Redstate

This result should absolutely be setting off the alarm bells. Actually, the alarm bells should've been going off for months now. That said, the Democrats would have to pick up 57 House seats to get their super-majority. To be sure, we could lose quite a few seats - I'm guessing in the 20-30 range, but it is difficult to see, race by race, how the Democrats could get to 292 this cycle. Now, if they pick up more than 30 this cycle, which is possible, 2010 might give it to them. Even with how bad things are now, though, they'd still need a lot of help.

www.republicansenate.org

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

What about to stop a filibuster? They only need 60 senate seats for that... This whole problem is what you get when republicans go to congress and spend just as much money as democrats...

There were also four other candidates on the ballot and one was a DEM and a Green which received 2% so the Dems already got over 50% really

The Dem candidate is hitting out on free trade acts for foreign countries in these gloomy times it appears to be resonating in this district while Republican is doing immigration mantra which may not be so bad in Mississippi of all places.

We could well be below 100 seats in Jan 2009.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

at least not this go 'round.
It's a little early for full on panic mode.
This is concerning, to be sure, but it is not a tsunami yet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

I've been saying for years that the Democrats need to run left-libertarians in the south rather than socially conservative defense hawks. Right now it's the libertarian republicans who are most likely to jump ship and switch parties. Now that the LP has sold out 3/4th of its platform they have no place else to go. The south is going to stay red until the democrats figure this out.

Dropping gun control from the national platform has made a big difference for democrats in the south already. Now if they would quit pushing silly nanny state stuff like smoking bans we could get somewhere.

at least in part

I can't find the cite atm but southern families, particularly rural ones, are more likely to have at least one extended family member in the armed services.

That Southern families tend to appreciate their military more than Northern. They don't think they're "too good" to serve...

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

There were reasons wht Bill Foster won in IL too that had "nothing to do with" any larger trends. There's always some other explanation. I was willing to say that IL was a fluke, but now I'm not so sure. This could be a slaughter in November.

...as was this one apparently. Chris Lauzen would have won that seat.

I just don't understand why the GOP can overperform in MA-05 with Ogonowski, and handily win special elections in allegedly "blue-trending" states like Ohio and Virginia earlier this year, yet we struggle in the solid south.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I am sorry but you don't know Mississippians and how we vote. During campaigning people look for the person who they feel is the most sincere and that can best do the job. That is why in my district, the 3rd, Gregg Harper won an underdog campaign against a very well funded opponent in Charlie Ross. People did not like Charlie's campaign against our Lt. Gov Phil Bryant. This played into his run in this year's primary. That is why on the coast, which is our most Republican district, Gene Taylor is the Congressman. Gene is always out meeting people and doing events.

but it is distressing that this thread even exists.

Tom Cole needs to be replaced NOW! I am tired of the GOP having these lightweights run the Congressional parties while the Dems have there rottweilers like Schumer and Emanual run theirs.

Tom Cole once said in an interview that he doesn't even look at the positions of the Republican house candidates. He just looks at where they are from and considers whether their home town will turn the election.

He is a fool. Politics is about ideas. If you don't have any, you don't deserve to win.

First, Cole is a political strategist. He was the best choice for NRCC and he has a background in doing this type of work.

Second, it's not Cole's fault that being a Republican is a bad thing right now. A lot of people aren't running because running now is harder for Rs. Party ID, approval ratings, issues ratings, etc all point toward a wide gap in favor the Ds. These people saw 2006 and this year is looking to be a bit worse. How do you talk those people into running?

Finally, Cole has been doing what most bloggers have criticized other party leaders for. He has not gotten involved in primaries. When Dole got involved in the Chafee-Laffey primary, many bloggers went ballistic. Cole has let voters decide primaries. I still think that is the right strategy.

So instead of point fingers, can you name anything constructive that Rs can do to start turning around the loss of moderate, independent and Hispanic voters? Those are the groups that lurched D in 2006 and they haven't come back.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Adam C,

First, Cole said he doesn't care about the candidates' issues. If issues don't matter, then why do we even have political parties?

Second, Cole cannot fundraise at all. And I will admit this is not solely his fault -- Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld ran this party into the ground with their idiotic "lighter footprint" strategy for Iraq, Dubai ports, etc.

Third -- Getting involved in the primaries is not a bad thing so long as we pick and choose our battles wisely. We should have never spent money on Chafee because he was not a loyal Republican. But in districts where a conservative candidate plays well, we should use the party apparatus to support the conservative. In districts more suitable for a moderate (NJ, PA, etc.) we should support the moderate. I'm not saying get involved in every primary, but when there is a clear choice between a dud and a stud, we should use the party to back the stud. This is precisely what Schumer and Emanual do.

Fourth -- In re Hispanics. First, half of the Republican party dug their own grave by calling the other half of the Republicans that opposed illegal immigration rascists.

We continue to lose the rhetorical debates in American politics. Instead of taking an anti-illegal position, we should have taken a pro-legal position. Lead the debate with a demand for the reform of the system to increase the number of legal workers, insist on a temporary work program for people who return to their home country first, and thirdly, oppose citizenship for illegals but do so in the following context. Explain that it would be blatantly unfair to those who came here legally -- often investing many years and money in the process. Finally, end the debate with a position on increased border security.

Also, to repair the damage, the Republican party should set up immigration headquaters in heavy Hispanic communities and assist people with the legalization process. Help them get a green card. Help them get citizenship if eligible. Navigate people through the process and they will reward you with their vote.

Fifth -- I think we can do a similar thing in poor neighborhoods regarding financial education. We should set up seminars at party headquarters where we explain the basics of financial investing. Get people invested in the capital markets even if it is just a minimal amount. As soon as lower income people are invested in markets, and they realize a capital gain and then they see the government take only a portion of it (15%) and then they hear calls from Obama to take 30%, it just may change some minds.

Sixth -- Speaking of rhetorical losses, we have lost the rhetoric to the Dems on tax cuts. Now, it is bad to be for tax cuts. For the last 8 years, all we heard from the socialists was "tax cuts for the rich." We should have spun thay immediately and said, no, they are "tax cuts for people trying to become rich." And then we should have told a story about how there is no wealth tax in America and if you have S10 Mil dollars at the beginning of the year and put that money in a safe, you would have to pay the goverment nothing in taxes. However, if you have no assets, are in debts, and then have a big year in which you make $125,000 the government will likely take $45,000 of it. No wonder why it is so hard for Americans to become wealthy. The system is set up to favor those who are already wealthy, and the Democrats want to favor them more.

Anyway, that is my piece.

Romney/Pace 2008

Just a rhetorical question, why do you not post more around here?

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

...unless one wants to speed up the demographic destruction of the GOP that is. Current high levels of legal immigration are already helping turn the nation blue, so increasing the numbers will only speed up the process.

To be fair, you said increase the number of 'legal workers'. So are you referring to mythical guest workers, or permanent legal immigrants (which is what 'temporary guest workers' would have been in the McCain-Kennedy bills).

If you mean we should increase permanent legal immigration, then I have to ask why must it be more? Why do conservative proponents of unending mass immigration always think that increasing legal immigration is such a good idea? If it is all about workers and labor needs, then why not first call for a reshuffling of the current million or so legal immigrants we admit each year? Why not abolish the absurd Diversity Lottery? Why not end extened family chain migration? Why not get stricter with refugee/asylum seekers? Why not see how many slots this would free up for workers before we call for an overall increase in immigration?

Not mention all the tax dollars we spend in services to immigrants, both legal and illegal. Extended family chain migration is the worst. So many people from third world countries bring over their parents/grandparents when they are able to get social security so they can add it to the total household income.

As Adam knows, I think Tom Cole has done a poor job as NRCC chairman. (BTW, in 2007 I actually thought he was the best choice for this position, considering his extensive political background.)

Why? Because:
1) He stopped choosing sides in the primaries. In non-incumbent races (and sometimes in these too), where there is a dud and a stud - great quote, Michael - the NRCC should choose the stud, either publicly, or by steering money to him/her. This is what Schumer (who is the best political head, right now) has done to great success in the Senate. Cole should have backed Lauzen, considering his prior knowledge (through NRCC polls) of Oberweis's high negatives, and Oberweis's general incompetance. (And yes, I have always been consistent on this issue, Adam.)
2) He has done a poor job raising money. What genius, I ask you, decides that the year after an anti-Republican wave, when the GOP is down in the dumps and desperate for any ray of hope, is the best time for the NRCC to ditch its old successful money making apparatus in favor of a new apparatus that is untested and which Cole himself acknowledges that it will take time - i.e. multiple elections - to prove itself. (This was a quote of his in the Hill newspaper.)
3) He has done a poor job at recruiting candidates. Now, I realize that Cole is not solely at fault for the generally bad recruiting going on for House races. But, I can certainly say that he has not improved on the situation. The perfect example - Ohio. Cole screwed up the Ohio recruiting so bad that John Boehner had to jump in. Boehner was the man responsible for convincing state Sen. Steve Stivers to jump into a race that Stivers had already said no to (to Cole). Boehner also had a hand in producing good candidates in the other OH districts. (This is one of the reasons Boehner had a dust up with Cole recently.)
4) He has poor staff. Who a person surrounds himself with speaks to the quality of that person (remember this, Barack). And Cole has not done a particularly good job of surrounding himself with talent at the NRCC. I am in DC, and I have frequent contact with NRCC folk. While they are nice people, they don't strike me as the movers and shakers we need to take back the House. This is in contrast to previous years. Once again, Cole's staff hiring was reputedly another issue between him and Boehner in their recent dust up.

.

Glenn will be campaigning the next few weeks. I think he can. As for Charlie Ross, he is the 3rd district and he did endorse Gregg Harper right after the primary was over

He will be campaigning with Greg, you will also see Haley Barbour and Phil Bryant out more as well.

A big presidential win, but virtually no coattails in congressional races?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I think the most likely outcome is President Obama with 56 D Senators and 245 D Representatives.

But the next most likely combo is President McCain with the same Congressional numbers.

But importantly, McCain is not seen as a typical R. Most Congressional candidates are. So yes, there will be a number of McCain/D ballots out there.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

What polls are you citing that you say it is far more likely that Obama wins the presidency?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Intrade has the odds about Obama (50%), McCain (40%), and Clinton (10%). The market by party is D (60%) and R (40%). The RCP average has Obama ahead by 1.2%. The only poll with McCain ahead of Obama nationally in all of April is Rasmussen and Rasmussen has been notably about 4-5 points pro-R compared to all other pollsters this year, I presume this has to do with different voter screens.

So again, as of today, there is no evidence that McCain is ahead and this is in the middle of Obama's worst month of the campaign where he has two people attacking him. And it's during a time when McCain isn't having $100M worth of ads attacking him.

The futures markets add weight because they are predictions about November not just about today.

Throw in the generic party ID numbers, the "who do you trust on X" numbers, and the R vs. D approval ratings numbers, and it's unsurprising that people are putting their money on Obama winning.

I take slight offense to this being called "bias." My opinion is based on a lot of research and thinking, not some hunch.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I'm certainly not suggesting that we will win back seats in either house, but I don't think those numbers tell the whole story.

Second, where did I say bias?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I read your title to say "what is your bias for Obama" instead of "basis." My bad.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Maybe it's subconscious wishful thinking or something, but I do NOT see Obama being elected. I wouldn't underestimate the disgust among "bitter" voters--it may not be the primary reason they won't support him, but the seed's been planted, along with Wright/Ayers/"proud" Michelle/Farrakhan/Hamas and God knows what else will be dug up.
I think that IF the angry conservatives get on board and help get McCain elected, he'll definitely win. The biggest obstacle will be MONEY--if McCain can't fight back against the MoveOn-527/DNC attacks, it's gonna be a big problem.

I agree with you on the Congress, though, unless the (D) clowns on the Hill self-destruct before November--which isn't out of the realm of possibility; we just need to assist that process.

------------
~ Beth ~

The democrats have self-destructed...look at the mess that the congressional democrats have made of everything they have touched in the last year and a half. The problem is that our side won't say it. Check out what Congressmman Jeb Hensarling had to say, we should all be shouting that sort of thing to the hilltops. Instead too many in the GOP want to play nice.
Frankly, we can't win until we start showing up to the game, and putting on the other team's jerseys doesn't cut it.

Is the best strategy to address the misperception that a typical R is a bad thing? Or is it better to populate the Republican party with mavericks?

I realize there is a dichotomy between short and long term objectives. However, if we pursue the short term objective, we make the long term view worse and worse.

Ultimately, we need to persuade people. This can be done. On issues like welfare reform, tax cuts, gun rights, etc. conservatism has won the day.

If McCain's strategy is to win my conveying his "maverick" positions, he is helping himself at the expense of the party generally. Clinton and Nixon both behaved in this manner and both have very mixed legacies.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Romney/Pace 2008

This is why I'm tired of blaming Cole or Dole or "leadership." Activists need to be showing that "typical Rs" are good things rather than whining about how leadership picked the wrong guy (especially since leadership listened to us and stopped picking candidates for the most part).

"On issues like welfare reform, tax cuts, gun rights, etc. conservatism has won the day."

I agree. But remember that most voters only think about 1-3 issues in a cycle. This cycle that's likely 1) Economy, 2) War in Iraq, and 3) Health Care. So even if swing voters think the welfare reform of the 90s was great, it is probably not affecting their Congressional vote in 2008.

I don't quite understand it, but right now McCain gets high marks for "who do you trust to deal with the economy" questions as well as the similar Iraq question. That's great for McCain in the Presidential race. However, "Rs" get bad marks on all 3 of those issues. That's what is hurting Rs at the Congressional level.

Furthermore, the last 10 years have continued to move of the GOP toward being branded as solely a religiously conservative group. The Schiavo incident and the stem cell research debate (regardless of their merits) has furthered the view that the GOP cares more about pushing moral values issues than economic or fiscal responsibility.

I continue to see in the numbers that the GOP is more unpopular than the Ds. It's not that people think Ds are great, but that Rs are out of touch, focusing on the wrong issues that don't affect people (abortion, gay issues, Schiavo, corporate tax cuts), and corrupt (party of pork, Abramoff).

A good house cleaning would probably help. But I think a Gingrich-style Contract would be the best thing. But it has to be forward looking and focus on issues where conservatives and moderates agree, just like the "Contract" did. The Contract didn't talk about abortion or gays, it
focused on good governance issues like term limits, ethics, balancing the budget, etc. That part of the party seems to have atrophied and turned into a pork-guzzling power-hungry out-of-touch elite.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

McCain's strengths are not economic or healthcare issues. Moreover, "reaching across the isle" as an operating principle is the opposite of the "Contract with America" operating principle---a strategy designed to expose and heighten distinctions.

I agree that we need a new contract to nationalize the House and Senate races. I just think McCain has NO interest in nationalizing the Congressional election. In fact, I think he would put the brakes on it were such a movement to start.

The reason why there is no Contract, is because we have no leadership. Leadership results in a Contract With America. Lack of leadership results in each politician making cynical political triangulations that benefit the politician in the short term, but hurt the movement in the long term.

My only quibble is with this: "In fact, I think he would put the brakes on it were such a movement to start."

If the nationalization were something he would agree with, I don't see him stopping such a movement. But that means nationalizing the fact that Rs will do something on global warming, will give an alternative tax system, will welcome immigrants and work to find solutions that both enforce the law and show compassion for those who want to make a better living for their families, will stop the pork-barrel corruption, etc.

Not many Rs are McCain Rs. So it's unlikely a "nationalization" will work because it would be awkward to have the Congressional races being run on one message and the Presidency on another.

My guess is it will take a few more years. In 2010, 2012 or 2014, Rs will realize it's time to change some major things. But it really takes losing a few times and people seeing what Ds will do with power before that will work. Hopefully then it will be a litmus test that you oppose the Pork-Barrel Corruption in DC to be a member in good standing and Rs can start running on fiscal responsibility as part of the platform again.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"My guess is it will take a few more years. In 2010, 2012 or 2014, Rs will realize it's time to change some major things. But it really takes losing a few times and people seeing what Ds will do with power before that will work."

I'm glad you're finally on board with what it will take to get the GOP back on the right track.

because he wants the flexibility to run his campaign the way he wants (which is quite understandable). The Contract was not offered during a Presidential election, and I think that is not a coincidence. We elect a President, not a Prime Minister. What Presidential candidate is willing to integrate the key national issues into what a committee of party members want?

On a purely tactical level, I would be sympathetic to a Presidential candidate saying that he or she needed to be free to run their campaign, and have not have it overshadowed by a new Contract with America.

On an ideological level, I think a new Contract (presuming it was done the right way) would heal a lot of doubts in the conservative ranks.

I don't think McCain would stop it but that's because any Contract this year would be written and forged by the McCain camp. So he would be able to run on the issues he wanted.

If there were a nationalizing of the election, it would be on the Presidential nominee's terms.

I also note that the "presuming it was done the right way" is a lot harder than you make it sound. There are real divisions within the party on the need for earmarking and how to solve the illegal immigration problem. Is "the right way" to be against all earmarks and supportive of immigrants or is "the right way" accepting earmarks as necessary and building a Wall while deporting everyone we can?

There are people in the party mixed around those and other issues. We avoided that kind of problem in 1994 by focusing on the issues where there was widespread agreement, but term limits and committee assignments aren't hot button issues right now.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"but term limits and committee assignments aren't hot button issues right now."

I don't think they should be. On the other hand, this is still more of the follow the voter logic. The reason that the economy and the Iraq war are big issues is because the media (read:DNC) has made it that way. While we have been sitting on one of the better economies in recent history, the daily news cycle has been doom and gloom. It has slowed somewhat, but it is still historically good (5% unemployment is essentially full employment), but those 95% employed are certain that all of their neighbors are out of work and losing their houses.
We need to be on the offense, and we will neer get there fighting democrats issues with democrat definitions on democrat ground.
Our problem now is the same one we had in 2006...The elected GOP and party apparatus is too into politics and not principle. They are all too worried about winning elections and not worried enough about winning the debate, and everyone seems to have forgotten that the former necessarily follows the latter.

------------
~ Beth ~

It seems to me that any alliance between moderates and conservatives must come with an agreement by moderates that judges should stay out of setting social policy.

If 'moderates' can't agree that, specifically, Roe is garbage, and that there is no legitimate Constitutional claim for homosexual relationships to receive public recognition; and generally that Scalia/Thomas style jurisprudence is the truly moderate position on social issues, then what compromises are they making?

If moderates could at least get it right about how it is the Left that started the Culture war (not religious conservatives), and that it is the Left that has made it so bitter with their strategy and tactic of having courts impose what they can't legitimately enact, then social conservatives could be expected to give a little themselves.

Ultimately, a strong case for federalism is probably the best way to bring social conservatives and moderates together. Empower the people and/or legislature of each state to handle cultural issues, and then we wouldn't have to deal with them for every federal election.

When Bush I won solidly (but not in a landslide) while the GOP lost House and Senate seats.

BTW, that year the Dems had a ten point edge in registration, a big edge in primary turnout, and there was an incumbent Republican President who was considered incompetent (remember Iran contra?). (Don't get mad at me people - that was the conventional wisdom on Reagan that year.) The only differences were Reagan was more popular than Bush II, and Obama is far less strong than Michael Dukakis.

definitely not wisdom.

But I agree, 1988 might be analogous

Bush-Kerry: 62-37
Bush-Gore: 59-40

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"He will have to do several things that upset Republicans because he needs to win a lot of voters who lean D right now."

As long as that is the party leaderships viewpoint, we will keep losing and sliding into oblivion. History is against you on this. There are no votes in the middle. You can't win elections by trying to find where the ideological mean is and camping there. There are only two ways to reliably win in politics - 1.Stake out a coherent, principled position and advocate for it, bringing voters to you or 2. Lying your butt off and tricking the voters into coming to you.

It's the defeatism that kills us congressionally. Notice that the democrats don't even slow down when they are losing. They just makeup new lies, promise to by more votes and go with it.

Which brings us to why deep red states have liberal democrat representation and even the lightest of blue states are off-limits to us unless we run a liberal republican. The democrats just run someone every time. They do try moderates or even somewhat conservative democrats sometimes(not that they vote less liberal once they get to Washinton).

No offense Adam, but as long as the attitude you display around here has more than a fringe following in the GOP, winning is nearly impossible.

"As long as that is the party leaderships viewpoint, we will keep losing and sliding into oblivion."

It was my statement and I'm nowhere near "party leadership." It's my view from a survey of all data we have that right now generic R loses to generic D by about 5-8 points. Rs were smart to not nominate generic R. That means the Presidential race is competitive although the Ds are still favored AND ahead in polls right now (both RCP averages have the Ds winning by about 1 point).

As long as the attitude that pork-barreling in no problem, corruption is just the price for getting things done, and moderates are evil people who need to be kicked out of the party is around, Rs will hover around 30% of the population and have a hard time winning half of moderates to win national elections.

You're welcome to be part of the self-serving "if we were rabidly conservative we'd win every time" but some of us are trying to analyze which voters voted R before and are now voting D. It's not Rush listeners.

It's moderates, independents and Hispanics. McCain is uniquely positioned to have a chance with those voters. Rs don't have a lot of other candidates who are well suited for winning them back. That's how Rs are having a hard time in SEN races in places like NM, CO, NH and VA. And it hurt in recruitment in AR, WV, MT, and SD because Republican right now is a bad word among most of the swing voters in the country, even in "red" states.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"You're welcome to be part of the self-serving "if we were rabidly conservative we'd win every time" but some of us are trying to analyze which voters voted R before and are now voting D. It's not Rush listeners."

It's this attitude that people are who they are and we need to find where they are to win. History does not bear that out. You need to stake out a consistent, coherent prinicpled position, and then sell it. People shift with the wind, chasing them does no good.

Ronald Reagan is the model. He didn't pander or go squishy on his issues. He could sell his viewpoint because he believed it and because he was right.

The problem with the road that you are on (and much Republican leadership - not saying you put those words in their mouths, based on independent observation) is that at the end of the day whether the party wins or loses, the country loses. Pork spending is bad, but entitlements need to be addressed as well. Particularly in light of a porous southern border. If we make a stand, we can win, on every single conservative issue - because we have the luxury of being correct.

The problem with the "moderate" position is very easy to illustrate. Take the example of abortion for instance. If you believe it is taking an innocent life, you should be against it all the time. If you think it is a woman's right to decide, you should always be por-abortion. If you say you are ok with women choosing, but want to restrict in some ways it you have put yourself in an inconsistent position. Noone who cares about the issue will support you, and anyone that doesn't care still doesn't care.

The real key to winning on the large scale is not in making compromises with moderates, nor is it in being "rabidly conservative". What we need are likable, intelligent, scandal-free conservatives who understand and can explain conservatism in a way that brings those who are conservative in any way, i.e. defense, fiscal, or social, into the fold. That was one of the great things about President Reagan. He understood and presented the rationale of conservatism such that he was not apologizing for it but promoting it.

Also, at the risk of threadjacking, the reason that we're having trouble in the Senate races you mentioned (I still think Schaffer has only slightly worse than even odds at keeping that seat) is not because we're not running moderates. It's because of the damage that has been done to the Republican brand, mostly by scandals. The Democrats in those races are no more moderate than the Republicans and, with the exception of New Hampshire, those states are, if anything, slightly more conservative than liberal.

www.republicansenate.org

Romney/Pace 2008

Hardly. If we lose, maybe we should panic, but if we don't, we shouldn't. Bush carried almost every Congressional district in the south in 2004, yet most Democrats kept their seats easily. The tradition of voting Republican for President and Democrat for Congress is a tradition as old as Eisenhower.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

We should be hammering them every single day with their responsibility for the current gas situation. Instead, we have all these political strategists saying that it is too difficult an issue for people to follow, so we will just let it go.

Maybe all the people won't sit and listen long enough to understand the conservative viewpoint, but some will, and that amounts to a some that is more than the none if you don't say anything at all.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

started explaining it me the last time I got a haircut.

People have more sense than you think---if you bother to try.

If any of the Rs in Congress had the huevos, they'd be out there everyday explaining how liberal environmental policies against oil drilling are bringing us to our knees. They would be easy targets in this regard, and if they were forced into explaining why they stand against domestic drilling, we'd retake Congress. No bully pulpit leadership = no huevos = no R majority leadership. Small threadjack, I've lost all respect for Newt and his global warming promotion. How many pieces of silver did this Judas get?
Tim Schieferecke

I'll say it once and I have said it again the GOP's mantra of voting for San Fran liberal Pelosi means squash now

The GOP is losing battle on war, taxes, health care, gas price, economy, and now the free trade issue which is resonating cause the economy is bad. We have not given voters a reason to vote Republican; the party needs another Contract With America and some type of leader to bring about a strong reason why we need Republicans back in power and why the Dems are doing so much harm to us.

I am angry that the party has not learned from 06 elections and have not taken any action to correct it. We are on the verge of seeing a Dem control which will impact everything for decades to come.

A new Contract with America is actually a great idea. The biggest problem the party has right now is the lack of identity. The party is split on a lot of issues such as immigration. They have no universal fiscal policy and have resorted to spending like Democrats. It's becoming tougher and tougher to describe what a Republican in Washington is these days.

But it would take a strong leader to step forward and fix this. I don't know who is out there. Someone who will sit the representatives down and say "this is how we're going to fix this", "this is how we're going to show this to America". Until that day comes, I think we'll continue to see seats lost in every election.

I mean, technically, we have a leader who is doing that. President Bush has defined the GOP for 6 years. Pork-barreling, massive spending, tax cuts, Tough on Terror, War in Iraq. That's what R means right now.

And as far as change goes, we have a new leader. Presumably (and especially if McCain wins in Nov) the new GOP will be anti-earmark, anti-spending, fighting global warming, Tough on Terror without the torture, War in Iraq, and tax cutting.

If Paulites make a big splash, we may see bigger changes in the future, but I don't think they have the numbers to do it.

The problem is that we don't have agreement on a lot of big issues. A lot of Rs are in the Bush camp that thinks earmarks are just part of the price of getting things done and some Rs are in the McCain camp of seeing them as unconscionable corruption. On immigration, there is the restrictionist wing (with its subset of nativists) and there is the pro-immigration wing (with its subset of amnesty supporters). There's no way to "nationalize" immigration for Rs because of the deep split.

The War has generally kept the part together but it's not that popular nationally or among Is. So a Contract would be hard right now.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

That will be attractive to both moderates and conservatives

1. Control borders (no position either way on amnesty, but we all agree on controlling the border)

2. Tax simplification (flat tax i.e. post-card filing option)

3. Health care reform through use of private accounts (HSAs) and allowing the purchase of insurance policies from different states (theme of decoupling insurance from employer-employee relationship). Medicare recipients would have the option of a Medicare HSA arrangement.

4. Cap non-military discretationary spending at wage growth level (or maybe a less ambitious cap, but definitely something below 5%)

5. Expand limits on 401k, IRA, Roth IRAs

6. Reduce gas tax permanently (this one is going to piss of liberals big time)

7. Make it possible to drill for oil domestially, build refineries, nuclear power plants, etc.

8. Put Congress on SS instead of their own special plan (this one will cause some screaming, but its a winner)

9. Education tax credits in lieu of vouchers

10. Create urban enterprise zones in the ten worst urban areas

The Republicans need some type of simplified message; they need some simple motto that can go home to the average American who does not spend a lot time listening to all political talk

The Republicans need to stress that Dems want to outsource our nat'l security, have leaders of their party going around and shaking hands with Hamas, and they want the ACLU to control America's ability to hinder another 9/11 and all in the meantime these folks care more about some feelings of a terrorist in Guatanamo then they do about people burning our American flag, bringing morality back to our foundation, etc

I think giving the American people a little more credit and moving away from sloganizing and sound bites actually makes a lot more sense in the long term, especially if we make heavy use of facts, figures and graphics.

Romney/Pace 2008

First, McCain has proposed a lot of these including tax simplification (an alternative flat tax), freezing non-military spending altogether, controlling the borders, nuclear power.

Second, just FYI Congress is on social security, it's an urban legend that they aren't in the system.

Finally, despite my agreement on these issues (and I'd be happy if McCain took almost all of them), I don't think these are going to be the deciding issues of the election. The War. The Economy. And Health Care. Right now, those are the issues that idgits will be voting on. I think showing McCain's breadth of knowledge through a lot of proposals is good, but the big issues can't be sidestepped.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I specifically put things on the list that I think McCain would agree with and that conservatives could be enthusiastic about.

Can we make something like this happen?

What if RedState puts together its Blueprint for 2008?

I feel embarassed to have bought into the urban legend, although it wasn't an urban legend until 1983 (it was true before then)

Asuming McCain wins (which I wouldn't assume at all at this stage) the party should look to putting together a plaform for 2010. However there is a danger that some will prefer to blame him for everything the Democracts pass in the next two years.

from when I read them last night.

But if lots of people are thinking this, where is the Republican leadership. We've got Karl Rove on all the talking head shows. He's smart, but vastly unappealing to many people. Where's a fresh, smart Republican to be the face of this?