A Strange Definition of Republican
When former House Speaker Richard Morgan filed to run for Superintendent of Public Instruction, Republican Ed Kennedy reared back and hurled a mud ball at him, then someone posted it here on Talking About Politics.
To call Mr. Kennedy’s letter to Mr. Morgan mean-of-spirit understates his eruption. He had an arm-waving tantrum. Calling Richard Morgan ‘abhorrent,’ ‘outrageous,’ ‘a traitor,’ ‘not a real Republican’ and ‘hate monger.’
Why? It goes back to the 2002 Speaker’s race.
Six years ago, the State House had sixty Republicans and sixty Democrats. The Democrats nominated Jim Black for Speaker. The Republican Caucus split into two camps, one led by Leo Daughtry and the other by Richard Morgan. Each nominated their own candidate.
Since no one (of the three candidates) could get 61 votes, the three camps began negotiating to reach an agreement to share power by electing a Republican and a Democrat to serve as Co-Speakers. After 9 deadlocked votes, on the 10th ballot the Democrats rejected an agreement with Daughtry’s camp and said, in effect, they didn’t like it much but they would vote to elect Black and Morgan.
29 of the 59 Republicans in the House agreed, voted for Morgan and Black, and ended the deadlock. And that, I suspect, is what Mr. Kennedy is calling the greatest act of treason in NCGOP history.
But was the 2002 Speakers election really an earth-shaking, life-changing cataclysm? The party didn’t suddenly abandon its ideological moorings and change positions on, say, illegal immigration. Mr. Daughtry was a moderate to conservative legislator. Mr. Morgan had been allied with the conservative, or Helms, wing of the Republican Party for two decades. There wasn’t an ideological upheaval where Republicans suddenly started voting to pull out of
So, why did they split? Part of the answer lies in previous struggles between the two camps in the House. And part was distrust. But, either way, the issue wasn’t about whether House Republicans should be conservatives.
At least not until the 2004 and 2006 primaries, when Daughtry’s partisans begin calling themselves ‘real Republicans’ and their opponents RINO’s – Republicans In Name Only. That did sound like the differences between the two camps were ideological. But, while claiming to be purging the Republican Party of heretics, the Daughtry partisans also attacked conservatives.
One example. I have known Representative Robert Grady for thirty years. He was a conservative before I ever met Jesse Helms. How conservative? In 1972 Robert served as Senator Helms’ Campaign Chairman in the last place on earth any sane person would want to lead a campaign for Jesse Helms – at UNC. In 1976, when Leo Daughtry supported President Gerald Ford, Robert Grady led Ronald Reagan’s campaign in
In 2002, he voted with Daughtry’s camp – not Morgan’s – nine times, then on the tenth ballot voted to end the deadlock. For that, in 2006, Leo Daughtry’s partisans attacked him. Politics isn’t kickball and I generally accept the proposition that elbow-throwing and exaggeration go with the turf. But calling someone who supported Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan a Democrat in disguise is nothing but a good old-fashioned smear.
Back in 1976 when Reagan first ran for President there were people who called themselves ‘real Republicans’ who blasted Helms supporters, claiming we were destroying the Republican Party by opposing an incumbent Republican President, Gerald Ford. I’m beginning to suspect Mr. Kennedy – and the new generation of ‘real Republicans’ – may be cut from the same bolt of cloth.
Claiming a candidate – who, say, opposes illegal immigration, supports the war on terrorism, and opposes gay marriage – isn’t a ‘real Republican’ because he didn’t support Leo Daughtry is a pretty strange definition of Republican. I’ve had my disagreements with Richard Morgan, too, over the years. But he’s no liberal. And no Democrat. And as far as civility and good manners go when it comes to debating Mr. Kennedy… he’s winning that contest hands down.
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.
A Strange Definition of Republican
When former House Speaker Richard Morgan filed to run for Superintendent of Public Instruction, Republican Ed Kennedy reared back and hurled a mud ball at him, then someone posted it here on Talking About Politics.
To call Mr. Kennedy’s letter to Mr. Morgan mean-of-spirit understates his eruption. He had an arm-waving tantrum. Calling Richard Morgan ‘abhorrent,’ ‘outrageous,’ ‘a traitor,’ ‘not a real Republican’ and ‘hate monger.’
Why? It goes back to the 2002 Speaker’s race.
Six years ago, the State House had sixty Republicans and sixty Democrats. The Democrats nominated Jim Black for Speaker. The Republican Caucus split into two camps, one led by Leo Daughtry and the other by Richard Morgan. Each nominated their own candidate.
Since no one (of the three candidates) could get 61 votes, the three camps began negotiating to reach an agreement to share power by electing a Republican and a Democrat to serve as Co-Speakers. After 9 deadlocked votes, on the 10th ballot the Democrats rejected an agreement with Daughtry’s camp and said, in effect, they didn’t like it much but they would vote to elect Black and Morgan.
29 of the 59 Republicans in the House agreed, voted for Morgan and Black, and ended the deadlock. And that, I suspect, is what Mr. Kennedy is calling the greatest act of treason in NCGOP history.
But was the 2002 Speakers election really an earth-shaking, life-changing cataclysm? The party didn’t suddenly abandon its ideological moorings and change positions on, say, illegal immigration. Mr. Daughtry was a moderate to conservative legislator. Mr. Morgan had been allied with the conservative, or Helms, wing of the Republican Party for two decades. There wasn’t an ideological upheaval where Republicans suddenly started voting to pull out of
So, why did they split? Part of the answer lies in previous struggles between the two camps in the House. And part was distrust. But, either way, the issue wasn’t about whether House Republicans should be conservatives.
At least not until the 2004 and 2006 primaries, when Daughtry’s partisans begin calling themselves ‘real Republicans’ and their opponents RINO’s – Republicans In Name Only. That did sound like the differences between the two camps were ideological. But, while claiming to be purging the Republican Party of heretics, the Daughtry partisans also attacked conservatives.
One example. I have known Representative Robert Grady for thirty years. He was a conservative before I ever met Jesse Helms. How conservative? In 1972 Robert served as Senator Helms’ Campaign Chairman in the last place on earth any sane person would want to lead a campaign for Jesse Helms – at UNC. In 1976, when Leo Daughtry supported President Gerald Ford, Robert Grady led Ronald Reagan’s campaign in
In 2002, he voted with Daughtry’s camp – not Morgan’s – nine times, then on the tenth ballot voted to end the deadlock. For that, in 2006, Leo Daughtry’s partisans attacked him. Politics isn’t kickball and I generally accept the proposition that elbow-throwing and exaggeration go with the turf. But calling someone who supported Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan a Democrat in disguise is nothing but a good old-fashioned smear.
Back in 1976 when Reagan first ran for President there were people who called themselves ‘real Republicans’ who blasted Helms supporters, claiming we were destroying the Republican Party by opposing an incumbent Republican President, Gerald Ford. I’m beginning to suspect Mr. Kennedy – and the new generation of ‘real Republicans’ – may be cut from the same bolt of cloth.
Claiming a candidate – who, say, opposes illegal immigration, supports the war on terrorism, and opposes gay marriage – isn’t a ‘real Republican’ because he didn’t support Leo Daughtry is a pretty strange definition of Republican. I’ve had my disagreements with Richard Morgan, too, over the years. But he’s no liberal. And no Democrat. And as far as civility and good manners go when it comes to debating Mr. Kennedy… he’s winning that contest hands down.
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.