If it walks like a RINO...and it votes like a RINO...

I've been getting a lot of feedback on my recent Flake post, and one question caught my eye...Is Flake really a Republican?  Obviously, he's not a traditional Republican In Name Only.  We've all seen traditional RINOs--Democrats living in Republican districts who think it would be really cool to be in the legislature, get elected and then vote with the Democrats on key issues.  All of those guys are gone.

Flake's not a Democrat, but he may actually be a libertarian.  His view of the role of government is certainly Libertarian, but no one really notices because that view is also widely held among Republicans. 

However, Jeff was one of only 15 Republicans who voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. And how about his views on immigration?  Flake opposes SB 1070 and supports "Comprehensive" immigration reform. That's a classic economic Libertarian position.  Carbon Tax?  Again, an economic solution to a perceived problem.

Let's not forget that Jeff ran the Goldwater Institute prior to being elected to Congress.  I don't think my friends at GWI would be offended if I said that the Institute was more Libertarian than Republican.   While I agree with most of GWI's cases, I'm at odds with some of the legal theories that GWI espouses...such as applying Substantive Due Process to economic issues.  (I think that SDP is just as illegitimate in the economic realm as it is in the social realm.) 

Jeff's record looks to be entirely libertarian and happens to overlap with Conservative Republicans on fiscal issues--which is exactly where Libertarians and Conservative Republicans traditionally overlap.

I'm not the only one to notice.  I'm hearing a lot of calls--especially from social conservatives--for Trent Franks to jump in the race.  I think that Franks is leaning that way.  I think he can self fund the race.  And most of all, I think he's actually a Republican.  He will have a lot of support. 

Arizona has a vibrant Libertarian party, and if Flake wants to support gays in the military, encourage open borders, tax carbon and aprove judges who are "Economic Activists"....then he should be honest and run as a Libertarian.

Of course honestly hasn't always been Jeff's strong suit. 

Comments

[Ray]

If Flake is a RINO then we need more RINOs. There are many in the Republican party with strong libertarian views. That's why we have the RLC. I don't believe Flake is a true libertarian in principal, a carbon tax is certainly not a libertarian position and one I don't agree with. But we have in effect open borders now. We just don't know who is coming and going. Flake's "open border" policy only seeks to acknowledge that reality and try to run these people through the system so we can at least have some control and knowledge of who comes and goes. Not amnesty, not citizenship. The current system is just another failed attempt at prohibition. When will we learn?

[David Dodenhoff]

Jeff breaking his term limit pledge wasn't dishonest, it was dishonorable. That is, I'm sure he meant it when he said it, but he refused to abide by it when the time came.

(I always loved his "mistake"/"bad decision" explanation. Analogy: You ask to borrow my car, and promise to return it to me tomorrow with a fresh wash/wax job and a full tank of gas. I agree. Tomorrow comes, and you return my car, covered in mud and with an empty gas tank. I say to you, "What the hell? You promised it would be clean and full of fuel." You say, "Yeah, making that promise was a bad decision on my part. I shouldn't have done that." I say, "Tough sh*t. A promise you wish you hadn't made is still a promise.")

[Jackie]

I consider myself to be a libertarian that votes Republican, but I would prefer someone different than Flake.

I know some libertarians like the idea of an open border policy, but I'm not one of them.

Allowing unchecked illegal immigration would swell the welfare state to unsustainable levels. If we allowed anyone to come here that wanted to, we would become a 3rd world country overnight. Do you think these millions of new impoverished citizens are not going to vote for more handouts?

I thought we wanted smaller government in this country.

[RonJ]

Apparently my "beautiful wife" analogy is resonating.

There are some rumblings that Russell Pearce may jump into the Senate race. Interesting.

[Scott Turley]

Interesting post. Traditionally, fiscal and social conservatives have been kept in alliance together over the years because they had communism as the common enemy. Over the past two years, that enemy became Obama.

Now, it seems the party is at threat of splintering. If Flake were to run as a libertarian against someone like Franks on the Republican ticket (which I highly doubt), it would definitely open the door for a strong Democratic candidate to win - not that there is one at the moment.

It will be really interesting to see how the Republican party evolves because I think they continue to try to cling to increasingly unsustainable and out-dated positions (it's not the 1980's anymore).

[Bradley]

There is no major Libertarian/Conservative riff in the Republican Party.

If Flake had a mainstream position on the border and illegal immigration, he would win this walking away.

70% of Arizona residents support SB 1070. The "fringe" are those that don't think law enforcement should be able to question a suspect's legal residency.

Around 3/4ths of Americans are against the idea of amnesty for illegal aliens.

Flake's views regarding immigration are fringe, even among independents, much less law and order Republican primary voters.

[Crocker Jarmon]

I think Rep. Franks needs to get into this race. I hope he does.

[Erica]

"It will be really interesting to see how the Republican party evolves because I think they continue to try to cling to increasingly unsustainable and out-dated positions (it's not the 1980's anymore)."

That is a great point. Just look at what happened at CPAC. There is a huge divide between the social conservatives and the libertarians. And what was the distinguishing factor between the groups? Age.

If the Republican party wants to stay relevant they should really embrace the libertarian side. Or else, he younger libertarian crowd (to which I proudly belong) will just continue waiting for all the social conservatives to die off so we can take over. But splitting the vote by rejecting Flake as a Republican is a fast track to a Democrat in the Senate seat.

Furthermore, we shouldn't forget Arizona's legacy of sending libertarian leaning republicans to the senate. Barry Goldwater was one of the most libertarian senators to ever serve. And he, just like Flake, famously supported gay rights saying, "You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."

[Tyler M]

Scott-

You're wrong. Republican Party positions aren't out-of-date. There is no evidence to back this up.

Republicans lost in 2006 & 2008 for two reasons:

The 1st reason was a 4 letter word spelled I-R-A-Q. That was the reason moderate Democrats & Independents abandoned Republicans. We kid ourselves if we think otherwise. This has nothing to do with whether or not the war in Iraq was a good idea or justified. Moderate Democrats & Independents were furious about the decision to invade.

The 2nd reason 2006 & 2008 were tough years for Republicans was that Republicans tried to change what they believed in. Bush pushed for comprehensive illegal alien amnesty & our budgets were completely out-of-control. So, traditional Republican voters decided to sit on their hands instead of support politicians who they felt had betrayed them.

Combined, these two reasons made it very difficult to win anywhere. It was a good thing that here in Arizona in 2008, Republicans in the State Legislature were acting like Republicans mostly, so that's why we picked up legislative seats in the State.

[Tyler M]

And another thing Scott-

If conservative Republican positions were so out-of-date & unelectable, how would you explain the 2010 elections? Or how about the elections of Chris Christie in New Jersey, Scott Brown in Massachusetts & Bob McDonnell in Virginia before that?

We win when we campaign as conservatives. We lose when we govern as liberals or moderates.

[Tyler M]

About the post,

Very interesting take on things & I think accurate too. I'd much prefer Trent Franks running. Or even Russell Pearce. Flake has too much baggage on issues important to Arizona conservatives. If he hasn't noticed yet, supporting illegal immigration isn't a winning issue in Arizona & especially not in Republican primaries.

[Dave]

Tyler M - "How would you explain the 2010 elections?"

People voted republican because the democrats are so bad at governing that people were forced to choose what they perceived as the lesser of two evils. They'll do the same thing for the democrats when the republicans drop the ball.

The republicans would be better off if they embraced some of Flake's ideas instead of disowning him because if they gave them a chance they might actually work, unlike the "pure" republican and "pure" democrat extremes.

[Bob]

Trent Franks is the perfect candidate for the senate seat vacancy in Arizona.

He has the experience, the political, social and economic working relationships, the resources and the ethics to win.

Flake may be the first out of the gate, but he has yet to do the work to get his campaign off right.

Hopefully Trent Franks is doing the work right now to set himself up to set off a great Repulican senatorial campaign. I would like for him to start asking for key support before Flake or the others get to them first.

Flake does not have the social conservatives, the Christian right, or even the Tea Pary core. He is not the statesman that Franks is, either. Franks has Democrat support that is based on his integrity, not on any compromises he has made. That is a great compliment.

I've seen some opposition to Flake that is completely irrational, but your points are well made. Hopefully, people will look at that and convince Franks that he really is the best man for senator from Arizona.

[johnny]

Yeah Greg lets just kick all the libertarian leaning members of the GOP out of the party. Thats a good idea.

Lets get rid of Ron and Rand Paul we dont need them, lets replace them with "real" conservatives.

This post has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Yes of course some members of the GOP have libertarian leanings, but to say he is a RINO goes way to far. Posts like this help to create a division between the libertarian wing of the party and social conservatives that generally is not there.

It is ideas like this, the idea that ideological purity is required, is why the GOP is in trouble in the future

[Travis]

Finally, a proper use of the name RINO.

[Steve Calabrese]

Flake only offered a "carbon tax" as an offset to payroll tax. His plan was to allow a business to pay carbon taxes and have their payroll taxes reduced by the exact same amount. It was revenue-neutral, a calculated attempt to showcase Democratic hypocrisy - and it worked. The Dems were saying "it's all about the environment" and Flake, in effect, "ok, great. Here. We'll give an incentive to business to use less carbon, but the business will then save on payroll taxes. It will help the environment but not raise government revenue by a time." Predictably, the Democrats ran in terror, once again showing that any Democratic feigned interest in protecting the environment is dwarfed by their true desire: power and control.

[AzRep]

Flake being a principled libertarian is one theory, here is another:

1) Immigration - receives $25,000 per cycle just from the extended Ross Farnsworth and Ira Fulton families and in return, does not mess with their supply of cheap labor.

2) Carbon Tax - Arizona drills a dozen tiny oil wells a year and imports coal from three other states. It also contains First Solar and is the solar power capital of the world. No brainer.

3) Fiscal Conservatism - unlike Shadegg and McCain, Flake earmarked during his first year and a half in Congress. Then figured out that seizing on earmarks as a signature issue would draw major media attention and move him from the middle to the top of the line with Club for Growth.

4) Term Limits - needed the support of that group in 2000, they later became inconvenient.

5) DADT - maybe he feels it in his heart. Equally plausible that it wins him love from national press corps while flying below radar in Mesa.

He is not an especially ideological politician.

[rj]

Flake is irrelevant because he cannot win. In fact, no one who doesn't support SB1070 and backs "Comprehensive" immigration reform AKA amnesty can win.

[JL 52]

I went to see Jeff Flake at one of his appearences, I was upset when I heard about him opposing 1070. He told me he supported the idea of 1070 but the actual law had some bad wording that needed to be fixed. It's old news, because Russell Pearce went back and fixed the stuff that Flake told me he was worried about. I think this guy just gets a lot of flak sometimes for trying to do things right.

[Colleen Crump]

I hope Russell Pearce does get into the race. Then we would have a real man who is steadfast in his convictions and not afraid to do the right thing. Doing the right thing isn't always easy or popular, but it is always the right thing!

[More Conservative Than The GOP]

Hahahhahaaahhaha!

Trent Franks and JD Hayworth voted with George Bush to expand government every chance they got!

Sorry! It takes no courage to never stand up to your friends. It took big brass ones to vote against TARP and prescription drugs. Jeff Flake is the closest thing to Barry Goldwater we've had in a long time.

And my mother tells me that Barry was a fine lookin' guy back in his day, too. Big wilderness guy.

[LC1122]

Our top priority as a nation right now is--and should be--reining in spending. To say that spenders like Trent Franks or JD Hayworth are more 'conservative' than Flake, who has made fiscal sanity his top priority, just shows a lack of understanding about what our country and our party need.

[Sarah]

How can one call Flake, a staunch defender of fiscal responsibility, a RINO? Flake advocates reducing federal spending, is against ear marks and supports immigration reform. These are the issues I feel are most important to Arizona and the Republican Party.

I agree with the comment earlier that if Conservatives want to stay relevant, they need embrace some libertarian points such as Flake. Flake has found the balance between conservatism and libertarianism that can produce real results and we have seen that throughout Flake's time in Congress.

With the debt over 14 trillion dollars and the percent of debt to GDP almost at 100% we need someone with the experience and knowledge necessary to create change.

[Joe Stalin]

'I was blind but now I see'. Thanks 'AZrep', googled the two families you mentioned in your post, easy to see why they approve of open borders.'rj' you are correct anyone who does not support 1070 here cannot win the primary or the election.

[Carol]

There are alot of unassuming go-to-work/pay their taxes voters out there who know that the issues that matter to families are directly tied to economic prosperity and liberty. Anyone who wants to be the next U.S. Senator from AZ had better be sensitive to that fact. The best person for the job will be someone who is trustworthy based upon their voting record and/or character, first and foremost. We should not rush to conclude who will best serve our state in the first week since the announcement of the vacancy. I'm watching and learning.

[Steve]

I'm against Flake because he has been horrible representing AZ CD-6 and would be horrible representing Arizona as a Senator. He's never done one thing for his district. It's about him, his ego, and getting himself in the papers.

I'm not talking about earmarks or money either. I'm talking about simple representation. Supporting major industries (Boeing for one) located in his district. He has a major airport (Phx-Mesa Gateway) in his district that is the biggest economic engine in that part of the valley and he has done nothing to even represent it.

But hey, if he's successful getting Cuba opened maybe you can catch a flight someday from there.

[Sarah]

Steve, I don't see anything in your post about why he is bad for District 6.

[Carl Hay]

If its Trent Franks versus da Flake, I'll take Franks any (and every) day.

[Brian]

This post is almost more of a "lets bash Libertarians" than anything else. It's full of lies.

I'm a Libertarian Republican. I voted for Ron Paul, who is the golden stanrdard of what a real Libertarian Republican is. Ron Paul is one of the few Republicans who ran in 2008 who has a real record of trying to secure the border. Ron Paul also does not belive in carbon taxes and all the global warming BS.

In fact I've only come across a few people who say they are Libertarians who are for open borders. It goes against their view that one does not have a right to walk onto another persons land. Only a few confused Libertarians are for open borders. Not to mention illegal aliens vote 9 to 1 against libertarian ideas in the first place.

I've never come across a libertarian who is for carbon taxes. They all know global warming is BS.

Flake is simply spineless and wants to compromise just like McCain. This is why he introduces amenesties and carbon tax bills. He's a RINO.

[Bob]

You forget one very important thing. Franks is not likable. And that goes along way in a statewide race.

Of course neither is McCain, but that developed once he was in, and once in it doesn't matter as much.

[amattclarkson]

Greg:

Your article, while a legitimate analysis of Flake's voting record, sounded a little too snarky to be unbiased.

I'll play ball with you though. Jeff Flake was also a RINO when he voted against Medicare Part D, something every other Republican voted "yes" on. That turncoat! How dare he go against his party and vote against TARP. RINO indeed.

[justthefactsplease]

Uh, what would make you think Greg was even trying to be unbiased. That's not what he does.

That said, it seems to me that most of the "tea party" folks who got elected are basically Libertarians, and that's why Boehner is having so much trouble reining them in. Should be fun to watch these two groups that both put (R) behind their names try to govern.

[amattclarkson]

@Justthefacts:

I've kept up on Greg's blog and he usually spins issues in an unbiased way. He didn't follow suit with this post. Maybe I have felt he was unbiased because we generally felt the same way on issues. Either way, this post's tone was relatively sophomoric.

[Greybeard]

Real libertarians don't run for office. Neither do conservatives. Thank God we have Republicans.

[Glendale George]

Oh, what classic spin.

Trent Franks will have no problem raising money. He can just ask his old buddy Charles Keating!

Oops! That didn't work out so well last time for him did it? Gonna be a more fun than a barrel of monkeys when the libbers at New Times dig those worms up.

[The Wilk]

Trent Franks is a good guy but the big boys won't let him win. A few of JD's old staffers did Trent no favors when the DoJ was trumping up slander against Trent because they were afraid their boss might have a split if Trent entered the 2010 primary against McAmnesty. JD wnats to go again why think he would play fair this time?

[jamcool]

2 words....Dean Martin

[johnny]

Also would like to point out there is an article out today that the Club for Growth has already raised 100k for Flake. With that plus his 650k he had on hand he has over 750k already. Good luck getting money that fast trent franks

[AzRep]

What about Bill Montgomery? He is solid with the base, can appeal to the center and does not have the baggage that Franks and JD have accumulated over long public careers, plus he is likable. Sure he's relatively inexperienced as a politician, but that has never been a problem for movement conservatives and the general masses, who are not political junkies, often consider it a plus. He will not raise anything like Flake's money, but so what? The base will find the hard core conservative without help from the media and if there is one hard right candidate and 2-3 credible center right candidates in the primary, the hard right candidate wins easily (think Thomas in 2002 and 2004, Franks in 2002, Graf in 2006). Food for thought.

[Steve Calabrese]

Bill Montgomery is a fine man but he needs more time in the public eye before running for Senate. I doubt that someone as deliberate as him would throw himself into a higher political office just because a slot is open. I don't think Montgomery is the type of person to leave a job half-finished; I know there's a lot of work he wants to do at the county attorney's office.

Also, although Montgomery has rock-solid conservative base support, his support amongst moderates and independents is drawn from Maricopa County, specifically through his myriad public appearences. I know that many independents and moderates were initially skeptical of Montgomery; they tend to be converted after speaking to him. Most people who spend more than 5 minutes learning about Montgomery come away realizing what an honorable guy he is.

Howver, it takes time to build that trust on a statewide scale. After a bit more time in the public light, and as people get to know him better, he will be able to make a go for higher office. Right now, though, I think it's too soon. I think he originally ran for Attorney General against Goddard because he felt it was wrong that no one else was running, but I don't anticipate Montgomery doing anything in a hasty fashion.

[RonJ]

Dean Martin isn't Senatorial material--yet--maybe never. Bill Montgomery is solid through and through and would make a great Senator--next time there's an opening. Give him a term or two as County Attorney. This time around I'm afraid we're going to have Flake leading the pack for now. Most likely JD will join the race. Don't count out Russell Pearce. The fact that the left--including the Republic--hates him only gives him more bona fides. His signature law--SB1070--is supported by over 70% of the state (and over 60% of the nation). He would draw financial support from around the country. Not a bad base to start with. Just not sure he wants to leave Arizona for DC.

[Davidmesaaz]

Let me get this straight Trent Franks and Jd Hayworth voted for the largest expansions of government in history with trillions of dollars of spending in Medicare ARE conservative but those that actually believe in limited government and opposed the big spending of the Bush years are RINO's

[Davidmesaaz]

He is a Rino? The watch dog groups have given him the taxpayer hero of the year for 10 years running and he never been lower than second.
He has a never voted for an earmark in his life or voted for expansion of Medicare and other government entitlement programs like JD Shadegg or Trent Franks... or the Unconstitutional no Child Left Behind... These so called Bush Conservatives were Rino's Jeff is the true conservative...
As for the border its the liberal ideology that is under the assumption that regulation will work... But so called conservatives like Pearce think that the border is failing not because there is too much regulation (it takes 10-15 years to gain legal citizenship) but too little. Flake thinks that markets work regulations don't...

[Davidmesaaz]

If Ron Paul is the gold standard of libertarian republicans why does he request earmarks?

[Davidmesaaz]

Carol what your implying is that because Jeff has never "supported", Boeing aka given corporate welfare to interest groups in his district than he isn't a good Congressman. When in fact fighting against such egregious and unconstitutional actions make him a good Congressman in my book.

[Scott Turley]

Tyler, sorry for the late reply. I think your metrics for relevancy are different from mine. Whether or not the party wins election is not the metric I'm too concerned with. There are too many factors involved (Iraq, the economy, a poorly executed health care debate). What I want to know is whether the ideology being espoused by the party actually solves today's problems.

In so many ways the Republican party is ideologically stuck in the 1980's dogma - cutting taxes raises revenue, cutting taxes for the rich benefits poor people, large amounts of federal dollars should be directed toward defense.

Or they are offering ideas that to me just makes no sense - expect someone with an expensive chronic condition (or the elderly) to be able to purchase health insurance on the individual market.

A lot of these, seemingly contradictory ideas made sense in the 1980's when we had a pretty high tax burden on the rich, healthcare costs were pretty low, most people were insured by a large company they worked for for 30 year, and Russia was our predominant enemy.

None of this makes sense now, the world has changed drastically, and I just don't believe the Republican party has evolved sufficiently to address modern problems.

This very real splintering between the libertarian segment of the Republican party and the traditional conservatives is fascinating.

Personally, I try not to get too ideological. I'm very concerned with the real problems we're facing today and I'm interested in evaluating both parties and the politicians they offer to see which one is offering better ideas.

So, for, in my opinion, the Republican party is desperately behind the curve.

[Mesa Econoguy]

Disappointing, Greg.

Even if you amplify all the ultra-wacky libertarian views out there, the only ones talking any fiscal sense right now are the economic libertarians, of which I'm one and therefore biased.

Here's why: The Republican Party has utterly failed the taxpayer for the last decade.

And economic liberty factors must be included in legal discussions, particularly since today's legal cases now regularly encompass economics (due mostly to statist overreach), and as we have seen too often recently, most judges and most legislators - all lawyers - are ignorant of the economic effects of their own rulings and legislation.

[Thane Eichenauer]

If you want to know if Jeff Flake is a libertarian or not just ask him "Do you support the legalization of methamphetamine?"

http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html

[Mason]

If Flake was such a libertarian, why did he vote for the PATRIOT Act any chance he had? Flake learned well at the knee of McStain, he takes any position that's convienent to him and has no driving ideology. If given the choice between Franks & Flake, I'll choose Franks. I don't agree with all of his votes, but at least I know where Franks stands.

[loveAZ]

Flake has a 98% life-time rating from National Right to Life. He's clearly more in line with social conservatives on pro-life issues than libertarians.