Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

“Southern Strategy Eating GOP Alive” – update

By

A quick update to my post of two weeks ago:

Call it the monster that ate its creator. The G.O.P.’s southern strategy (Wikipedia: “[A] Republican method of winning Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting racism among white voters.”) is eating the party alive before our eyes.

The relentless focus on Sotomayor’s arguably racist 2001 “wise Latina” comment — to the exclusion of issues, policy, even reason — is the latest case in point. NYT: “Four of the panel’s seven Republicans invoked the ‘wise Latina’ reference to criticize her.”

Kos offers a fascinating chart today: “Obama’s approval ratings by geography, per our weekly Daily Kos/Research 2000”:

The rest of his post reviews a comment by a retiring Ohio GOP Senator: “‘We got too many Jim DeMints and Tom Coburns,’ Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) told the Columbus Dispatch. ‘It’s the southerners.'” Salon has it here.

How much, if at all, will the reformulation of the Republican Party as a southern regional party affect its sympathizers in other parts of the country? In short, can Charlie Baker win as the first Southern governor of Massachusetts.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. We have enough recent history with Republican Governors to realize that the MA GOP is not the national GOP.  Just because Phil Johnston often used “rightwing” to describe Weld-Cellucci-Swift doesn’t make it so.

    • Mihos’s website originally billed him as an “independent Republican for governor”.  The independent has since been cut.  Wonder why…

      • The usage always reminded me of the defunct Minnesota Independent-Republican Party.  I’m hoping Christy’s change doesn’t reflect a similar transition:

        <

        p>

        The Independent-Republican Party (I-R) was the name used for the party from November 15, 1975 until September 23, 1995. Initially the name change was motivated by progressive businessmen within the party seeking to distance themselves from the socially conservative Goldwater and Reagan Republicans, as well as the corruption of President Nixon. During that time, the state party became more dependent on grassroots fundraising and eventually went bankrupt.

        After the National party pumped money into the party, in the early-mid eighties, their image and base began turning more conservative. During this time the party had both senate seats and briefly held control of the state house. By 1994, the grassroots had turned socially more conservative, and opted to become more aligned with the national party, changing the name back in 1995.

    • But of course, the current Republican Party seems to have less and less in common with the G.O.P. of the (even) recent past.

    • I’d agree on Weld, less so on Cellucci, Swift doesn’t really count, and Romney campaigned as Weld, then quickly went lockstep with the national party as he ramped up to run.  I realize the RMG isn’t the same thing as the GOP, but I don’t see a lot of space between the GOP denizens on here and there and the national party.

      <

      p>Please note that I differentiate GOP from conservative.  I’m talking party members.

      • Charlie Baker has come out as pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-stimulus which thus puts him to the far left of his party and right in the middle of the road in Massachusetts.

        <

        p>He has been open about this, calling himself a Weld Republican, and latest polls show most Massachusetts residents can tell the difference and still prefer the Republican to the Democrat.  

        • It’s pro-abortion rights, not pro-abortion; I have yet to meet anyone who is the latter.

          •  A candidate needs at least 15% of the convention vote in order to make the primary ballot.  

            • As a member of the MA GOP, do you see it as substantially different from the national party?  If so, how?

        • I haven’t seen anything clear about Baker’s views on abortion, gay marriage, or other social issues.  

        • I don’t believe a word he says about abortion and gay rights. I don’t see how his position on the federal stimulus plans makes a wit of difference.

          <

          p>I want to see Charlie Baker’s proposals for:

          <

          p>1. State and local revenue (taxes, fees, etc.)
          2. Transportation infrastructure
          3. Health care
          4. Education

          <

          p>I want to know what his proposals are, and then I’ll want to see how he intends to execute them.

  2. Don’t feed the GOP noise machine, Bob.

    <

    p>

    Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

    Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

  3. To be clear:

    <

    p>Nationally the GOP is f—-d. With the party base shrinking to one group of extremist right wingers the chance of anyone with Charlie Bakers, Olympia Snowe’s or even Jim Douglas’ views to emerge on the national stage is nill. Hell Kay Bailey Hutchinson is viewed as too liberal for Texas and she has an ACU (American Conservative Union) rating of 88 which is pretty high for a ‘liberal’ if you ask me.

    <

    p>I think the GOP will begin to see a resurgence in the Northeast in the next few years. I think they will win the retain the governorship in VT and CT and win it in MA, NJ, ME PA and possibly NY (if Patterson stays). They will win Senate seats in CT, and possibly NY. If moderate Republicans make a resurgence in blue states it could show them the blueprint to winning a national election again. But those ‘electable’ moderates will be shunned for their social views forcing candidates that could reasonably appeal to moderates and independents to shift hard right alienating the electorate (see John McCain).

    <

    p>Ironically the GOP of the 2010s will be a lot like the Democratic Party of the 1980s and early 90s: banned from the White House due to the base eliminating electable candidates from consideration, shut out of a whole region of competition, and then resurfacing with a moderate face from that very region (a la Bill Clinton). I predict the next Republican President will be a moderate from the Northeast although he or she won’t be sworn in until 2020.  

    • The republicans always find a way to screw up.  I wouldn’t be surprised if they nominate some clown like Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) to run against Obama and to continue their “southern strategy.”

      • He was the only GOP member of Senate Judiciary to vote to confirm Sotomayor.

        • To me he comes across as a weasel, the ultimate personification of same.  I cannot stand him.

          • I dislike Graham as well, but I suspect for quite different reasons. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

            • Do you think I agree with his opinions on social issues as well as political ones?  He is on the talk shows, especially Fox last time I watched, too much as though he has some sort of “conservative” wisdom to impart.  I can’t be more specific because now when he pops up for one of these interviews I change channels.

              • I find him personally and politically repellent, especially his positions on social issues.

                <

                p>I also find him just plain hard to listen to.  We used to call folks like him “oily.”

          • If I’m not mistaken, Edgarthearmenian, you hold most people in public life in low regard.

            <

            p>Given that view, how does Sen. Graham compare to other Senators in the animal collection?

            • in low regard.  Back in the 70’s and 80’s I was the rare Russian speaker who was asked to translate for various visiting groups from the old Sovok. So, I have actually met Dukakis, Kerry, Bulger and some other “people in public life.”  In those situations these politicians were very likeable, sincere folks who were interested in contributing to international peace and understanding. In fact, Michael Dukakis is one of the nicest people whom I have ever met, in any circumstance. A truly humble, sincere guy who does everything for his spouse and family. I don’t want to tell any tales out of school as I wish to remain anonymous, but it is the politics of these politicians (being redundant I know) that I find hard to accept. Now, as for Graham, I am personally repelled by his very presence on the TV screen, as well as his politics.  
              By the way, where have you been?  I was hoping to read your take on Gatesgate last week.  I know that you would provide a very rational analysis of the whole affair.  Best wishes.

              • I’ve been away and am glad for it.

                <

                p>It seems to me that the Gates affair just invites inane commentary. At this point, I don’t know many details about what happened. Should I? Won’t it just embroil me in the usual, mind-numbing arguments? As a sign of this, a TV at the gym tonight featured a soundless Lou Dobbs. The talking heads sharing the split screen belonged to Ann Coulter and Rev. Al Sharpton. The Cirque du Soleil has better acts, I’m sure.

                <

                p>The wise comments aren’t due for another year.

                Interesting history, Edgarthearmenian. Possibly that explains the extent to which you base your judgments on character. (I’m reminded of your comments on global warming.)

          • He’s way too conservative for me and I’m sure I could never vote for him, but this isn’t the first time he bucked his party.  He was also the only GOP member of the House Judiciary Committee to vote against one of the Clinton impeachment articles.

  4. The GOP having a 6/91 fa/unfav rating in the northeast?  Someone must have mixed up their random assortment of 500 registered voters with some call list from an Obama phone bank.  

    • Research 2000 has a solid reputation.  All cross tabs, questions, and methodologies are made public.

      <

      p>Dive through the data and find the questionable bits, post ’em, and explain why they’re questionable.  In short, put up or shut up.

      • looking at these dubious numbers, is the gem that a post talking about how the southern strategy is eating the GOP alive and how the south is nothing like the rest of the country — the congressional dems have a higher favorability rating than congressional republicans?  Give me a break.  

        <

        p>If there was, in reality, such a difference in favorability, then there wouldn’t be such tightness in alll these other polls.  The two are very related.  

            • Right now I’m not even sure what argument you’re trying to make aside from “Give me a break.”  Why are the numbers dubious?  Where are the two stats related?

              • That people who view congressional republicans in an unfavorable way and viewing congressional democrats in a favorable way aren’t going to be voting republican on the generic ballot.  

                • I still have no idea what you’re trying to say or what it has to do with what was posted.

  5. I care about the national G.O.P. about as much as they care about Massachusetts. Draw your own conclusions. My town RTC had it’s first meeting in yea knows how long. 15 people ain’t much, but it’s a beginning. maybe in about 10 years…  

  6. To answer Bobs original sarcastic question can Charlie Baker win as the first Southern governor of Massachusetts I would point out that on economic and social issues he is far to the left of the last Southern Governor to win our state-Bill Clinton.

    <

    p>Lets see Bill Clinton is the author of the dreaded DADT policy, signed DOMA, and basically gave his gay supporters the shaft all eight years to retain some family values voters (who happily ignored his own violation of the sanctity of marriage) and get Gingrich to back him on some key provisions.

    <

    p>Charlie Baker supports full marriage equality and attended his gay brothers wedding-I think that makes him more progressive than the last Southern governor we voted for.

    <

    p>Clinton gutted Welfare, started the march to war in Iraq with the erroneous WMD claims and Desert Fox, opposed universal healthcare, cut taxes and cut spending to balance his budget.
    He also deregulated the banking industry that helped caused this economic crisis and reduced capital gains taxes.

    <

    p>Baker is committed to preserving the status quo in MA on welfare, will retain the universal mandate in Romneycare, won’t raise taxes but hasn’t promised to cut them either, supports MORE regulation in his own industry (healthcare) and presumably in other industries as well. Will not cut capital gains or income taxes.

    <

    p>So I would argue here that Baker is either on par with Clinton or to his LEFT on the economy. Both Weld and Baker are more liberal than Bill Clinton the actual Southern Governor we voted for. In the old days progressives voted for Democrats (Wilson, FDR) and Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover) alike. True progressives favor reform, favor open government, favor individual choice and freedom, favor government regulation, favor efficiency, and most importantly believe that America is a meritocracy where good ideas that are scientifically tested and applied should be applauded and adopted-they are not blind partisans. We should judge Baker on his merits not the R next to his name.  

    • OK, so what? Clinton was not a great President. I voted for him because the alternative was worse, but he did very little while in office that I thought was actually good.

      <

      p>When the Republicans stop throwing up Clinton in every discussion, maybe I’ll ignore that (R).  

      • I’ll ask you the question Al Gore should have asked George W. Bush in the 2000 debates: “What part of sustained peace and prosperity didn’t you like?”  Are there things I wish he had done differently? – yes, but overall it was a great 8 years and the reason I supported Hillary in 2008 was in large part to get both Clintons back in the White House.

Archives