The Tea Party Blues

A couple of posts ago, I ranted and raved (which I have a tendency to do) about how the Tea Party was fringe and non-relevant. Boy was I wrong (as happens from time to time, or all the time!). As I write this post, Christine O'Donnell has defeated Mike Castle in Delaware for the Republican Senate nomination. For those that don't know, I lived in Delaware for four years and Mike Castle is as much of a favorite son as you can be. What's even more shocking is that O'Donnell had the "perennial candidate" syndrome where she was always on the ballot for something but never seemed to get any traction.

To get back onto a little more of a philosophical note, I think 2010 has been the season of tea for several different reasons. For starters, the most involved and dedicated voters (especially in the primaries) are arguably the "hard-core" partisans and ideologues. For Republicans this means ultra-conservative partisans dominate the process, and for Democrats it's progressive and liberals. What has been different in this season is that Democrats have been more lenient to their moderate members while Republicans have brought the hammer down on them with force. For examples, I use Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, a moderate Democrat who survived a left-wing primary challenger and Mike Castle/Lisa Murkowski, two arguably moderate Republicans who were shocked by tea party upstarts.

To summarize the conversation so far, one could argue that the Republican tent is getting smaller while the Democrat tent is for most purposes staying the same. Republicans are demanding ideological purity while it is common knowledge that most Americans are moderates/independents. Does this help the party? You can argue both sides effectively but you can't argue the fact that it makes Democrats more competitive in many races where they were all but written off. The larger question is what does it mean for the future of the Republican party? Does it move right and assimilate the tea party-ers into its base, or do two separate factions develop that threaten to virtually hand the races to Democrats?

I've been on the record saying that moderate candidates are good for America. This means people like Mike Castle, Scott Brown, Tom Kean, Claire McCaskill, John Warner and Jon Tester. You can argue that I've named all liberal politicians here, but if you check their voting records you will find that they buck their party more than most for the good of their constituents (and to save their hides!). It isn't about being Republican or Democrat, it is about being able to go against your party and vote for your people. You can call that a RINO if you want, but I call it a moderate.

New Jersey's First District: The Fighting Firsts

New Jersey Democratic Congressman Rob Andrews will be running for re-election in 2010 against familiar nemesis Dale Glading, you may remember Dale for granting this interview to the American Portrait back in 2008. Glading was only able to garner 26% of the vote in 2008 and while he will definitely fare better in the current climate, his chances of election are slim.

Dale writes on his campaign page that with "career politician" Rob Andrews, "not much has changed". Much has been made of Andrews complete debacle in 2008 when he had his wife keep the congressional seat warm for him while he tested the waters for Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat. Andrews tried to claim he changed his mind after deep personal reflection although it was clearly and objectively a bogus story. You may recall me observantly pointing out the fact that Camille Andrews (Rob Andrews' wife and placeholder for his house seat) didn't even bother to put up policy stances on her campaign website. She may be very friendly and nice in person but she was definitely a lousy candidate.

While Glading definitely hits some points home against Andrews, mainly the argument that Andrews has an "insatiable" appetite for higher office, he faces a daunting election against a congressional juggernaut. County Republicans would love to brand Andrews as liberal and socialist in the hopes of it gaining traction with a frustrated electorate, but do the facts back that up? The New York Times (an arguably biased source) brands Andrews as a "fiscally conservative...and socially moderate". Glading on the other hand, doesn't give any hints as to his stances on social issues via his website.

As Glading has cast himself as a conservative, one would think he would be socially and fiscally conservative. This perceived social conservatism (whether true or untrue, he hasn't said anything to the contrary) goes squarely against the traditional New Jersey mold. In fact, New Jersey's 1st congressional district scores a DVI of +12 (Democratic) in the Cook Partisan Voting Index. So while Glading would more than likely be an agent of change for South Jersey, his social stances might be a tough pill to swallow for many South Jerseyans. So while Rob Andrews' actions were clearly questionable, if no suitable candidate attuned to the county's political leanings emerges, it is this blog's opinion he will be comfortably re-elected in November.