She has served eight terms in the House, and it’s long been said about her, justifiably, “Everybody loves Connie.” She has served her district well. But right now, she’s in the fight of her life trying to get re-elected in a district that had always been a sure thing for her. Democratic challenger Christopher Van Hollen has been surging strong in the polls. She is one of the last living, breathing specimens of that most endangered of species, a liberal Republican.
Her mainly Democratic district in Montgomery County, Maryland, is fed up to HERE with Republican high-handedness and is eager for a change in House leadership. They don’t want to ditch Connie personally, but it’s her misfortune that she still chooses to be aligned with the party that has taken a sharp swerve to the right and forced out its members with a more moderate conscience, like Jim Jeffords. The Democratic voters feel that for all Connie’s personal good qualities, in the final analysis she’s an “enabler” for the ugly likes of Tom Delay, just because of her party affiliation.
If only she had switched to the Democrats, the voters would welcome her wholeheartedly, she would be happy, her constituents would be happy. But since she insists on sticking with a Republican party that doesn’t really care for her, only uses her for what it can get out of her, Connie’s tragedy is to “fall between two stools.”
Sounds like pretty much the same dilemma that faces all moderate Republicans, basically Northeasterners, now that the movement conservatives are running the party and will continue to do so for some time. Do they keep their seniority in an organization that marginalizes and scorns them, except when it’s time to get their votes, or throw their lots in with the party that now better represents their beliefs and those of their constituents?
There has been a fair amount of party-switching, both ways, recently - perhaps Morella will be next, depending on the party totals.
It’s doubtful that Connie Morella will even survive this election, let alone get a chance to switch to Democrat. That’s a move she should have made last year when Jeffords went independent. If she had done that any time before now, she would be swept back into office without having to lift a finger. Now, she’s probably going to be swept out instead. Her missed opportunity to switch at the right moment is her “tragic flaw” straight out of classical Greek tragedy.
She can’t NOT be re-elected. She has most of the Democrat vote and all of the Republican. I voted for her three times when I lived in Montgomery County. The things that House Republicans hate about her are what make her a sure thing every time she runs in MT county. Van Hollen has no serious base of support and will not be heard from again after Election Day.
False. As a state senator, he has built up his own voter base over the last 12 years, and earned a solid reputation as a hard-working, result-getting legislator.
Congressional Quarterly rates this race as “Leans Democratic”**. Connie is seriously vulnerable now as she has never been before.
Having moved away from the DC suburbs 8 years ago, I don’t really follow their politics much anymore. But I always thought of Morella more as a Democrat in Republican clothing than a Republican (more like a RINO). The part I find a bit disturbing is that both parties have been hijacked by the unreasonable factions in each. The problem with her as a Democrat is that she’s a little too conservative for them (from what I remember, like I said, it’s been a while since I followed it), but she is not what I would call a Republican either (although the difference between the two is closing fast on anything but those extremely polarizing issues). I almost wish for a new party that is not based on some extreme position (Greens), or just negative positions (Reform), but rather on reasonable positions, instead of hanging people in the middle out to dry. But if Morella loses, I won’t feel sorry for her.
Your reasoning sounds dubious to me. I think there are plenty of Dems more conservative than Morella. She might even be too far left to make it into,say, the most conservative 1/3 of the party.
On the other hand, because of this, I don’t think she incurred much penalty by remaining a Republican. Now, however, that both Houses of Congress are both so up-for-grabs, the fact that she gives the Republicans one more seat in determining which party is in the majority (and thus gets to run the show, chair all of the committees, …) is becoming too important.
The Democrats a party that is too extreme? Right! The political spectrum in the U.S. is extremely narrow. I imagine that most Europeans would consider the spectrum here to extend from right of center (Democrats) to moderately far right (Republicans).
jshore, I don’t compare the American parties to each other, but more to what I think an absolute spectrum would be. You’re probably right, that Europeans would consider US parties in a narrow band, but I as an American think the European parties are even narrower (far left). In general, you are right, there is a very small difference between the parties, and I don’t know whether it’s because both groups are trying to pander to certain interests, or because they actually think they are mainstream. But the Republican and Democrat parties have about the same policies in the center, with some extreme positions staked out in the far reaches of the spectrum that they seem to hold to. My problem is that even on those issues, I think most people are in the middle, or don’t think about it. But when any party is elected, they feel that they were elected for the whole package, instead of just some marginal difference.
In my previous post, I didn’t call the Democrats an ‘extreme’ party (that was the Greens ), but I do find some of their platform positions extreme. Same with the Republicans. Comparing them to Europeans doesn’t change that. It’s those reasonable positions that I don’t see, anywhere.
Some of you may find this interesting. Yesterday, the Washington Post–yes, that Washington Post–formally endorsed Morella’s candidacy.
"We find much to admire in her record; and we find even more to admire in her willingness to stand up to her party on many issues at a time when independent thinkers seem to be an endangered species in both parties in Congress…
…We think it would be a shame if her species, a valuable public asset, became extinct."
You know, this is one of the things I truly hate about the vast majority of voters. It doesn’t matter what her record may be as a Congressperson…what matters is the label that is put on her.
feh
And if one party or the other had a huge majority in the House, I’d agree with you. However, in a year like this one, the label she chose (not that was “put on her”) actually might have an effect. Some people have been thinking about things and have figured that out.
Um, Toaster, this isn’t about a label that was put on Connie; it’s about a label Connie chose for herself.
And voting against her because you don’t want a Republican majority in the House of Representatives actually shows more astute thinking that is generally ascribed to voters in the U.S.
I understand the Post’s point-of-view. I think it is a really tough call, although I’d have a hard time casting a vote that might continue to put DeLay and Co. in charge of the House.
[The League of Conservation Voters also endorsed Morella, by the way.]
), but I do find some of their platform positions extreme. Same with the Republicans. Comparing them to Europeans doesn’t change that. It’s those reasonable positions that I don’t see, anywhere.