Home › Opinion › Opinion Columnists
Larsen: Retreating from the right
GOP moderates can regain control of the party
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion Columnists
Mitt Romney's suspension of his campaign Thursday assures Sen. John McCain the Republican Party's presidential nomination. But that had been a foregone conclusion even before Romney pulled out.
McCain has secured 60 percent of the 1,191 delegates he needs for nomination. Romney had only 25 percent when he pulled out. Mike Huckabee has 18 percent of the needed delegates and Rep. Ron Paul has 13 percent. McCain did suffer a small setback Saturday when he lost conservative-rich Kansas to Huckabee, but the momentum and the numbers remain with McCain. To keep him from an inevitable win, Huckabee and Paul would have to win nearly 60 percent of the Republican delegates still up for grabs.
With not as many conservative-rich states, the possibility of them blunting McCain's drive seems so unlikely that tactical retreat becomes the prudent move. Romney saw that. If they haven't already come to that conclusion, Huckabee and Paul will soon.
March 4 could see the end of the Republican nomination run. When the last voters cast their ballots that day, an additional 568 delegates will have been selected since Super Tuesday. McCain easily could pick up enough of the delegates he still needs to further marginalize, if not end, Huckabee's campaign.
Having a presumptive candidate that early in a presidential election year would normally be a good thing for a political party. It spares the candidate the rigors of a protracted primary fight, helps fill depleted campaign coffers and allows the party to unify itself behind the candidate.
Unfortunately, McCain's triumphant march toward nomination has ultraconservatives in a tizzy and threatens to shatter the party's so-called unity — if demanding party members not to think for themselves and walk in lockstep behind party leaders can be called unity.
The vitriol spewing from the self-anointed guardians of Republican principles — radio talk-show hosts, right-wing columnists and leaders of ultraconservative religious groups — exceeds the hatred they normally unleash only on liberals, moderates and their favorite whipping boy, former President Clinton.
The ultraconservatives have turned on McCain because he favors a sane and humane approach to the million of immigrants in this nation illegally. He rightly knows you can't solve problems without talking to the other side and correctly realized you can't cut taxes while raising spending, though he has flip-flopped and now favors the tax cuts being made permanent.
On almost every other issue — the war in Iraq, judicial nominations, domestic agendas — McCain would seem to be the ultraconservative's candidate of choice. Why, then, do they nip at McCain's heels like pesky Chihuahuas — a lot of high-pitched noise, but not much substance?
Could it be they see the handwriting on the wall? Could it be they realize that the moderate Republicans they tried to marginalize have decided to take back their party? Could it be they have nothing other than character assassination behind their shrill voices? Make no mistake, those in control of the Republican Party today do not represent the party of Abraham Lincoln or Barry Goldwater or even Ronald Reagan. They have transformed the party into one so extreme in outlook, so tied to Big Business, Big Oil and Big Money, one can only wonder why they have not taken that last step toward fascism.
By definition, from Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, "fascism" means "a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism and militarism."
Demanding lockstep obedience to party policy certainly does represent rigid control. Threatening to help defeat their own party members from office if they don't vote the right way certainly seems forcible suppression. And their belief that this nation must impose its brand of democracy on the world, by military means if necessary, and what amounts to an all-out war against Hispanics here illegally certain does seem to be "belligerent nationalism, racism and militarism."
So far, they don't advocate centralized governmental control of private enterprise, but then, they seem fine with private enterprise butting into government's role of crafting laws or helping direct government policy. That makes it difficult to decide who is controlling whom.
McCain has many traits that should endear him to ultraconservatives who feel they own the Republican Party. That ultraconservatives find fault with McCain has opened the way for moderate Republicans to reclaim the party from which they have been purged. All they have to do is believe that, yes, they can.
— Richard Larsen is a deputy opinion page editor at The Star. His e-mail address is rlarsen@VenturaCountyStar.com.
Posted by cassandra on February 12, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Larsen has one thing right: McCain is not really moderate. Because he is saner on immigration than his Republican cohorts is only one measure. And here he is only being realistic. We won't get the that toothpaste back in the tube, get many of that influx--often integrated into our economics and our population--returned to their nations of origin.
While we are militarily engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, occasionally Iran with provocations, and reportedly in Columbia now as well, McCain is rattling swords at Castro, a somewhat quiescent hostility to be brought to new flame. Why? Castro visited Vietnam circa '72 and McCain holds him responsible for the torture and killing of US soldiers. Oh, boy, another war to fight, to scare the voters into voting against their self-interest.
I just read an interview with Noam Chomsky from Democracy Now! in which he describe the internal "democracy deficit," the huge gap between public opinion and public policy--e.g. we ask for universal health care and get permanent warfare.
How does that happen? You up the hate and fear index so that anyone who says--are you nuts?--is labeled "soft" on whoever or whatever we are supposed to hate and fear this year.
Posted by nannyfo1 on February 12, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All of what has been laid out in this piece and subsequent posts seems to be describing the ultraliberal global warming agenda- "If you don't agree with us you must be an idiot." That sounds a lot like supression and lock-step.
The conservatives treatment of McCain has been no different than the liberal treatment of Hillary. I remember about a year ago when she was booed off the stage because she suggested that partial birth abortion was avoidable. Is that fascism I smell?
Posted by cassandra on February 12, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hillary was booed in a number of places by "friendly" audiences for a number of reasons, mostly having to do with the war. She has had a big problem with a constituency that is assumed to have no other place to go than the Democrats, due to a lack of a real opposition party. Progressives have issues, not one, but many with her. It is not for nothing that Nader threatened to run again if she were the nominee.
This is a matter not generally covered by the corporate media because the corporate ownership slants everything to the right. Most folks have no idea what's happening on the left unless they get info on the blogs instead of mass media
I can't remember that she said anything about partial birth abortions because frankly the real issue there is whether reproductive choice is something for governmental oversight. Most women don't believe they need governmental supervision of their uterus.
I too smell fascism, but it is coming from a different direction--the joining of political and corporate power. I believe it was Mussolini defined that as fascism
Posted by nannyfo1 on February 12, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
thank you j-dub for your tolerance and compassion for opinions other than your own. It has always amazed me that the loudest proponents of tolerance have the least amount of tolerance for opinions that differ from there own. Did you notice that the Northeast is experiencing record low temperatures? Must be another sign of global warming.
Posted by nannyfo1 on February 12, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassandra- partial birth abortion has nothing to do with a woman's womb. This procedure occurs after the baby has fully exited the mother's womb. The baby is delivered breach with the exception of the crown of the head. With feet, legs, torso, arms and neck delivered and viable, the base of the baby's skull is punctured and the brain is vacuumed through the puncture wound. Clearly this is murder. But the ultra liberal could not accept that Hillary thought this procedure might possibly be avoided.
Posted by cassandra on February 12, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not commenting on the procedure only on why I would not remember a position taken by Hillary on the topic. I'm not a medic. The issue for me is whether medical ethicists and pregnant people make the decision or politicians.
Vis-a-vis global warming--the predictable consequences are more extreme weather i.e. bigger and worse storms, tornados, etc. worse droughts, not necessarily local, sporadic heat waves. Remember when you were in middle school and you saw the Disney film "Hemo, the Magnificent"? The one about the sun and weather? The engine of weather is heat. More heat , more extreme weather, but not necessarily hot weather.
Posted by cassandra on February 12, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Also regarding Pro-lifers' propaganda: I don't trust ANYTHING coming from this quarter. Not since clinics were forced to say that abortion was a contributing cause of breast cancer, a manifestly false assertion meant to scare away those who might want one. I don't know if clinics still have to do this or not, but respect for truth is not high on the anti-abortionists agenda.
The last ploy I read was the attempt to join mental illness with abortion. You get enough lies and you don't believe anything from these sources.
Posted by nannyfo1 on February 12, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I appreciate your honesty about not wanting to comment on the "procedure". If I were pro-abortion I would not want to talk about that either.
Posted by sslocal on February 12, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Remember folks, it ain't over until the fat lady sings. Or is that don't count your chickens before they hatch?
Whatever, just stand by for now.
Posted by cassandra on February 12, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know anyone pro-abortion. The issue is one of choice. Younger women cannot recall what it was like to be without that choice. At my age, abortion is no longer an issue for me personally, and I feel that it is up to younger women to preserve a right to choice that my generation obtained for them. Maybe I've been burned by too many younger women saying things like, "I'm not a feminist but . . ." and then some foundation principle of feminism comes out of their mouth.
It's not about make-up and underarm shaving. It's about civil rights.
As to global warming, I don't think that's even open to questioning. Even Republicans have jumped on that bandwagon. Even McCain, last I heard. I won't argue except when someone says something like a record cold spell in Peoria or Kalamazoo disproves the phenomenon and needs corrective information.
Posted by Poppa on February 12, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Great editorial Mr. Larsen, you nailed it!
Posted by nannyfo1 on February 12, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Cassandra. I don't know anyone that is pro-abortion either.
Posted by GuideDog on February 12, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Romney went down to defeat for two principal reasons that had nothing to do with being a conservative:
1.) Romney ran a poorly planned and executed campaign where he showed he could not effectively and convincingly demonstrate who he was, what he really planned to do, or that he had "the stuff" of which leaders are made. McCain accomplished all of these with a fraction of the dollars that businessman Romney frittered away.
2.) There was no strategy Romney could use with too large a portion of his own party that demonstrated their prejudice toward him because of his religious faith. He surely knew this was bound to happen with the theocratic elements of his party that wish to see the religious law replace the U.S. Constitution, but I suspect he had a loftier view of his fellow Republicans than some of them deserved.
Posted by caskier on February 14, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassandra is representative of the high pitched screaming old ladies who constantly use the rhetoric about returning to the 50s and coat hangers. Nobody is suggesting a complete ban on abortion and a return to times before most of us were born. Partial birth abortion murders a baby. Period. If you are going to argue in favor of keeping partial birth abortion then please educate yourself on it. We are simply asking for some common sense controls that protect children! And yes, I am a woman... Not a man who wants control over your selfish uterus.
Larsen is so uneducated it is apalling. I can't even begin to list the problems with his assumptions. He acts like he is some kind of expert on the Republican party. Why doesn't the Star have someone who actually knows something about the Romney campaign and the Republican Party write a column? Larsen sounds like a disgruntled ranter passing his opinion off like it is fact. Get real!
Posted by USA_ROCKS on February 14, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The article is completely overblown.
Posted by rjlebeck on February 15, 2008 at 5:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
caskier,
Go ahead and try to start listing the "problems with his (Mr. Larsen's) assumptions". The only reason that you cannot is due to the lack of clarity that you can muster in defense of your own ignorant opinions.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
To say that John Mccain is too liberal is as ridiculous as saying that water is too wet.
Posted by caskier on February 15, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rjlebeck - its not truth its opinion so it hurts because he speaks like an expert when he is not. I don't have time to go into the litany of problems but here is a partial listing:
First, Larsen uses "self-annointed guardians of Republican principles" as his basis for his arguments. First of all - they are self- annointed, so therefore by definition cannot and are not representative of Republicans or conservatives. Secondly, the people he loosely refers to (Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.) are representative of ultra-conservatives; they are not necessarily Republicans. Larsen cannot and should not use these people's opinions as representative of conservative Republican thinking. Instead, he should ask some real voters as to why they feel John McCain is not the right choice - or "too liberral". It is not necessarily his prior position on illegal immigration but the fact that he and GW did not listen to the people of the US - not just Republicans - that we want secure borders and national ID FIRST and FOREMOST before discussing what to do about the people who are already here. He is a supposed leader in the Senate who sold out the public when it comes to this issue. Additionaly McCain is not as strict of a Constitutionalist as the other candidates when it comes to judicial appointments - a fact that Larsen got wrong. It has nothing to do with extremism. Larsen got this all wrong because the basis for his article is faulty. He should do better analysis. I could go on but why waste my time on closed minded people like you. I am not ignorant, as you profess. You know nothing about me and like a typical poster you cannot do anything but throw out labels and call names when you can't think of anything else to say.
Posted by rjlebeck on February 16, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
caskier,
So, I am a "typical" poster that can "throw out labels and call names". Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
According to you:
Larson is "uneducated" and a "disgruntled ranter" and cassandra is akin to "high pitched screaming old ladies". Hmmm......
Having endured the last 20 to 30 years of conservative Republican smear tactics it is about time that good Americans of all stripes begin to stand up to these bullies and call them out for the real cowards and the cancer to the body politic that they truly are.
I am oft reminded of the quote: The real evil in this world occurs when in the face of evil good men do nothing.
When the Limbaughs of this world can get away with referring to Barack Obama as a "magical Negro" or Hillary Clinton as a lesbian or when Ann Coulter refers to John Edwards as a "faggot" and there is nothing but stony silence from real conservatives like Mitt Romney, then one can only assume that your vaunted leaders secretly approve of the tactic or are afraid of offending their core constituency of narrow-minded hate-mongers.
Oh please do go on because it only reinforces my original point.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.