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.
LOL. I love this place, but I can tell you from my occasional ventures in real life that sometimes its a stretch to call us "real people." Real people don't obsess about things of a political nature the way they are here.
"Also, I would like the President to explain his position on the border; not with platitudes, but with honest reasons and facts, complete with pictures and charts. This is one of the most divisive issues in our party, and I don't feel that he has made enough of an effort to make his case."
Ill preface this by saying that I do not support "comprehensive" immigration reform at least as it exists now.
I dont think Bush has explained his position because it would hurt his cause. People want the border secured, illegal immigration stopped, and some kind of reasonable guest worker program. Bush wisely voices support for the same things. The problem is what most people mean by those words and what Bush means are two very different things.
Bush would stop illegal immigration by essentially matching Mexican demand for jobs. Most people would see this only as a technical change. I would think that when someone voices support for border security they assume that it would be necessary to keep at least some workers out.
Most would support real border security and a guest worker program that does not exclude about 5 billion humans and not a worker program that becomes a stealth immigration increase.
"I think so."
That was exactly the problem. There was no way to even have a clue really. I had a problem with that "trust me" quality to the nomination and I supported the nomination and fully trust Bush when it comes to judges.
However, Miss: This is truly an excellent analysis.
Kudos, kiddo.
Thank you for the compliment, Laz. I hope you can contribute some ideas on strategy and what we need to do. (Invading Canada is not an option, however. LOL!)
Michael Medved is one of the "Second Thoughts" gang, a bunch of onetime leftwing activists who moved from near-communist to supporting Reagan back in the 80's. David Horowitz is a member of the group.
Medved had organized anti-war demonstrations during Vietnam, and worked for.. either Ron Dellums or John Conyers... some Democrat member of the House who belonged to the Fidel Castro wing of that Party. Medved had an epiphany during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War as I recall, and began to see the US military as being something noble since they were prepared to save his friends and relatives.
I'd say he's a hawkish liberal, a term I think fits most of the crowd that self-identify as neoconservatives. His hawkishness goes back more than a decade before 9-11. And I'm quite sure he has been a Republican since Reagan was in office. Michael is a pleasant enough guy, but he has a tendency to think he now gets to define what is acceptable conservative thought and what isn't. An interesting theory considering where his instincts took him in the past. A little humility in that regard would do him good.
A positive Conservative message!!!!!
I could not agree more. We are in for a fight as ferocious as the late 1940's, early 1950's and it will be necessary to put our message out as movement towards something, not away from something.
McVey
I agree. I surfed into his program and heard him pushing for Mitt Romney for President. He spins for liberal Republicans too often.
Excellent assessment, IMO...
I was just about to post a Joel Belz piece from World Magazine...(& I still may)...
..but after reading this I think Joel needs to read it too :))
Kudos MM
There is no doubt that the media was a huge help to the democrats.
^^^^^^
I am a week late getting to your thread. The "media" made it their business to not let the Dems lose another election. When Pelosi and gang started the drumbeat accusing the Republicans of a Culture of Corruption, I thought she was tone-deaf. In retrospect, I can see that the corruption of Dems, like William Jefferson-D-La was not going to be an election issue, because they were not going to be publicized by the "media." Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel et al must have known this as they planned their attack a year ago.
I am most disheartened by the almost insurmountable task that Republicans will have to confront in future elections when 90% of all media is anti-Republican. And I don't mean news media. I mean everything that people tune in or read from Law & Order to Leno and Letterman and ....
It is a huge problem. I am praying about it. We MUST think of ways to surmount this!
This deserves another bump.
Further explanation is unnecessary.
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.