Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Lessons for '08?
Looking at some of the exit polls as well as how voting on ballot initiatives went, there may be some lessons for Republicans in '08. Here are some thoughts:
1. Scandals, and especially cover-ups, are hideously unacceptable to Americans. Americans increasingly trust politicians and CEOs less and less, and every time a new scandal breaks it just reinforces the belief that those in power are acting illegally or immorally. Moral convictions do matter, especially if you want to get out the conservative vote, but also to attract independent voters. The Republican party cannot tolerate any more Abramoff or Foley or DeLay type incidents. And before everyone starts pointing out that in many cases Democrats have done the same or worse, remember that Republicans must always hold themselves to a higher standard because of MSM bias.
2. Fiscal policy matters. If Republicans in '08 want to make sure that they get ALL of their voters out and don't leave anyone away from the polls, they must take steps to balance the budget, fix trade imbalance, and deal with looming entitlement spending disaster that is social security and medicare for baby boomers. Fiscal conservatives applaud Bush tax cuts, but without equal restraint on spending side they are barely better than tax and spend Dems.
3. The next Republican candidate for President must be far more capable of articulating and defending his policies than Bush. Bush absolutely got slaughtered in press by Dems/MSM on almost all of his policies, especially Iraq. I think that over the past year if he had better articulated why it was in the US's best long-term interests to stabilize Iraq, it would've been less of an issue. In order to also defend against attacks from those who conveniently forget that they voted for the war and now say that the only reason Iraq is in this situation is because of "Bush's" decision, I think he'd probably have to go one step further and explain why removing Saddam from power was the right decision. Since this should be a straightforward argument I'm not sure why they weren't able to do communicate this more effectively.
4. Country still seems to be leaning socially conservative, so this should play into Republican hands. Look at the results of ballot initiatives in many states.
Bottom line, I think Mitt is a homerun on all 4 of these issues. If McCain somehow gets through primary I'd guess he also wins general election b/c a lot of Dems and Indies like him. I do look forward to a very bloody Dem primary: hillary, obama, kerry, gore, etc. will be tearing each other apart.
1. Scandals, and especially cover-ups, are hideously unacceptable to Americans. Americans increasingly trust politicians and CEOs less and less, and every time a new scandal breaks it just reinforces the belief that those in power are acting illegally or immorally. Moral convictions do matter, especially if you want to get out the conservative vote, but also to attract independent voters. The Republican party cannot tolerate any more Abramoff or Foley or DeLay type incidents. And before everyone starts pointing out that in many cases Democrats have done the same or worse, remember that Republicans must always hold themselves to a higher standard because of MSM bias.
2. Fiscal policy matters. If Republicans in '08 want to make sure that they get ALL of their voters out and don't leave anyone away from the polls, they must take steps to balance the budget, fix trade imbalance, and deal with looming entitlement spending disaster that is social security and medicare for baby boomers. Fiscal conservatives applaud Bush tax cuts, but without equal restraint on spending side they are barely better than tax and spend Dems.
3. The next Republican candidate for President must be far more capable of articulating and defending his policies than Bush. Bush absolutely got slaughtered in press by Dems/MSM on almost all of his policies, especially Iraq. I think that over the past year if he had better articulated why it was in the US's best long-term interests to stabilize Iraq, it would've been less of an issue. In order to also defend against attacks from those who conveniently forget that they voted for the war and now say that the only reason Iraq is in this situation is because of "Bush's" decision, I think he'd probably have to go one step further and explain why removing Saddam from power was the right decision. Since this should be a straightforward argument I'm not sure why they weren't able to do communicate this more effectively.
4. Country still seems to be leaning socially conservative, so this should play into Republican hands. Look at the results of ballot initiatives in many states.
Bottom line, I think Mitt is a homerun on all 4 of these issues. If McCain somehow gets through primary I'd guess he also wins general election b/c a lot of Dems and Indies like him. I do look forward to a very bloody Dem primary: hillary, obama, kerry, gore, etc. will be tearing each other apart.
Labels:
2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(167)
-
▼
November
(34)
- Brit and the Boys Discuss Romney '08
- Newt
- Rudy
- Liberals are more generous than conservatives...
- Principles
- China Rising
- Dems 1, Pelosi 0
- So, Karl, what cost us the election?
- Trent Lott - Vote-Counting GOP Whip
- One more point on Martinez to RNC
- Come quickly, '08
- WaPo Delenda Est
- I'm starting to get the feeling
- And behind this curtain we have...
- A Real Plan for Iraq?
- New Dems
- The Don Speaks
- 2008 GOP Presidential Strawpoll for Conservative B...
- Republicans Strike Again
- Mitt on the Election Results
- Retaking the Senate '08
- Implications
- Thanks John McCain
- Beastly Rant
- Lessons for '08?
- CNN
- As Predictable as Death and Taxes
- Pinkerton Gets It
- The Final Countdown
- Simple and profound
- Iraq War Games
- Down to stretch they go...
- And so it begins...
- Some '08 Notes
-
▼
November
(34)
7 comments:
Well done, SHK.
Interesting side note: I notice that GWOT didn't make your 4-point list. How does that factor in?
I think GWOT ties into #3, and is really quite tricky. The question is what is the best policy for our safety, and how can you best communicate that to American people? This is difficult to do, because:
a) I don't know that the "best" policy is clearly known at this time
b) Best policy probably requires a very sophisticated understanding of military strengths/weaknesses, foreign cultures, classified intelligence, etc., none of which fit neatly into a 15 second sound bite
c) Americans today, partly due to Internet I think, are exceedingly impatient. They want results and they want them immediately. So if someone does come up with a "best" policy, but it's the best policy for the long run and it's difficult to see positive results in the short run, I doubt they'll be given the latitude by MSM and public to continue to implement it.
One also has to be able to convince people that GWOT encompasses many aspects. Fighting wars is one, but also avoiding massive foreign debts and dependence on foreign energy are two others. So someone needs to be able to efficiently and effectively communicate that in an age where people have no attention span. Good luck. But I think someone with the veteran credibility of McCain or speaking ability of Romney has a chance. I know neither one wants VP, but to me a Romney/McCain ticket absolutely obliterates the Dems in '08. You cover every single aspect of Republican base that way, draw the largest possible camp (including moderate Dems and Indies), and get coverage from Northeast (Romney) to southwest (McCain). But, it's not going to happen.
Good article here, similar points:
http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10604
Here's another point that I'm interested to see how it plays out: where exactly on the political spectrum are the recently elected Democrats? Nancy Pelosi couldn't be more ecstatic that her party will shortly control both houses of Congress, but that might be in name only. I doubt that many of those elected are as leftist as she is. For example, I haven't spent much time reading their bios but I doubt that Jim Webb, former Sec. of Navy under Reagan, will be soft on terrorism. (Although he might be for raising taxes?) Also, I doubt that people in Indiana are so displeased with Bush that they would elect rabidly liberal Dems in the House. I'd have to guess that those elected must have at least some conservative fiscal or social stances.
So, while not an ideal election for conservatives, I think this might also be a surprising wake-up call for Dems that they are not as strong on the left side as they think. Hopefully.
Wow, looks like Bush decided to take the major rallying point for pelosi and company right out of her hands, and have rumsfeld pre-emptively resign.
This was the ultimate in political maneuvering. Clearly if Rumsfeld stayed he was going to be made the #1 issue by Pelosi & co. They would've been happy to engage in a protracted, bitter, public fight calling for his resignation. Then, if Bush finally caved and accepted it would be spun as a huge victory for "the new leadership" in Congress. Instead, he completely takes it out of their court.
Also note the difference between Repubs and Dems. When Dems lose (see 2000, '02, '04) they bitch and moan and whine and say the election was stolen, there must have been fraud, drag the country into an ugly spectacle of recount after recount, etc. The Republicans are all business: we lost, make a power move, and let's get moving towards a rebound in '08. Let's nip this Democratic uprising in the bud before it turns into a 10-12 year reign.
My only beef with the decision to replace Rumsfeld is this - why now? If Bush was willing/planning to can Rumsfeld at this point, why not do it 6 weeks ago and punch a big hole in the perception that Republicans are unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances? Instead, Bush announces a week ago that Rumsfeld will be around until the end of his term, adding to the perception of most voters that he is obstinate.
I assumed that, as with many of Bush's positions, keeping Rumsfeld was simply non-negotiable. To find out now that I was wrong, that replacing him was on the table all along, well, I just don't get it.
While replacing Rumsfeld is the best political move Bush could've made today, I agree with Fredo. If this option truly was on the table for almost a year according to some reports, AND was going to be made today regardless of the election outcome according to Bush, then why not make the ultimate political move and remove him earlier and try to save mid-term elections? I think the answer is simple: Bush and Rove convinced themselves that Republicans were at least going to hold one if not both houses of Congress, and if they had then Bush would NOT have replaced Rumsfeld despite what he said today.
Here's something interesting about this election: the Dems are finally going to have to stand for something after years of simply running on a vapor "we're not republicans" campaign. They've been saying for months they have a better plan for Iraq, national security, etc. Well, let's see it.
I'll be honest with you guys: I can stomach this election's results so long as a few things don't happen in the next few years.
If there's a SCOTUS vacancy and the Pres nominates a moderate b/c of the Dem Senate, or actually appoints a true conservative but can't get him/her confirmed, I will be bitter about this election for years.
If the Bush/Pelosi coalition passes a huge new guest-worker/amnesty program because the only real conservatives out there--the House GOP delegation--has now been rendered a minority, I'll be bitter for years.
And if we kill the wire-tapping program and cut loose the prisoners at Club Gitmo because Waxman is weilding subpoenas--you guessed it, bitter for years.
Aside from those things, anything else the Dems manage to screw up in the next two years can be fixed. Raised tax rates can be lowered again. Another Souter on the S.C., on the other hand, is there for life.