Liberal Talk Radio

I want to key off of something that Bruno posted about Democratic Strategery where he wrote that “. . ..the Dem base does have certain litmus tests . . . support for education, the environment, social security, universal health care.”

I occurred to me that maybe one reason the Republicans are so good with their message is that with every Democratic litmus test they have a solid counterpoint. Education? Vouchers. The environment? Innovative solutions like cap and trade. Social Security? Personal accounts. Universal heath care? Private health whatevers. (I’m not saying any of these are necessarily desirable, but they at least show up in the debate.)

It occurred to me that Democrats might be more successful in capturing the elusive middle if they could only answer — or even half answer — the issues that comprise the Republican “litmus test.”

What comprises the Republican litmus test? Take, for example, this conservative column from the recent New Jersey gubernatorial primary:

On the GOP side, there are eight men in the race, but on the most recent round of polls only two men achieve higher than 10 percent showing. They are Bret Schundler and Doug Forrester.

Schundler is the former mayor of Jersey City. He won the post as a conscience-driven conservative. And was handsomely rewarded with re-election. Schundler lost in 2001 for governor against Jim McGreevey, the most scandal-ridden governor in the state’s recent memory.

Forrester is also a former mayor, and he lost the last U.S. Senate race against the decrepit Frank Lautenberg, who was the winner in the Torricelli “bait and switch” Democratic candidate-selection process.

But now I ask the question: Who is the more “true Republican” for New Jersey voters?

Schundler is deemed by all as solidly pro-life. Forrester is even more solidly pro-abortion.

Schundler respects marriage and the American family. Forrester is on the record as opposing the definition of marriage as we have known it for thousands of years.

Schundler desires “rule of law” judges who will interpret the state laws and Constitution. Forrester pledged as a candidate for the U.S. Senate that he would obstruct President Bush’s choice of nominees if they weren’t deemed activist enough to suit him.

Schundler believes in capping state spending and returning the surplus back to the school districts and relieving property taxes – in the most overtaxed state in the Union (according to those who live there). Forrester’s plan raises property taxes for 17 of the next 20 years.

And after Forrester spent more money than all of the seven other GOP candidates combined – Schundler is still neck and neck with Forrester in the latest round of polling. To no one’s surprise, Forrester, according to the Star Ledger, began to smear Schundler, and on some facts flat out lied as to Schundler’s record.

For some reason, the GOP in New Jersey is being asked the recurring question again. Pick between a candidate who holds few of the base voter’s values, raise their taxes, and promote judicial tyranny or one who believes the basic Republican values of faith, family, lower taxes, smaller government.

One pouts when his message doesn’t get through, the other has let his integrity speak volumes about his character, even when maliciously attacked.

I only hope the Republican voters of New Jersey know the difference and cast their votes accordingly.

So, as a sort of “litmus test,” let’s posit “faith, family, lower taxes, smaller government” as starting points for Republicans*. For Democrats to really break in and co-opt some of the Republican message, they have to find answers for each**. And I could be wrong, but I don’t think they have coherent answers yet.

Think, for example, back to Howard Dean’s remarkably tone deaf remarks on faith.

But what to do? As for family, why not make health care a real “family value” (and not just a talking point)? Lower taxes may be upsetting to Democrats, but “fiscal responsibility” — and not just grandstanding about it — should be the first thing that rolls off their tongue when Republicans lazily fall back on “lower taxes.” As for smaller government, why not “more efficient government”?

Hey, wait a second — this is starting to sound a lot like Bill Clinton! (Which probably underscores how smart he was in the first place . . .)

One thing Democrats can’t do is just ignore what motivates the Republican base — not necessarily because those people will ever vote for a Democrat but rather because the middle-moderates will.

*Since this was about the race for Governor, note that “national security” is missing here. Much has been said about the Democrats’ weak prevarications on this topic.

**I don’t remember why I had a second footnote. Sorry.