It’s kind of interesting to read this profile of Lamar Alexander in CQ Politics because it both affirms my belief that he should have been made Minority Leader in the aftermath of two successive landslide election losses for the Republicans and it disabuses me of the idea that that that would be a good thing for the GOP and the country. One thing that I find interesting about the article is the assumption that the Republican’s Senate caucus is going to get more conservative in the next Congress. That might happen, but it might not.
It should be remembered that RNSC Chairman Sen. John Cornyn of Texas was very practical when it came time to recruit candidates. He didn’t recruit Rand Paul or Marco Rubio or Tom Campbell. He recruited Trey Grayson, Charlie Crist, Carly Fiorina, Mike Castle, and Mark Kirk. The teabaggers’ revolt has already screwed up the first three of those efforts to run candidates suitable for their states.
Let’s look first at Republican retirements. Sam Brownback of Kansas will probably be replaced by Rep. Jerry Moran. I don’t think Moran is more conservative than Brownback. If anything, he might be less. In any case, I don’t see this race changing the ideology of the caucus much.
In Missouri, Roy Blunt is running for Kit Bond’s seat. The ‘Blunt’ name isn’t looking so great in the Show-Me State after Roy’s son Matt had to forego running for reelection as governor because of the email controversy. I kind of doubt that Blunt will win this race, but it will probably be a nail-biter like most recent statewide elections in Missouri. If Blunt wins, he will probably cross the aisle less frequently than Kit Bond. Only five Republicans have crossed the aisle more than Bond in this Congress.
In New Hampshire, former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is running for Judd Gregg’s seat. Gregg has actually become less moderate since he announced his retirement and turned down an offer to be Obama’s Commerce Secretary. This shows that even a conservative has to trim his or her votes to remain viable in New Hampshire, and Kelly Ayotte will probably vote much like Gregg did when he still had to worry about reelection. However, I’m not sure Ayotte has the political skills to stand up to the glare of a heated campaign. If she’s elected, it’s unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the caucus. If she loses, the caucus will lose one more New England seat and move perceptibly to the right.
In Ohio, Rob Portman is running for George Vionovich’s seat. Portman served as OMB Director and Trade Representative in the Bush administration. That’s hardly something you want on your resume, but at least his discuss policy in an intelligible way. He’s absolutely from the Wall Street wing of the party, so I don’t expect him to be a fire-breathing conservative. If he wins, he won’t be much different from Voinovich and will probably resemble the kind of Republican you wish still existed.
In Kentucky, it’s hard to get more conservative than Jim Bunning. Rand Paul isn’t easy to stereotype, but he’d definitely be less uniformly conservative than the crazy old coot he hopes to replace. On issues like national defense, foreign policy, drug enforcement, and government surveillance, Paul would be significantly to the left of Bunning.
In Florida, we have the unusual situation of Cornyn’s candidate dropping out of the Republican nominating contest to run as an Independent. We don’t know whether Crist would caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. If he caucuses with the Republicans, he will move the caucus to the left. If Marco Rubio wins, he will move the caucus noticeably to the right.
So, looking at the open seats created by Republican retirements, it’s not clear that it’s likely that the Republican caucus will move in a rightward direction. And, even if it does, it’s not likely to move much.
If we look at the open Democratic seats, there is actually the potential for the caucus to move to the left. Only four House Republicans have more liberal lifetime Progressive Punch scores than Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware, who is running for Joe Biden’s old senate seat. Only eleven House Republicans have more liberal Progressive Punch scores than Mark Kirk, who is running for Obama’s old seat. Both of them would immediately bolster the tiny rump of moderates made up of Collins, Snowe, and Brown, and open up more avenues for bipartisan compromise.
So, looking at open seats from both the Republicans and the Democrats, it seems to me a little bit more likely that the Republican Senate caucus is poised to move a bit leftward than rightward. The only way I can see the caucus moving significantly to the right is if the Republicans succeed in knocking off some Democratic incumbents.
Without question, the Nevada candidates are unhinged wingnuts that would add to the DeMint wing of the Republican caucus. Rep. Tom Campbell of California has taken the progressive position on issues less than four percent of the time. He’s on the right side of the GOP’s House caucus.
Update [2010-5-24 12:56:49 by BooMan]: This is embarrassing. I confused Tom Campbell with John Campbell. Tom Campbell actually had a fairly moderate record in Congress.
Rep. John Boozman of Arkansas has a record near the average for a Republican. I have no idea how World Wrestling Federation mogul Linda McMahon would vote if she won the Connecticut race. I can’t really assess the ideological makeup of the various GOP candidates in Colorado.
We’ll have to see what happens. If things go off the rails, we could see more lunatics than just Rand Paul joining the Senate. I think it’s actually more likely that the Republicans who actually win seats will be on the more moderate side. I’m more concerned about losing in Delaware and Illinois than in Kentucky or Nevada. But I am also less concerned about what it would mean to lose in Delaware and Illinois. As far as I am concerned, we need some moderates to join the GOP. Hell, we need about 40 of them.
