REPLIES TO THE CURRENT QUESTION

Our question last week was:

What did the Republicans do wrong in this election campaign, and what can they do in the future to avoid another electoral disaster?

Here are your answers.  The name of a writer is included only if he or she actually placed a name at the end of the message.  Otherwise, we assume the writer wished anonymity and "name withheld" is inserted.

Ah, an opportunity to second guess.  A major principle of Engineering Economy is that of "sunk cost".  In layman's terms, it is described best by the old saw, "There's no use crying over spilt milk."  Yet another, "It does no good to beat a dead horse."  There, having wasted way to much time on what went wrong, I will waste a little more.  What the Republicans did wrong is they bet on the wrong horse.  The American people absolutely abhor electing Senators to the Presidency.  Given the choice they have done so reluctantly and rarely.  The notable exception was President Kennedy.  In that election, they voted for charm and good looks over proven competence and suffered because of it.  In the current election, we were given no choice in the matter.  Vote for Senator A or Senator B.  Given that choice, why not go for charm, good looks and a glib tongue?  Of course, alternatively one could vote for an irascible, angry old man who reminded way too many people of their curmudgeonly Grandfather.  Some choice!  Without even drifting into a discussion of principles and the difference between Liberals and Less-Liberals (See Mark Steyn's Nov. 10 Column), Republicans were playing catch-up ball from the initial kick-off because of our candidate's personality and perceived weaknesses of age and demeanor.

It won't take much to counter an Obama Presidency.  Republicans have to recognize that the election process has changed.  The MSM is hostile (but dying).  The internet is a force to be used not dreaded.  Image has to be reckoned with.  The MTV/Utube/Facebook generation is here to stay and they will be a growing constituency and voting bloc forever more.  In four years, Obama will have lost his freshness and appeal.  He will be the entrenched bureaucracy and will own all of the disasters that a Democratic Congress will help him create.  So, in a nutshell find a candidate with executive experience, not a Senator, who has charm, good looks and is a Republican.  It won't help if our candidate's first name is Sarah or Bobby.  When we nominate our candidate, he/she needs to think like a Republican and campaign like a Daley Democrat.

Don Newell

It would be easier to stay within the 2-3 paragraph limit by asking what they did right. At the outset they picked the wrong candidate. Since the focus was on the economy we needed someone with real economic credentials, executive experience and credibility regarding the ability to fix things. Of course that would have been Romney.  Senators, not being executives, make lousy candidates because they don’t know how to decide things on their own. They are too committee oriented.
 
After not picking the wrong candidate the following would be minimum guidelines. Never appear on a national TV show where you can get ambushed. Never allow them to edit interviews. All interviews must be live and you want to see the questions before the program by at least three hours if not three days. Appear on friendly TV networks.
 
Specifically and personally, I would have attacked Obama incessantly at his weakest points. The idea that Obama’s associations  with radicals should not be broached was a stupid concept. Not beating the drum regarding Obama’s lack of experience, especially in troubled times, was another huge mistake.  What record of serving country, state, community did “Barry” really have?  What do we know about Obama? Where is he from and why are all his records under seal?   As a government employee he probably would not survive a background Investigation and be cleared for confidential, much less what the president has to be cleared to see.
 
On the positive side the Republicans should have stayed to the right on every issue. Energy independence through fossil fuels including ANWAR. Exposing “cap &trade” and CO2 taxation as a huge tax on the entire population, with no real scientific basis for the concept that man contributes to global warming or any other climatic change. Emphasize the fact that things were going great for W’s first 6 years until we got "change" and the Dems  took over Congress.  Emphasize  our success in Iraq and no recurrence of a 9/11- Al Qaeda being preoccupied with not being routed on their home turf. Underscore that  America needs to be respected, not loved! Emphasize that until the RE  and mortgage bubble burst, caused by the Democrats' influence over the banking system, unemployment was at historic lows. Emphasize further that interest rates and inflation were at historically low levels for a very long period of time until we got "Change two years ago.
 
The Republicans accepted the same lie that the mainstream media was perpetuating, that being that everything that had gone wrong in the last two years was Bush’s fault and not the fault of the newly constituted Democratic congressional majority. The only people more unpopular than Bush were the congressmen, so we should have turned the spotlight on them and not Bush. McCain’s and the Republicans in general distancing themselves from Bush was a mistake. The two years of Democratic hegemony in Congress having caused all our problems should have been the locus of dissent. Republicans should have manipulated the existing populist unrest to focus on the fact  that the richest members of Congress are Democrats who are all too willing to have you share your wealth. Teach Fox News that fair and balanced is not some middle ground between right and wrong or a gray area between socialism and capitalism or character and fecklessness.
 
Finally, don’t try and out-Obama Obama and stick to your guns ala Reagan.
 
John F Dowd
Kittery Point, ME

As always, they granted the media, and other leftists, their premises. An election campaign where the incumbent president goes into an even deeper cave than Bin Laden, is agreeing there is nothing to defend.

McCain should have said,  "You're damn right I supported George Bush. I supported him in defending this country. We haven't been hit again in seven years for a reason. And we haven't been hit in spite of a media complicit in aiding our enemies. A media that publishes our military secrets, while hiding those of the Democratic candidate. A media that wallows in the few who abused their country's honor at Abu Graib, and felt the wrath of our president, while ignoring the tens of thousands who glorified their country at Fallujah and other battles every bit as gallant as Iwo Jima. A media that still professes the childish lie that Bush stole the presidency, even after their own representatives counted every ballot in Florida and came up with the same winner. I may have many differences with the President, and I've been more than willing to share those in this campaign, but I have nothing but respect and thanks for the job he has done in his most important role: DEFENDING OUR LIBERTY! We can't give that responsibility to the Democrats simply because they are not George Bush. First, they have to prove themselves more worthy of that responsibilty. I sure don't want to drink from the glass of anybody who can tell me that's the case. In fact, just like a certain Thanksgiving in Iraq a few years back, I'd like to welcome a surprise guest out to the stage: Mr. President, c'mon out here!"

The two could then have candidly answered every question from the adolescent reporters in plain old English at an impromptu town hall presser.. It would have been fun to listen to the crowd respond. But, alas, no harsher words from tongue or pen, than those four words: It might have been.

Guy Green
Brainerd, Mn.

They nominated a tired old war hero they believed could beat Hillary,
who didn't get the Democratic Party nomination. In the future,
Republicans should promote those candidates that will best pursue and
promote core conservative values.It's really that simple.

Francis Drouillard
Novato, CA

I'm glad the questions was addressed to Republicans as opposed to McCain because, despite McCain's shortcomings as a candidate, the problem is the Republican party.  Since 1980, Republicans came to represent fiscal responsibility, a strong military, a cost effective view of government solutions, and, generally, an adult view of the world.  In 1994, the Gingrich Contract with America gave a concrete voice to these positions and the American public responded overwhelmingly.  At last, we were going to have a government that was run with responsibility rather than as a trough to feed the majority's special interest.  What happened?  In six short years the contract was abrogated to such an extent that Republicans became indistinguishable from Democrats in their appetite for spending other people's money.  Thank you, Tom DeLay!  This coupled with Bush's "compassionate conservatism", a odious idea of big government, lead most people to the conclusion that the Republicans were just as bad as the Democrats.  And if Republicans are going to spend like Democrats we might as well have Democrats spending the money as they are so much better at it.  With the MSM's bias against Republicans giving Democrats a 5-15% electoral advantage, any disaster on a Republcan watch had the potential for electoral disaster.  Well, we got three: the mismanagement of the war by Donald Rumsfeld, federal bungling of the disaster relief in the wake of hurrican Katrina, and the inevitable corruptions of a Congress addicted to spending other people's money.

The Republicans must get back to their modern roots in Regeanism.  That image has been tarnished by MSM disinformation and Republican defeatism akin to what happened to the Tories after the defeat of John Major.  The message of fiscal and personal responsibility, a strong military, and low taxation still resonate with the majority of Americans.  Fortunately, we have a new generation of elected leaders who can articulate these ideals: Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Tim Pawlenty as governors; and Eric Cantor, Tim Pence, and the old pro Mitch McConnel in Congress, to name some. If the party can reorganize on the grass roots level to run local candidates who reflect the Reagan idealism, and learn from the Democrats how to use alternate media to get out the message as well as raise money, the party can recover.  

It has been suggested that the Republicans should oust the "religious right" faction from the party.  Most of this advice comes from Democrats and eastern elitist Republicans.  This is political suicide.  Modern political parties need to be "big tent" institutions.  The Democrats do this by assembling victim groups who compete for government largesse. The Republicans need to build coalitions based upon common values.  "Religious right" people mostly just want to be left alone, believe in American exceptionalism, and hold the family as the basis for social organization.  These are not too far afield from the economic libertarians.  There are differences, and some will suggest that there are big differences.  We need both in the party.  The differences are not that big if conservatives of all stripes can meet in good will.  The economic libertarians need the "family values" constituents and vice-versa.

Barack Obama is too seriously a flawed man to be president.  The radical left Congress is bound to overreach.  While this will sow discontent, it by no means guarantees electoral success for Republicans.  We need organization, money, an inclusive base, sound ideas, and most of all an elite committed to implementing those ideas.

Alan Weick

It usually helps to nominate someone the Party likes.  John McCain never quite made it on that score in 2008.

When you put your career on the line to back a war strategy no one believes in, and that strategy staves off certain military defeat, how does that message get lost in a “character” debate with a man who has none?  Next time keep the campaign on a winning message from day one.

How to avoid electoral disaster next time?
 
Step One:  Admit that in terms of its spiritual ideals, the Republican Party couldn’t find it’s own backside with both hands this time around. Let it sink in. Deep.
 
Step Two:  Rent the video of  Reagan’s October 27, 1964 speech on behalf of Goldwater.  Meditate on it.  Ask for direction.

Mike Scully
Whitney Radio
WVOX.1460 a.m.
WVOX.com

It seems a little silly to ask what the Republicans did wrong when you consider all the problems they faced.

1. After a two term president it is rare to have another president of the same party. People want change.
2. The most important determinant of who will win a presidential election is how the economy is doing in the six weeks before the election. If it is going well, the incumbent party usually wins. If not, the opposition. We had the worst six weeks in modern history in 2008.
3. The incumbent had one of the lowest approval ratings in history (unfairly in my opinion).
4. The Democrats had FIVE TIMES as much money.
5. The media was effectively the PR arm of Obama and the Democrats.

Given all this, Obama only got 52% of the electorate to vote for him. While the Republicans did a lot that was wrong (and should be corrected), given the above it is small beer.

Bill Palmer 

P.S.:  One thing we MUST do is make sure that any state that has a primary before super tuesday is required to have a closed convention. We cannot let the media and Democrats knock off promising candidates before Republicans get their say.