The first thing Republicans want if their party gets control of Congress this fall is for their current leadership to be replaced.
Usually it's the party that loses power whose voters want to clean house. The fact that GOP voters want new leaders even if they have a highly successful election cycle speaks to the disconnect between the voters fueling the Republicans' momentum this year and the party higher ups in Washington DC.
Only 21% of Republicans think the party should retain its current Congressional leadership if the party gains control with 57% saying it should be replaced.
When to comes to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell in particular the Republican base isn't too impressed either. Just 33% want Boehner to become Speaker with 34% saying it should be someone else and 33% unsure. For McConnell the numbers are even worse. Only 27% would like to see him as Majority Leader with 33% definitively wanting someone else and 40% not sure.
One interesting thing about these poll numbers is that it's actually the moderate wing of the GOP that's even more eager for change than the conservatives. For instance 37% of conservatives support Boehner for Speaker but only 25% of moderates do. And 31% on the right wing of the party would like to see McConnell become the top guy in the Senate but only 18% of moderates do.
If the Republicans get control and then tack even further to the right these numbers suggest Democrats may have a pretty good opening with GOP moderates in 2012, just as Republicans are having some success this year with conservative Democrats who think their party's gone too far left after ascending to power.
There's obviously going to be euphoria for Republicans on November 2nd if they get back one or both parts of Congress. But there's also going to be a lot of tension about who was responsible for the victory that has the potential to make that happiness wear off very fast. Going to be interesting to watch.
Full results here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Republicans will need to unite behind an alternate candidate. I don't see it happening. Boehner has shown he has a broad base of support in the house, even if he does not excite many. (Remember, Boehner was not the top choice on the first ballot -- Blunt 1st, Boehner 2nd, Shadegg 3rd. Boehner received most or all of Shadegg's votes, even though Shadegg would have been the conservative candidate.)
Neither Blunt nor Shadegg will be in the house in 2011. And the most plausible alternatives (Cantor, Ryan, McCarthy) seem to be satisfied with their current leadership positions. And Boehner has done a lot to successfully secure a Republican house and support new candidates. I don't see who would run against Boehner.
Boehner has been a solid opponent of earmarks, which is critical to reducing the arbitrary (and unaccountable) power and favoritism of the federal government. Boehner is probably an adequate conservative and an adequate tactical leader. More exciting conservatives can play a supporting role in leadership.
The speaker role is for a more moderate politician, anyways (Gingrich rather than Armey, Hastert rather than Delay). Conservatives should focus on the majority leader and the whip(s) and committee chairs rather than the speaker role.
"And the most plausible alternatives (Cantor, Ryan, McCarthy) seem to be satisfied with their current leadership positions."
I think the fact they're co-authoring a book to be released just after the election shows they're hungry to take power and take responsibility for the gains the GOP makes. If they're satisfied, their rising public profiles aren't jiving with that notion.
"And Boehner has done a lot to successfully secure a Republican house and support new candidates."
Not really. Republicans have been entirely at the whim of their base, who have not supported a lot of the party's chosen candidates for either House or Senate seats. And any wins in the general election will be mostly due to the wave and turnout, which is more environmentally created than party-controlled.
"The speaker role is for a more moderate politician, anyways (Gingrich rather than Armey, Hastert rather than Delay). Conservatives should focus on the majority leader and the whip(s) and committee chairs rather than the speaker role."
I can agree with that in principle, though in practicality, the Speaker is usually the party boss. There is no doubt Gingrich had more influence and power than any of his other party leaders; same for Pelosi when compared to Hoyer, Clyburn, etc.
Their book Young Guns is available now -- Sept 14 on Amazon -- not after the election. Cantor, Ryan, and McCarthy acknowledge to frustrated voters that Republicans had failed to govern according to conservative principles and pledge to reform Washington rather than allow power to be the end in itself. The book is being launched to drive the midterms rather than held back to drive the transition.
Cantor is the most natural leader of the bunch, but he is already in line to be majority leader. Ryan is poised to chair Budget and in time even to chair Ways and Means. Cantor elevated McCarthy to chief deputy whip and it was Boehner who tapped McCarthy to chair the Republican Platform Committee. Boehner also supports the earmark ban proposed by the three reformist leaders.
Current leadership is already recognizing and elevating the three young reformers. I would be more convinced if those elevating their public profile were not already in leadership positions. Why challenge Boehner when they are in line to be elevated anyway?
Boehner was a committee chair who ran as a reform candidate who sought to reform earmarks and rein in government spending. These themes are still the values of the reformist wing of the GOP caucus.
Boehner as a committee chair was not directly in line for leadership like Blunt was in 2006 or Cantor is now. Shadegg was a conservative from the Republican Study Committee, but is now retiring.
While the poll may show desire for new leadership, who is challenging leadership today from within congress but outside of current leadership?
http://www.amazon.com/Young-Guns-Generation-Conservative-Leaders/dp/1451607342/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284670201&sr=8-1#reader_1451607342
Isn't "Christian Liberty" an oxymoron? Kind of like "Taliban Liberty".
No, anonymous, it is exactly the opposite. Christianity is the source of all liberty. It is Christianity that inspires government to honor freedom of worship, separation of church and state (which protects the church from the government, not the other way around), innocence until guilt proven by due process, right to life and liberty and property, etc. Everything that is good comes from Christianity.
To put it simply, government is the source of all tyranny and Christianity is the source of all liberty. There is no such thing as too much Christianity or too much liberty. Christianity is the source of all virtue that sustains liberty.
First Anonymous,
Remember, in that sense, "liberty" means the freedom to be exactly how they tell you that you can be and do what they tell you that you can do. United we stand, as long as we all stand exactly the same way.
Christian proseltyzing and ranting in America are looking more like the Taliban every day. I don't want any religious based law. It's not necessary. What's needed is a return to reason. The founders feared the tyranny of a minority as much as anything else. Spiritualism does not require a personal hands on manager(God). The universal laws of the universe are love and non violence.
Believing in a magic sky-father of any sort is one of the most persistent and damaging delusions in human history. It's entirely possible to create perfectly viable systems of morality that don't depend on an invisible, omniscient observer waiting to dispense punishment.
Post a Comment