Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
How McCain Can Win
Win The Argument
By Martin A. Knight Posted in 2008 | 2008 | how to win | McCain | Obama — Comments (84) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Victor David Hanson makes a good point here about the upcoming Presidential election; John McCain cannot beat Barack Obama by trying to blur the differences between himself and the likely Democratic nominee in a bid to win over the mushy middle.
... conservatives should reach out with conservative principles better framed and presented, rather than change the message for the perceived advantage of the hour.
What the Republicans need is not an abandonment of conservative principles, but a smarter, more articulate defense of even more conservativism, not less.
My shorter interpretation of what VDH is saying we need is this; BETTER MARKETING.
The fact is Conservative turnout in 2006 was virtually unchanged from 2004 in 2006 so blaming our booting from majority status on the 1-2% of the base that sat on their hands ON 11/7/2006 is being willfully blind. We lost because we lost swing voters (the "center") in massive numbers (70D-30R, if I recall correctly) from an essentially even 50D-50R split in the two years from 2004 to 2006. And from all indications, we still have a long way to go before we can claw our way back to narrowing it to 60D-40R later this fall.
The first step to doing that, over the long and short term, is recognizing the fact that swing voters are primarily won through the marketing, rhetoric, stagecraft, image management, Press coverage, etc. The presentation and the public persona of the candidate (including the baggage of the popular perception of the candidate's party) matters a lot more with the average "middle" voter than his/her policy positions.
It's not exactly the most flattering picture of the part of the electorate that generally gets to decide who ends up giving the concession (or in the case of Democrats - filing suit in the nearest friendly Court) or victory speech on Election Day, but there it is.
The thing to remember though, is that this is no sign of stupidity, it's a sign of disinterest.
Amongst these people are numbered some of America's smartest men and women in every field of endeavor. They are registered as Republicans, Democrats as well as Independents - what they generally have in common is that they just do not actively think of or pay anything beyond passive attention to politics until maybe a week or two before Election Day. Then everything they've absorbed over the whole cycle combines with what they're hearing at the moment - from their own subjective gut reactions to poll reports telling them who their neighbors are voting for to the disbelieving arch of the reporter's eyebrow to October Surprises - and then they go out and vote.
It's with a somewhat embarassed twinge that I remember the mocking laughter that erupted all over the Dextrosphere (I joined in) when, in the aftermath of 2004, elected Democrats and their claque of supporters in the Press trooped into lecture halls to listen to George Lakoff explain the importance of "framing." e.g. changing Lefty-unfriendly "Trial Lawyers" to Lefty-friendly "Public Protection Attorneys."
I admit, I thought it was ridiculous. And quite frankly, Lakoff's specific substitutions were mostly ridiculous. However, as it turns out, his general idea - deliberately choosing words, phrases and ultimately narratives to direct (for good or ill) the public's perception of political issues, news and events - was not something to be dismissed out of hand like we pooh-poohed Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy" that is paying dividends for the Democrats (IL-14, LA-6 and possibly MS-1) now.
Similarly, the two years of the New York Times' and all the other Democratic news outlets' (remember CNN's fortuitously timed "Broken Government" Special?) deliberate framing and presentation of the controversies/issues over Terrorist Surveillance, Iraq, WMDs, judicial nominations, "torture," Scooter Libby, DeLay's indictment, Katrina, the economy, stem cell research and even Social Security reform was a linchpin of the Democrats' victory.
VDH continues ...
In short, low taxes, secure borders, moral governance, sober government spending, ethical leadership, exploration and conservation of petroleum, and strong defense is what the American public wants — but those core principles have to be articulated hourly and can't be compromised. In an honest debate, Obama's alternatives to the above would be to turn toward more government, higher taxes, more bureacracies, more dependence of the individual upon the state, etc. And I can't believe the public wants a prescription that historically simply doesn't work.
I think in their depression, the Republicans fail to see that their problems were not in their principles, but rather in the sometimes sleezy and sloppy way they advanced them — and even more often in the manner that they abandoned them — and as a result, they are apparently eager to compromise on them.
True. In addition to abandoning the Information battlefield (the Bush White House is the most guilty of this), Republicans allowed themselves to abandon the moral and ethical high ground by abandoning the principles they got elected on, falling for the fiction that a Majority could be forever maintained on the "cheap" by bribing voters with pork and hiding behind the President's skirts.
Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert's abject stupidity in forgetting that they also had a mandate to govern independent of the President and their attendant failure to enforce any measure of Republican fiscal/spending discipline on their caucus cannot be overemphasized as another linchpin to the Democrats victory. This lack of discipline is primarily responsible for creating an environment that encouraged their colleagues of weaker ethics (Cunningham, Ney, etc.) to think that they could get away with not-so-petty larceny.
To the degree McCain can articulate the above [i.e. conservatism; low taxes, secure borders, spending discipline, etc.], he will win; to the degree that he either cannot or believes the latest gurus that he must abandon them, he will lose. Moving toward a lite version of the Obamian/European "bipartisan" and socialist view of government and calling it a new conservatism is a prescription for utter disaster.
No one can out-Obama Obama.
As one would expect of a Partisan™ and Ideologue™ like me, I strongly believe this is true - if McCain provides a choice, not an echo, he stands a better chance of emerging victorious come November. There will be a lot of influential people/institutions, from outside the GOP (like the Democratic flagships of the MSM) and from inside (e.g. the GOP's pedestrian pencil-pushing coterie of campaign consultants) advising McCain to move Left in order to appeal to swing voters/Independents.
This will be a mistake. This would be fighting on Obama's homeground, and VDH is right, you cannot "out-Obama" Barack Obama.
Quite frankly, dazzling style beats solid substance in today's electorate - one looks and sounds better on TV. And much as I do not intend to poke a hornet's nest by saying this; it is the reason why I am forced to conclude Fred Thompson never would have caught on - he was unfortunately all substance and virtually no style. He was like a restaurant offering food that's scores a 100% on being healthy and 5% on taste. Such a restaurant is going nowhere but down - there'll never be enough health-freaks to keep it afloat.
The thing to remember is that while swing voters do usually vote based on the surface, superficial issues (i.e. style); on the coverage, labelling ("moderate"/"mainstream" versus "extremist"), celebrity endorsements, memorable soundbites, "appearing Presidential", "nice" rhetoric (words like "Bipartisan™" and phrases like "work with both sides to get things done" work like magic), etc. they can just as decisively be won over by the better argument delivered effectively with the aim to convince.
Like Reagan, John McCain has to find that magical combination of substance and style to send his message across in a way that will strike home (and deep) with the average American voter, the bulk of whom can be persuaded.
To use my favorite Margaret Thatcher aphorism; "First you win the argument, then you win the vote."
In my opinion, McCain winning this election hinges on the question of whether he chooses to move to "the center" (as defined by the MSM), or move "the center" to him by unapologetically pulling no punches and sparing no expense in winning the argument day after day, newscycle after newscycle till Election Day. It's ironic, but it just might turn out that John McCain, of all people, would be the man to make the GOP publicly open fire on the bias of the nation's supposedly "non-partisan", "objective", but in reality 90+% Democratic voting Fourth Estate.
McCain has to find ad/marketing men who will tirelessly seek and find ways to convey his message(s) on the economy, on national security, on the role of government, on judges, on healthcare, on energy, on spending, on taxes, etc. in a way that puts everything in the context of the best of the nation's past, from its founding documents to the best that is still yet to come and the way his and his opponents' policies will impact on the lives of those living today and decades into the future. After seven years of an Administration that failed to do so, McCain has to muscle into the public information sphere, educate and tap into the natural optimism and aspirations of the American people.
Personally, I think the coming fight is going to be interesting even if just for the opportunity to establish for certain if pure style and artifice is capable of beating substance - if a completely manufactured candidate with no accomplishments beyond a certain oratorical skill and a messianic following in the Press Corps determined to shield him from harm can beat an opponent that is head and toes above him in every issue of substance that matters.
PS: I recommend all read the entire exchange between Mark Levin and Andy Stuttaford (Mark starts it off) to see the line of the discussion all the way up to VDH and Peter Robinson's chipped in 2 cents.
« The Netroots Are Angry — Comments (80) | Death by Committee: The GOP pre-emptively surrenders November. — Comments (15) »
How McCain Can Win 84 Comments (0 topical, 84 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Wonderful article
by Adam C
If I could recommend this I would. Thank you for again noting that "staying home" was not the problem. And that political apathy is an entirely rational choice made by smart people, not ignorant idiots. I'd also add that non-ideological voters are 60% or so of voters in a general election. They may have certain issues or characteristics they like/want, but they don't have a philosophy or ideology guiding their vote.
My only quibble is with this "advising McCain to move Left in order to appeal to swing voters/Independents."
I don't know of anyone telling McCain to move to the center or "Left." And I haven't seen him doing that either. His talk on judge this week was a great example of him speaking louder about his conservative views and doing it in a way that reached out to non-conservative voters. I think it might be a good example of what you are asking for. OTOH, the media covered it as "McCain promises same judicial appointments as Bush." McCain can't have a lot of articles that say "McCain promises X just like Bush."
He needs to play up the break with the past Rs and Bush on earmarks by talking about the veto pen more. He has to continue emphasizing a different strategy in Iraq and some (even if only symbolic) break with past Iraq strategy.
Neither of those are moves to the "center" but breaks with the past R practice that was rejected solidly.
Finally, he is already in the center on some issues and won't be moving. On global warming, nuclear power, stem cells, marriage, immigration, and tax cuts, he is in the center of the electorate. He doesn't need to go left, but he also can't shift to the right and get tagged with "becoming more of a traditional R."
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Your kidding me
by E Pluribus Unum
OK, while you've spent at least 10 posts on my diary defending to the death your immovable desire to call McCain a conservative, and pledging to fight every time somebody calls him "not a conservative", now you come out with this:
Finally, he is already in the center on some issues and won't be moving. On global warming, nuclear power, stem cells, marriage, immigration, and tax cuts, he is in the center of the electorate. He doesn't need to go left, but he also can't shift to the right and get tagged with "becoming more of a traditional R."
You are unbelievable.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
The only defense
by simpson316
Yup
by Adam C
And I still think we should be able to fight misleading commentary on McCain. You do realize that many conservative views are in the center (marriage, nuclear power, tax cuts, judges). Some aren't (Schiavo, stem cells).
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
You are wilfully ignorant of what conservative is
by E Pluribus Unum
Read Russell Kirk. I am done talking to you.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Either that...
by RandomGuy
Or perhaps he just doesn't think your opinion is gospel?
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
Random
by Adam C
I appreciate the support, but please don't jump into my discussions with EPU.
I think EPU has good intentions. I just think he doesn't realize that his efforts lead to a bunch of anti-McCain diaries and efforts that hurt the GOP right now, or he doesn't care.
I don't really care about the "who's the true conservative" debate because I'm focused on winning an election right now. I care that the "who's the trust conservative" debate leads to a bunch of anti-McCain efforts like upside down logos.
So please don't jump in and pick up my argument for me.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Wha?
by RandomGuy
I can't comment on something someone posted on a public message board?
Geeze.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
I just don't want EPU
by Adam C
thinking that was what my response would be. I was going to leave it without a response but now I had to respond because I couldn't leave your statement suggesting what my views might be as the last word.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Sorry, I can't help it if he
by RandomGuy
Sorry, I can't help it if he thinks everyone who disagrees with him has the same opinion.
I thought he was being arrogant. I called him on it. I'll try not to get in your way in the future but it seems to me I should be able to put in my 2 cents too. This is a public message board after all.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
conservative views are outside the center
by JSobieski
until they are inside the center.
in 1956, all conservative ideas were outside the center.
Misleading commentary should always be challenged. I'm sure everyone agrees on that point.
Time for me to get back to work.
I agree entirely J
by Adam C
In fact, I think the goal of the "conservative movement" should be to make conservative views "moderate." Once the middle adopts them, they get widely adopted. I think gun rights are a great example as is free trade (although now backsliding). Welfare reform is another good example.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
We agree on that
by JSobieski
but that means that many people share my view that we need to move the public on issues like stem-cells, Schiavo, etc.
Moving the public involves articulating a position and forcefully defending it---not simply taking the center to win.
The public won't move on an issue if we refrain from taking the position.
Nobody between Kennedy and Reagan articulated supply side economics. By 1979, tax cuts capable of raising government receipts were considered vodoo economics by a Republican candidate for President.
Now, the supply side impact of taxes are considered moderate. Someone had to take a risk and articulate what was then an unpopular position outside the center.
Yup
by Adam C
And I think the primaries were full of this kind of fighting. I supported McCain (barely) because he espoused views and had a record of fighting Big Government, earmarking, and the political corruption that the Rs tolerated to easily. I hope he shifts that view toward the middle. Ditto judges. Ditto GWOT. Ditto free market health care. Ditto school choice. Ditto nuclear power.
To dwell on one example. McCain is considered in the media to a pro-life moderate. There are very few pro-lifers that the MSM calls moderate. To be a "moderate R" you usually have to be pro-choice. I think that is a great opportunity for pro-lifers to move from being only conservative to having pro-life moderates.
He's not perfect. But he can be a vehicle for shifting the middle on several major issues and his image as "moderate" or "maverick" helps in those efforts.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Your framework gives the MSM too much power
by JSobieski
I don't care who the "MSM calls moderate." In fact, that "favorable" label may be the cause of a lot of distrust by people who do the heavy lifting of trying to move public opinion (such people are NEVER referred to as moderates by the MSM).
True: Rs generally have to be pro-choice to be "moderate" ...
by Martin A. Knight
... in the MSM's eyes, while a pro-choice Democrat can still be a "moderate." The same goes for a whole lot of other issues.
It's no more than the natural consequence of having a national media that is 90+% Democrat; a Democrat only need moderate his tone to be labeled a "moderate" while a Republican needs to take several steps to the Left of the standard issue Republican in both word and deed to earn the same sobriquet.
McCain's Maverick Act has given him something of a teflon coating and something of the reputation to match. I doubt that the MSM would have given him all that armor if they had thought that it was possible he could win the GOP nomination after all that has happened since CFR.
I do see where you're coming from though, Adam; there is a possibility that because of his "moderate" reputation, a lot of swing voters would identify his positions as being moderate centrist positions simply because he holds them.
Martin
by Adam C
it's my glass half full optimism on display :)
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
EPU--your effort in admirable
by JSobieski
but I think you now realize that no resolution will be reached.
The two issues that they really want resolved can't be resolved:
(1) They want to call McCain conservative (which in turn serves to define what conservatism is with a definition that you and I cannot accept)
(2) They don't want others to voice opinions about what conservatism is that is contrary to point 1 (something that serves to define what conservatiusm is in a matter that we cannot accept)
Bottom Line: They want to define conservatism broadly so that McCain is included, and we to define conservatism more narrowly, so that people need to strive to fall under the term.
No J
by Adam C
We want people to stop writing anti-McCain diaries. That's it. We can have this who's a true conservative debate all we want. But we don't want the "McCain sucks. He denounced me when he denounced the NC GOP ad. Does he even want my vote. He's no conservative. I'll vote Constitution Party to teach him a lesson. Woe is me" diaries.
That's what we want.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
ah, so you don't mind the comments?
by JSobieski
ok. I now understand your position.
I have never seen the "diaries" and being a different animal as the "comments" but I do understand what you are getting at.
J
by Adam C
My general feeling is that the fights stem from the anti-McCain diaries. My responses are almost always in those diaries or discussions about them (i.e. commenting on the upside down logos elsewhere). Thus, I think if the concerted anti-McCain efforts stop, it will pretty much end most of these fights.
If things are done in a "help McCain win" mentality, rather than a "McCain sucks and hates me" mentality, defensiveness would subside.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Honestly, I didn't read it
by Adam C
I know what people's view of La Raza is. But I also know members of the group and people who work there. There is a big disconnect somewhere in all of this and I don't want to get in the middle of it.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
If you investigate La Raza’s Form 990 tax filing (page 36), you will find that this organization has contributed money to the MEChA organization. They have specifically supported the Georgetown University chapter and you will be shocked at some of the things you will find on the chapter's website. Even more shocking is that this isn't a case of a loose cannon giving the rest of MEChA a bad name. Read the national constitution for yourself.
MEChA is a militant, violent and racist organization with a separatist agenda. Their motto is: “For those of our race, everything. For those outside of it, nothing.” This organization believes that the southwest United States (Aztlan) was stolen from Mexico. In the preamble of their national constitution, their stated purpose is to “[liberate] Aztlan.”
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/illegal-aliens-home-depot.html
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=270083444477912
Hillary knew Ayers and Wright had visited the White House. She knew people's view of them and really didn't want to talk about it given the disconnect between the truth about them and the line dems have used for years to name call the criticizers of the radical groups they pander to for money and and votes.
My hopes for the dem party were dashed due to such "disconnections."
I left that party.
I have hopes for the GOP. Hope they aren't dashed July 15.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
That was offered.
by E Pluribus Unum
It was nowhere near enough for you.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
And my first comment was
by Adam C
This is generally a fair deal. I took issue with the idea that there are two groups "TrueConservatives" and McCain supporters who are fighting. I still don't buy that. And I still don't buy that people should never say McCain is a conservative if they believe it.
But I think almost all of these fights have started because of anti-McCain diaries, logo flipping, etc. I just don't see many/any diaries attacking Fred or Fred supporters. I do see diaries that go "McCain pokes conservatives again. He denounced the NC GOP ad and that insulted me. Does he even want my vote? Why does he have to hate me so much?"
Unsurprisingly this leads to fights between those trying to help the GOP win and those who are venting in a negative way.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Thanks Adam. All my firepower is to my Left as requested. :-)
by Martin A. Knight
OTOH, the media covered it as "McCain promises same judicial appointments as Bush." McCain can't have a lot of articles that say "McCain promises X just like Bush."
He needs to play up the break with the past Rs and Bush on earmarks by talking about the veto pen more. He has to continue emphasizing a different strategy in Iraq and some (even if only symbolic) break with past Iraq strategy.
Neither of those are moves to the "center" but breaks with the past R practice that was rejected solidly.
I agree. It's all a matter of marketing since Bush is now an albatross around our necks and unfortunately quite comfortable with being one. Sadly, he can take one or two simple even if extraordinary steps and raise his numbers but he won't.
And second, McCain, weirdly enough, thanks to so many years of being feted as a "Maverick" by the same media attacking him today is one of the best positioned people to make their lives miserable.
Agreed on the last paragraph
by Dan McLaughlin
McCain needs to vigorously defend his positions and define contrasts with Obama on the areas where he is conservative - and he also needs to do the same where he is moderate and Obama is far to the left (e.g., immigration - McCain's preferred position is center-left, but Obama's advocacy of drivers' licenses for illegals is far-left). But we should not expect him to move any further, much as I'd specifically like to budge him on ANWR and stem cells.
You always try to blur the distinctions on some issues. Bush did it, Reagan did it. But that's a defensive crouch to protect an exposed flank; you don't win elections on those issues, you win on the issues where you draw a contrast.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Well said Dan.
by Adam C
And I actually think McCain really wants to win on the issues. His denouncing the NC GOP ad was more about the fact that he doesn't want to win b/c of the Wright controversy. He wants to show a contrast of ideas and have people choose his ideas over the Ds. I hope that works.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Not necessarily more
by KyleH
The swing voters are looking for someone who stands for something and honestly, vigorously defends what he believes. For them, it is not necessarily about being in the right, left, or center (as long as you are not too far out). For us who believe in conservative principles, we should be able to nudge our candidate to support those principles without worrying about loosing the swing voters.
If Moving to The Center was Good, I'd Move There
by Repair Man Jack
I'd try and blog on some lame sight like "Centerfield", or "A moderate Voice." Moving to the center isn't good, because the center has been shifted to the sinister repeatedly since 1988. The worst overarching legacy of the Bush-Clinton-Bush Axis of Mediocrity has to be this. They've made America more like the enemy that Ronald Reagan finally dispatched in the last throes of The Cold War.
Moving to the center by today's standards is moving too far left of what America should be to be countenanced. McCain should ditch being "liked." He will never truely be liked if he knuckles under to an easy wrong.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
Marketing challenge
by shooflyguy68
In my opinion, the challenge is convincing voters that the last 8 years have not entirely been an great example of Conservative values and governance. Run away spending and huge deficits are not hallmarks of conservative governments. McCain will have to try to remind voters about the 80's and the last truly conservative presidency. While some of remember the Reagan years, most voters only have faint memories. Also, can McCain keep from alienating the base if he distances himself too much from a sitting president? I'm not sure, but I think he is the best man to try.
Opening for McCain
by KyleH
I agree with you, shoofly. I think this gives McCain an opportunity to play maverick but from the right-center position. He should be saying that Republicans pols have lost their way and need to return to principles. Will he do this or follow the siren song of playing the moderate maverick? As much as I am worried about McCain, I am scared silly about the GOP congressional leadership. They still don't have a clue. How many elections do they need to get trashed before they return to conservative principles?
I'm a liberal, so take with as much salt as desired.
by CrabCakes
In my opinion, for McCain to win, he needs to do exactly what you've advised. I think in real terms, however, to take your advice he'd have to do two things that he's unlikely to do:
1) Abandon many older frames. You rightly point to many recent Democratic frames, but Republicans had their share of very successful frames, as well. Perhaps the best example of this is opposition to "big government." Unfortunately (for Republicans at least), like all frames, this one has lost much of its lustre. Many people today hear opposition to "big government" and they think "Katrina," privatizing Social Security, and other areas where they actually want MORE government involvement, rather than less. (NB: I'm not arguing that Katrina was Bush's fault or that privatizing SS is a bad thing; I'm just saying from a PR perspective, both were bad for the GOP.) In short, "big government" doesn't pack the punch it used to. A possible "reframing" of this issue would be to harp on "irresponsible/incompetent government." I believe that McCain is doing this to a degree, but the Dems are beating him on it at present. Every time that McCain uses Reagan era frames to address current situations, it makes him sound out of touch.
2) Run as far as possible from Bush. Rightly or wrongly, Bush is an albatross around the neck of McCain and the rest of the GOP. McCain needs to make it clear that he agrees that the last eight years have been horrendous. He needs to point out every point of disagreement between him and the current administration and paint Bush's positions on those issues as the reason for the past eight years. He should play down any points of similarity, as any time he sounds remotely like Bush, the DNC is going to run ads with video of McCain's speech alongside a video of Bush saying something similar following by: "Do you really want a third Bush term?"
Like I said, I'm not trying to argue that it is right or wrong that the current landscape is what it is, but if McCain is going to win, he has to face the reality ahead of him. I don't think that the GOP is creative enough to significantly reframe its positions before November or that McCain is willing to run as far as he needs to from Bush, but that's what needs to happen for him to win.
do you people who are saying his even know the amount of money he brings in for Republican's? do you? he is like a rock star in Republican circles...and you can distance yourself somewhat but I am here to tell you in the BASE you best be careful how much.....of course I will guess those who say such a thing are listening to the media wing of the Democrat party.
eedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
28% Job Approval 67% Dissaproval
by shooflyguy68
You are right to say that President Bush is admired and even loved within the GOP community. Unfortunately, less than 30% of American voters self-identify as Republican right now. This is about winning the election, not about not hurting President Bush's feelings.
Jaded - I hate to agree with CrabCakes. But he's right.
by Martin A. Knight
Bush is an albatross around our necks.
And the unfortunate thing is that it's his own fault because he chose to sacrifice himself on the altar of the New Tone™.
I think he can change this.
But it'll take some doing.
only tell you that when he supports someone and requests money for them I and quite a number of my conservative friends give!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I've seen you say this twice today
by simpson316
and for the life of me I can't see what Bush could do to change opinion short of ending/winning the war.
What are you suggesting that he do?
Now also found at The Minority Report
What Bush could do
by E Pluribus Unum
If I may presume to speak for Martin:
Bush could DEFEND himself, his administration, his choices, his troops. He has the bully pulpit, although he's used it maybe 3 or 4 times in 8 years. Loudly, forcefully, eloquently (he has writers), and most of all, OFTEN - make his case to the American people.
That is what he could do.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
from the top of his lungs how his choices were not always correct but he believed them to be right and when he recognized they were not he took another look and fixed them....this administration has not been very good at that.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Thanks EPU ... That's indeed what he could do.
by Martin A. Knight
Pollyannish though this may sound, I would suggest;
A series of no-holds barred (and publicized as such) interviews sponsored by the RNC asking the President submitted questions by the public in which he addresses all the "controversies" during his term, including (of course) Iraq, pre-War Intelligence, Katrina (where he can lionize the Coast Guard's performance and educate Americans about local authorities' responsibilities), the economy, PlameGate, the Terrorist Contact Surveillance "controversy", the Press, etc.
Have everything posted on YouTube on a weekly basis - and have the White House and RNC's contingent of Press Secretaries unleash the hell (sc*ew the New Tone™) on the so-called "journalists" in the White House Press Room when they protest about their carefully constructed tissue/narrative of lies getting challenged after eight years of silence.
Well ... one can fantasize, eh?
Fair enough.
by simpson316
I just think that it may be too late.
It is worth trying though.
Now also found at The Minority Report
I wish I could say I 100% disagree. [n/t]
by Martin A. Knight
I'm simply looking at the polls.
by CrabCakes
Bush's approval rating hovering around 30%. The percentage of Americans who identify as Republicans float around the same number. It's not hard to draw the conclusion that Bush is highly unpopular in every circle except the base. If the DNC can effectively make the argument that McCain is just like Bush, then he's toast.
Let Bush raise all the money for the RNC that he wants. I'm just saying that McCain should stress where he is different from Bush and convince voters that it is these differences that made Bush so bad. I'm not saying that he should run to the middle, change any of his positions, etc.
Clinging to Bush is hoping to win by rallying the base. That worked for Bush because the base used to be larger. To win this time around, McCain has to convince a lot more independents that he thinks like they do. He can't do that if he's seen as Bush the sequel.
says they will be having even more voted in....those polls on the President mean nothing...and let me be clear here I and my Conservative friends don't "CLING" to the President we love and respect this President and the good Senator better recognize that fact.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
You are right that Congress is polling low,
by CrabCakes
but people don't vote for "Congress," they vote for a senator or representative. That's why Congress' approval rating almost never rises above 50, but incumbents almost always get reelected. If a senator or representative were to run as the "More Congress" candidate, though, I doubt they'd have an office near the capitol next January. In short, the analogy doesn't hold.
If, as you seem to imply, McCain will be abandoned by the base for distancing himself from Bush, then he has no chance at all. He can't win without his base and a sizable chunk of independents. The only way he's getting the latter is by putting some air between himself and Bush. If that costs him the former, then he has no chance at all.
McCain won't hurt himself by distancing himself....
by St. Louis Conservative
...from Bush, particularly if he distances himself on things like limiting government and lowering spending. He will also run against Bush's record on the first few years of Iraq, when McCain was calling for the Petraeus strategy. I think that message will resonate.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
all those things but I am saying he should not be disrespectful to the President.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Hmmm...
by zroxx
The guy who championed Medicare Part D and the liberal-to-the-core NCLB is a Republican rock star? Really?
The brand may not just be damaged. It's sounding downright toxic.
Alito and Roberts after some fighting of course and he has never backed down one bit against the Democrats on the GWOT...not one bit...so yes he is.
The brand is fine just got to get away from the "compassionate" portion because that always leads to bigger government....I am not saying we cannot have heart but compassion is a word that means big money in government!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Well...
by zroxx
In short, "big government" doesn't pack the punch it used to. A possible "reframing" of this issue would be to harp on "irresponsible/incompetent government."
It doesn't pack as much punch for (R)'s because their last go around in power demonstrated they can be just as much for big government as their (D) counterparts.
It also doesn't pack much punch when it's used as a bullet point with the assumption that everyone knows what "smaller government" implies. (R)'s have got to start connecting tax cuts with reduced spending (aka reduced government size). The idea of everyone in America sending their cash to Central Planning and trusting that our Glorious Leaders are going to make informed decisions about how to dole the money right back out to each state has got to be exposed for the farce it is. NCLB would have been a great way to demonstrate the folly - and yes, irresponsibility and waste - of such thinking, but I guess it may not be the best example for (R)'s from a practical standpoint, given its sourcing.
When you can point to federal programs that don't need to be federal programs, and which don't have any Constitutional support as federal activities, and express the results of returning those activities to the states where they may well be ended entirely in terms of tax savings, it's going to be much easier to convince people that smaller government is better government.
When you point out that the sorts of coerced charity (e.g. "Bush has undermined himself by asking for unrelated spending items of his own, including $770 million for international food aid" [cite]) that big government gets involved in is really a matter of forcibly taking money from every American and directing it to places that those Americans never would have willfully chosen to give to versus their preferred charitable causes, then you're going to get more people thinking about how big government fundamentally takes away their liberty in surprising ways.
The biggest problem for (R)'s on this message, it seems to me, is a belief that talking the talking and then walking in the opposite direction will be persuasive. Now McCain seems to be making some big promises re: earmarks and vetoes, well thats fantastic in my opinion, but I hope he unleashes some real detail and takes this approach to making the case for smaller government to the people, it would make for a sizable distinction between himself and his competition.
While I think that "big government" is effective
by CrabCakes
among conservatives as a rallying cry, I'm skeptical of its effectiveness among independents.
The truth is, lots of independents LIKE many government programs. They like Social Security and Medicare, they're intrigued by the idea of government subsidized healthcare, and calling those things "big government" isn't going to make them like them any less. While you might argue that if someone explained to these folks how government programs "take away their freedom" or some such they would stop liking them, I don't see many minds changing between now and November, especially since conservatives have been preaching that message for decades.
Even the mantra "the Democrats will raise your taxes" isn't the silver bullet that it used to be, since the Democrats have successfully frame the argument in such a way that most Americans can't hear the words "tax cuts" without mentally following them with "for the rich."
I guess what I'm saying is that while small government and low taxes might be defensible as policy, they aren't the issues to run on this time around. People want efficient/competent government, and every time McCain talks about small government and taxes, he sounds like he's stuck in the Reagan Era. He needs to show that he understands the issues that concern people today, that he has (conservative) solutions to those problems, and that they aren't the same solutions that Bush has been offering. Preaching against "big government" and "pork" aren't going to accomplish that.
We'll see
by zroxx
Kind of depends on what McCain actually says and what his position and arguments are. We disagree - I think it's a great way to convince independents. Every subgroup has their specific issue, abortion, marriage, drug policy, war policy. But financial matters and financial prudence apply to everyone.
People like "free stuff". Perhaps a failure of (R)'s is explaining to people how, for example, Social Security isn't "free", and how everyone paying into it will be ending up with a lot less than what they put in.
Tax cuts by themselves aren't terribly appealing to me either. That's why I constantly suggest making tax cuts and reduced spending go hand in hand. We find $10BB in savings by cutting out some un-necessary federal department? Great, reduce taxes by an equivalent amount. Congressional trough-feeders finally stop spending $20BB on bridges and fruit museums, great, reduce taxes by an equivalent amount and announce how that money is no longer being forcibly taken from all Americans, and that every citizen now has more funds available to them to direct toward those projects that they find appealing, rather than those projects that enrich the electoral prospects of a few elected officials. It actually works great for (D) and (R) voters as well as independents. If you wanna throw that extra $50 to PETA or to your local church or to a new TV, hey, it's your money and now you have more control over it than you did before.
I'd predict an avalanche - once people can easily identify the party who consistently follows through with financially disciplined governance that maximizes the liberty of Americans with regards to their own money, then that party will command ever increasing degrees of trust.
Most people like liberty. Most people like spending their own money. We don't need to eliminate all federal government. We simply need to pare it down until it is concerning itself with a narrow and very focused set of priorities that only the federal government can accomplish. It shouldn't be terribly difficult to come up with a plan to reduce government by xx% in four years and show how the end result is that American's end up with $yyyy more every year that they can now exercise control over.
The major problem there is deficit spending.
by CrabCakes
If the federal budget were balanced, then cutting spending would be naturally linked with cutting taxes. It isn't, though, so the government simply inflates its way out of its debt. (The idea that our "grandchildren will have to pay for our irresponsibility" is ludicrous, deficit spending stokes inflation, which makes it easier for the federal government to pay back its debt, all the while chipping away at OUR savings. Our grandchildren's salaries will be adjusted for inflation. At worst they'll suffer due to the weak dollar that will follow the inflation that our deficit spending caused.)
It's a bit hard to convince people that low inflation is better than free healthcare, or low taxes for that matter. Too many dots to connect.
Maybe not.
by Martin A. Knight
It's a bit hard to convince people that low inflation is better than free healthcare, or low taxes for that matter. Too many dots to connect.
If we (GOP'ers/Conservatives) try. I think it's just conventional wisdom that the typical American voter - even the typical swing voter - cannot handle anything more complicated than soundbites.
Oh, no doubt,
by CrabCakes
and as a long-term strategy, that would be the way to expand the conservative movement.
I'm simply talking about how McCain can get elected this fall. I don't see trying to educate swing voters on the real cost/benefit analysis of increasing government spending between now and November as an effective strategy for doing so. Instead, McCain should focus on those areas where he agrees with independents and pitch any "conservative" ideas in a way that makes them sound palatable to independents (i.e. "efficient government").
the short term analysis will never change
by JSobieski
there is always the next election.
We need to start now.
That's fine, but if you neglect the short-term
by CrabCakes
in favor of the long-term, you'll be expanding the conservative movement during an Obama administration.
Given that the election is in six months, electing McCain would fall under the category of "short-term goals." That's all I was addressing, since that's what the original post was about.
Well if you haven't started by now,
by CrabCakes
then it's a bit late for this election cycle.
Like I said, long-term goals are fine. This post is about electing McCain, which is a short-term goal.
its always too late until it isn't
by JSobieski
it took Goldwater's nomination speech to make the Reagan victory possible in 1980. Did Nixon's and Ford's short term planning speed that process up, or slow it down?
If we don't start implementing some long term goals, we will be a minority party for many many years.
So are you suggesting
by CrabCakes
that McCain should run as Goldwater, very likely resulting in a loss this election, so that in 12 years a better conservative will get elected?
If so, as a Dem, I'm fine with that. I'm more a bird-in-the-hand kind of guy, though.
chew gum and walk at the same time
by JSobieski
Nothing wrong with explaining things that make sense and refraining from the assumption that the American people are simply idiots.
Not idiots,
by CrabCakes
just not conservatives either. Many people simply like government programs. You're talking about convincing them to change their minds. It has nothing to do with their intelligence, but everything to do with their preferences. Changing preferences takes time.
the argument above was that conservative arguments
by JSobieski
are to complicated to make quickly (i.e. not enough time).
Short version of my argument:
by CrabCakes
1. Independents like of "big government."
2. This is because independents are less concerned about the consequences of "big government" than they are about the government programs they like.
3. The only way to make them care less about their government programs is to convince them that the long-term consequences of "big government" are not worth the benefits of programs.
4. Convincing them that this is so, if possible, would take time.
It's not that the arguments are complicated, it's that convincing people that the programs they want now are not worth the inflation they'll get later is a tall task. It has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with opinion and preference.
negative impact of big government.
They can be convinced again.
However, if no effort is made to make the case, the default will always be to slide to bigger government.
Concluding that "government should something" is an easy conclusion that doesn't require much thought or explanation.
Concluding that if the government is intrusive/big enough to do this means that X requires time and effort.
When the effort is made 1980, 1984, and 1994, it can succeed.
Even Bill Clinton pronounced the end of Big Government.
My summary:
If we try, we can succeed.
If we don't try, we will certainly fail.
On the other hand
by zroxx
I'm not sure we need to give up on having a "balanced budget", either. What is a candidate going to offer people?
a. I'll focus on cutting taxes and increasing the size of government, the debt will generally increase while I'm in office, and you'll have more money to spend.
b. I'll focus on increasing taxes and increasing the size of government, the debt will generally stay the same while I'm in office, and you'll have less money to spend.
c. I'll focus on increasing taxes and cutting the size of government, the debt will generally decrease while I'm in office, and you'll have less money to spend.
d. I'll focus on decreasing taxes and cutting the size of government, the debt will generally stay the same while I'm in office, and you'll have more money to spend.
(d) seems quite appealing to me, and even if the debt rises somewhat anyway. I think someone can make a very convincing argument that aside from having more control over my own money, I'll have a good chance for having more liberty and freedom from government intervention overall. And the smaller government becomes, the greater the chances are that we'll be able to arrive at a balanced budget down the road.
The alternative - allowing government to keep growing, implies we'll be always be raising taxes to support it, and/or that we'll always be increasing the debt. And the harder it will be to balance the budget. There must be some end to increasing the size of the government, even for (D)'s, isn't there? How big do they think it needs to be, exactly? What's the limit? How do we know when it's big enough?
It seems to me that independents typically want "a."
by CrabCakes
Republicans typically promise "d," and Democrats typically promise "b." Republicans typically deliver "a," while Democrats, as promised, typically deliver "b."
Republican's willingness to promise "d" (thereby keeping their base), while delivering "a" (thereby appeasing independents) has been a pretty good combination for them in recent history. Perhaps independents could be convinced by prefer "d" before November, but I doubt it.
Well...
by zroxx
I think you're right in the first paragraph, but I can't see the results for (R)'s in 2006 as demonstrating anything but that promising "d" and delivering "a" is a terrible way to win elections for (R)'s.
They're probably fortunate they had presidential success in 2004 given the financial shenanigans of the unified (R) government up to that point. Two more years of blatant porking and liberal (I mean, compassionately conservative) spending finally got to them, IMO.
I don't know,
by CrabCakes
I'm of the opinion that if it weren't for Iraq, Republicans would still be in the majority and headed toward a landslide in 2008, provided they continued delivering "d" of course.
Regarding big government
by Aetius728
You are right, it is not enough to rail against big government. The key needs to be explaining to people how big government adversely effects their lives. Perhaps the greatest example right now is ethanol, and it seems like McCain has set his sights on that.
Ethanol is exactly what I'm talking about.
by CrabCakes
In arguing against ethanol, McCain needs to show how it is an ineffective energy policy, link it to high gas and food prices, point out that Bush was a big fan but he's wrong about it, and propose a more effective plan.
Such an approach allows him both to demonstrate that he has a solution to the problems that are facing Americans and that he isn't going to adopt the same approach as the (very unpopular) current president. I would stress that he needs to do more of the latter if he's going to avoid getting painted as Bush the sequel between now and November.
Bush isn't running.
by kchand
All voters know this. Virtually all voters know that McCain is NOT like GWB, at all. The GWB third term meme will not work. McCain is too well known which includes his differences with Bush.
One of McCain's biggest decisions of his life will be his VP selection. Will it be 'bold' and signal a 'new' GOP. Will it be same-ole, 'safe' pick? For example, I was very supportive of Romney but I believe he would be the wrong choice for McCain.
It's huge for two reasons (at least): HIS age, and, his (self-imposed) distance from the base. People don't vote FOR the VP but, in this case, it would say a lot about McCain. More so than any others because of the mistrust that many on the right have for him.
He needs someone who will create interest in the center and someone who is able to step in his place at a moment's notice. Even if that is not actually very important, his age and the perception of the implications are important to the average voter. The VP would need to be prepared to run and be VERY viable in 2012. Something about the POTUS turning 77 during the first year of his second term would be very discomforting to the electorate.
Unfortunately, marketing McCain is like marketing laundry detergent. It's been around for a long time, is rather predictable yet useful but hardly something to get excited about because it's in a new colored box with a new logo.
Compare that to a shiny, new electronic component with new functions and features never seen before. It may be found, later, to be filled with bugs and headed for rapid obsolescence, but, it sure excites the marketing department much more.
Good luck marketers!
Swing voters vs. Reagan democrats.
by The Rebel
I think the focus on swing voters misses the point. This will be an election where the Reagan democrat determines the outcome of the presidency. They are still out there, albeit somewhat silent for the past 20 years. But with Obama the odds on choice now for the dems, those Reagan democrats in Michigan, Pennsylvania, the south, and yes, even Massachusetts, are ready to assert their power once again.
As a MA resident I can tell you that staunch democrats I talk to on a daily basis will not vote for Obama, with most saying they will vote for McCain rather than sit home. They are really afraid of this guy, having heard the Wright speeches and Obama's foreign policy plans. These are people who vote democrat just about every time, but for Ronald Reagan twice in the 80's.
If Hillary is the veep, it could change things, but I doubt it. It's the top of the ticket that counts, and you would have two lefties in that case.
I'm looking for the re-emergence of that Reagan Democrat. If that also happens to be a swing voter, so much the better.
Martin - excellent post, I thoroughly agree
by E Pluribus Unum
You and Victor Davis Hansen - that's a deadly combination.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
They have a 'lack of core principles to fall back upon' problem. To be frank, if a majority of the Republican caucus had a core principle of something other than 'what do I think will get me reelected?' we wouldn't be in this mess.
So asking this crowd to do that is worthless. It will require getting rid of them and putting in guys who actually do have core conservative values. Unfortunately that's going to take years, if it's even at all possible, and we're going to have to pay the price for that.
blog advertising is good for you
And to a big degree I think we have seen Senator McCain working on doing just that. With Obama solidifying the nomination (barring Hillary's nuclear option actually working) I expect that there will be an even bigger wedge driven between the two campaigns.
Now also found at The Minority Report