The Real Meaning of This Election (Vanity)

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.

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.

Thank you, Miss Marple, for your excellent analysis. It is hard to wake up and realize that your adversary has stolen your playbook and run it better than you. But that is indeed what happened. We had all been fat, dumb, and happy thinking the Democrats would never figure out how to really play campaign hardball, raise enough cash, and learn how to appeal to independents and moderates. But while we were sleeping, that's exactly what they did.

I thought there was no way in hell that Patrick Murphy, a 32 year old kid who moved into the district just to run for Congress, could win in my district against Mike Fitzpatrick, a well-known and well-loved man who had served with distinction for 10 years on the Bucks County Commission. But Murphy worked his ass off, made the national Democrats believe in him and send him money, and the local Repupblican organization did not take him seriously until it was too late. They they went totally negative and everyone forgot what they liked so much about Mike Fitzpatrick.

There are stories like this in every district we lost. Few of our candidates actually outworked the Democrats and then lost anyway; Jim Talent may be the only one.

Conservatives also have to admit that Democrats have outfoxed us on this stem cell research issue. Independent voters think it is worth spending their tax dollars on, and they think conservatives who oppose it are cruel and holding sick Americans hostage to their far-right "Christianism." This issue lost Jim Talent's Senate seat and it hurt Mike Fitzpatrick too. Jast as we did a good job forcing Democrats to say yes or no to partial birth abortion as the extreme pro-abortion position, Democrats forced Republicans to take sides on waht amounts to the "extreme pro-life" position. There are going to be times when "wedge issues" work against Republicans, and this was one of them.

My personal view, which I have arrived at after much agonized thinking, is that other than Ronald Reagan, Republicans really have not been good at governing this country. We have been very good at stopping the worst excesses of liberalism, and very good at cutting taxes. We've been pretty good at standing up to our enemies, when those enemies can be clearly identified. But when the public wants government to get something done and fix problems, we stink. Democrats are better at the nuts and bolts of running government. They bring in people who want to run government agencies and do good. Republicans bring in political hacks, token women and minorities, and cronies of the President, because smart Republicans are out there running companies and making money. Reagan was the exception, because he brought with him a group of philosophically committed people who wanted to fix the excesses of government and had a plan to do it. Trust me, Bush 41 and 43 didn't. Mike Brown was not an anomaly.

Two different Bush administrations have completely failed to manage natural disasters, and these failures led directly to tanking approval rating for the Presidents and Republican losses in the next election. Bush 43 completely failed to learn the lesson from the failure of Bush 41 after Andrew. The day after Katrina he was in California at a fundraiser. The Republicans in Congress refused to demand any heads rolling after Katrina, they let the "George Bush doesn't care about black people" comment stand without any answer (and made it even worse by pointing fingers at Mayor Nagin), and instead of spending some serious time talking and debating what should be the future of the Gulf Coast, they simply threw $80 billion out the window and left town.

After Katrina, it was not very hard for Democrats to craft a narrative that the Bush administration was incompetent - incompetent to manage the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history and incompetent to manage the war in Iraq. They cleverly demanded Rumsfeld's resignation, knowing the stubborn Bush would not fire him and scared Republicans in Congress would not demand it (the few that did, did it too late to matter). It worked.

Today I heard Newt Gingrich on the radio giving a speech. He added something else that I had not thought of. He said the GOP has become too entrenched with political consultants who think you can slice and dice the electorate and micro-target them, and that the key to winning elections is to tear down your opponent. People are sick of that. They want something and someone to vote FOR, which is what the GOP gave them in 1994 with the Contract with America. He said Republicans were overconfident after the 2004 election, because all they did was prove that they could get more votes against John Kerry than the Democrats could get against George Bush.

I think he is right. Republicans have been running on fumes since the end of the Cold War. Bush had one big idea to cut taxes, and it worked. His other big idea, Social Security reform, needed more airing during the campaign in 2004 so he could get a mandate for it. But Democrats as usual made Congressional Republicans afraid to campaign on it. So when Bush tried to get it done he couldn't.

So now, Newt says, Republicans have lost their edge on ideas, lost their edge on hinesty, and lost their edge on competence - even in national security. He thinks we are lucky to have lost only 30 seats, and I agree with him.

Excellent analysis. Republican incumbents and candidates were too focused on finessing their message (playing safe) that they were too moderate for conservatives and too conservative for moderates.

People vote on issues that matter to them personally. You have to have a well trained, energized grass roots campaign to show the average voter that not only does the candidate want to get elected, but their friends and neighbors want the candidate to be elected.

Rove put too much faith in the vaulted "Voter Vault," which was too little utilized and too disconnected from the real "ground truth" of hands-on campaigning. Top down strategy only works if you are wise enough to trust the bottoms up troops to know what "plays in Peoria."

I don't think Rolhm Emanuel is all that smart, but he knew how to utilize the strengths of the Democrat grassroots and exploit Republican's weaknesses (as they perceive it) - our intolerance of moral ambiguity, support of fiscal responsibility and steadfast loyalty to our President and the troops.

Time to regroup and hone our conservative message and recruit quality candidates for 08. The moderates and hard conservatives will come to the Party, when the Party is relevant to them. You can't pander your way into their hearts and minds - you have to earn their respect by walking the walk.

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.

Senate 2006 Midterm ping.