Chris Vance again takes to the pixels of Crosscut for a worthwhile discussion of how Republicans can reverse negative electoral trends in the suburbs that unfolded in 2006 and 2008.
Vance is right that the emphasis has to include the party choosing to "offer attractive candidates" and "present realistic, workable solutions." That's exactly how Democrats have been winning Congressional districts in the last two cycles that went for George W. Bush in 2004. Hint: that includes accepting candidates that do not embrace party orthodoxy in full, just as then-DCCC head Rahm Emmanuel recruited pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment Democrats to run in those aforementioned red districts.
One quibble, which is perhaps modest: I'm not ready to embrace Vance's assertion that the shift in the suburbs is a full on "realignment." The same was said about exurban voters after the critical margin they gave Bush in 2004, yet Obama's dramatic improvement over John Kerry's performance with that demographic slice was a key component of his ultimate victory. Though to concede to part of Vance's point, it's not as if the Evergreen State GOP record in the burbs is exactly heartwarming throughout the bulk of the last decade.
For the purposes of 2008, however, the unique combination of Iraq, Katrina, and the financial sector meltdown - with related sink in home equity and 401(k)'s - was a huge drag on Republicans on down the ballot. Similarly, Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff, and related Beltway Republican antics caused many a macro-problem in 2006.
That doesn't mean local Republicans have always run great candidates and perfect races. They haven't, and have the near-super minority in Olympia accumulated over the past decade to prove it. Nevertheless, the trend has shifted on that score, including the one-seat pick-ups in both house of the state Legislature that Vance appropriately lauds (and for which both Republican caucuses deserve credit for significantly improved candidate recruitment, a key factor in overcoming the up-ballot Democratic tide).
At the legislative level Republicans have to build on what they did this cycle. At the Congressional level quality candidates who fit their district are key (see the appropriate differentiation between Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Dave Reichert). And at the state level, more candidates in the mold of Dino Rossi and Rob McKenna, please.
Keep moving the ball forward.
Bonus coverage: In a relevant twist, Reichert Chief of Staff Mike Shields is taking a new job to "become the Director of Special Projects at the NRCC and will oversee the Incumbent Retention Program as a part of his portfolio. The NRCC is a political committee devoted to returning Republicans to the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives."
That portfolio will also include paying close attention to winning competitive, suburban seats, something which Shields obviously knows a little something about.
Good.
UPDATE: I think a number of commenters are misreading my comments, and probably Vance's article too. I for one do not advocate that the GOP regularly embrace pro-choice candidates, and Vance appears to say the opposite of that. From the Presidency on down there are many, many jurisdictions where a pro-life candidate is both the best choice for the party and the one that best aligns with party orthodoxy. Example: I opposed the idea of a pro-choice GOP Presidential nominee in 2008, and will do so again in 2012. I accept, however, but do not necessarily like, the fact that strong GOP candidates for statewide office - or westside Congressional districts - in our blue state might have a serious moderate streak on abortion and/or some other issue. It's just political reality.
That said, it is clear some understandably ardent pro-life supporters - with whom I find myself frequently in philosophical agreement - simply need to accept the fact that there are candidates who agree with most of the Republican agenda who can win in otherwise lost suburban districts who might be pro-choice. Steve Litzow in the 41st LD is a notable current example. Jennifer Dunn was a clear example of that in the 8th CD, and Dave Reichert's moderation - albeit on other issues than life - has been essential to him retaining that seat.
The ultimate test is whether or not the candidate fits the district (or the state...or the nation). Rahm Emmanuel picked pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment candidates because that was what could win in the number of red districts, in states like Indiana and North Carolina, where Democrats have captured seats in the last two Congressional elections. Concurrently, Emmanuel would not back such candidates in firmly blue districts; he would favor someone more in line with a greater portion of Democratic orthodoxy.
Bluntly, we should fight for every conservative we can get. But the cold hard truth of politics is that less ideological candidates - both Republican and Democrat - are the ones who very often win suburban seats in the Legislature and Congress. It's a formula Democrats have been using against Republicans to win majorities in Olympia and Washington, DC recent years. Failing to understand and adapt to that would be fantastically stupid.
Of course, the whole reason the GOP picked-up legislative seats this cycle is because they have started to adapt. Candidates who fit the district well and apply conservative principles to the issues voters are prioritizing. That varies significantly by district. Meaning: successful candidates can't and won't just fit into one template, regardless of how urgently some activists would like to make it so.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 17, 2008 08:50 AM | Email ThisRealignments aren't permanent. The damage can be reversed. We just need to acknowledge that this is more than a short term aberration.
Posted by: Chris Vance on December 17, 2008 08:53 AMWe're more than agreed on that. When's the last cycle before this one we actually had a net gain of seats in the Legislature? 1994? Enough said.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 17, 2008 09:04 AMSounds like possibly a portion of your resume Eric? :)
Posted by: Duffman on December 17, 2008 09:12 AMSeriously, focusing on all the differences in people, such as religion, income, education, etc., means less and less in a society where information provided to the majority of people across all class levels is more and more biased to the leftist viewpoints. It's the common factor among us all. We all are inundated with misinformation, bias and filtering from the major news sources. Those of us who pursue higher education, have an overwhelming likelihood of being brainwashed with liberal propaganda in our institutions of higher learning.
People can believe in God and still believe falsehoods if they read or see them every day. Wealthy people are not immune. Educated people are not immune either. You watch FoxNews regularly and you'll likely lean to the right. You watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, or read the Seattle Times, PI, New York Times, LA Times, and you're going to be coerced to lean left. People can't help but believe some or all of what they read, see, or hear. They can question it, doubt it, and even believe it untrue, but if that is all they know, it will make the difference.
I'm am convinced that George Bush is hated today by people who supported him for no other reason than they've been told to hate him for 8 years from every source of news they see. Now he's blamed for our economic problems despite their direct relationship to the liberal social engineering at Fannie and Freddie, or the drive to ruin of industries by uncompromising unions.
There will be no realignment until information is reformed in America. When liberal activists like Chris "Obamalover" Mathews, George Stepalloverus, and Keith Olbernutjob are shamed out of the business, then we'll know media is on the right path. But as long as they are heroes in the media, conservatives don't have a chance.
It would help, though, too if Republicans acted like they talk, and less like corrupt selfish hypocrites or closet tax and spend liberals. That would mean no to corporate welfare, defense of the laws, and fighting of corruption even when their party or career is benefiting from it.
And if good people, like Sarah Palin, suddenly aren't attacked by their own party, then that might indicate that the party isn't already terminally contaminated by corrupt and self-interested people, and worthy of power again.
Posted by: MJC on December 17, 2008 09:32 AMHmmmm, we've heard post after post, comment after comment, about how the Republicans need to nominate people who aren't social conservatives in order to win. This post almost hints at that, however, in the end you put it right out there in bold black lettering: The democrats won by running social conservatives. Yet, my fellow "true conservatives" want to run social liberals or moderates to try to win.
The battle has been forming, certain wings of the Republican coalition have already started trying to marginalize the social conservatives in the party, when in fact it should be the other way around. We should be nominating strong social conservatives who just happen to be economic conservatives as well.
Most people want a government that can solve problems whether that government is small or large.
Posted by: M&M on December 17, 2008 09:58 AMThat's a little misleading. What dragged down the Republicans was the MSM's description of those items, which was neither the whole truth nor nothing but the truth. And since the majority of voters still get their information on current events from the MSM, the hostility they voted against the Republican side simply reflected the sordidly slanted 'news' articles which in the main were designed to undermine, or topple, the Bush administration.
Iraq: the surge worked, AQI lost, and civilians are returning to unterrorized civil life. Per MSM, the place is still a chamber of horrors and all Iraqis have removed their shoes to fling at us.
Katrina: the Feds had an immense presence in the form of the Coast Guard and their omnipresent helicopters, right from day one. The MSM ignored it. The City and Louisiana governments were properly the first responders, and both failed miserably - in fact Louisiana forbade the National Guard from participating for far too long. The MSM played blame festival against the Feds for the failures of the City and State governments.
Financial sector meltdown: the MSM has concealed the pernicious effects of the Community Reinvestment Act, placed on steroids by the Clinton admin in 1995, and to trump that misfeasance has failed to inform us of all the attempts of the Bush admin to tighten up regulations on the legally-mandated reckless lending - including a John McCain bill in 2005 which was sunk in committe by Democrats. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank lied through their teeth about the health and good works of Fannie and Freddie - right before they collapsed.
Had the MSM reported on these events without twisting them into clubs to beat Bush with, the huge advantage given the Democrats by the twisting would have evaporated.
Be very skeptical of a monolithic mindset in charge of the information stream 'serving' the voters of a democracy.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 17, 2008 10:00 AMIf you are interested in what my thoughts are regarding McCain they are available in the archives of this site.
I really don't have much interest in the State Party at this point. They are irrelevant and what is more not only is the state Party leadership not comprised of people I identify with, I am a damn good judge of character and I wouldn't trust them as far as I can spit.
Posted by: JDH on December 17, 2008 10:01 AMThe Republican Party has already been applying this strategy. Look where that's gotten us. The reason Rahm Emmanuel's strategy worked is because pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment are winning positions.
Posted by: Michelle on December 17, 2008 10:18 AMThis contributed to the Republican losses, but NEVER FORGET this the Paarty wasn't dragged down by external forces, it was damaged sufficiently by forces within the Party, what with the CORRUPTION THAT I GUARANDAMNTEE YOU THE PARTY LEADERSHIP HAD KNOWLEDGE OF yet did not address that weakened the Republican Party to the degree that any defense against what was being unfairly lodged against the Party was untennable.
Posted by: JDH on December 17, 2008 10:18 AMBeen working great for the Democrats.
Posted by: Vince on December 17, 2008 10:26 AMMost people want a government that can solve problems whether that government is small or large.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You do understand that a large government has NEVER solved a dang thing. If it ever did, we would no-longer need it.
Jezzz I can't believe M&M would even ask that question. )-:
1. Republicans can't win without social conservatives. Period. However, we also can't win with JUST social conservatives. In a country with only two major parties it takes a coalition to win.
2. Blaming the media is a waste of time. The media has always been biased against Republicans. We still managed to win elections.
Posted by: Chris Vance on December 17, 2008 11:21 AMFirst, Democrats are emotional and can get the electorate lathered up quite easily, thank you. Can you say Foley?
Second, Democrats have tickler (read emotional) buzz words that they use each election to lather up the electorate.
Third, Republicans (those of the conservative kind, anyways) are methodical, traditional and answer searchers. Typically, they come from the workers and leaders of private industry. This is boring and is hard to educate the electorate on.
Fourth, Republicans have a difficult time throwing out words and statements they don't mean. Democrats don't.
And yet, Republicans still get about 50% of the vote.
Posted by: swatter on December 17, 2008 11:44 AMI wasn't blaming the bloody media, I was pointing out a fact. Ignore it at your peril. Party leaders, like military generals, risk great losses if they ignore the strengths of their opponents. What is the Republican leadership doing to neutralize or reverse the biases of the MSM? Or invent alternate means of communication? Nothing that I've seen yet.
The average campaign message that reaches this TV-less household is mindlessly crass. "Send money because those horrible Democrats will do horrible things if you don't".
Oh Republican 'leaders', where are your messages of creative inspiration? WHY should anyone vote for a Republican? Certainly not for trying to out-nanny or out-regulate or out-Santa Claus the Democrats.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 17, 2008 12:23 PMThe problem is that this usually means government solutions, and most party Republicans are rightfully usually against government solutions, favoring liberty instead.
Which means we need to offer education about why government solutions are usually bad.
Vance had his chance... he ran the party for years. And what do we have to show for it?
The issue isn't ideology when we lack a realistic infrastructure.
Ideology doesn't matter when candidates aren't vetted.
Ideology doesn't matter when the party continues to fail to institute a full time, year-round, minority outreach program.
If Chris knew what he was doing, we wouldn't be in this situation. This "every-few-months" post about what Chris-thinks-jag seems to me to be an exercise in mental masturbation.
Without trained, solid, well-financed and vetted candidates, these issues under discussion are genuinely unimportant.
Without a solid, 21st century infrastructure and communications system, no one will hear these highfalutin, mainstreamer ideals to BE "wowed" at their sheer genius.
/sarcasm switch off
This is an outcome-based business, folks. We won in Clark County by breaking up the Obama tsunami at the county commissioner level with a solid, inclusive, conservative message, and the media, unions and money were against us every step of the way.
Had we followed the Vance Formula in our increasingly urban county, we would have lost... just like McCain did down here.
We won, in spite of something like a 3-to-1 funding disadvantage and a last-minute title wave of corrupt tribal money because we knew what we were doing and we knew how to do it... "suburban crescent" notwithstanding.
This clapping with one hand thing you do, Eric... I don't see it getting us anywhere. Your efforts at helping our opponents with your nonsensical, public flaying of HROC makes me question your motives, as does your continued reliance on Vance for his take on, well, anything.
Posted by: Hinton on December 17, 2008 12:59 PMCongratulations on winning the majority on the County Commission. I would point out, however, that Dino slipped by 6% in Clark County compared to 2004 and we lost another suburban Clark County legislative seat. Why?
I think the state party has been well run in recent years, and we have run strong statewide candidates. The national mega trends I am talking about, however, have nothing to do with the mechanics of the state party, or winning local races.
Posted by: Chris Vance on December 17, 2008 01:26 PMEven so, as Chris pointed out there was the exception to the prevailing political tsunami:
(R)s actually GAINED one seat in BOTH houses in Oly. I still say that pulling off those small but encouraging gains this year in this state is the under-reported and under-appreciated politcal success story of the year for WA (R)s.
And while IS makes several valid points in the first part of #7 post, I have to respectfully but fundamentally disagree with the conclusion; i.e.:
~ ''The huge advantage given the (D)s would have evaporated if the MSM would not have twisted beyond recognition''.
Nope: As Chris added @ #13-2, laying it all on the MSM is a waste of time: They have been that way for ages (unfortunately), and (R)s still won.
Plus we should not minimize the objective history:
1.. Iraq is hugely better NOW (thanks largely to SECDEF Gates and General Petraeus), but under their predecessors there were major screwups. It's not all his fault, but it was President Bush's watch.
2.. Yes: Major kudos (always) to the USCG; and pre-Jindal LA state, local, and New Orleans city government response to Katrina was atrocious. But that does not excuse the very real failings and poor performance of FEMA and other Federal agencies.
3.. Culpability for the financial meltdown crosses all political boundaries, and the causes stretch back thru several administrations. But the final ''flowering'' and the actual explosion happened while George Bush was in the White House. Blaming the current President for the whole sorry mess is unfair, but; hey:
If you want fair, politics is about the worst possible business to be in.
Now: WRT some of the comments by Doug @ #5 and Michelle (or Michele ??) @ #9:
Chris is IMO obviously and absolutely right @ #13-1:
(R)s can't win most elections without social conservatives, but also can't win widely with JUST social conservatives.
First note IMO it's more accurate to label most of the (D)s that won Congressional races in red states as moderates, not strong conservatives.
And where Michelle sez: ''The reason Rahm Emmanuel's strategy worked is because pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment are winning positons'' she left off a very necessary suffix:
''in some states and districts''.
To suggest or imply that the above statement is universally true across the whole county is clearly not correct. John Tester got elected to the US Senate in MT in part because the majority of the good people of MT are confident that he will NOT support any serious attempt by the Congressional (D) leadership to attack our 2nd Amendment rights. If he did, he knows he would get run out of MT on a rail at the next election.
See again also Eric's comment at the end of thread start:
''... the appropriate differentiation between Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Dave Reichert. And at the state level, more candidates in the mold of Dino Rossi and Rob McKenna, please.''
Absolutely. My Congresswoman McMorris Rogers is hugely popular and respected in our 5th Congressional district, and won by around 60 percent in the last 2 elections. But if she was running in the 8th, it would be a whole 'nother story. Similiarly, the Sherriff would not get nominated in the 5th, but for the good of both the state and the county I'm SURE glad that he represents WA in the US House, instead of ditto-head Darcy; even if I don't agree with him on all the issues.
And there very much needs to be a place for people like former Governors Tom Ridge and Christy Todd Whitman in the (R) party. Politics is the art of the possible, and in order to actually govern and accomplish something you have to WIN, not just run.
FOOTNOTE on Hinton's above:
He has made good points in the past and continues to do so in many cases; i.e.:
This is for sure an outcome-based business.
But categorically dismissing the many thoughtful and perceptive comments by both Chris and Eric is not justified.
Why on earth we would listen to him on how to revive the GOP when he helped gut it is beyond me.
Posted by: Kevin on December 17, 2008 02:06 PM1. The GOP leg candidate was not vetted, used fake degrees from matchbook university, screwed up repeatedly with his literature about bogus numbers for transportation expenditures (90% of our transportation budget goes to mass transit immediately comes to mind) and laundered business receipts through his campaign to jack up his PDCs.
In other words, he was a disaster. And you can't win by running a disaster, no matter what message you send him out with.
2. See number one.
3. Dino made a terrible mistake when he came out in support of wasting $75 million tax-payer dollars for a basketball team.
I have no idea what he was thinking or why he was thinking it. While just a blip on the radar, I've heard, over and over from the conservative base around here (myself included) that from that moment, he had lost the election... which I may have mentioned here many times before the election.
We also watched what happened when, as governor-elect, he surrounded himself with mainstreamer Republicans... different versions of incompetents of the Sam Reed variety, and damned few, if any, non-King County republicans... and we all know what a solid grip the GOP has on King County, right?
He failed to present a compelling argument that would motivate the base. (5420 undervotes for gov here in CC speak for themselves) and I believe that he tended to take this county a little TOO much for granted, given how little time he actually spent here.
That's my take. Add to that McCain's utterly clueless campaign where he missed opportunity after opportunity to drill Obama over Wright; or use video of Biden telling the world Obama wasn't ready, or of Clinton smacking him (his failure to use that stuff made me think he'd been bought off somehow...) and it all sucked for Dino.
Winning gives you gravitas, Chris. And the question is this: under your watch... did we win...
.... or lose? Did we, as a state, get redder? Or bluer?
We all know the answer. Had you been successful, I would eagerly be awaiting your every word.
Posted by: Hinton on December 17, 2008 02:09 PM1. I wasn't chairman when 695 was being debated, but the WSRP did endorse it.
2. The chairman doesn't decide what the Party endorses. That is decided by the Executive Board or the State Committee.
3. While I was chairman the WSRP did endorse several Tim Eyman initiatives.
While I was Chairman we lost a few House seats in 2002, and 2004. We won the majority in the Senate in 2002, but lost it in 2004.
In 2004 we won two open congressional seats, elected the first Republican AG in 12 years, and elected Dino - twice.
The big collapses came after I left, in 2006 and 2008. But I don't think I would have done any better. National trends are killing Republicans everywhere other than in the south, and now even states like Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia are in danger. Blaming me, or Dino, or Luke Esser is missing the big picture.
Posted by: Chris Vance on December 17, 2008 02:20 PMUnfortunately, during his tenure, Chris kind of became the political equivalent of Ty Willingham. And I haven't heard of many folks calling Ty to ask for his advice, either.
Posted by: Hinton on December 17, 2008 02:31 PMI have seen no evidence that does not point to lack of vision and poor leadership.
Lack of vision and poor leadership is always where one should start when taking a forensic look at FAILURE. Only after ruling the above out should one start looking elsewhere. Unfortunately the one doing the looking in this case is the leader whose lack of vision is manifest in the disaster that is the State Republican Party.
Posted by: JDH on December 17, 2008 02:46 PMI can't think of a single reason why I would want to form a "coalition" with people that think abortion is a swell idea, or accept the global warming hoax, (just as an aside, our last Presidential candidate swallowed the entire global warming nonsense hook, line, and sinker).
I may be old fashioned but I think conservatives win by being unashamed of our principles and being unafraid to explain them.
If we end up as nothing more than compromisers what is the point?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2008 02:56 PMIn case you missed the last show. He lost!
If it had not been for Palin, the lost would have been much larger.
PS. You may have noticed that McCain "middle" of the road people, just couldn't wait to tell lies and blames Plain for his lost.
Again, if you think our party needs to head that direction your a fool!
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 17, 2008 03:47 PMTo quote myself:
Rather than tailor our message, our goals, to fit whatever candidates with an 'R' after their name happen by, we should be looking for candidates that fit our message.
If we can't stick to our principles, why bother? That applies in politics as much as it does in ordinary everyday life. Is it worth selling your soul (which is what denying your principles is) for politics?
And isn't THAT the best contrast with a liberal political machine that will says whatever is expedient at the moment to whomever they happen to be speaking?
No thanks.
Please point where in my article I advocated Republicans "abandoning their principles," or "running moderate candidates."
We need smart articulate candidates who can deliver our core messages, particularly in terms of economic growth.
Posted by: Chris Vance on December 17, 2008 03:53 PM"Moderate" only has one real meaning in the context of modern American politics. Liberal.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2008 03:57 PMI don't know exactly what you mean by a "coalition", but if that means compromising conservative principles I'm not on board.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2008 04:04 PMAnything else you wish to say. By the way, did you also notice that the so-called middle of the road (social types) left McCain high and dry.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 17, 2008 05:06 PMAs much as I do agree with you on this part. If you even think that putting forth another RP.
Well then dude, you'll be alone in the corner.
If you can figure out the answer you've got my vote.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2008 05:10 PMThat surely explains why voters everywhere overwhelmingly oppose homosexual marriage.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2008 05:21 PMBill Cruchon:
We do not need the media to be favorable to us.
Sure it would be nice to get some media attention torwards candidates that favor smaller government and it would be even greater if that coverage were favorable or at least balanced. But it is not our biggest problem.
Our biggest problem is not the media, it is the GOP leadership that actively campaigns against candidates that favor smaller government.
That is why I suggest to Vance, pudge, Earling, Marzolf, etc... just try running candidates with integrity and favor smaller government. They so far appear to be refusing.
Posted by: Lysander on December 17, 2008 05:46 PMYou think the MSN had fun with Palin. Jezz, if he had gone any farther. The whole REP party would have been branded as racist! No thanks.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 17, 2008 06:08 PMI think as conservatives we spend too much energy playing defense.
We are optomists. Liberals are eternal pessimists. Civilization has bloomed because of conservative capitalism. To argue the point is absurd.
The moment the political winds are against us we want to be "liberal lite".
We are right. Let's get a spine.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2008 06:14 PMThere's a lofty sense of perfection among the Bush critics which implies that once the entire Congress minus two voted for the Iraq invasion, that Iraq should have been running like an EU social democracy within one year after the troops crossed the border. And since it wasn't, the whole invasion should have declared failure and abandoned the country to anarchy and murder.
Sorry to have to explain, but the Congress voted for a war, not a Harvard Business School exercise. All the 'planning' that the lofty idealists declared a failure never survives the reality of a war on the ground. Despite the howls of media and the goodthinkers insisting on defeat as the situation developed, Bush persevered and won, despite reverses and his necessary changes in officers, and he is entitled to the credit. That despite the craven desertion of scores of politicians, to make personal hay at the expense of the country they themselves had commited to the war.
If one wishes to quibble about 'major screwups' with a casualty count of 4,000, then please calibrate that quibble against vastly greater screwups committed throughout the course of WW II with its 416,000 US military deaths. And ponder why the media of that period was nearly all supportive of President Roosevelt, while our current media prefers undermining to support - even now that it's plain that the operation's a success.
If Congreses pursues the current financial bailout as loopily as it did the war it committed us to, it's hard to believe that its members are acting as representatives of the people, rather than self-interested opportunists. And be very afraid for the security of your domestic affairs - while praying that hostile foreigners do not exploit the blatantly obvious weaknesses of our so-called government.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 17, 2008 06:16 PMSadly as we seem to both agree, leadership in the party is pushing us to go even further to the left. Much like they think the solution to our economic problems seem to be more of what caused it to begin with, they see the solution to our electoral problems as more of what caused it to begin with!
Posted by: Lysander on December 17, 2008 06:25 PMIf you want to figure out how the left thinks it doesn't take much more than to have observed how they treat Sarah Palin. She scares the heck out of them. Amazingly the left seems to know something Republicans don't. A truly conservative candidate is a winner.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2008 06:35 PMConservatives don't need any of that nonsense.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2008 06:59 PMYes, Bill, just keep on trying to cram your religious cult down the public's throat, keep bashing atheists, keep bashing homosexuals, keep pushing your superstitious moral code, and keep citing Sarah Palin as your intellectual flagpole, while insisting that you are really defending "liberty," the Democratic Party will be shaking in its boots. Bring it on, Bill!
And, I almost forgot, let's put flag-burners in prison so we can preserve "freedom."
God Bless the GOP!
Posted by: fred on December 17, 2008 07:13 PMA neutered Republican Party is no more relevant to today's politics than the Whigs.
Democrats know this and they just sat laughing in their beers when Republicans nominated John McCain. How much more perfect could a candidate have been for the Democrats? Could they possibly have invented one? A global warming believer who couldn't wait to vote for the banking bailout and opposed drilling for our own oil in the Alaskan wilderness. It makes my head hurt. I get that the Democrats beat us with the economic collapse and the constant every Republican candidate is Bush ads. It would have been hard to win under the best of circumstances. But McCain? What in the world were Republicans thinking? Nominating Palin for VP was brilliant but I suspect McCain's people had nothing to do with it.
However. For the future listen to what makes the left unhinged. Palin is a big clue. The left would ignore her if they didn't view here as a huge threat. She terrifies them.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 17, 2008 07:41 PM" That is why I suggest to Vance, pudge, Earling, Marzolf, etc... just try running candidates with integrity and favor smaller government. They so far appear to be refusing. "
Pudge may be capable of finding candidates with 'integrity', but as for Vance, Earling, Marzolf, etc., when it comes to integrity, they wouldn't know what it was they were looking for.
Something about ' .... if it bit them in the butt'.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 17, 2008 08:09 PMAttractive to whom?
In #30 posted by Ragnar Danneskjold on December 17, 2008, Danneskjold paraphrased Rush Limbaugh responding to Colin Powell, 'we tried it your way, with your guy, a moderate: we lost' referring to John McCain, the Mainstream Media's favorite 'Republican'.
Republican's were told the 'way to win' was to abandon conservative principles (heck, any principles) and embrace the 'undecided', the 'moderates', the 'minorities' (even if they were Liberals), any and all would be accepted into the 'Big Tent' of the Republican Party (anyone except Ron Paul Republicans) and the 'Party' would morph to fit them all in. A 'coalition party' of the Vance ideology.
That strategy worked out well.
So well that the Democrats, seeing the RNC / McCain strategy for winning for what it was, in some Districts ran a candidate to the right of the Republican candidate and the 'conservative' Democrat won. (Maybe if John McCain had just worked harder to get the illegal alien vote?)
The RNC / McCain strategy worked out well. For the Democrats.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 17, 2008 09:43 PMThis is what worries me. We lose a couple of elections and suddenly start talking about Republican candidates compromising on something so central to the core of conservative thought as abortion. Forgive me, but I don't find anything "moderate" about sanctioning the taking of unborn life.
If voters want someone who is "moderate" on abortion and other issues they'll vote for Democrats. If we start moving to the left because of "political reality" why is it worth winning elections at all?
In view of my previous comments regarding John McCain it is worth noting that he did not compromise his views on abortion. He did however fully embrace one of the biggest cons of all time, the global warming myth.
If we shy away from conservative principles for "political reality" then who are we?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 18, 2008 06:52 AMBack on January 23, 2008, there was a post by Eric Earling entitled "A Note on Polls & Electability," leading to a thread with 141 comments over a five-day period. At the time, it was just beginning to look like McCain was likely to emerge as the GOP presidential candidate.
The post and 141 comments - in the Sound Politics archives at http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/009979.html includes several comments by Chris Vance, which are particularly interesting in retrospect. Also, the thread including a lot of discussion about whether McCain's positions on amnesty and global warming made him a stronger or weaker candidate.
More than 10 months later, the claims, predictions, prognostications, estimates, and evaluations in the January 23-27 thread are quite interesting in the light of subsequent events.
Once again, it is available online in the Sound Politics archives at http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/009979.html
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 18, 2008 07:27 AMLindsay's election as mayor of New York in 1965 and 1969 did not advance the Republican party or conservatism. On the other hand, William F. Buckley's conservative candidacy in 1965 - against Lindsay - had lasting positive effects on hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, and set the stage for future Republican advances and for future conservative successes (not necessarily limited to the electoral).
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 18, 2008 12:21 PMThe most amusing comment from those days came from Buckley when a reporter inquired as to what would be the first thing he would do should he be elected. Buckley's reply, "Ask for a re-count".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 18, 2008 12:37 PMI'm 57.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 18, 2008 02:50 PM" I can't believe he's (Chris Vance) still taken seriously. "
PC:
He isn't. He (Chris Vance) is just a topic for a post to a blog.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 18, 2008 04:09 PMAnd if in the 41st district, that fair process is provided, and everyone (including the parishoners of St. Monica's Parish) is fully aware of Steve Litzow's pro-abortion-choice position, have had the opportunity to put up an alternative, and they still want him as their nominee, then so be it. That's ensuring the candidate will fit the district.
Posted by: Michelle on December 19, 2008 02:29 PMPeople are fed up with the last 8 years for the time being when the Administration was neo-conservative, figuratively with a big "Kick me" sign for the left and their surrogates - the mainstream media to tee off on. The support of Republicans (once Reagan Democrats) and most Independents has been lost. Conservatives had better walk their talk in the midst of this financial crisis and distance themselves from big government solutions or it will be a long road back.
Posted by: KS on December 22, 2008 06:58 PM