Today's Seattle Times runs an op-ed by Frank Luntz that ran in the Washington Post on February 25th. It's worth a read.
Luntz is an interesting fellow, though the trick with his analysis is getting past his relentless self-promotion that he is right, other people are wrong. That fact is particularly relevant given Luntz's well-documented falling out with current GOP leadership in Congress, especially with John Boehner.
Nevertheless, Luntz has two exceptionally important points worth remembering in the coming months:
1) The GOP didn't lose its base in the 2006 elections as was predicted in some circles, but it did get pounded among swing voters, especially conservative leaning independents. Michael Barone has a short analysis here of that development. Republicans have to correct that problem to make 2008 a success.
2) Republicans won't address the defection of independent voters previously critical to their majorities until they coalesce behind a proactive agenda, then communicate it accordingly. We discussed that same need in Washington state here shortly after the election.
I disagree with a few lesser points in Luntz's discussion, but thematically he seems on target.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 18, 2007 06:00 PM | Email ThisI helped out with the 3rd CD race (Messmore against Baird) and after the election we started crunching the numbers. From what we could see, the R's in the district stayed home and Messmore actually carried the Independent vote. We based this off of the numbers for the 2002 off year election. If the R's had come out in 2006 like they did in 2002 Messmore would have either one or lost by a very slim margin. I do agree that communication is key to bringing both the base and the Independents to see that they would be better served by the Republicans than the Democrats and this is what we tried to do in our campaign. We did not go negative and let Baird's voting record speak for itself (you can still see what was done on the website at www.messmore.com). From what we heard from some of the base is that they stayed home to "teach the Republicans a lesson" do to their disgust with how the Republicans on a national level refused to stick to Conservative values on everything from immigration to spending.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 18, 2007 07:05 PM Michael Barone in an interview with Rush Limbaugh a
Few months ago said the same thing about the election turnout. The state of Washington had a different problem. The majority of the republican base were not excited about Mike McGavick.
The fact of the matter is the state Gop is in need of a complete overhaul. I'm sorry but
a guy who is against property rights is not the answer.As much as I like Dino Rossi I don't believe he is the answer anymore either.There is only one person that will be able to excite the party members again.
We need Susan Hutchison, she is
The only person who can unite this party and turn this state around.So yes I will say it:Susan Hutchison for Governor in 2008.
As a final note Susan does not know a thing about this. I am in no way speaking for her or have I spoken with her about any of this.Ladies and gentleman this was my idea. In the coming weeks however more will be said.
Michael Barone in an interview with Rush Limbaugh a
Few months ago said the same thing about the election turnout. The state of Washington had a different problem. The majority of the republican base were not excited about Mike McGavick.
The fact of the matter is the state Gop is in need of a complete overhaul. I'm sorry but
a guy who is against property rights is not the answer.As much as I like Dino Rossi I don't believe he is the answer anymore either.There is only one person that will be able to excite the party members again.
We need Susan Hutchison, she is
The only person who can unite this party and turn this state around.So yes I will say it:Susan Hutchison for Governor in 2008.
As a final note Susan does not know a thing about this. I am in no way speaking for her or have I spoken with her about any of this.Ladies and gentleman this was my idea. In the coming weeks however more will be said.
Either people in a political party stand for something or they don't. Why would the grassroots want to even vote when double cross is the name of the game.
Posted by: Nathan on March 18, 2007 08:38 PMI thought Luntz is to doom-and-gloom with his "outlook is grim" refrain, particularly the part about "no end in sight" for the Iraq war and his bemoaning of the loss of manufacturing jobs (as if manufacturing is going to be the future of the American economy as it was in the industrial age).
I also thought Luntz over-generalized that all Republicans "didn't seem to care" about the issues on voters minds in 2006. At the same time, he also uses too broad a brush to paint Republicans writ large as "hyperpartisan." There is certainly some truth to his charge, but on the whole he seems too quick to imply the problems he identifies apply to all Republicans.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 18, 2007 08:49 PM''There is no starker symbol of Washington's inefficiency and ineffectiveness than the federal government's inability to control our borders and prevent illegal immigration''
The truly infuriating thing is that the word ''inability'' in last above clearly should be replaced by ''unwillingness''. As I've noted on past threads: Last year ~3 million attempts were made to cross our borders illegally, and about 2 million of those were successful. Just with a RELATIVELY serious effort on a double or triple fence we could stop 85-90 percent of the successful illegal crossings; at which point most people wouldn't even try. With a really serious effort we could probably stop 95+ percent. THEN we could have a rational debate about how many LEGAL immigrants or migrant workers we want to let in.
The fact that neither major party has made a serious effort to solve the illegal immigration (and ''open door'' for terrorists) problem is IMO a big (but not the only) reason for wide-spread disenchantment. That being said:
I agree with Eric in his # 7. answer to Michelle.
Posted by: Methow Ken on March 18, 2007 10:00 PM"On their coins they stamped the word 'aeturnus';
'Aeturnus' was their word for 'always',
'cause that's how long they thought they'd last;
So they hired clever men to do their thinking for them;
And now the glory that was Rome is past."
Luntz lauded the Floridian "listen to the voters" campaign (who, but a professional politician, would begin by telling voters he didn't know what he stands for and would they please fill in the blanks?) because it looked, without partisanship, for "any idea that advanced the principles of good government and political accountability" But how do you know what advances "good government" if you begin by ignoring any definition of what Government is supposed to be doing?
Liberals and Conservatives disagree fundamentally about the role of government. Liberals generally take a Marxist view, thinking that "fair" re-distribution of wealth is a chief role of government. But I would say any government that did precisely that efficiently and well would be a terrible government and lead us to shortages and poverty. Conservatives believe that a government that catches and strictly punishes dangerous criminals is a good government, but Liberals are refusing to build prisons or use the death penalty and are, literally, letting felons out because of the resultant overcrowding. They don't believe that individuals are responsible for crime.
There are no "non-partisan," "non-ideological" solutions. That idea is the resort of the ignoamus. What you end up with down that road is the politics of Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter that assert that government needs to be both bigger and larger at the same time, and that approach eventually alienates everybody. That is the 2006 problem of the GOP to begin with, not the solution.
Barone was as self-contradictory as Luntz. He tried (actually because he sides with the corporate slavery wing of the GOP) to show that opposition to illegal immigration is not a winner. He then (falsely) equated opposition to immigration crime with "protectionism" and cited a poll that was done that way to get the results he wanted to hear. Finally he quoted statistics showing that DEMOCRATS ARE WINNING ON THAT ISSUE. Of course they are! The GOP/Left hierarchy, from Bush and Rove on down through the RNC and specifically including the brass at the WSRP and KCGOP have sold their souls to amnesty and open borders (and lying about it) as a means to "win the Hispanic vote". Why would any sane voter trust them on that issue?
Finally, both Luntz and Barone err in analysis because they make unconscious and irrational assumptions. They assume that "swing" voters are "centrist" voters, ideologically. That is, they assume those voters must believe something somewhere at a midpoint in between the two platforms. But that interpretation assumes facts not in evidence.
When the "swing" voters (19% of the electorate) abandoned the GOP and "Bush the first" in 1992, they were walking out on economic conservative grounds, forsaking a liberal big spender who had blatantly broken his "no new taxes" pledge.
They came back for the Contract with America in '94 on conservative grounds, as well. Why did they leave again in 2006? Did they want us out of Iraq? No. Here is what Luntz, himself has to say, "My polls show that Democrats now hold a perceived advantage with voters not just on reducing deficits and balancing the budget but on an issue long seen as a GOP strength: ending wasteful spending."
I think the message is obvious. The "centrist" voters are, in fact, unconscious conservatives looking for a conservative party and not finding it in the GOP.
There, before us, we see a clear path to American Restoration. But those who profit from our present corruption refuse to see it. Nevertheless it remains accessible: that shining City on the Hill where government is put back under the control of the Constitution and limited to its legitimate role: protecting the innocent from aggression.
I guess the King County GOP "Winning Team" strategy for 2007 is to pray that the Democrats don't file anyone against Jane Hague in King County Council District 6 this year. District 6 is turning darker and darker blue these days -- Darcy Burner had a good margin, and GOP legislative candidates in November 2006 got their asses kicked, especially in Mercer Island and downtown Kirkland. Hague has had no opponent since she beat a Democrat to get elected back in 1993 (back when the district -- the old District 11, which did not include Mercer Island -- was solidly red), and was re-elected with no opposition in 1997 and 2001 (old District 11, and 2005 (new District 6).
I don't think the King County GOP will support anyone in District 2 (Larry Gossett), District 4 (Larry Phillips) or District 8 (Dow Constantine) -- even if someone files as a Republican -- they didn't do it in 2005 when those seats were up either. Same strategy is no doubt in place for the contest for King County Assessor -- in the event that someone dares to challenge Scott Noble.
The other part of the King County GOP "Winning Team" strategy in 2007 will be to re-elect some Republicans to nominally non-partisan positions in Republican-leaning suburban and rural enclaves to city councils, school boards, water districts, fire districts, and the like. Certainly not to challenge Democrat incumbents or go after open seats in areas Democrats are strong.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 18, 2007 11:17 PMThanks for the response. You sure seem to be holding your cards close these days. Luntz's column was certainly a mixed bag, and I wasn't sure if you and I agreed on where we disagree with Luntz. You picked some really safe areas in the first paragraph of your answer.
His outlook on the war: "no end in sight" as if we ever thought it would be short term. But his own polling didn't mention frustration with the war as a reason people left the GOP. The anti-war crowd never voted GOP in the first place, and the paleo-conservatives that are against this war would not agree with Luntz's solutions to the GOP's problems.
Luntz said:
Republicans in Congress cannot regain their majority merely by relying on a coalition of traditional conservatives and evangelicals.
As if they had been attempting this as of late!
They must reach out to what I call "the fed-ups" -- a large and growing constituency of independent voters who have held the balance of power in every election since 1992, and will hold it again in 2008.
Speaking as someone who was in that camp, (before my days of political activism and not yet as committed to the pro-life cause, I was a Republican who voted for Perot, after being disenchanted with Bush), "the fed-ups" ARE the traditional conservatives, evangelicals and the independents who are, as Doug put it "unconsciously conservative". The problem is, the GOP took us for granted, and tried to be more "central" (aka: moved to the left) to appeal to the independents who they assume are "in the middle".
One example: Chris Vance, in his mid-term outgoing speech as state party chairman, giving his "advice" to the party, to reach out to independents in Western Washington, and "not to worry about (conservative) Eastern Washington, they'll ALWAYS vote Republican." This strategy was emblematic for the GOP all around.
The constant refrain to the PCO's from GOP leadership was get out the "1's and 2's to vote (hard core partisan Republicans)" while the candidates marketed their message to the "centrists". "We're not AGAINST taxes, we're FOR using your tax dollars more efficiently." "Republicans care about the environment too." "We support public funding of embryonic stem-cell research too." "We need comprehensive immigration reform."
In your second paragraph, Eric, you said you thought Luntz attributed the "hyperpartisanship" and Republicans "didn't seem to care" attitude to all Republicans. I think he was just applying what the general impression of Republicans was, and there I agree. Hyperpartisanship meaning putting party above principles and really not listening to what the base is fed up with as well as those fed-up independents.
And I liked your title of this post. It's what Doug and I've been saying all along, though without the emphasis on for as if to say "not against" stuff. We've been saying "the GOP must stand for something", and that something should be conservative principles. That independents will follow leaders who stand for something. It is fine to be against something too, so long as it's not just against the Democrats. We must clearly define why we're against them, and not just be the lesser of two evils. We must stand for what's right.
Posted by: Michelle on March 19, 2007 01:10 AMYou obviously do not read this blog often. Yes we complain, but unlike Dems we do come up with ideas to solve what we are complaining about. I have seen many times where people on this blog have come up with ideas on such issues as illegal immigration, initiative ideas, early release of felons, the viaduct, problems with our schools and this is just to name a few.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 19, 2007 08:28 AM1. I've never, ever said what Michelle ascribes to me in #16.
2. The 2006 election was about Iraq and corruption, not ideology. The 2008 election will be about the competing visions articulated by the Parties' nominees for President. (And, to a much lesser extent, Governor) Mid-term elections are about the past, presidential elections are about the future. So, Luntz is correct when he says we need a positve vision, but we as a Party are going to spend the next year or so arguing over what that vision should be.
No good conservative would even consider voting for these people.
It's like the Republicans are handling the White House over to the Democrats.
Posted by: Mike on March 19, 2007 10:59 AM
Jesus H. Christ! Phil, have you ever heard of the concept of "Giving it a rest, already!"
LOL!!!
No, actually, you are wrong, and I'll prove it. I won't vote for her nomatter what. If she has supporters that are obsessive and fanatical as you, she can't possibly be a good nominee.
Surly Shirley,
Try reading the comments over at HorsesAss and then tell me who’s unfocused on policy. Not to mention, they can’t get more than three comments in without getting off topic.
I was there and heard you, and took notes. There are other witnesses.
Posted by: Michelle on March 19, 2007 01:02 PMHave you seen Snohomish County's Republican web site? I was only there because Eric mentioned it.
Why don't you guys go into the 'belly of the beast' and do Seattle? You know, it would take resources away from the suburbs, don't you?
Posted by: swatter on March 19, 2007 01:18 PMThe more things change, etc.
Posted by: you must be new here on March 19, 2007 03:42 PMI'll remind you that Chris is no longer the party chairman, though he served half a term in the last election cycle, so his policies as chairman still had effect on the elections. He also hand picked and annointed Mike McGavick as our U.S. Senate candidate. Things didn't change much in his absense, though to his credit, Chris was much better at hiding our disunity at conventions than his successor Diane. But he did cause much of that disunity.
Posted by: Michelle on March 19, 2007 07:12 PMI, too, was present when you delivered the speech as Michelle reports.
You are one of the most careless prevaricators I've ever met. While I was looking through my archives for instances where I used the above "I'll defend" quote, I found a comment I made in our debate about how the GOP Left/elite work to "Annoint a Senate Candidate" before the grassroots of the Party is allowed to participate(the same anti-democratic cheating that was engineered for Mike McGavick). It references your pathalogical propensity to speak of an alternate reality (make things up).
(from 2005):
"b,ii. The Party elite recognized Nethercutt's weaknesses from the beginning. If that were not so it would not have been necessary to use candidate censorship to destroy Reed Davis. Had Dr. Davis been allowed to speak to the convention, you know, as well as I, that George's "overwhelming" grassroots support would have disappeared like dew when the sun rises, as did Norm Maleng's "overwhelming" support in 1988 when Williams rose and the "overwhelming" support Jennifer [Dunn] herself could easily have commanded by the same top-down moves in 1998 when Linda Smith rose. But Jennifer understood the grassroots. She could see what would happen and wisely dropped out. She knew that what you are calling "overwhelming support" was, and is, a thin, artificially created veneer that depends largely on deception. When Jennifer engineered "overwhelming support" for a liberal candidate she did not make the mistake of believing her own propaganda. You and Eikenberry seem to actually believe there is a viable liberal/"moderate" Republican grassroots constituency. Jennifer had enormous talent, unfathomed ruthlessness, and the loyalty of brilliant strategists with the ethics of sewer rats. But she was not so foolish as to believe her own lies."
The irony of this is so rich it's literally painful.
None of these ideas are inherently partisan, but have been made very much so within my lifetime largely by the party I was supposed to admire for it's discipline in not overreaching. Especially in the social realm. Maybe there will be change, but something tells me I am going to be waiting for quite a while to see it.
Posted by: Acid Brain on March 23, 2007 01:30 PM