The real ideologues who want a party purge

I’ll describe the scenario, you guess the race: a well-funded incumbent faces a primary challenge that strikes a chord with the party base. The party establishment rallies to the incumbent lawmaker’s aid, while the upstart challenger gets support from partisan activists and a nationally-known organization, which commits extensive resources to the campaign. In the end, the base beat the establishment and the challenger won the primary by a single digits.

The race, of course, was the GOP primary in Michigan’s 7th congressional district, in which evangelical minister Tim Walberg defeated incumbent Rep. Joe Schwarz, thanks in large part to the assistance from the Club for Growth. As TNR’s Michael Crowley explained in a very interesting piece, “The political world may be riveted by liberal ideologues trying to oust Joe Lieberman. But it’s conservative ideologues, led by the Club for Growth, who may wind up delivering the U.S. Senate into Democratic hands.”

Since its inception, the Club for Growth has been a stone in the shoe of Washington Republicans. Party leaders may share the Club’s core ideology of maximum tax cuts and spending reductions, but they also recognize the reality of the electorate — namely that Republicans from moderate states and districts shouldn’t commit political suicide in the name of ideology. So, when the Club began mounting primary challenges against Northeastern moderates like Sherwood Boehlert and Marge Roukema, it did so in opposition to congressional GOP leaders. (“We can’t have this infighting between conservatives and moderates and maintain our majority,” Tom DeLay grumbled to The Washington Post in 2000.)

When the Club ran TV ads attacking moderate Republican senators who had been opposing a 2003 Bush tax cut, Karl Rove pronounced the move “stupid.” And many Republicans were furious in 2004 when the Club spent $2.3 million in a bid to end Arlen Specter’s 24-year Senate career. Its chosen candidate, right-wing Pennsylvania Representative Pat Toomey — who ripped Specter as a “dangerous liberal” — came within two points of succeeding, even though few Republicans believed Toomey could survive a general election.

Of course, this year, the Club for Growth is actually starting to make a difference. It’s not just in Michigan’s 7th.

Most notably, the Club is investing nearly $1 million in backing Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey against Sen. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island’s Republican Senate primary. Confronted with the charge that Laffey can’t win a general election campaign in a solidly “blue” state, and that the Club for Growth should get with the GOP program, the group says replacing Chafee, the most liberal Republican in Congress, with a real Dem “wouldn’t be much of a loss … as he would vote much the same.”

Then there’s the race in Idaho’s 1st.

[B]oth parties are watching Idaho’s First District, where the Club has spent more than $300,000 on behalf of State Representative Bill Sali. A Christian fundamentalist and home-schooler, Sali is widely known, even among Republicans, as an insufferable jerk. “A bully,” according to one of his fellow conservative legislators. “Just an absolute idiot,” the GOP state House speaker recently said. Mike Simpson, the sitting representative from the state’s other congressional district, even threatened during one heated argument to throw Sali out a window.

When Vice President Dick Cheney visited for a Sali fund-raiser, the scene was a like a birthday party for the class pariah; only three of Sali’s 104 legislative colleagues showed. A group of anti-Sali Republican businessmen have gone so far as to endorse the Democrat in the race, apparently on the theory that it’s better to sacrifice the seat to Democrats for two years than be stuck with a Republican they despise. Ordinarily, Democrats would consider an Idaho seat utterly hopeless. But, one party operative says, they’re keeping an eye on the race, “only because [Sali]’s in it.”

Here’s my question: why do we hear non-stop talk about MoveOn.org and Connecticut when a conservative special interest group is running around the country with impunity trying to a) purge the GOP of nearly every moderate they can find; and b) elect far-right ideologues? If I had a nickel for every news item about how crazy lefties have been mean to Joe Lieberman and are trying to hijack the Democratic Party, it’d be like winning the lottery. But on the other side of the aisle, it’s practical silence.

Note to editors everywhere: there’s a real purge of moderates underway, but you’re looking at the wrong party.

Corporate-owned MSM.

I know someone will write far more eloquately than I about it, but that is it.

And media group think. The reporters just don’t do their own work anymore and the editors don’t send them out on unique stories.

Personally, I believe that all media should be owned only by individuals and it should be illegal to have corporations own media.

  • “Note to editors everywhere: there’s a real purge of moderates underway, but you’re looking at the wrong party.”

    I agree with Lance.

    Note to liberal media critics: Editors, Producers, Pundits and News Anchors Everywhere are well-aware of who signs their paychecks. The Corporate Media IS the corporate right-wing media — there is no other.

    The foundation of the Republican Party and the conservative movement are the same kleptomaniac CEO’s and aspiring CEOs, who run all Media.

  • Bruce of course is the more eloquant 😉

    But let me point out one fun observation again. Corporate media is out to make money. Death and Destruction makes them money, not cheery little stories about building girls schools in Iraq.

    Thus, all that comes out of Iraq is bad news stories. It’s what pays for Corporate Media and the few remaining liberal outlets know it’s the real story.

    So when Boy George II and Cheney and Rumsfeld whine that the ‘good news’ of Iraq is being ignored, they want to blame the ‘liberal’ media (NPR and PBS, I guess) but somehow, the Corporate MSM is telling the same story.

    As ET says. Schadenfreude 😉

  • Um, maybe because it’s ok if Republicans do it?

    Seems to me like I’ve heard that somewhere before.

  • why do we hear non-stop talk about MoveOn.org and Connecticut when a conservative special interest group is running around the country with impunity trying to a) purge the GOP of nearly every moderate they can find—–Carpetbagger

    Because the press has a liberal bias

  • Well, the “corporate media” also brought you various stories about Bush civil-liberties violations (e.g., warrantless wiretapping). That’s not death and destruction.

    I don’t think the press is awful. I do think, however, that a hell of a lot of the top “insider” political reporters and pundits are staggeringly awful. They’ve internalized all the talking points of the “in” party, the GOP, and the Club for Growth story contradicts those talking points, so it’ll never be told. (Similarly, “angry crazy liberal bloggers” jibes with GOP talking points, whereas “the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler just called for the lynching of five Supreme Court justices” doesn’t, so only the former makes the papers.)

    Also, wioth regard to Iraq, a lot of the negative reporting (Michael Gordon, Thomas Ricks, etc.) is about process, not death — corruption and poor planning. Those guys are far away from the Beltway — they’re not getting messages from Grover Norquist on their Blackberrys. And they’re telling us some of the truth. That’s not a coincidence.

  • I laugh out loud every time I read the name “Club for Growth”. It reminds me of a group of bald guys wanting to grow their hair back.

    Sorry I don’t have more to contribute to the thread… maybe I’ll add that here’s yet another example of the old double standard in how the news is reported.

  • Maybe the left going after a three term Senator who was the parties vice presidential candidate in 2000 and one of the most widely known democrats and senators is much more newsworthy and important than a congressonal primary in Idaho and Michigan featuring unknown congressmen or an obscure Senator who is only in office because he has his fathers seat.

  • Maybe the left going after a three term Senator who was the parties vice presidential candidate in 2000 and one of the most widely known democrats and senators is much more newsworthy and important than a congressonal primary in Idaho and Michigan featuring unknown congressmen or an obscure Senator who is only in office because he has his fathers seat.

    Hmmm … yes … the MSM didn’t pay nearly enough attention to the Pat Toomey/Arlen Specter race as it does the Lamont/Lieberman race. Specter is a “moderate” (cough, cough) Republican, widely known outside of his state and a former presidential candidate. His opponent drew support from right-wing voters who were angry over his voting record. It’s a pretty easy parallel to make.

    You’re right about the Lieberman race being newsworthy. That doesn’t explain the absence of media scrutiny in contested Republican primaries.

  • If Toomey beat Specter the media would have paid a lot of attention. The lamont – lieberman race did not get major media attention until Lamont won. Also wasn’t the Specter race during the 2004 Presidential year. that always overshadows senate races. Spector has never been nominited as a presidential or vice-presidential candidate or even gotten close. lieberman was the number two man in the party in 2000. the lamont victory was quite a big news event, much more important than the GOP congress primaries, which as a moderate republican, I am none too happy about.

  • “I don’t think the press is awful” Anyone who believe this has his head up his patootie. The press, be it print, radio, or TV is Mind-Numbing.
    Schadenfreude is a good word for this repug crap. The petard is of the Limbaugh ilk.Does anyone remember the howls over Jame Carville antics? Than we thought the hot ill-wind was Buchanan. The game has gotten worser and worser.My only worry is the wusses that hide from the opposition. Time for Demos to show some mettle.

  • The lamont – lieberman race did not get major media attention until Lamont won.

    You’re kidding, right? The week before the primary there were stories about the Lieberman/Lamont contest on national networks and newspapers. I was on vacation then, and I know the Salt Lake Tribune covered it.

    Beyond the presidential race, the other major difference is that Toomey respected the voters’ decision and didn’t launch an independent bid for the Senate after losing the primary. Lieberman, looking to save his sorry ass, did. In that respect, Toomey’s the better man.

  • Here in RI Steve Laffery is the choice of the true reactionary, whose presence (the reactionary’s) can be seen in the Club for Growth-sponsered ads. Laffey’ll most likely lose the primary but seeing Chaffee sweat is a little fun. Or “schadenfreude”, if you prefer.

    What, exactly, is the “club for growth” growing? I’d be pleased if they said, “ganja, man, what do you think!?” but something tells me that’s not what they’re trying to “grow”.

    Conservatives and other right-wing kooks make up maybe 30% of the electorate so what they expect to grow, other than more reactionaries, escapes me.

  • For years now, Liberals and progressives have been warning the People about the dangerous pack of wolves within the GOP. Naturally, the Republicanners have denied this, choosing to spin instead the demonization of the Democratic Party’s elemental thought processes. For the GOP to openly acknowledge—even to suggest in the most vague of terms—that there actually “IS” a pack of dangerous wolves within their ranks would be to, ineffect, hand several elections to the Dems by default.

    Case in point:

    ***A group of anti-Sali Republican businessmen have gone so far as to endorse the Democrat in the race, apparently on the theory that it’s better to sacrifice the seat to Democrats for two years than be stuck with a Republican they despise.***

    This “group” knows full well that, should Sali win the seat, it could deliver an almost-irrepairable black eye to the state party and could, at least theoretically—and it’s a pretty solid theory, at that—drive rank-and-file Republicans to vote Democratic on a wholesale level. It would be an historic event: The first-ever Idaho tsunami—inflicted by the Republican Party….

  • What, exactly, is the “club for growth” growing? — Mark, #15

    Um… “Growth” is one of the (older) euphemisms for cancer…

  • Until the Dems start winning some elections for a change, the GOP is going to get the benefit of the doubt in the media’s eyes. Something along the lines of – the GOP must know what they’re doing, even if they are purging and bowing down to the far right, because they keep winning. Dems may be able to point to all sorts of rational reason why we’re the true big tent party, but until we win a majority somewhere and prove it, no one is going to listen. Why should they?

  • “.. But it’s conservative ideologues, led by the Club for Growth Cancer, who may wind up delivering the U.S. Senate into Democratic hands.”

    — So maybe the MSM are doing us a favor by keeping quiet about it ??

  • Comments are closed.