Posted on 11/17/2006 11:13:00 AM PST by Miss Marple
The disappointing results of the recent election have led to a lot of discussion about WHY this happened. In the search for the grand unifying theory of why we lost, there seems to be an inordinate amount of bitterness and recrimination.
The problem is that we all are looking at this through the perspective of our own beliefs. Conservatives look at the loss of Chaffee and Northrup and think "If only we had had a real conservative in those seats." Moderates point to the loss of Hayworth and Santorum and caution about moving too far to the right. Some blacks look at the losses of Ford, Blackwell, and Steele and think it's all about race. People like me opine that the Congress would have won if they had stuck with the President. Others think that we would have won if we had completely disassociated ourselves from President Bush.
The fact is, this election wasn't about ideology at all. We were outflanked by a very good strategy crafted by Rahm Emmanuel, who has proven to be a formidable foe.
First of all, the democrats made really amazing use of the scandals, many of which they orchestrated to be revealed at the most damaging time. Foley, Delay, Weldon...those stories were not coincidental. Judicious use of timing and legal tactics kept us from effectively defending those seats.
In addition, instead of waiting until this year, Emmanuel began recruiting people almost two years ago. He used a very interesting strategy...looking at what would appeal to voters in each individual district and state, rather than looking at a national message. The oft-seen "Rove, you magnificent bastard" graphics here on FR were more prescient than intended. In the movie "Patton", the phrase was "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book."
That is exactly what happened. Emmanuel "read Rove's book" and took a page from it.
Candidates were chosen to fit certain constituencies. Webb, for example, IS a bona fide war hero and he went up against George Allen, who didn't serve in the military. That drew enough votes from those military people in Hampton Roads and other military enclaves to put Webb over the top. The macaca flap was just icing on the cake.
J.D. Hayworth is also very conservative, and had made strict immigration enforcement one of his issues. What did they do? They ran someone who was also strict on immigration, but supported the President's plan somewhat. So, the democrat got the Hispanic vote plus a bit of the anti-immigration vote.
In Indiana, Hostettler and Sodrel were attacked by the democrats over Daylight Savings Time and the sale of the Indiana Toll Road, two issues which are very hot buttons here but have NOTHING to do with the federal government.
This is how the democrats won. They looked at each area and chose the issues which would get them enough crossover voters to get them over the top. While their national office holders and the liberal pundits were saying that this election was a referendum on Iraq, their local candidates were running on almost anything BUT that, at least in the swing areas.
I have to conclude that we just lost because the democrats did a better job. When your desire is purely to seize power (which is, after all, what a great many of them are about) then you aren't hampered by ideology. That's why they could run Jim Webb and other veterans while speaking in Washington about defunding the military. They simply discovered what would sell, and used it to get people elected in the democrat column.
Now, we can all post for the next ten years about which way would have been the best philosophy (moderate or conservative) but the fact is that this election really had nothing to do with either. It had to do with who was willing to do the most to regain or keep power, and the democrats won.
IF we had had a cohesive national message, if we had not been divided on issues since Katrina,if we had not had some really embarassing scandals, we might have been able to overcome this. However, with pundits assailing the President, Congressional Republicans split over immigration and earmarks, and the President only hiring Tony Snow late in the game to put out an improved PR effort, we simply couldn't overcome it.
Rove is an excellent political strategist, but no matter how good someone is, there one day arrives someone better, and right now this person is Rahm Emmanuel.
If I had a say in what goes on I would suggest the following:
1. No dissension within the party should be aired on national media. Anyone who does this would be stripped of committee assignments and campaign cash. Disagreements belong on the floor of the Congress and in votes and in letters to constituents. We do not owe Chris Matthews air time to help divide the party.
2. President Bush is the president for two more years. The media has done a number on him and does NOT need our help in attacking the president. Anyone who calls him too liberal, too conservative, too wishy-washy, failed, traitor, etc. is doing nothing but further depressing his approval ratings. It won't be easy for the 2008 candidate, whoever he may be, to run following a "despised" president, and all you have to think about is Hubert Humphrey following Lyndon Johnson. Keep your opinions to yourself for the sake of whoever runs in 2008.
3. Congressmen and Senators should start paying attention to LOCAL issues that could be used against them. Staffers should be monitoring the local papers and media. After seeing how Sodrel and Hostettler were sandbagged by this stuff, I am not so sure we can win much in 2008, especially since Governor Daniels will be at the head of the state ticket.
4. Finally, realize that a huge number of voters don't vote based on philosophy of government. They vote on who will protect their jobs, who seems like a nice guy, who has done stuff they can identify with, who has good hair, etc. They don't give a flying hoot about "limited government" or "social justice." If you talk to them about inside baseball stuff like whether Pence or Boehner should be minority leader, their eyes glaze over and they start edging away from you, figuring you are a whack-job. However, their votes count just as much as Rush Limbaugh's, mine, or yours. We had better understand them rather than patronizing them or ignoring them.
We have to lose our complacency that our message is self-evident, and that the public trusts only Republicans with national security. It is obvious that the public is easily misled and confused.
At any rate, this is my take on what happened.
bump for bedtime but will revisit this thread Miss Marple
Please stop with the Katrina nonsense.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/katrina_what_the_media_missed.html
Why is that the state that was grazed by the hurricane had the "disaster", while the state next door that took the full force of the hurricane and sustained massive damage somehow wasn't a disaster. The tale of two states. One run by Democrats, the other by Republicans. Louisiana was spared a direct hit and yet the state and New Orleans city governments were unable to cope with the disaster. Meanwhile next door, Mississippi took the full force of the hurricane but somehow once the storm had passed the state and local governments were fully able to bring relief and aid to its citizens. There was no wholesale looting. There was no breakdown in the command and control. National Guard units were given clear and concise instructions. The Red Cross and other relief organizations were able to do their jobs without state interference and indecision (red tape). While Mississippi quietly went about the business of recovery, next door in Louisiana chaos and indecision reigned. "Oh woe is us" and "So poor, so black" were the excuses for the meltdown.
Of course, the media portrayed Katrina as a failure of the federal government. What better way to hammer the Bush Administration? But if "a federal failure" was the case then why weren't hearing stories about Mississippi similar to what we heard about New Orleans and Louisiana as well? Mississippi doesn't have blacks, doesn't have poor folk, didn't face the same challenges as Louisiana? Drives me crazy when I see people carry the media's "water" and repeat their lies. FEMA is a disaster recovery agency. It's job isn't search and rescue. It's mandate is to arrive on the scene afterward and start cutting checks. The federal government with the exception of the Coast Guard and the military isn't a first responder. It is the job of the state and city governments to look after their citizens in situations like Katrina. The fault for the fubar in Louisiana lies with the state and city governments. Geesh, and you call yourself a Freeber?
Assuming the "we" means conservative voters, here are my thoughts in response to yours:
Conservatives look at the loss of Chaffee and Northrup and think "If only we had had a real conservative in those seats."
I agree.
Moderates point to the loss of Hayworth and Santorum and caution about moving too far to the right.
Santorum's problem is he went too leftward to maintain a conservative appeal. He endorsed the pro-choice Senator Specter and voted for various spending excesses.
People like me opine that the Congress would have won if they had stuck with the President.
I disagree.
First of all, the democrats made really amazing use of the scandals, many of which they orchestrated to be revealed at the most damaging time. Foley, Delay, Weldon...those stories were not coincidental.
I agree.
Judicious use of timing and legal tactics kept us from effectively defending those seats.
The only seats worth defending were Ron Paul and perhaps Tom Tancredo, so these successes are definitely commendable. I don't know of any other congressional incumbents that consistently supported the right to life, national security, and fiscal restraint (even Tancredo was weak on liberal spending).
This is how the democrats won. They looked at each area and chose the issues which would get them enough crossover voters to get them over the top. While their national office holders and the liberal pundits were saying that this election was a referendum on Iraq, their local candidates were running on almost anything BUT that, at least in the swing areas.
Actually, Anne Northup's support of warfare in Iraq was the deciding factor in her defeat. 3 of her challengers all opposed her on this issue. Unfortunately, the liberal media gave Yarmuth the most free publicity. The media's preference for Yarmuth and lack of coverage of other challengers gave the election to the Democrat by default.
I have to conclude that we just lost because the democrats did a better job. That is true in terms of campaign effort for several races.
IF we had had a cohesive national message, if we had not been divided on issues since Katrina,if we had not had some really embarassing scandals, we might have been able to overcome this.
The Republican scandals were really consequences of liberal behavior, so in a sense their defeat is a victory in terms of holding incumbents accountable. Unfortunately, with many Democrat replacements, the result may be "out of the frying pan, and into the fire."
However, with pundits assailing the President, Congressional Republicans split over immigration and earmarks, and the President only hiring Tony Snow late in the game to put out an improved PR effort, we simply couldn't overcome it.
President Bush was complicit or leading in the liberal spending of Congress in domestic and foreign affairs. Those complicit in federal largesse deserved to be replaced. The real failure among conservatives was to promote visible alternatives to the incumbents in the primaries and general elections and rally behind them in their campaigns.
Anyone who calls him too liberal, too conservative, too wishy-washy, failed, traitor, etc. is doing nothing but further depressing his approval ratings.
I disagree. President Bush has exceeded the Clinton adminstration in terms of spending in raw numbers and in compounding the national debt. He has outliberalled Clinton and essential made big government bigger. He has continued funding abortionists with our tax dollars (e.g. Planned Parenthood). Now is the time to encourage candidates more of the Reagan calibre and less of the Bush/LBJ/Roosevelt/Nixon calibre to run and spread the word about such prospects. In terms of principle, Jim Gilchrist, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Michael Peroutka come to mind.
4. Finally, realize that a huge number of voters don't vote based on philosophy of government. They vote on who will protect their jobs, who seems like a nice guy, who has done stuff they can identify with, who has good hair, etc.
That's a fair point, but keep in mind that accountability is a high priority for voters as was seen recently in the case of Northup and Santorum and more distantly with George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter.
They don't give a flying hoot about "limited government" or "social justice."
These factors should not be underestimated.
If you talk to them about inside baseball stuff like whether Pence or Boehner should be minority leader, their eyes glaze over and they start edging away from you, figuring you are a whack-job. However, their votes count just as much as Rush Limbaugh's, mine, or yours. We had better understand them rather than patronizing them or ignoring them.
I agree.
We have to lose our complacency that our message is self-evident, and that the public trusts only Republicans with national security.
I agree.
They have done so with every new federal social (or foreign aid) program and deficit dollar spent.
But among those who are yet of sound mind and of the voting mind -- you couldn't be more correct.
We obviously need those third-world workers to come here and help fund the boomers' retirement. And I agree with this in theory, but I don't like all the fine print stuff in the bills proposed earlier this year...like bringing their families over with them and only having to pay 3 out of 5 years' worth of back taxes, etc.
If Bush would sit down and explain his reasoning about this issue, that would be helpful to me.
Ture, that's why I was careful to add "with respect".
BTW, your thesis is well-thought out and very well written ;-)
The Dimms ran on two issues in every race: The war in Iraq and the Culture of Corruption. The third issue may have been tailored (insert liberal pandering here).
Dimms ran a national campaign, Republicans ran an "every man for himself" campaign.
Rove is an excellent political strategist, but no matter how good someone is, there one day arrives someone better, and right now this person is Rahm Emmanuel.
I think Rove was entirely too complacent and detached from the task at hand and as you say, Emmanuel worked hard and organized on a local level rather than the way the CFA nationalized the election of '94.
I think a lot of folks here are losing sight of the fact that this game goes on and on, and one loss is no excuse to pick up your glove and go home. The Dems and Emannuel may be the Yankees today, but through hard work and faith in the conservative cause we can make them the Red Sox next time around.
A sixth year by-election loss is no reason to think we'll never win a game again, as so many on this forum seem to be thinking.
Hang on tight because in my opinion, the next two years are gonna be a hell of a ride and I'll be here for it and I know you too will be here, MM.
Thanks for the kind words.
The last few weeks have been like Alice through the looking glass here at FR. As you might or might not realize I am a Democrat, although a very conservative one. It's been very strange to go from being a pariah to, well, less of a pariah. I'm not even getting flamed on the political threads much of late. I'm not complaining, but I do find it....strange.
"1. No dissension within the party should be aired on national media. Anyone who does this would be stripped of committee assignments and campaign cash."
I don't see GOP or any other party can do that. As long as a person has a free choice of which "party" they choose, as long as political parties are not privately owned, and as long as "contributed funds" are their source of income, restricting members' "speech" is a direct violation of the First Amendment, a violation that would almost certainly result with dragging the party and its leadership into court, further dividing them. This would be especially pronounced if a popular candidate were openly denied party funds or favor because they "dissent" on regionally unpopular party stances on one or two issues.
Now, should the GOP wish to initiate membership screening based upon personal ideology and results of a "litmus test", it'd first best be willing to cull some very prominent names from its roster - those not aligning themselves squarely with party dictates (Rudy and McCain coming to mind). Once it does that and it's made public, the GOP or any other party doing the "culling" will immediately become defunct. Americans won't tolerate the perception of a "communist-style" major party in power.
Besides - count Conservatives "first out" of a party that can't and won't stand for open scrutiny of unfavorable policy or unacceptable candidates. It's our "duty" to mercilessly beat RINO's.
Other than that, excellent read and assesment!
"I swear the most popular politicians I can think of all laugh easily, even at themselves -- not that they're necessarily not serious thinkers."
A good point. People are very tired of the blow-dried pretty boys (and girls) who only smile and laugh on cue. It's strikes them as incredibly false.
Yesterday, I was at the store and I flipped through a few pages of Barak Obama's book. Regardless of whether you agree with his politics, he is in fact a very charismatic individual. Something that I found refreshing was his willingness to admit to having made mistakes and not having answers to all the questions. You don't often see that in a political polemic.
I think we have to recognize that those of us who closely follow the ebb and flow of politics are a small subset of the population. Most people neither know nor care about the nuances. And I'd argue that they really don't need to. Politics is like sports to a certain extent. You don't need to follow a history of batting averages to know who is going to the world series.
This latest election was an indication that the public does not like what they see with regard to partisan politics. They're tired in their hearts of the incessant bickering, the viciousness, the posturing, and the carefully crafted personas. And they rejected it. It was interesting that in a couple of key Senate races (e.g. Virginia and Montana) the Democrats who won are downright eccentric. The interesting thing is that the eccentricities seem to have helped rather than hurt them.
Because they bring $$$ to the State which translate into jobs .. like what Miss Marple explained in her thread
Though I do agree it doesn't make alot of sense .. they like and want the $$$ .. but then complain about it
Senator Conrad just tried to sneak in a $4.+ billion disaster assistance amendment into the veterans programs and military construction projects .. instead of trying to pass it on it's own
Return to old abuses bad sign for Dems
(SNIP) ... What does the farm aid expenditures have to do with veterans or the military? Nothing. But tacking a non-relevant item onto a popular bill just to get it through Congress is an old political procedure. It ought to stop.
Most folks don't realize this kind of stuff goes on in DC
Excellent post.
"From here on in, the gloves HAVE to come off - if we ever want to get back to where we were. Our country needs us now more than ever. "
The gloves have been off. For years. And the electorate is sick of it. After awhile, the incessant bickering and allegations and counter allegations and squabbling ad nauseum...just become background noise.
Would you be so kind as to ping me when you post your vanity?
"I would add that the right internet spent a lot of time criticizing from the sidelines and undercutting both the President and various members of Congress. When it came time to marshall the troops, a lot were out in the tall weeds."
It comes back to communicating a positive conservative message. That doesn't need to be a top-down effort.
"As far as strategists, I think they spend too much time listening to the Beltway buzz and don't look at what's going on in individual districts."
I think you're right, but you might be missing the bigger point; the strategists are not the candidate. The candidate has to resonate or they're going to lose.
With regards to strategists, means have become ends, and darned expensive ones at that.
The public's "six year itch" - there is that . . but, from my own experience in having voted for JIMMY CARTER all those years ago when I was too busy and too young, didn't read any political stuff, only heard t.v. news which admittedly wasn't quite as blatantly liberal at that time; so, I was the typical "voter" - didn't know my ear from a hole in the ground, uninformed, charmed by Jimmy's peanut farmer from Georgia good ol' boy from Georgia personality -so I WAS the typical American voter. That experience got me wised up quick, starting when an older lady from Georgia said early on after he was elected (looking worried), "I don't know 'bout Jimmuh. He wasn't too good of a Governor", and it was downhill all the way after that. I learned fast with Iran especially how much damage a stupid voter (me) can do.
In the People's Republic of Maryland, they won by using black racism. There was a story the day of the election about Steele waiting in line to vote in Largo and it had quite a few blacks on the Democratic plantation comments in it.
Very telling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.