The "disaffected Republican" is one of the standard set-pieces of the modern mainstream media: one tends to only hear from the few Republicans (or perhaps just "Republicans") who, at the moment (or eternally, for RINOs) are criticizing their party. Or random Republicans-on-the-street (chosen oh-so-mysteriously), who assure us, in no uncertain terms, that they are lifelong Republicans, but have had enough and are suddenly so disaffected with Republican overspending (or whatever) that they'll now be supporting Democrats.
Taranto notes one such case in the Chicago Sun-Times:
After watching the top five Democratic candidates for president speak before a trial lawyers' group Sunday, attorney Jim Ronca of Philadelphia, a staunch Republican, became certain of one thing: He is not going to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election.
He will support the Democrats.
"I'm not only going to vote Democratic, I'm going to financially support the Democrats," Ronca said after a luncheon forum of the American Association for Justice, featuring Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Joe Biden. "The Republicans in Washington are an embarrassment."
And yet, a little digging revealed...
Ronca has given $6,750 to Democrats, nine times as much as the $750 he has given Republicans; and his most recent GOP donation was three elections ago. That is what the Chicago Sun-Times calls a "staunch Republican"? Seems to us there are probably stauncher ones.
As the Instapundit would say: Heh.
Certainly, some conservatives switch sides. Yet 9/11 caused no small number of Americans to rethink their political persuasion (rightward) -- and every year a number of liberals grow old enough to become more conservative. Yet somehow, these voices almost never seem to show up in news accounts.
Perhaps there are fewer Republicans pretending to be "staunch Democrats"?
Update: Powerline:
... what we have here is a case of a lazy reporter being burned by a fellow Democrat who told her, probably as a lark, that he was a Republican--a "fact" that Hunter found so significant that she devoted the first four paragraphs of her story to it. The facts, as reported by Hunter, were obviously wrong. Yet, instead of a correction--let alone an apology--what we get from Hunter is a screed against "irate Republicans" who are "industrious partisans" and are guilty of "madness." The madness evidently consisted of pointing out that she was wrong.
Another day, another debacle for the American newspaper industry.
I have to say, I could consider myself 'dissaffected Republican', but that's only because the Republican party has become Democrat Lite -- "Less nonsense but all the spending".
What's even more absurd is that the current round of polling shows the democratic congress as having an even lower approval rating than President Bush.
And people wonder why they're pushing the (un)Fairness Doctrine.
I'm not sure if I'd consider myself "alienated" from the Republicans. I also agree that the party, as a whole, appears to function as "Democrats lite" -- but then, I don't really expect much else from them.
So I support them because, well, "Democrats lite" is better, from that point of view, than full-strength liberalism.
What's happening is mathematically inevitable, really, given the current demographics:
The Democrats have transformed themselves from the party of liberalism (i.e. that which would welcome a Joe Lieberman, and maybe even run him for VP) to the party of leftism (which would eject a stalwart liberals like Joe Lieberman from its ranks). So you have a lot of politically and socially liberal people who also don't want to be blown up by terrorists, and can't take the Democrats seriously.
Whichever party wants to become President has to appeal to 50%+ of the voters. And I guess that even a majority the most conservative 50% get skittish when they hear that someone will be cutting social security, or cutting farm subsidies, or "slashing our social safety net".
To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you don't go to war with the electorate you'd like, but with the one you have. Who knows, maybe a Reagan could do it again. But our having bad candidates is partially a measure of us, as a people.
I have to say, I could consider myself 'dissaffected Republican', but that's only because the Republican party has become Democrat Lite -- "Less nonsense but all the spending".
What's even more absurd is that the current round of polling shows the democratic congress as having an even lower approval rating than President Bush.
And people wonder why they're pushing the (un)Fairness Doctrine.
Posted by: Michael Zappe on July 19, 2007 10:13 AM