A year ago, many on the right thought it was absolutely hilarious the way in which progressive activists targeted incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman, recruited a primary challenger, and defeated him in an intense primary.
How foolish, the right said, for Democrats to go to so much trouble taking on a member of their own party, who agrees with activists on most of the big issues. Especially after Lieberman ended up winning the general election, it was common to hear conservatives taunt the left about wasting its time and having nothing to show for it.
Now, just a few months later, the right has decided that the left’s approach might make sense after all.
House Republican leaders and conservative activists are targeting critics of President Bush’s plan to send more combat forces into Iraq — and some GOP lawmakers are on the hit list.
Amid a mounting campaign in Congress to limit Bush’s military options, conservatives led by talk show host Hugh Hewitt have created an advocacy group designed to counter the anti-war MoveOn.org. And its first round of targets will be the 17 GOP lawmakers who voted for last week’s Democratic resolution in the House opposing the troop increases.
They appear to be quite serious. It started a few weeks ago when Hugh Hewitt unveiled “The Pledge,” which vowed to cut off support to lawmakers who vote against Bush’s escalation policy, and to cut off support for the Republicans’ campaign committee unless it committed (in writing) not to spend a penny on those lawmakers’ behalf.
“The Pledge” transitioned into an even more authoritarian exercise called the “Victory Caucus,” which is targeting individual Republican heretics. Any concerns about challenging incumbent Republicans who agree with the right-wing base on everything else? Dean Barnett, a member of the Victory Caucus Board of Governors, said, “The Iraq issue transcends partisan politics.”
Even a “rock-ribbed conservative” has to toe the party line — or else.
John Hawkins went so far as to draw on last year’s example, saying he wants to “pull a Lieberman on renegade Republicans.”
[W]e have far too many Republicans in the House that are arrogant, out of touch, unprincipled, and unresponsive to conservatives. That has got to change and since sweet reason and the drubbing the GOP took in 2006 hasn’t gotten through to them, the next step is putting them out of a job.
Beating entrenched incumbents in a primary isn’t easy, but if conservatives can’t get the ear of Republicans in Congress any other way, then the only way forward is to replace them with representatives that will listen.
If the GOP is awake it will quickly begin recruiting and publicizing the candidates with appeal to the sort of voter represented by the Victory Caucus. They will also announce to the White Flag Republicans that they have made their choice, and they cannot expect the party to order shields up.
The voters involved in the VC want the Republican Party to act as though it believes in the mission in Iraq by identifying new faces and new voices with military experience to challenge the 2006 Democrats in red districts. The opportunity exists to channel the tremendous energy unleashed by the “slow bleed” Democrats, as Mark Steyn calls them. But the GOP’s Comngressional [sic] leadership needs to wake up to the fact that the activists are amazed at their inaction and defensiveness.
Remember, all this anger is the result of a debate on a non-binding resolution, which Republicans insisted was utterly meaningless and hardly worth voting on. And now, fairly significant far-right voices are talking openly about primary challenges against a series of GOP incumbents who dare to agree with military leaders, policy experts, and voters about the efficacy of an escalation strategy that Bush himself wasn’t too keen on until fairly recently.
I have to say, these guys are starting to act a lot like … Democrats. It should be fun to watch.