Connecticut Senate--A test of GOP Philosophy

The recent geopolitical and economic events have presented a unique challenge to the Democratic Party. They haven't had a chance to lead this country as a single bloc since 1994, and that year was a particularly dismal performance for them, leading to the Republican take over of the Congress in the elections that fall.

Fast forward to 2009, and in a similar fashion, the Democrats have started to create their usual chaotic "circular firing squad", with the Senate blaming AIG excesses on Treasury, and Treasury blaming the Senate, and the House pushing through a piece of legislation that punishes AIG Executives. It probably isn't Constitutional, not to mention a little bit scary to the economic markets.

While I don't believe that AIG executives should receive bonuses for running their company, and the world economy, into the ground, I don't know that taxing their bonuses into oblivion is quite the right remedy. The Democratic Congress is starting to look like a bunch of alchemists, trying to create political gold from the piles of dung that have been left them by the previous administration. It is making them look bad.

All of this leads to an opening, albeit a small one, for the Republicans to start to take advantage of the chaos, and start to field a legitimate challenge for some Senate and Congressional seats in 2010. The place to start clawing some of those seats back? Connecticut.

Chris Dodd is vulnerable. No question. He has been in the Senate for 30 years, and has had some questionable mortgage and real estate deals surface in recent years. Not to mention the fact that he has lost a lot of credibility with the voters over his handling of the AIG situation (it was his effort that eliminated a provision to cap or eliminate bonuses being paid to AIG executives in the first place).

Dodd may step down, or not run again in 2010, which is possible. It is more likely, however, that he will stay, and fight on to be re-elected.

So the question is this, "will the Republican Party run to its base, or will it try to regain the majority again?" This is going to be the theme that gets played out across the country.

Let's start this debate by saying that Connecticut is NOT Texas, or Oklahoma. Everyone knows that. This is deep blue country. New England is not Supply Side-land, nor is it Evangelical in nature. Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, and there is very little support to change the social biases here, from more Liberal to Conservative.

In a state like this, Republicans have not fared well. But they have been elected to statewide office. A Connecticut Republican looks very different from a Texas Republican. Tom Delay wouldn't get elected easily in Connecticut. But Rob Simmons could. Simmons is an ex-Congressman from the second district of Connecticut, and represents what many in Connecticut see as the old-line Republican. The old "Prescott Bush" Republican. Simmons is fiscally Conservative, but more liberal on the Social issues--Pro Choice, Pro-Gay Rights, etc. In early polling, Simmons is even to ahead of Dodd.

On the other hand, Conservative Pundit Larry Kudlow has also threatened to get into the race. Kudlow is a die-hard supply-sider--A Reaganite through and through. A true-believer, and a Conservative that would make Sean Hannity proud. He is also polling about 12 points behind Dodd in a two-way match up, and would likely lose to even a tarnished Chris Dodd.

So the question is this, "would the GOP prefer to take a risk in getting a 'true believer' into the seat, at the expense of a more moderate Senator, who would vote with the GOP 70% of the time?" Early indications are that Simmons is the odds on favorite. But the Republican party is run by the machinery, and leadership may decide that Simmons is not Conservative enough.

Republicans look at Connecticut and can't figure out why they used to do well there. After all, as recently as 2005, three out of five Congressmen were Republicans, and Republicans have owned the Governors mansion for about 16 years.

The problem, as I mentioned above, is that Connecticut Republicans were and are more moderate on social issues, and they didn't like the notion that their vote for Rob Simmons, Chris Shays, and Nancy Johnson were just going to support the likes of Roy Blunt, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, and George W. Bush. The issues that those leaders were pushing were all social agenda issues (prayer in schools, faith-based initiatives, Conservative Justices, etc). In the end, they made a decision in 2006 to put their morality above their pocket books. It didn't help that the party of fiscal responsibility had been so IR-responsible with their tax dollars. The choice was easy, and some very good, very moderate Congressmen and women lost their seats as a result of this.

But now the Republicans have (kind of) regained their voice as a party of fiscal sanity. It may be enough to get some seats back in the upcoming election, especially if the economy does not get better, or even worsens.

But winning elections is more than waiting for circumstances to go your way. The Democrats finally learned that putting up candidates that were right for their area of the country was more important than party purity. Congressmen like Heath Shuler of Tennessee, and Senators like Ben Nelson of Nebraska are a testament to a party that understands what Democrats in those states must look and act like. Shuler and Nelson can speak to the needs of their states and districts, and can show what a Democrat from their areas can truly represent.

Let's see if Republicans understand whether Senator Simmons sounds better than candidate Kudlow.