Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Leaving Wayne's World
With 98 percent of the votes counted, it looks like Maryland Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, one of a small handful of antiwar Republicans in Congress, has been defeated by the Cockeysville conservative Andy Harris. (Gilchrest's other major challenger, E.J. "Rupert" Pipkin, finished third.) Harris had been endorsed by the anti-tax, anti-spending Club for Growth because of his "consistent track record of fighting for limited government and pro-growth policies." Unfortunately, Harris' "consistent track record" includes his support for an unnecessary war that has already cost over $1 trillion. I have plenty of problems with the incumbent's economic record, but on the most important issue related to fiscal conservatism in the last 10 years, Gilchrest has been right and Harris has been wrong.
It's far from certain that Harris will be able to defeat Democrat Frank Kratovil. The Dems will pour money into taking the district now that their sometime-ally Gilchrest is out of the picture; and Harris, who lives on the western side of the Chesapeake, will have a hard time attracting votes from the Eastern Shore.
The country faces an ugly choice this November: Either elect a Republican president and reaffirm the Bush foreign policy, or elect a Democrat and put both the White House and Congress in the hands of the same party. If the First District of Maryland turns against one of Washington's few antiwar Republicans and then hands his seat to a Democrat, it will have somehow managed to embrace the worst of both worlds.
Elsewhere in Reason: Dave Weigel interviewed Gilchrest last May, and he looked at the congressman's primary fight yesterday.
|2.13.08 @ 10:28AM|#
That's why I strongly recommend that people write in 'NOTA' on
their ballots.
The politicians can't claim to have a mandate if they're all
rejected.
|2.13.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Note the time stamp on the following comment:
Eric Dondero | February 13, 2008, 6:39am | #
A look at all the libertarian websites and blogs this morning shows
not a single one talking about the Wayne Gilchrist crushing defeat.
Nothing up on Reason.com. Liberty Papers, Knappster, Third Party
Watch, Nolan Chart, predictably ignore the story.
Wanker.
|2.13.08 @ 10:42AM|#
Wait, Republicans nominated a pro-war candidate with a better tax and spend record? It's shocking. I'm shocked. Are you shocked?
robc|2.13.08 @ 10:42AM|#
joe,
I guess dondero was unable to find the primary thread posted last
night.
Wanker is an understatement.
|2.13.08 @ 10:47AM|#
What's particularly wanker-ish, robc, is that Dondero posted that on the Potomac Primary Thread.
|2.13.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Clearly there was fraud involved. No one Reason knows would have
voted for the guy.
Reason certainly wouldn't have a problem with anti-war folks voting
out a pro-war rep. It goes both ways.
|2.13.08 @ 10:54AM|#
The exit polling from last nights demonstrates two things about the Republican primary electorate: it is smaller and more conservative than in 2000 and 2004. The moderates, and even the center-right, is bailing on the party.
Jesse Walker|2.13.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Reason certainly wouldn't have a problem with anti-war folks
voting out a pro-war rep.
If by "Reason" you mean "Jesse," you're right. Were you under the
impression that I was claiming to be opposed in principle to voting
people out of office?
|2.13.08 @ 10:58AM|#
joe,
I wouldn't rely on primary numbers to extrapolate to the general
election.
|2.13.08 @ 11:03AM|#
"Were you under the impression that I was claiming to be opposed
in principle to voting people out of office?"
No Jesse, I don't think you object to the principle of throwing out
an incumbant. As much as I would like to think this payback for an
anti-war Republican, I doubt it was. The fact is Iraq is not that
important of an issue for very many people this year. Gilchrest was
your typical big spending Republican and people didn't like that.
Most people are not giving free passes for that just because you
oppose the war the way Reason is. In the same way, I don't think
supporting the war is going to get you very far if you have pissed
off your constiuency about other issues.
|2.13.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Joe: Give McCain a chance to campaign and at least a little credit. As much as it may not feel like it at times, the general's not until November, and I hear swiftboats can transport things pretty far over 8 months.
|2.13.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Pro Libertate,
And yet, it does show that primary voters of the democratic side
are more interested in their candidates than their counterparts on
the republican side. As a barometer, I don't know because I don't
have data from previous primaries, but I wouldn't be suprised by a
more numerous and energetic democratic bloc creating a blowout in
the general election.
|2.13.08 @ 11:08AM|#
John,
I think you are right. His challenger might not be that much better
than Gilchrist, but voters probably didn't vote him out solely
because they wanted a unified "all war all the time" GOP. That's
also why I think Chris Peden is detined to lose to Paul, because
Paul is devoutly conservative EXCEPT when it comes to the war (as
far as the status quo for the party is concerned)
|2.13.08 @ 11:09AM|#
I simply want to take issue with the assertion that "...but on
the most important issue related to fiscal conservatism in the last
10 years, Gilchrest has been right and Harris has been wrong.",
giving the impression that the Iraq war (given the preceding
context) is the most important fiscal conservatism isssue
of the last 10 years. That's simply not true:
AEI report
(pointed out by Steve Horowitz in a different venue)
I know most at reason are focused on the war, almost to the
exclusion of other libertarian values (can I get a ruling? I'd like
to have a drink, but I'm not sure the above qualifies and I need
plausible deniability if the boss walks in), but don't overstate
the case. The most important issue for fiscal conservatives of the
last 10 years is most definitely not the Iraq war - it's the
Republican parties embrace of big government spending.
-K
|2.13.08 @ 11:09AM|#
joe,
I do think its possible to consider extrapulation, considering how
far from center the republicans have swung the past 8 years.
|2.13.08 @ 11:10AM|#
L i T,
The numbers also show that many more independents are voting for a
Democrat in the primaries than a Republican, even Maverick
McCain.
Turnout in Virginia - Bush 2000, Bush 2004 - was 2:1 in favor of
the Democrats. I don't see how that goes away.
robc|2.13.08 @ 11:14AM|#
Karl,
In dollar terms, I think SS and Medicare are bigger issues than the
war. "Big government spending" covers too much to count as a single
issue, but I dont think the war is the biggest fiscal conservatism
issue of the past 10 years.
It may be third though.
|2.13.08 @ 11:14AM|#
I think extrapolation is reasonable, too, but that wasn't what I
was doing. I was explaining why Gilchrist lost - because the
Republican primary electorate has become much more conservative and
pro-war as its centrist chunk has crossed the aisle in the
primaries.
If you ask for a Democratic ballot because you want to vote for
Obama, you don't get to cast a vote in the Republican House
primary. That's what I was saying.
|2.13.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Of course, McCain has the nomination sewn up and the Democratic
primaries are still a dogfight. If you're an independent who likes
McCain and Obama, you vote in the Dem primary.
I think national polls are a better indicator of who's more popular
at this point than turnout tea leaf reading, unexact though they
are.
Jesse Walker|2.13.08 @ 11:20AM|#
Karl: I meant "issue" more narrowly than that. The Iraq war is
(among other things) a subset of the Republican Party's embrace of
big spending. It is the most expensive item that the party insists
on paying for, currently exceeding even Medicare Part D (which
Gilchrest, to his discredit, voted for).
John: Conservatives in Gilchrest's district have been grumbling
about his liberal ways for ages. It's widely believed that it was
his opposition to the Iraq war that opened the door to a successful
challenge. When the only issues on the table were domestic -- guns,
abortion, spending, gay rights, etc. -- he kept getting
renominated.
|2.13.08 @ 11:23AM|#
I understand, but my point was that the relative conservatosity
of the GOP in certain primaries usually gets damped come the
general election. As to your point, with Huckabee so far behind and
with Paul a distant third, the turnout should be weak, anyway, and
independents are likely to vote in a way where their vote has the
most value.
I'm not a McCain fan, but I think he's very likely going to win it
all. Obama and Clinton are going to look very inexperienced next to
him, and I don't see the media dumping its love affair with the man
just because they have leftish leanings. In the end, they generally
love a good narrative more than their politics. Makes deadlines
easier to meet :)
Jesse Walker|2.13.08 @ 11:26AM|#
I just wrote:
It is the most expensive item that the party insists on paying
for
I should clarify: I'm referring to programs that actually went up
for a vote in the last 10 years. I'm not including preexisting
entitlements.
|2.13.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Pro Lib, Josh,
Democratic turnout has been swamping GOP turnout since Iowa.
On Super Tuesday, more Democrats voted than Repblicans in Georgia.
Georgia!
Jim Henley|2.13.08 @ 11:33AM|#
The country doesn't face the worry of putting "both the White House and Congress in the hands of the same party." It may, however put both the White House and Congress in the hands of Democrats.
|2.13.08 @ 11:40AM|#
joe,
I know you want to believe that we're all turning Democrat (and
Japanese--you're an odd duck), but I think the fact that one race
is in contention and another isn't has more to do with turnout than
anything else. McCain looked like a firm frontrunner well before
Romney dropped out.
Looks like the Senate jinx is ending, in any case.
Bill Cooke|2.13.08 @ 11:42AM|#
No tears for Mr. Gilchrest who is an evil man. He just happened to be right on the war.
|2.13.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Pro Lib,
Once again, the "one contested race" argument doesn't work, because
Democratic turnout has been swamping Republican turnout all season,
even when both contests were close. Look at the cnn.com page for
Iowa, NH, Nevada, South Carolina, and the Super Tuesday states.
|2.13.08 @ 11:43AM|#
I know you want to believe that we're all turning
Democrat
How's about we save the accusations of confirmation bias for
comments that don't align with the objective, measureable data?
|2.13.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Good riddance to Wayne Gilchrest, an inveterate hater of
individual liberty.
He voted for so much welfare and new entitlements that he actually
contributed more to the federal debt in future years than the war
that his opponents supported -- no mean feet.
He's not an anti-war fiscal conservative, like Walter Jones or Ron
Paul.
Gilchrest is a champion pork-barrel spender and money-waster (not
to mention a knee-jerk supporter of job-killing regulations).
Marc|2.13.08 @ 11:50AM|#
As a libertarian constituent of Gilchrests, it amazes me that
the Reason crowd has embraced him. Gilchrest is about as far from a
libertarian as any politician around. His embrace of higher taxes,
increased government spending, gun control, and environmental
regulation puts him solidly in the statist camp. Even his
"anti-war" views are suspect. I've heard him speak a few times on
the war and he isn't in favor of pulling out of the country. In
fact, he says in almost every speech I've heard that it is
necessary for us to stay there for a long time. He just wants a
change in strategy.
Jesse, you simply don't know what you're talking. Gilchrest wants a
change in the Bush foreign policy, sure, but he doesn't want a more
libertarian foreign policy. You are making the mistake of thinking
that anti-Bush is anti-war.
Harris is too pro-war for my tastes but he is very anti-tax and
wants to cut spending. He's also pro-gun. He won't be a perfect
Congressman but he'll be much better than Gilchrest was.
|2.13.08 @ 11:53AM|#
I'll go with Dondero is a wanker. I loathe political lapdogs. As for Gilchrest, Ehlrich is still popular on the Eastern Shore (which generally detests the rest of Maryland). The O'Malley tax increases are unpopular. The BGE rate hikes are unpopular. The battle between local governments and the state on growth issues are bitter. Normally, a vote split with Pipken and Harris would have meant a clear victory for Gilchrest. I think the Ehrlich support, Harris' chest of money and the Eastern Shore discontent did him in. Now, the interesting battle will be Harris, a western shore pol, fighting a pitched battle with the Democratic nominee.
|2.13.08 @ 11:53AM|#
joe,
Oh, please. No, let's have a vote. Does joe have an accurate view
of the popularity of the Democratic Party? If you think so, please
send joe a $1.00.
You can't win, joe, because I hate both parties and have the twin
powers of schadenfreude and cynicism. [Sounds of
maniacal laughter as Pro Libertate returns to his neglected
work.]
|2.13.08 @ 11:57AM|#
They won't dare use outside money and influence to toss out RP in his congressional primary. Loyal RP supporters around the country will go nuts and run Independents against vulnerable GOP incumbents. Go ahead, punks, make my day.
|2.13.08 @ 11:58AM|#
[Looks at PL's neglected work]
I think you should come back to commenting, that work is not going
to get done.
And while I don't feel I'm converting to a democrat, I might just
vote for another one this fall if McCain continues down the path
he's set before him.
|2.13.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Democrats are excited about their candidates this year, Republicans are not. I actually have to agree with joe that the turnout is because of excitement or lack thereof, not because one party has chosen a winner.
Marc|2.13.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Let me just add that anyone how fears a Democratic takeover of
the seat because Harris is from the Western Shore is forgetting
some key facts:
1. Around half of the voters in the district live on the Western
Shore.
2. The Eastern Shore votes heavily Republican in almost every
federal race.
3. The First Congressional District was gerrymandered to
concentrate GOP voters in it.
4. The Eastern Shore doesn't have an issue with voting for someone
who is from the West. There are a lot of transplants from other
places who live here and they don't buy into the visceral hatred of
outsiders that some seem to think is pervasive here. If a
politician from the Western Shore shares the same values, voters
here will choose him over a politician from the Eastern Shore who
is too liberal.
Jim Henley|2.13.08 @ 12:03PM|#
They won't dare use outside money and influence to toss out RP in his congressional primary. Loyal RP supporters around the country will go nuts . . .
Awesome.
|2.13.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Does joe have an accurate view of the popularity of the
Democratic Party?
The comment you are referring to was about the popularity of the
Democratic PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.
Vote, shmote. Reality isn't determined by majority opinion.
|2.13.08 @ 12:15PM|#
"Reality isn't determined by majority opinion."
Thank God.
Wait, I mean Thank Science!
|2.13.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Let me tell you my favorite Eastern Shore joke, Marc. A baby is
born in a Baltimore hospital. She is taken the next day to Tilghman
Island. She grows up, marries. He has many children and
grandchildren. She spends her entire life working in and around the
people of Tilghman and becomes a respected member of the community.
She dies at the amazing age of 101 years old. The first line of her
obituary reads, "A Baltimore woman died last week...."
The lose of Gilchrest makes the race more interesting. The primary
was bloody and brutal and Harris spent a ton of money. The national
Democratic party will see this as an opportunity to run against an
unknown rather than a long-time incumbent. Harris is pro-war and
the anti-war sentiment is strong in Maryland, even with some
Republicans (who make up what, a third of the electorate?) I'm not
saying Harris is in trouble. I'm saying it's a horse race.
Fluffy|2.13.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Before we read the Gilchrest defeat as some sort of vindication
for Donderoesque views of the electorate's temperature, isn't it
worth pointing out that a Democrat primary challenger also managed
to unseat 8-term incumbent Wynn?
I think it's pretty apparent to anyone who is willing to look and
be honest that the overall electorate is on a leftward pendulum
swing right now. A conservative insurgent in a primary challenge
could win because the Republican party is shrinking and hardening
its views [right moving rightward per se, but consolidating around
a specific set of protofascist security positions].
The Republican primary electorate is moving right, and the Democrat
primary electorate is moving left. Overall Democrat identification
is also growing. I don't see how to read that data other than to
say that the electorate as a whole is moving to the left. They've
been DRIVEN there by Republican security policies, and
unfortunately now that they're over there we're probably going to
get a big old disgusting dose of progressivism to go with the
pretty much inevitable Bush WoT rollback.
|2.13.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Wait a second. Since we're talking about the outcomes of
elections, reality IS determined by popular vote.
My bad.
|2.13.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Fluffy,
I don't know about the Democrat primary electorate is moving
left.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both DLC-ish centrists. I
consider them both more moderate than John Kerry. John Edwards, the
candidate with a genuinely leftish message who was considered a top
contender, got smooshed.
If anything, the Democratic primary electorate is moving towards
the center, and centrists and center-rightist are joining it.
|2.13.08 @ 12:41PM|#
I live in the "shit house." I am a registered Libertarian. Most
of the Republicans I know are pro-war and didnt like Wayne. Dems
and moderates loved the guy. I backed him for that 1 important
reason.
One thing is telling though. This was definitely ALL about the War.
A pro-life lawyer ran as a conservative in 2002, and Wayne defeated
him easily. The same goes for State Sen. Richard Colburn.
This is at least the 3rd time "conservative" challengers have run
against Wayne saying he is not conservative enough for the district
( FWIW, in my part of the shithouse almost all mayors, city
councils, county commissions, and State Deleg, are mostly/all
Democrat. Colburn is just about the only Republican. It aint that
"conservative"). They always failed.
but this time "conservative" apparently ONLY meant "rah rah rah,
war, war, iraq, 9/11, bomb Iran." Much like the POTUS race and the
great conservative credentials of john McCain and Mitt
Romney.
But, as I said before I dont think the district is that pro-war or
conservative. Maybe the Republican party is. But Wayne enjoyed
support of moderates and liberals, and the lack of a serious
Democratic challenger. Democrats I know always voted for him, as
did Republicans ( especially in the general election, of
course).
It will be interesting to see who votes for Andy harris outside of
the hardcore pro-war GOP base.
|2.13.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Can someone please explain to me how the Republicans have become
"more conservative". I mean I'm used to hearing that from NPR
commentators, but on H&R?
The current crop of Rs is all about expanding entitlement programs,
trying innovative new methods to make government work, expanding
the american empire. What's conservative about that?
I thought conservatism was about returning to an earlier golden age
of smaller government. Not returning to the 1970s.
|2.13.08 @ 12:47PM|#
matth,
Think about "the Republican primary electorate" as a line running
from the center to the right.
Now chop off the left-most third of that line.
What remains is more conservative than the original line.
|2.13.08 @ 12:51PM|#
FWIW,
Based on normal criteria, I believe Andy Harris also qualifies as
conservative. He's mostly good. He's just wrong on that 1 important
issue- which is IMHo a big deal.
Franklin Harris|2.13.08 @ 12:53PM|#
It's the Club for Growth's discredited supply-side myopia, which doesn't actually give a rats ass about spending (military spending never counts) as long as you cut taxes, that is, along with the war, on the verge of wiping out the Republican Party. Of course, maybe that's the plan.
|2.13.08 @ 12:55PM|#
[R]eality IS determined by popular vote.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "popular". With the delegate
system or the Electoral College. . .well, I don't have to tell you
about that.
My reality is determined solely by what I ate for breakfast.
Marc|2.13.08 @ 12:56PM|#
john, the Democrat who will be running against Harris, Frank Kratovil, is against a timetable for withdrawal for Iraq and his position on immigration is pretty much the same as Harris's. It's not as if we are going to have a race between a pro-war Republican and a pro-war Democrat. Kratovil is running to the right and embracing a platform that should give libertarians here a problem -- continued U.S. intervention abroad, more government in our pocketbook.
Franklin Harris|2.13.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Conservatives in Gilchrest's district have been grumbling about his liberal ways for ages. It's widely believed that it was his opposition to the Iraq war that opened the door to a successful challenge. When the only issues on the table were domestic -- guns, abortion, spending, gay rights, etc. -- he kept getting renominated.
I've come to the conclusion that the Iraq war is a suicide pact
conservatives have made with themselves.
|2.13.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Franklin Harris,
What's odd is that the election doesn't seem to be generally
concerned with the war. Maybe it's due to economic concerns coming
to the forefront; maybe it's just ADD. It's because of that fact
that I think McCain is a lock to win it all. Otherwise, he'd be
toast.
|2.13.08 @ 1:03PM|#
joe,
Except that the current Republican party doesn't champion any
policies that I would connect with the word "conservative". Except
in a Lewis Carrol sort of sense.
|2.13.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Well, hating gays and immigrants could be considered conservative I suppose, since they didn't exist back in the golden age.
Fluffy|2.13.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Pro Libertate -
Once the media had decided that Paul's antiwar campaign was
meaningless, the war had no real role to play in the primary
contests in either party. No one really wanted to listen to the
Republicans try to parse out whether Romney was pro-war enough, and
no Democrat ever successfully differentiated their Iraq position
from the rest of the field.
The media also decided to buy into Petraeus' "No Showing Bombing
Photos" marching orders for a while.
Neither of those conditions will continue into the general election
season. If you don't think McCain's apparent desire to bomb every
country he can reach and occupy the Middle East for 100 years will
be made into a campaign issue every day, I think you're
mistaken.
|2.13.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Fluffy,
Maybe. I doubt it, though. Not unless things take a serious
downwards trend in Iraq in the next six months. And whatever level
of recession this cycle is about to reward us with will probably be
in full swing by election time, too.
|2.13.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Violence in Iraq is roughly at its 2005-2006 levels. As I recall, it was a pretty big issue back then.
|2.13.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Or perhaps if we're driven back to our womby vaultages, in untranslated Shakespearean speak. I mean, if we're driven into womby vaultages, I might vote strictly on the war issue.
|2.13.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Joe is correct the democrat turnout has been swamping the
republican turnout.
The republican primary voter is looking at the choices available
and deciding maybe the appropriate thing to do is to stay home and
drink heavily instead of going to the primary.
This raises the interesting possibility of a down ticket republican
wipeout caused by lack of turnout in the general election.
|2.13.08 @ 6:20PM|#
I don't think the war played that big a role in his defeat. I
think two things defeated him
1. His anti growth position on economic issues.
2. The presence of club for growth to publicize his anti growth
economic positions and make sure the voters were aware of it.
Harris Defeats
Gilchrest in MD-01!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245