Our roundtable participants
Seth Morgan of Huber Heights, former state representative and Conservative Coalition leader
Lori Viars, of Warren County, vice president of Warren County Right to Life
Bobbi Radeck, of West Chester, state director of Concerned Women for America
Rev. Katherine Marple of Washington Twp. in Montgomery County, founder of Keep Life Legal Ministries
Mike Snead of Beavercreek, president of the Beavercreek Liberty Group
Moderators: Michael Williams, Ron Rollins
Last week we sat down with several area conservative leaders who last month signed their names to a “statement of rejection,” directed at many Ohio Republican officeholders. The statement, which attracted widespread attention across the state, plainly stated, “We will not accept this leadership which is inconsistent with the principals of the Republican Party.” We convened a local group of signatories for one of our roundtable discussions to discuss their concerns and what they will do if current Republican officeholders continue in the direction that provoked their declaration. While each is affiliated with various conservative organizations, they noted that they were offering their personal views, and not necessarily representing the opinions of their groups. Here’s an edited version of the conversation.
Moderator: Just to start off, talk to us what prompted the statement.
Seth Morgan: Really, it was a combination of events, not just one particular issue. Gov. (John) Kasich has been pushing to expand Medicaid for several months now. There's the problem with Mr. Borges (Matt Borges, the executive director of the state GOP, once worked as a lobbyist for a gay-rights group). And then Sen. (Rob) Portman's switch on gay marriage caused a lot of folks from both the fiscal and social sides of the more conservative, liberty-minded part of the party to stop and ask: "What is going on? What propagated this combination of things?" I think a lot of people may have thought it was mostly connected to Sen. Portman's flip-flop. For me, Mr. Borges was the final straw. It could be different for other people who signed. I think for everyone, though, the letter was to ask, Where is the compass of the Republican Party? The party platform says that marriage is between a man and a woman; for Sen. Portman to say that it's not caused those 85 signers to just step back and say, "Whoa — if this is the direction in which the party is headed, then we are not going in that direction." We're not asking for a pound of flesh. But we want to make certain that people understand where the conservative movement is going.
Lori Viars: The concern is with what is being done within the party. For instance, the "heartbeat bill" was killed by Republicans in the state legislature, and you can't blame Democrats for that. But we all agree on these issues. I was happy to sign on.
Bobbi Radeck: Concerned Women for America has been around for 34 years, and has mostly been about social issues. In the last three years, though, we've gotten our arms around the fiscal side of our conservative platform — and we watched how during the last election, with the trajectory we're on, it obviously didn't happen. In fact, after the 2010 election, I went to Washington and had the opportunity to talk to the chief of staff of my representative, who happens to be Mr. John Boehner, and I told him he needed to take the 2010 election results and use it as a point of reference for doing the right thing. And he flat-out said he did not agree with me. He said they were willing to compromise, and he demonstrated that by what they've been doing the last two years. We are very concerned. In the Republican platform, the social issues are very solid — yet we haven't seen anything close to happening like what the platform says. For us, and for my 16,000 members, we think we're losing ground on who is going to represent us; who will represent the true conservative?
Moderator: So, to be clear, the chief of staff said he thought it was all right to move away from those issues in the platform back in 2010?
Radeck: Yes. They really were not in tune at all with what the tea party is doing. He basically tapped me on the hand and said, "That's all right, we've got this under control." And I said, "Oh, no you don't." It was devastating to me. I thought, "Wow, we are in so much trouble."
Viars: And they like to blame us, saying that the reason the party lost with McCain and Romney was because they were trying to appeal too much to conservatives. Hello? They were moderates! They put up weak moderate Republicans with no money behind them. When you consider how close some of the real conservatives came — Huckabee, Santorum — if they'd had some real money behind them, they could've won in the primaries and I think we would have had strong conservatives who could have won in the general, too.
Mike Snead: This isn't all about social issues — there are those of us who are very concerned about fiscal issues, too. I'm primarily focused on the governor's Medicaid expansion. I have talked locally with our Greene County state representatives, who say they're just kind of scratching their heads after having been handed a budget that's doing a lot of screwy things. I think the Medicaid expansion is a fiscal tool Gov. Kasich is using purely for his political benefit. There's no clear reason why he would do that other than trying for a presidential bid in 2016. We felt the time was right to release a statement that addressed that issue, while the Ohio House is deliberating on the budget, and we understand they're getting a severe amount of arm-twisting, especially those on key committees. We were trying to demonstrate to them that the conservative group is not deaf to this issue, and will hold them responsible for their votes. But reading the budget and reading the various tea leaves we've gotten from various representatives suggest Gov. Kasich is trying to get bipartisan support so that he can then say in 2016 against his Democratic opponent, "See, I gave people stuff," and then try to avoid strong Republican and Democratic opposition. Medicaid expansion is political chessboard maneuvering. We're trying to say that we see what is happening, and we're holding them accountable for it.
Morgan: It isn't as if Gov. Kasich ran on Medicaid expansion. In fact, the tea party singled him out for praise when he refused to do the state exchanges under Obamacare. This, for him, is a real reversal of course. My problem with Medicaid is that it's a very broken system, it's not a compassionate system, and states like Ohio joining in its expansion will only exacerbate the speed of its breakage. Tying our state's fortunes even more to the federal government simply flies in the face of what we believe in.
Snead: Once you add single, work-able adults with no dependents to the list, you have turned Medicaid into universal health care, which allows people in who are above the official poverty level. Why shouldn't you expect a constitutional challenge to that? Basically, it's forcing everyone by fiat into Medicaid, obliging the state to pay for it, and busting the budget in the process. I tell people this and I get blank stares — I see no way to stop it.
Morgan: You know, one of the Republican criticisms of Ted Strickland was that if your house was washing downriver, he'd be the guy who brought the doughnuts; we on the right were very critical of Strickland's budget — but now, what are we doing with Medicaid? We're going to Washington on our knees with our tin cup out, tying ourselves to the federal handout. Frankly, again, this flies in the face of what the Republican Party stands for nationally, and against what Gov. Kasich has said he stands for. Why tie our fortunes to a failing Washington bureaucracy?
Radeck: We're getting further and further from people who are willing to represent us. They want to make a career out of it, and they're just full of hot air. We can't find anybody who is willing to stand up and make a sacrifice.
Viars: And yet they'll come to us again at election time, wanting our support and our endorsement.
Radeck: And our money, and our time and energy.
Viars: We worked very hard for their guy, McCain, even though he wasn't our guy. We worked really hard for Romney, even though he wasn't our guy — but they're saying one thing and doing another, and moving away from us on social issues.
Radeck: We do not have anybody with real core values anymore, somebody with a strong moral compass. When they get elected, they get involved in various sides of the legislative process, and they find the candy and the rewards that come at them are so much. …
Moderator: So, you end up feeling disappointed in the Republicans who get elected, because they become more moderate. And you aren’t going to vote for Democrats. So, where is this headed, for you?
Viars: I certainly can't vote Democrat, but I also won't vote for Portman. I would never skip an election, but I'll undervote — I won't vote in that race. I think for him the question is whether he gains enough votes from the other side for what he's lost with his base because of his flip-flop.
Snead: The issue with Sen. Portman is that he appears to have taken an opportune moment to express a personal belief that he should have expressed before he ran for office. It's fine for him to have that view, but I think he should have been clear when he was running for office, rather than getting on this particular bus when he arrived in Washington. It's just opportune politics again. We want people who are consistent with the moral views they give the impression of when they're running for office. I think it's appropriate for us to be skeptical. For instance, what else did he express strong impressions on during the campaign that he can now say, Well, I've changed my mind? I think we have to question now where his values are.
Morgan: I will always vote as I always have, for the person who best represents my values. But the idea that we were just going to sit here and identify with those who going off in this other direction and let them represent us — well, we're not going to go in that direction. And I don't think you're going to see the rise of a third party, because I think a third party would be just as bad as the two we've got. I think the American public is showing its broad skepticism of the political elite. For example, my informal polling group is my aunt and uncle, who are Democrats and who are also Second Amendment supporters. They've now seen their gun rights attacked by their own party, and they're fed up with all the idiots in Washington and Columbus. We're done with that.
Katherine Marple: From the point of view of the church, we've been watching things go from the conservative view of things to this social wishy-washy moderate stuff. Our representatives are not voting the way they used to. They used to vote for things they trust; now they don't know what to do. I think Portman had this idea all along, and it's why Romney didn't choose him as vice president, on this issue.
Viars: I'm not sure about that. I don't think Romney was OK on that issue, either.
Marple: What just happened here? This could not have happened, such as with the heartbeat bill. These Republicans just stabbed us in the back. They said they were pro-life, but I guess they aren't so much, anymore. We just don't know who to trust.
Viars: I do. I go by actions. If you want to be pro-choice and a fiscal moderate, fine. But don't tell us one thing and then do something else when you get into office.
Moderator: So, we’re hearing you all say that you feel stabbed in the back.
Radeck: Especially on the heartbeat bill.
Morgan: I don't feel that way. I became such a cynic when I was involved in politics. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Radeck: I think there are Americans out there who want somebody to stand up and stay standing up.
Viars: I think that's why Dr. Ben Carson is getting so many letters asking him to run for president — people are going gaga for the guy because he's standing up. People are hungry for good conservative leadership.
Moderator: So, do you think Kasich and Portman will end up facing challenges from the right?
Viars: I hope so, but it's early.
Morgan: There's some discussion out there about it. I'm not certain the movement is ready for that. If the party wants to lead on fiscal and what are defined broadly as liberty issues, then there is a group of us that will be supportive. But really, Kasich and Portman will come and go, but we as Ohioans have to live with these policies forever. …
Snead: The main thing, going forward, is how much does the national Republican Party need conservative support in 2016? You saw how things went in the last two presidential elections.
Viars: Well, they tried to get them to the polls in 2008 and they weren't excited, and they weren't excited last year. If they give us bad candidates, I can't make it happen.
Snead: There is a conservative coalition in Ohio looking out for these values who will support candidates who are who truthful in supporting these values. If you don't get that support, you won't win Ohio. I think you saw that in the unenthusiastic support for Romney.
Moderator: What reaction have you gotten to the statement?
Viars: We had a lot of people who called later and said, "Why didn't you call me to sign?" We've had 600 more people sign.
Morgan: The response from the establishment is to play the game of pretending you never saw it. But I know they saw it. We understand we were the talk of the town in Columbus when it came out. I can tell you from calls I got from Washington that it moved up the food chain pretty quickly; I was being asked, "What's going on in Ohio?"
Moderator: That would have to be a concern for them.
Morgan: It should be. They would be idiots for it not to be.
Snead: If the Republicans do not put forward a strong conservative candidate in 2016, then you'll see a Ross Perot type of moment like what emerged in 1992, when Bill Clinton won. It will happen all over again and also take support away from the Senate and House, and Republicans could find themselves in a long-term decline. Ohio is central to that whole path forward.
Moderator: I’m curious: Who do you think was the last truly conservative presidential candidate?
Viars: I think George W. Bush on spending issues was solid. I don't agree with everything he did, but that's the last time I saw social conservatives excited about a candidate.
Moderator: What do you think will be the outcome if same-sex marriage ends up on the ballot in Ohio?
Viars: I think we'll win. We will fight hard. I'm sure the other side is looking at strategy, figuring out the best time to put it on. But I think we'll win. It's about turnout, and mobilizing the base. You've got to press turnout of your base. I do know this: Rob Portman has hurt himself with his base. A lot of us won't vote for him again. And if we lose that Senate seat to a Democrat, you can't blame any of us. You can lay the blame squarely on Rob Portman.
About the Author