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.
"I would suggest that now that we have Boehner and Lott, we need to use them. Find out what their hot buttons are."
I can already tell you what their hot button topics are: staying in office and preserving their perks.
To me these leadership votes spoke tomes as to what direction the GOP is going to head in the next few years. That Mike Pence received 26 votes tells you pretty much what you need to know. I'm just surprised that they didn't vote to commission a statue in honor Nelson Rockefeller at the same time.
26 votes was not a loss for GOP conservatives. It was a repudiation.
"Countering those efforts would be a separate thread, maybe one we could work on in a few days."
Might I suggest learning from them instead? The Libertarians are actually quite effective in using political campaigns (that they know they're going to lose) to publicize their ideological perspective on the cheap.
" Hang on tight because in my opinion, the next two years are gonna be a hell of a ride ..."
bump
Thanks.
I bet we see alot of this stuff in the next two years.
" Democrats pledged to be more tight-fisted than the free-spending Republicans in the run-up to the Nov. 7 election. Somebody ought to pass the word on to Conrad and the new Democratic leadership.
The veterans bill add-on maneuver, had it been successful, would have unraveled the new image of fiscal reform the Democrats cultivated in order to win a majority in both houses. "
I suppose it is a free speech issue, but certainly we should note those people and make them pay at the ballot box. I consider Lindsey Graham to be even worse about this than McCain (remember how he went on and on about Abu Ghraib).
I am hoping Graham will lose his primary, and perhaps that will serve as a lesson to furture camera hogs.
Absolutely! I discovered the following analysis while exploring the 'Foley scandal' origins.
Emergence of the Progressive Blogosphere: A New Force in American Politics
Since March of 2005, the total number of blogs has grown from 7.8 million to 14.2 million. At this rate, the online universe is doubling in size every five months.1
This memo is a comprehensive look at the underlying dynamics of these online communities, along with a targeted analysis of how to engage them to generate political power.
Note: Free Republic tops their list in the category of Top Conservative Political Blog and Netroots Sites
Dems have been doing this type of stuff for years .. they will tack on loads of pork onto important Bills knowing full well that republicans and the president can't and won't vote/veto it down
You should have seen the stuff that was tacked onto the Military/WOT/Iraq spending bill .. things that had NOTHING to do with the orginal bill
Anyone who does this would be stripped of committee assignments ...
I've been wondering why the worst Benedict Arnold in the Republican party is still sitting on a committee where he can stonewall the vote on John Bolton. Strip him, replace him and take the bleepin' vote.
Truth is....the Dems will totally misread the results and start governing hard-Left. This will destroy them in 2008.
Well said.
I don't really know the two Dems, but -- as general rule -- some eccentricities are more charming than others! ;-)
I'm glad you included this information because even the media who we trust (several good guys on FNC) are saying that several Republicans who are tough on immigration lost--with J.D. as the most visible example.
You are right that dems figured out what they needed to say where. Whichever side of the immigration issue any given Freeper is on, this was NOT a loser for J.D. Arizona passed every anti-illegal measure on the ballot (no bail for illegals, no right to sue anybody for anything while here illegally, English as official language, and no welfare or local tuition for illegals). Arizona passed these measures with three-quarters of the vote!
J.D. did NOT lose on this issue and he's very popular statewide. If McCain were to retire from ill health, I'd love to see J.D. run for his seat. BTW I suspect he was targetted because he was the one who pushed the vote on Murtha's initial BS on cutting and running--you know, the one that got a very few votes and which even Murtha voted against.
I was one of the 12%.
BTW, Mary Jo Kohpekne got one write-in vote for U.S. Senate this past election.
Thanks for the ping
They have also done an extreme amount of opposition research, a good deal of it probably gathered here....
We counted too much on the GOTV effort not realizing that the Rats had finally learned how to do it, too.
My one solace in all of this is despite how well the Democrats can lie, cheat, steal, their way into power, they inevitably will show their true black hearts, because ...they simply cannot help it...
One of the things I disagree with you on is the Iraq war. Unfortunately, the Iraq situation was a very big factor. Americans do not like war. And that is a good quality in us. And President Bush – (nor his administration) – has not done a good job of explaining what really is going there and why and what we are doing about it and why it will work or what exactly victory will look like.
There seems to be a lack of understanding and respect for the mindset and culture of the people of the Middle East. The Sunnis really hate the Shia and feel that they are superior to them and the Kurds. The Shia really hate the Sunnis. And neither is ashamed that they hate – they are proud that they hate and they consider it perfectly fine to kill – to brutally kill those they hate. The idea that they would welcome a democratic country where they all would get along is tragically naïve.
These kind of things don’t seem to have been factored in and the American people are weary of the conflict and the brutality. They are not sure that the war is winnable. They are not sure that war and killing and bombing and intimidating and threatening etc are the best course in our approach to terrorism. Many Americans are questioning whether we are making more enemies than we need to. There is a malaise in the country – that I think has to do with the times we are living in. President Bush has been unfairly blamed for that malaise – for the worry – for the fear that people experience.
Also, the corruption hurt us badly. And, in truth, we deserved to be punished for that. The GOP Congress was awful! The pork and earmarks – the corruption and use of power was inexcusable. Some of that is due to the fact that government is just too big and is expected to do too much. Making decisions over a two trillion dollar budget and the most powerful military in the world as well as making laws that 300 million people have to abide by – is a powerful temptation to corruption. The GOP succumbed…
Thirdly, a lot of Americans are tired of and worried about the lack of civility – the polarization of the country. They want leaders who can engage in healthy debate but be civil and who can work together. They really want to see someone emerge who can unite us. I am very concerned that Barak Obama may present himself as that person. We need leaders who can capture our imagination and inspire us to believe in a positive future. We need new ideas. Sadly, neither side presented any news ideas in the election. Hopefully the 2008 election can be an election of ideas.
Anyway – those are some of my thoughts in response to this very interesting thread.
I would like to think that we could use threads like this to prod elected officials into paying more attention to their constituents' concerns.
Oh, and I definitely agree about the public's disgust with the vitriol in politics today. Angry people are not attractive, and consequently the public tunes out. As somone said earlier on this thread, humor is a much better tool.
Senator Coburn and Congressman Blunt on C-Span this week had some very good "gloves off" post-election analysis as well.
It is frightening when the American electorate views both political parties as being of the same cloth...
Combined with anger at the White House--voila!
Roy Blunt really sounds like he's putting on the brass knuckles--it should be an interesting 2 years...
Let me just throw this out for analysis:
Why might it actually be reasonable for the Bush's to be "cozyihg up" to Clinton.
They're doing it, father _and_ son. I doubt that it's just to be perverse.
So, however irritating, there must be a reason.
Miss Marple, I pinged you also because of the execellent post with which you started this thread. Perhaps you could bend your analytic skills to this thorny bit.
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.