Sometimes you read an article in the newspaper, and you just wonder aloud how some people’s views of the world can be so skewed, and wonder if they are even from the same planet as you. Now I admit that usually, in the context of politics, that is me reading the latest rant of a Howard Dean or an Al Gore. But in the article I am referring to today, it is Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia, a Republican, who heavily quoted in an article in today’s Washington Times entitled, GOP Left Slams Club for Growth.
Davis is the head of a GOP Congressional ‘interest group’ called the Republican Main Street Partnership. On their website, the RMSP proclaims that they were founded in 1998 to, "promote thoughtful leadership in the Republican Party, and to partner with individuals, organizations and institutions that share centrist values." The translation of this lofty mission statement is that this organization has been formed by wishy-washy liberal GOPers who are the greatest danger to our keeping our Republican majority. Why? Because it is this group that doesn’t seem to believe in taking the strong, bold decisive actions that our majority needs to take in order to clearly present a contrasting vision for leading America as compared to the agenda of Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats.
It is this group with whom the Congressional Leadership must constantly struggle as they whine and dumb-down proposal after proposal to cut tax rates, to reform social security and entitlements, and to really grapple with the number one problem facing the federal government in America – that it is too big, and has expanded in scope to an obscene level unimaginable by our founding fathers. It is with this knowledge that my eyes almost popped out of my head when I read this article.
The irony is that Davis, on behalf of the RMSP, throws out a red-herring argument that his organization’s members are being targeted (or ‘not supported’) because they are ‘socially moderate’ — but the reality is that the Club for Growth as an organization is not primarily focused on social issues! If you go to the Club for Growth website, here are their top legislative priorities… Making the Bush tax cuts permanent, Death tax repeal, Cutting and limiting government spending, Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts, Expanding free trade, Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits, Replacing the current tax code, School choice, and Regulatory reform and deregulation.
Hello? Earth to Tom Davis? Read the list. Do you see abortion? Prayer in school? Gay Marriage? Etcetra. Not that these latter ‘social issues’ aren’t important, but I think that Representative Davis is trying to mislead people from the rather obvious fact — if the Club for Growth is not supporting a Republican (or is opposing one), it is because that Republican is an ECONOMIC FISCAL LIBERAL who is ENDANGERING OUR MAJORITY by opposing the policy goals they list above. Over and over and over, "Main Street" Republicans, hiding behind rhetoric and excuses, play a pivital role in endangering the GOP majority by stopping us from passing true and meaningful reforms that address the fiscal woes of America, and tries to undo this unprecidented expansion of the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy.
**There is more – click the link**
July 12th, 2006 at 12:00 am
David Dreier – no surprise. He’s as big goverment as Bush himself.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Put take a slant on Henretty’s mentions of Sun Tzu and her take of their implementation, you gotta hand it to the mainstream folks…they can take credit for Bilbray…the club took a walk.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:00 am
In retrospect, what should the Club for Growth have done in the CD 50 Special. Kaloogian was viewed as the beltway-conservative-group candidate, Morrow (your client) is well respected — how do they pick a favorite there? Then Roach came on strong in the end. Hind-sight being 20-20, I guess they should have waited and then dumped a massive hit on Bilbray. Oh well.
July 14th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Dear Jon:
I read your piece (above) on the Republican Main Street Partnership and its feud with the Club for Growth earlier this week. In it, you suggest that the Republican Main Street Partnership is a grouping of political leaders who are “wishy-washy liberal GOPers.” The basis for this suggestion seems to lie in the fact that the Republican Main Street Partnership is openly engaged in a dispute with the Club for Growth, who claim that RMSP represents, in your words, “economic fiscal liberals”—a rather bizarre conclusion and, sadly for the Club, one that does not hold up under scrutiny.
As you say, “the Club for Growth as an organization is not PRIMARILY focused on social issues” (my emphasis added). However, the Club’s focus can be contrasted with that of other established and well-respected conservative groups whose focus is EXCLUSIVELY on fiscal and economic issues: e.g., Americans for Tax Reform, National Taxpayers’ Union, and Citizens Against Government Waste—groups who generally give Main Street members solid ratings that put more of their members than not definitively in the conservative, and not the “wishy-washy liberal,” camp.
In fact, many Main Street members receive ratings from these groups that are equal to or better than those of some poster-children of the conservative movement, including some who have received strong support from the Club in the recent past. Compare for a moment these recent ratings received by, respectively, Main Street members and conservatives often lauded by Club for Growth groupies for their fiscal and economic (as well as their social) records:
Main Street Members
Johnny Isakson: ATR: 95%; NTU: 77%; CAGW: 75%
John McCain: ATR: 90%; NTU: 78%; CAGW: 91%
Mary Bono: ATR: 92%; NTU: 55%; CAGW: 72%
David Dreier: ATR: 96%; NTU: 55%; CAGW: 71%
Jim Kolbe: ATR: 96%; NTU: 59%; CAGW: 79%
Jim McCrery: ATR: 96%; NTU: 57%; CAGW: 74%
Tom Petri: ATR: 88%; NTU: 67%; CAGW: 79%
Conservatives
John Ensign: ATR: 85%; NTU: 82%; CAGW: 83%
Rick Santorum: ATR: 95%; NTU: 69%; CAGW: 68%
John Thune: ATR: 75%; NTU: 63%; CAGW: 58%
Tom DeLay: ATR: 92%; NTU: 55%; CAGW: 74%
Thelma Drake: ATR: 88%; NTU: 59%; CAGW: 71%
John Hostettler: ATR: 75%; NTU: 71%; CAGW: 79%
Patrick McHenry: ATR: 88%; NTU: 70%; CAGW: 85%
Perhaps you can explain to me, and your readers, how it is, based on these ratings from these conservative interest groups, that you feel able to label Main Street as a block of “wishy-washy liberal GOPers” while some who are consistently praised by Club donors and supporters have equally “wishy-washy” or—dare I say it—even more “liberal” records. Is your argument that Grover Norquist is also a wishy-washy liberal GOPer and that his organization is promoting economic fiscal liberals by giving “Democrats at heart” 90% plus ratings?
I suspect your view is rather that the Club for Growth has a better method of assessing legislators than ATR (and these other groups), and therefore that when it labels someone a “conservative” or a “liberal,” its label is accurate, honest and credible. However, this argument is utterly undercut by the Club’s own actions of late.
Take for example its decision to endorse Henry Cuellar (D-28-TX). The Club’s press release of January 23, 2006 relating to its endorsement of Rep. Cuellar characterizes him as “pro-growth.”
I take the Club’s point about Rep. Cuellar’s opponent in his primary having been less fiscally conservative than him, but does the Club for Growth really think that a legislator who earned a measly 48% rating from ATR, a 49% rating from NTU (not even meeting NTU’s standard for an “acceptable record”) and a 39% rating from CAGW (which pins him firmly as taxpayer “unfriendly”) deserves the pro-growth label? Does the Club really think that this endorsement demonstrates its commitment to using its power and prestige to oppose economic liberals and promote conservatives?
I expect the Club’s argument is that these ratings from ATR, NTU and CAGW are not indicative of Cuellar’s true values. After all, the press release says, Cuellar recently voted to extend the 15% tax rate on dividends and capital gains through 2010 and to repeal the Death Tax, and that he “supports” making the Bush tax cuts permanent, free trade, and school choice.
I will grant you that Cuellar’s record beats Ted Kennedy’s hands down. But I’d be willing to bet that’s also true of the record of every single member of Republican Main Street Partnership. The fact of the matter is, the Club’s endorsement of Cuellar, coupled with its efforts to bring down legislators like Joe Schwarz—who voted in favor of the Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, and CAFTA, but who the Club calls a “liberal”—seriously draws its credibility into question.
Is the Club so interested in currying favor with political pundits as a truly non-partisan group that it ignored its own priorities and values in order to endorse a legislator that legitimate fiscal conservative groups recognize as a liberal? Is the organization simply out to attack Republicans who hold socially moderate views, despite the fact that the Club, in your words is “not primarily focused on social issues”? Or is the Club experiencing a sort of multiple personality disorder that afflicts non-profits in election years? Irrespective of the answer, the result of the Club’s actions of late is clear: its credibility is in the toilet for many of us within the Republican community—moderate, libertarian, AND conservative.
As the ratings I’ve quoted above suggest, Main Street is not—contrary to your comment—a group that doesn’t believe in taking the strong, bold, decisive actions that our majority needs to contrast the Republican party with the Democrats. In fact, by my math, Main Street members’ recent ratings from ATR average 81%– just four percentage points below ATR’s rating of John Ensign, a legislator recognized as a rock-solid conservative across the board.
Literally the only strong, bold, decisive actions that Main Street as a block is not taking, and which might be claimed as necessary to contrast the Republican party with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid & Co are on social issues. And anyone who thinks that banning gay marriage and flag burning, or instituting prayer in public schools are higher priorities than tax and spending cuts, deregulation and entitlement reform is the true betrayer of conservative philosophy and the legacy of Reagan and Goldwater.
If anyone is working hard to encourage voters who are sick and tired of out-of-control spending and being taxed too much to vote for Democrats this fall, it is not Main Street members with their 81% average ATR rating. It is the gang of arch-conservatives in Congress, all too frequently praised by the Club’s supporters, who would rather debate social issues than deal with core economic and fiscal reforms advocated by reputable conservative think-tanks and non-profits.
Liz Mair