The Republican Party's Problems Run Deeper Than Just 'We have To Be More Conservative'

[Tragic Magic]

It is quite distressing to me that we as Republicans have not been able to articulate a message that goes beyond, 'Vote for us because we 'support the troops' / 'support lower taxes' / 'believe in smaller government' or other hot button issues. These types of issues are not going to win elections for us any more. Instead we must clearly explain why liberty and strict adherence to the US Constitution are the only way this country will survive.

[Terrence Abrams]

I agree with both of you. I was furious with McCain's campaign and marketing staff, always five issues behind, and about 4 months late always airing what they 'did have'. His message and conservative pluses never made it out to the public well, he only won minor campaign marketing victories while Obama got to slide on derailing anything that sounded conservative against him.

The problems do run deeper, but this links into the marketing thread also in these forums. WE, have the goods, and the solutions, so we need to reform that platform, and actuall deliver it this time to the people, both before and AFTER the next elections!

[BiasedGirl]

Yes Our Ideas will win elections. We just have to be better at communicating the message. Basically our marketing has sucked. McCain's ad's were pathetic, I didn't like them and I wanted him to win.McCain wasted precious funds running the ridiculous "Obama's Not ready...Yet?" ad as bookends to the the half hour Obama Infomerical. Are you kidding me? That's practically an endorsement for the other candidate. Yet? Meaning what? You're okay with his policies, but he's just too young to implement them? McCain's entire team should be shunned from participating and Any Reindeer games for 2010 and beyond.

Message is only part of it. Marketing that message is a Huge part of the equation from spokespeople to campaign slogans to the ads themselves.

[Jim2000]

Chris, I agree. The initial message in this topic states that we must go beyond the "support the troops, support lower taxes, believe in smaller government" rhetoric.

What does "support the troops" really mean? Is it simply saying that we provide moral and material support for those who honorably wear the uniform of our country? If that is the case, then I would argue that most everyone in this country would agree with that, including most Democrats (code Pink and the like excluded). Yet most people, including a sizable number of Republicans, have come to view "support the troops" as code for an interventionist foreign policy in which the full force and might of the U.S. military is used for projects like nation building. Is that what we really support? We speak of a decentralized democratic-republic in which the government stays out of our lives at home, yet feel a sizable presence of the military building a strong centralized government in Iraq will become a wellspring of liberty? Are those ideas compatible? That is a core issue that raises some possibly uncomfortable questions going beyond being "more conservative".

What does "support lower taxes" really mean? It seems that Republicans have not had any truly fundamental difference with the Democrats on taxes. Sure Republicans speak about lowering taxes, but do we ever propose anything radically different from the opposition? Is the elimination of the progressive income tax, one of the key means of government intrusion into our lives and a plank of the Communist manifesto, ever discussed as a serious goal for our country? I know there is some support for the FairTax and the Flat Tax, and each have their positives and negatives, but are these really massive means of cutting taxes? Or are they simply rearranging the same organization that strips large amounts of money from people?

What does "believe in smaller government" really mean? As has been stated previously, Republicans are viewed as massive hypocrites on this point. The federal government has swelled to epic proportions under President Bush and Republicans have lost just about all credibility on this issue. There was a time when Republicans (Reagan especially) spoke of goals like eliminating the Department of Education, and in the end we supported "No Child Left Behind." Our constitution provides for a rather small and boring role for the federal government, with the vast, vast, vast majority of government (if it even has a legitimate role on a given issue) taking place on the state and local level. On this point Republicans don't need to have "conservative" goals, they need to become more radicalized. I would argue that controversial goals like elimination of social security, medicare, medicaid, funding for misc research, and the paring down of the alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies would find support if framed in light of what the constitution provides. Now the tactics and marketing in this regard I will leave to the aforementioned marketing thread. :)

Though we should not allow our opponents to define us, Republicans have become viewed as jingoistic, redneck, unthinking bible-thumpers who just mindlessly repeat "stay the course" and "support the troops otherwise your un-American!" That is a terrible and gross mis-characterization, but only a very bold and positive message for liberty and freedom will help individuals become disabused of this notion and turn from the kool-aid of Obama and the socialists.

[Terrence Abrams]

Yeah, Jimmy2000 here and BiasedGirl are right on this, pointing out the correct embers that Obama's team finally figured out how to toss gasoline on (symbolically and literally) to smother any message that had come out of the McCain campaign.

What makes me even madder about McCain's Campaign crew, is that Joe the Plumber now, in recent interviews is telling new conservative talk and radio shows, how nasty and incipid they were on the travelling bus going from city to city.

Joe seems to be grateful not to be clear of that team; Sarah Palin too it sounds.

In summary, with Palin and Joe both politely telling the same story, it seems McCain was surrounded far too thickly with idiot moderate bickering campaign managers that he could not exercise proper control over.

We won't get the new republican vote with another campaign team that way.

[Michael Brennan]

I love McCain and his honesty but I told everyone I know that McCain picked the wrong people to runs his campaign. When he surpassed the primary total of delegates McCain seemed to quit campaigning for some reason. He did not open campaign headquarters, did not hire staff, did not coordinate volunteer work and stopped fundraising. I would have gone full tilt if Iwere McCain. I would have demanded full action from the RNC fundraising team, installed my own leadership team in the RNC. Began openening campaign offices in every so called "red" state to make sure I had the grassroot and base voters energized. I would have targetted not 5 "blue" states but 10 and ran campaigns there while it was still the primaries to get my word and message out. I would have gone throughout the country on the media trail to get my face out into the homes. I also would have coordinated many a Congressional and Senatorial race to show up and support, bringing the three campaigns together for mutual action. I would have been more aggressive in my debating techniques, forced more debates and kept them on my playing field no matter the objections. I would have held debates even when my opponent opposed debating, to make a point. In short, I would have been eager and ready for the general election. When the nominating conventions were held, McCain was still opening campaign offices in some states and Obama was already at the 1 million volunteer mark and rising. Mccain was forced into accepting public funds and Obaam was averaging $40 million a month at that time.
Yes, McCain is an honorable man, intelligent and honest. But has NO clue how to run campaigns.



Oh, I ran my own school board election campaign in New Jersey in 2000 and won against an incumbent...good for a man who barely knew his next door neighbor. I also was on the campaign staff of 2 Senatorial candidates, a Gubernatorial campaign and President Bush's 2000 & 2004 campaign.

[Karl Weld]

From Newt's weekly newsletter if you haven't seen it.

The Watchwords of the World That Works

Honesty, effectiveness, productivity and creativity describe the world that works rather than the world that fails.

Our goal in the coming months and years must be to move our government from the world of dishonesty, failure, inefficiency and stagnation -- the world that fails -- to the world of honesty, effectiveness, productivity and creativity -- the world that works.

Think this sounds like cock-eyed optimism? If so, I’m in good company.

Ronald Reagan once said there are no easy solutions, just simple ones. Nothing could be simpler than the four watchwords for transforming government I’ve laid out -- and nothing will be more difficult than changing our government institutions to meet them.

Governor Blagojevich is long past due for a wake-up call. It’s time to get to work.

RNC Gets It All Wrong

With these four watchwords in mind, I was saddened to see the Republican National Committee’s recent web video trying desperately to draw a link between President-elect Obama and disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

This is exactly the type of mindless, character-assassination, attack politics that the voters rejected in 2006 and 2008.

Everything about this ad is wrong -- from its sheer desperation, to its tone, to what it says about the agenda of the Republican Party.

Clearly, we should insist that all of the taped communications about the Senate seat be made public. But that should be a matter of public policy, not of political attack.

If the Republican Party ever wants to return to the majority, it must spend the next two years being the “better solutions party,” not just an opposition party.

This means Republicans should be willing to work with President-elect Obama when he is right. And when he is wrong, Republicans must make it a point not just to oppose him, but to offer a better solution.

It also means that from now until the inaugural, Republicans should be willing to work with President-elect Obama as he prepares to take office, not engage in the same trivial, negative politics that failed in the past two election cycles.

In a time when America is facing real challenges, we should be rooting for an incoming President to succeed in meeting them. This ad is a terrible signal to be sending about both the goals of the Republican Party in the midst of the nation’s troubled economic times and about whether it has learned anything from the defeats of 2006 and 2008.

The RNC should pull the ad down immediately.

[Michael Brennan]

I hated the autocalls the RNC made on behalf of the McCain candidacy, they almost made me not vote. I hate negative ads, theey NEVER work. Ayers may have been a bad man, but the ads hurt the GOP. The birth certificate lawsuits are a joke. Anything negative right now is NOT working. We need to be seen as a party that does not lose and cry. We need to work with Obama but restrain him and keep him true to the Constitution. Already Obama is going against the liberal wing of his party, most of his appointments are moderates and that is really angering and splitting the DNC voting blocks apart a bit. Let's use this to our advantage and retake the Senate in 2010 and add at least 15 - 20 more seats in the House.

[Yucca Man]

I think we need Newt to address Rebuild the Party and let us know whether or not he agrees with the ideas that have been outlined here. Sometimes I question his loyalty, especially when I see him and Nancy Pelosi endorsing an energy intitiative in a nationally televised ad campaign.

[Cowboy]

[the rider]

It's simple, Republican candidates need to: 1) Have a viewpoint. 2) Tell people why they have that viewpoint. 3) Suggest a solution for the issue/problem at hand without going against our Party's principles. If Republicans did these three things, they would come across as knowing what they are talking about. Instead, many Republican candidates want to look moderate, so they muddle their viewpoints so they look like they straddle multiple positions, by doing this they think they will lock on to the independent vote. Or they spend their time giving people reasons to vote against their opponent rather than for themselves.

[Michael Brennan]

Republicans have to stop fearing making good decisions on popularity polls the liberals live by. One thinkg I credit President Bush on is good foreign policy without worrying about skewed popularity polls. Now if he would have just opposed his party on spending, he would have a higher rating than middle of the pack.

[Josh Lerner]

With regards to limited government and taxation, we have run into an trap of our own making, namely arguing merely the comfort and materialistic reasons to favor said positions. An ethical construction must be made around the role of government and we must strive for intellectual and moral cohesiveness; make low taxes a value like any other, and argue why large government isn't just impractical or wasteful, but rather immoral itself. Frame the debate within the paradigm of individual sovereignty and posit government acquiescence as the only necessarily ethical outcome. End hegemonic government programs by arguing their hegemony is an affront to independent and intelligent people. Inculcate the ethics we believe in and mold our general package around that construction; force the Democrats to argue about deconstructed elements of their own ideology and, most importantly, position candidates who can highlight the innate contradictions of the racialist elements of Democratic politics and drive the ubiquitous wedge between the so-called proletarian coalition. And in doing so, strive for offensive consistency and defensive honesty.