election 63% to 37%.)”

Mass Resistance has been demonizing Romney for years because of his alleged false commitment to the pro-life, pro-family cause. The organization’s offical blog is a reliable source of anti-Romney sentiment. Apparently, because they view Nassour as a female Romney, this organization sees fit to tear her down as well, even before she really has a chance to reform the state GOP.

I understand why Nassour feels the need to de-emphasize social issues. Deval Patrick spent two years defending the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s establishment of same-sex marriage–and was rewarded with 56 percent of the vote. In fact, there was only one candidate in the 2006 gubernatorial election who opposed the gay-marriage ruling–Kerry Healey, who only received 35 percent of the vote. Yes, the SJC imposed same-sex marriage, but they imposed it on an electorate that didn’t really care all that much about the issue. Is Nassour wrong to recognize that? Is Nassour wrong to believe that opposition to abortion for birth-control purposes won’t get the GOP back into power in this state?

“Right now in 2009 a winning formula for Republicans [is] being fiscal conservatives,” Nassour told Bay Windows. ”Families are hurting right now, individuals are hurting right now, taxpayers, toll payers, people who have cars and are paying for gas, everyone is starting to feel the pinch. I think the most wining message for us is being fiscally conservative and showing how we can tighten our belts and run an efficient and effective government.”

Nassour is right. Her critics–who apparently look at her and see their personal devil Romney–are dead wrong.

Republicans should NOT allow the slander/calumny and obloquy of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to go unrequited. All those responsible for trashing her should and MUST be identified and banished from future political campaigns. Here is one view as to why Governor Palin is the GOP’s best hope. Your thoughts???

My own takeaway is this:  live free or die means more now than ever. John Bolton’s take on the international scene. For good measure, let’s include Madame Albright’s take as well.

Here are some insights from the blogosphere: GOP lost 6,000,000 votes. Why?

Peggy Joseph, poor lass. Liberalism is Crack Cocaine for the mind; the Democrat Party is the Crack Dealer.

The media decline continues led of course, by the New York Times.

Jews and blacks remain among the most loyal supporters of the Crack Dealer (Democrat) Party. Why is beyond me.