2008 election

Holding the Keys for Michigan Republicans

(cross posted from the designated conservative at http://dcon2012.wordpress.com/)

So I'm sitting on a folding chair in an undisclosed location of a small Michigan downtown commiserating with 40 fellow republicans last week....  

After spending much of this year holding the keys for the McCainiacs and my Democrat friends who drank the Obama Kool-Aid, I was thrilled just to be in the same room with other designated drivers conservatives of the Party.  Here are a few snippets of the conversation:

  • “The Democratic tsunami was larger in Michigan because the Michigan Republican Party wasn’t ‘there.’”
  • “25% of the people in the room are Ron Paul ‘true believers’.  The Party leadership deliberately ignored Ron Paul - remember, he’s been right about everything he said.” 
  • (of course, a non-Paulite in the crowd pointedly noted that Ron Paul himself supported a third-party candidate in the general election instead of the Republican standard-bearers!)
  • “The Republican candidates that were successful in the last election did so despite, not because of, our party.”
  • “You cannot be successful if you’re telling your (volunteers) to start fighting now and we’ll tell you what you’re fighting for later!”
  • "The reason Republicans stayed home and only 20% percent of precinct delegates actually volunteered is because we didn’t have an actual Republican at the head of the national ticket!"
  • “The Party needs to teach Econ 101 - socialism removes checks and balances from government and leads to corruption.”
  • “Fight with everything you have not to become Canada (so said a Canadian expatriate and local businessman); the government makes money disappear!”

For the rest of the story, visit the designated conservative.

 

 

How The GOP Is Repeating The Mistakes Of The British Right

NOTE:  Originally posted at Political Capital

On the eve of an expected landslide sweeping Barack Obama into the Oval Office and congressional Democrats to majorities in both houses of Congress, many pundits have predicted a long period in the political wilderness for Republicans in national politics.

Not so far away in the UK the British Conservative Party has only recently recovered from its own journey to the dark side. In 1997 the Tory party was destroyed at the polls after 18 years in power and has been out of power ever since.

Whilst there are obvious and clear differences between the two sister parties, and the nations they aspire to govern, the circumstances of the 1997 and 2008 defeats are remarkably similar.

In the late ‘90s Tories were tempted to believe that the public were duped. That an inexperienced and inspirational young left wing leader had taken advantage of the divisions of the governing party and the credulity of the electorate to instigate what would become a far left regime.

A more sober assessment is the successes of the 1980s Thatcher revolution led to hubris and terrible mistakes. The party survived divisions over European policy and riots that followed the idiotic introduction of the Poll Tax through the dramatic defenestration of Margaret Thatcher, allowing the genial John Major to win an unexpected General Election victory in 1992.

It was the financial collapse of Black Wednesday in September 1992, when the pound crashed out of the European Exchange rates mechanism, and the ensuing recession that really killed Conservative hopes. Combined with party wars over its approach to the European Union (a relatively trivial matter compared to the 3 million unemployed) the recession not only tore the party away from the centre of political discourse but also created a massive rift between the modern British nation and the world the Conservative Government lived in.

To compound the matter there was the ever present “sleaze”, a string of Conservative MPs were exposed in sex scandals that would have made Larry Craig and Mark Foley blush, reaching its apotheosis with the strange autoerotic death of Stephen Milligan.

Even worse was the grubby stain of corruption, in 1994 it emerged that lobbyist Ian Greer had bribed Conservative MPs to ask questions in parliament on behalf of Egyptian retail mogul Mohammed Fayed. To compound matters a cabinet minister (Jonathan Aitken) was accused of conducting secret deals with Saudi princes, Aitken was later jailed for perjury – unlike Scooter Libby, Aitken did not get his sentence commuted.

So many of the ingredients are the same that it becomes difficult to see how the Republicans can avoid the fate of their transatlantic colleagues. Sometimes parties just deserve to lose, but that is far from being the bad news.

The disaster that the GOP of 2008 and the Tories of 1997 share is the fundamentals of the political background, both fell massively behind their opponents in levels of support from younger voters and crucially struggled to deal with the changing mores of a modern nation.

One of tomorrow’s most interesting results will be the outcome of California’s Proposition 8 on marriage equality. The idea that by 2008 there would not only be legally recognized civil unions in the UK but openly homosexual cabinet ministers would have been an anathema to many Conservatives, but not to the British public. One of the ways in which British Conservatives have begun to turn the page in recent years is making peace with issues such as this.

The issue of gay marriage matters not just because of the dangers of leaving behind an increasingly socially liberal electorate, but because of the fundamental contradiction in the modern conservative movement that it exposes. In a time of increasing family breakdown Conservatives should be promoting marriage as the primary family unit because of the legal and public commitment that it entails. Yet conservatives have pandered to their religious base in the search for easy votes, somehow the GOP has become a party at ease with telling people what to do.

It is when parties deviate from their fundamental intellectual core that they suffer the most. The most important example of this in the current administration is public spending. Whilst tax cuts helped to keep the American economy growing their pre-requisite – low public spending – was ignored. It’s harder to demonise big government liberals when you have spent eight years turning a health budget surplus into a massive deficit, a deficit which represents a massive tax burden on future generations in the form of interest payments to Chinese bankers.

In Britain the ideological departure had serious underpinnings and serious consequences. The pragmatic conservatism of the previous 150 years was eschewed in exchange for the dynamic monetarism, privatisation and market liberalisation of the Thatcher revolution. To succeed once more the GOP must rediscover its own ideological core, an ideology that is found not in the anti-intellectual city-dweller baiting of Sarah Palin but in integrity in government, individual freedom and not just low taxes but low spending.

The Tories have, recently, appeared to turn the corner, and are now consistently ahead of Labour in the opinion polls. Following their third consecutive election defeat in 2005 they nominated a young, modern leader in David Cameron. In the past three years the Conservatives have ‘decontaminated’ their brand, a focus on environmental issues and a rejection of upfront promises of tax cuts drew the headlines but the underlying change was more important.

The British Conservative party has changed, not a shift in policies but actual change. It has become a party that loves the country as it is now, and not as it wishes it was in 1983. The right-wing talk radio blowhards who think the answer is simply to hate the modern world more and scream at it harder are not part of the problem, they are the problem. If Republicans are to avoid the fate of their British counterparts then they need to develop a narrative for modern American that places the one true conservative principle – that of liberty – at the heart of the nation’s future.

EDITORS NOTE:  Edward is a guest columnist, sending us his thoughts from the United Kingdom.  He is a member of the British Conservative Party, and has witnessed first hand the destruction of the British Right, and how it has rebuilt itself from the ground up.  We are grateful to him for his perspective, and hope to bring you many more articles from our friends across the pond in the future.

More Thoughts On Decline of GOP in Colorado Springs

"jro" wrote some good responses in the comments to my last post on the decline of the GOP in Colorado Springs, my hometown. I was going to post this in the comments section as well, but it grew too large. It ends with some broader-rebuilding thoughts, which are what I'd really like to hear bandied about.

Good questions. Here's my brief synopsis:

1. The military will come out strong for McCain, no question. I think that they will always be around as a viable base for GOP activity. It's in the other categories of voters we're suffering.

2. Ted Haggard is distant memory. Pastor Brady Boyd is pretty popular, as well as Pastor Ross Parsley. The evangelical community is diverse enough and has enough church outlets that the one case at New Life Church shouldn't affect it much.

3. I agree wholeheartedly that enthusiasm from the base isn't very strong. A lot of my evie friends were Huckabee supporters (barf!), and as a brief aside, anyone who thinks that Mitt has a future in the GOP party needs to spend more time looking at some in the Christian movement: anti-Mormonism is quite strong and doesn't seem to be fading anytime soon.

I think you touch on some parts of the issue with the 4-8 year window of change. I think no small part comes from some dissatisfaction with the GWB administration. For many thirtysomething evangelicals, he was their first political candidate in their lifetime to closely identify with them. To see his second term devolve into a wimpfest of moderate gestures and unconvincing speeches was disheartening. But I also think there's part of this that is more personality than politics. For many evangelicals, their issues are strictly social (marriage and abortion, mainly, with some other things like homeschooling and God-in-the-public-square stuff), and they are downright squishes when it comes to economics.

We can definitely talk about this more, but I think a key part of the Righting the GOP Ship (as good a pun as I've seen yet. Pass it on!) will be addressing the need to have more of our public officials acting as advocates for freedom/conservatism, even to our own partymembers. We can't have Denny Hastert types in leadership, who might be great at playing the game in D.C. but are enigmatic, surly, or awkward when given the chance to talk. The Left has such control of MSM that it takes special communicating talents to cut through the b.s.

Democrats changing the Party, not the problem

Howard Dean, 2008:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that he’s looking forward to one party controlling all aspects of government, despite GOP charges that it would be a disastrous Nov. 4 outcome.  “Republicans had a chance to rule. They failed miserably. I think it’s time to give the other party a chance,” Dean said on MSNBC.

Howard Dean, 2005:

We need more than one party in charge. And the vote on Tuesday is going to be critical to decide whether American democracy still allows those of us who didn't vote for the president to have any say in running the country whatsoever.
[...]
Someday, the Democrats will be back in charge again. Do we want a Democratic Party that's in charge of everything? Well, you know, I suppose it's my job to say yes. But the truth is, as an American, it's better when parties share power. It's better when even those people who didn't win the election have something to say.
[...]
[There] is a culture of corruption and abuse of power in Washington. This is what happens when one party is in charge of everything.

Change! 

How Palin Won the Debate - And Possibly Revived a Dying Campaign

Sarah Palin decisively won the VP debate tonight.  And no, it wasn't due to Biden's annoying smirk, or his claim that he understands our needs because he's always at Home Depot, or his condescending "Let me say it again!" attitude that persisted throughout.  Rather, quite simply, Palin connected with every day, middle-class voters in a way that none of the other candidates could.

Hugh Hewitt points out that, "The Luntz focus group picked up the decisive Palin win, and Luntz is predicting a move towards McCain in the polls as a result."  I articulated this same thought right after the debate on Twitter.

In the last debate, Obama seriously solidified his position in the polls on the point of which candidate better "understands their needs and problems."  With the economy in the tank, this is going to be a critical factor when people come out to vote – and so McCain cannot afford to have tepid numbers in this area.  And unfortunately, I don't think there was much McCain himself could do to improve these numbers.

Enter Sarah Palin, the only one of the four Presidential and VP candidates who currently has actual ties to average middle class Americans.  For this debate to have been success for McCain, she needed to connect with these voters and demonstrate that the McCain-Palin ticket understands their needs.  She did so in a knock-out fashion.  For his part, Biden looked, well, Senatorial, boring, and uninspiring – all the while, Palin came across as a regular, hard-working American, a mother of five – certainly not as a politician.

Her immense success in tonight's debate will re-energize the Right, but more importantly, it will also reassure many Americans in two ways:  first, that she is absolutely, unquestionably ready to, if called upon, step up as President; and second, that the McCain-Palin ticket understands and will fight for everday Americans.  As a result, I expect to see a modest boost in the polls for McCain over the next few days.

The critical question, however, remains:  can McCain maintain this momentum in the last two debates?  The answer is yes, but McCain will need to drive home the points raised by Palin in tonight's debate.  He needs to continue to demonstrate that he understands the middle class' needs and problems, while at the same time showing that Obama does not.  But McCain the Maverick should not have much trouble doing that.

So much for people criticizing Sarah Palin for not being ready for the spotlight.  Tonight, she had a chance to talk directly to everyday Americans – and she shined like the star she is.

Aaron Marks is President of Three Group, LLC, a Pittsburgh-based new media firm that focuses on providing technology-based solutions for Republican candidates and organizations, and in particular has built Web 2.0 campaign management software called Mission Control.  Aaron also worked in new media and voter outreach on Senator Rick Santorum's 2006 re-election campaign.

Is Obama's Appeal to Young Voters Exaggerated?

As a so-called "young voter" in the 18-29 age bracket, I have long been skeptical of Barack Obama's supposedly massive advantage with voters my age – an advantage that the mainstream media's hype would have you believe to be exceedingly insurmountable for John McCain.

Well, today's InsiderAdvantage poll confirms that my skepticism has been warranted:

McCain vs. Obama - Likely Voters Age 18-29

McCain
Obama
Undecided
44%
49%
7%

Margin of Error: +/- 3.36%

So where exactly is Obama's big lead here? Quite frankly, his lead is negligible, if not non-existant.  In fact, factoring in both the margin of error and the 7 perecent of undecided voters, it is entirely conceivable that McCain could actually tie or even outperform Obama among voters age 18-29.

Recently, Joe Trippi argued that a large turnout of young voters could serve as a tie-breaking factor in favor of Obama.  As much as Democrats like Trippi and the mainstream media want you to believe that young folks such as myself are flocking to Barack Obama – please, don't count us out yet.

Aaron Marks is President of Three Group, LLC, a Pittsburgh-based new media firm that focuses on providing technology-based solutions for Republican candidates and organizations, and in particular has built Web 2.0 campaign management software called Mission Control.  Aaron also worked in new media and voter outreach on Senator Rick Santorum's 2006 re-election campaign.

Where is the Outrage Regarding the Left's Sexist Attacks On Palin?

As a former staffer for Senator Rick Santorum's 2006 re-election campaign, I distinctly recall the false attacks brought against Santorum for his supposed belief that women were meant to remain at home.  The attack was based upon a distortion of a quotation from his book It Takes a Family.  The actual quote from the book was:

“In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don’t both need to.

"“What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else – or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon – find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism."

Of course, the Left distorted these passages, claiming to be outraged that by Senator Santorum's sexism – because of the lies they had spread claiming that he believed that women belonged at home and not at work.

Now, we have Howard Gutman, a former member of Barack Obama's finance committee, saying with regard to Sarah Palin:

"If you take a daughter who’s got this emotional strife and subject her to the most intense scrutiny of the world at this time in her life, I think you’ve put your career above your family."

So where is the outrage from the Left?  The Obama campaign disavowed Gutman's comments, saying:

"Obviously these comments do not reflect our frequently stated, crystal-clear view that families of the candidates should be off limits, and we hope that supporters on both sides will act accordingly."

These statements reflect the typical, insincere disavowals that we have come to expect from Senator Obama's campaign.

Quite frankly, statements like these are outrageous, dirty, and entirely unacceptable.  So I ask again:  where is the outrage from the Left?  Well, the answer is apparent – they only take offense to when it is politically convenient for them.

Aaron Marks is President of Three Group, LLC, a Pittsburgh-based new media firm that focuses on providing technology-based solutions for Republican candidates and organizations, and in particular has built Web 2.0 campaign management software called Mission Control.  Aaron also worked in new media and voter outreach on Senator Rick Santorum's 2006 re-election campaign.

Gov. Sarah Palin, Vice Presidential Nominee

Assorted thoughts on Repuyblican Vice Presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin...

  • Lefty bloggers are busy trying to figure out why they dislike Gov. Palin.  They know they do.  They just need to find some reasons.   Anything will do.
  • The New Republic has some good background on Alaska politics and what Gov. Palin has done.
  • McCain was very lucky in one respect.  Had Obama picked a female for his VP, McCain's selection of Gov. Palin would have looked like a "me, too!" gesture.   With Biden, though, Gov. Palin provides much better optics - a contrast that, in many respects, favors McCain.
  • Libertarians seem reasonably happy with a VP Sarah Palin.  The Republican Liberty Caucus says this "shows effort to court libertarian vote."  Reason's Hit and Run has a number of relatively positive (or, at least, neutral) posts that seem at least open to the idea of a VP Sarah Palin. David Harsanyi calls her "as libertarian as you can hope for on a major ticket."
  • I don't know if I've ever seen a single story that captured so much of the front page of Memeorandum.
  • I don't think it was an accident that Gov. Palin emphasized in her speech today that she is "the commander of Alaska's National Guard..."
  • I've never thought much of the experience argument.  I just don't think experience is much of a predictor for the competence, agenda or priorities of a President.   A VP Palin creates some interesting message problems for both McCain and Obama, though.  
    • Republicans will have difficulty advancing an "inexperienced, unqualified, not ready" argument against Obama.  
    • Meanwhile, Democrats are already claiming that Gov. Palin is unqualified.   But Gov. Palin has been a Governor (executive experience) for only a bit less time than Obama has been a back-bench Senator, and she's already cleaned out a hell of a lot more corruption than Obama has.   I'm not sure that's an argument that the Left really wants to win.  They may be able to damage the bottom of McCain's ticket, but the collateral damage would be the top of their ticket.

 

McCain's Path to Victory - Campaign Template

Looking at the polls that show undecideds very high, I observe 2 things - first, the comfort level with obama is not there; people have doubts. If it were otherwise, we'd have him at higher levels with lower undecided. Second, the undecideds are undecided in part because the ELECTION CHOICE HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED.  Third, the right-track wrong-track numbers are clear, and tough for Republicans - people want a new direction.

Based on those observations, the path to McCain victory is clear enough - define the choice, define your opponent, and define your positive plan for Americans. The MSM is so much in Obama's corner that they will not cede the narrative easily. But McCain will have to be bold and GRAB the narrative by taking all advantages and going on offense.

1. Define the choice in this election - More Govt or less Govt; winning the GWOT and defending our freedom while we defeat trerrorists or basing decisions on expediency not our long-term strategic interest; reforming Govt with transparency and end to earmarks and real fiscal restraint or status quo tax-and-spend-and-borrow that weakens our economy;

2. Define Obama as inexperienced, poor judgement, leftwing extremist with a history of suspicious assocations, who is wrong on Iraq, wrong  on taxes, wrong on spending, wrong judges, wrong to support gay marriage in Cali, wrong to support abortion-on-demand, and wrong on how to lead America forward

3. Reach out to all Americans and all groups on a number of issues besides this that tie the family, freedom and national security defending-America agenda together.

4. Take over the optimism. Our hope for the future lies in defending our freedom and expanding opportunity today. Express it and keep expressing it so people know that voting for you is voting for a better future. (Thats what Obama is selling with his 'hope and change' message; can we please be a little original and steal the concept without recycling his words and sounding like me-too artists?) ...  As in "McCain, proven reformer ... working for your future" "McCain - building a better tomorrow" or "Let's build a better tomorrow, together."

This 4-point campaign template above is a skeleton of what gave Reagan his blowout win in 1984.

Obsessed with "Obsession"

As we approach the inauguration of a new president, the importance of a strong national security/terrorism policy – thank god for FISA - is without question one of the most vital and crucial issues in the campaign. In that vein, I want to share some thoughts about a really powerful movie I recently watched, titled Obsession.

Obsession takes a hard look at the near-critical levels of Islamofacism in the Middle East, and provides a scathing critique of the potential for disaster if these threats – which have been building for years – are not taken seriously. Featuring biting commentary from noted Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, Obsession scrutinizes the rise in terrorist thought, the haunting parallels between modern terrorist cells and Nazism – a tie that I was not aware of before watching this movie (quite eerie similarities) - and the growing pervasiveness of Arab extremists in the West. Here's a clip from the film noting the Nazi/Islamofacist ties:

To be sure, Obsession is not an anti-Islam movie; instead it emphasizes quite credibly that the extremists are a minority, albeit a growing and dangerous one. It’s thought provoking; it presents itself as a display of facts in the form of real footage, and opinions of experts instead of a sensationalist “you need to be afraid” news pitch; conversely, the interviews are of academics and moderate Muslims, not fear mongering pundits.

It was rather stomach churninging to see children being pressured to lay down their lives in the name of Allah, explaining how they would like to set GWB on fire, and bomb the U.S. To be sure, the Left can’t admit that the surge worked, and Al-Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, nearly decimated - they remain shockingly unaware of the gravity of the dangers that exist around the globe. These dangers are addressed and analyzed in Obsession, a film that provides a telling – and ominous – look into the ever-growing world of Arab extremists.

Syndicate content