GOP Takes a Licking at the Polls

GOP Takes a Licking at the Polls

Some straight talk.   The Grand Old Party (GOP) and the Republican brand took a licking at the polls in the November 2008 election.    At the national level, the GOP has lost Congressional seats in the past two elections.   The trend may continue in 2010, unless the Dems overreach the political center from their left leaning majority position in Congress and the Congressional Republicans get back to conservative basics.   The GOP positions during the later Bush years that tolerated bigger government, more spending and open-ended wars played to the Democrats strengths.  Why support Democrat-lite (GOP) when you can vote for the real thing (full-throated Democrats)?

For example, in the past two election cycles Colorado lost both Republican held US Senate seats (Campbell, Allard). These contested open seats were won by Democrats (Salazar, Udall).  And the Governor’s mansion in Colorado is now held by Democrat Governor Bill Ritter.    In New Mexico, the open US Senate seat due to the retirement of the legendary Republican Pete Domenici was picked up the other Udall (Democrat Tom Udall).   And both Republican Congress members from New Mexico (Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce) chose to run for US Senate, thereby leaving their US Congressional seats open, which were lost to Democrat candidates.   So New Mexico, like Colorado has 2 Democrat US Senators, a solid Democrat group of Congressional members (NM has 3 Dems, Colorado is 5 Dems, 2 Reps) and both states have Democrat Governors (Richardson, Ritter).    

Pundits, pollsters and politicos will dissect, deliberate and determine a variety of reasons.   From a campaign perspective at the national level, the GOP ran a traditional political campaign: fire up the Republican base, capture some independents and don’t worry about the Democrats.    The Obama campaign ran as a movement: The traditional Democrat party apparatus was only a part of the coalition.   Like-minded 527’s, complimentary organizations (like ACORN) and interest groups aligned their political resources as a team.    Add to that approach the electronic and web media, a favorable Main Stream Media (advocacy) and countless volunteers, supplemented by a well-organized Obama ground game.  The Presidential election result:  Blue states were even more blue, swings states went blue and some red states swung to the blue electoral result.   Congratulations to President Elect Obama, who was elected along with increased Democrat majorities in the House and Senate.

The Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? years are finally over.   It is unlikely that a Bush or Clinton will ever serve in the White House again.    So what will we see?   It is likely that the Obama machine plans on running in 2012.   Why not see if the movement can dominate the weakened (and disorganized) Republican Party again?    Meanwhile, the GOP has to regroup, refocus and rebuild.    More of same (fuzzy on conservative principles, lack of out reach to independents, straying from the conservative message) by the GOP will yield a similar result (loosing elections).  

But shouldn’t we as Republicans be more moderate to win the middle?    This may sound like a logical approach, but it the best way to loose an election.   In Colorado, the voter registration is split three ways: Republicans, Unaffiliated and Democrats.     Assuming the party candidate (Democrat or Republican) can maintain their base (and loose the opponents base), the real battle in for the middle.   In a swing state like Colorado, not voter can be taken for granted; most voters will split their ticket; so the quality of the candidate and their campaign matters.    So can a conservative Republican win in a blue state or blue district?    Sure, it is more challenging, but if our approach is to look like a Democrat, then the voters will probably go for the real thing (vote Democrat).   Rather, a principled conservative approach that reaches out to the unaffiliated voter and the conservative leaning Democrat is the winning combination.  More on the common sense conservative approach that gets results (using La Plata County, Colorado example) in an upcoming Four Corners Media post.

© 2008, Jasper Welch, Four Corners Media, www.jasperwelch.org  

The Case for John McCain

The Case for John McCain

On February 10, 2007, Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States in front of the Old State Capitol building in Springfield, Illinois.   Back in 2000, US Senator John McCain ran in the GOP primaries against George W. Bush.  He resumed his quest for the Presidency in 2007.     One could make the argument that both men were running for president well before the 2008 election cycle actually began.

            Now are at the point of final decision.    Many voters in “early voting states” have already cast their ballot for the candidate of their choice.  The undecided voters are still yet to weigh in, along with Democrats, Republican and Unaffiliated voters in 50 states across the United States.    The pundits, polls and conventional wisdom say that Barack Obama has won the election.   In fact, the Obama campaign is building a huge stage and preparing for “world victory party” event in Grant Park in Chicago, Illinois.   But don’t count John McCain out just yet.

            Here is the case for John McCain:  First, he is well versed and experienced in military affairs and foreign policy.   With 22 years of military experience in the US Navy, 6 years of brutal imprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton, and his time of service on the US Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain has been involved in every major foreign policy and military decision over the past 25 years.    As the Commander in Chief, this hands on experience really matters.    Senator Obama simply lacks the experience, judgment and resolve in military and foreign policy matters.

            Secondly, Senator McCain has demonstrated a conservative perspective in the selection of judges, yet he has maintained a pragmatic approach in the US Senator.   He as worked with Democrat and Republican presidents to confirm the most qualified judicial appointments.    John McCain supported Justices Alito and Roberts.    And he was part of the Gang of 14 that was composed on 7 Democrats and 7 Republican Senators that helped break the partisan logjam that was holding up judicial confirmations.

            Thirdly, John McCain is a maverick.  He has challenged his own Republican party, the President of the United States and the Democrats on the other side of the isle.   He has also worked with members of his party and the opposition Democrats when compromise was necessary to move a difficult issue forward.    Was he always successful?  No, but he did make progress on many issues.   Did McCain challenge the status quo?   Yes, but not without being criticized by his own GOP colleagues and Democrat Senators.  As for Senator Obama, his has a very thin resume of accomplishment in the US Senate.    He has been too busy running for higher office to actually get things done in the US Senate.

            The fourth reason for electing the Maverick from Arizona is that, John McCain has made friends and his share of enemies.   Both friends and enemies respect and know who John McCain is.    Not a perfect person, but an accomplished American.  A man who still goes to the nursing home to visit former Congressman Mo Udall, a fellow Arizonian who reached across the isle to help the younger candidate McCain over 40 years ago.  Senator Obama on the other hand his an interesting web of “friends’, who tend to be on the radical left of the American politic, and when these “friends” are not politically expedient, they are cast aside in favor of Obama’s ambition and looking good.

            The fifth reason is John McCain’s position supporting the culture of life.   From his pro-life record, to his family’s adoption of those less fortunate, Senator McCain has made the case for the human and civil rights of those youngest and least cared for in American.   His answer to Rick Warner’s question about when the human rights begin for an unborn child was straightforward.   In contrast, Barack Obama tried to dodge one of the most critical civil rights question of our day by responding that a clear answer from him was above his pay grade.    Really?

            Finally, John McCain is a reformer and advocate of lower government spending.   He has proposed a spending freeze at the Federal level and he has targeted Congressional earmarks and pork barrel spending.    In the first Presidential debate, Senator Obama couldn’t answer the “what programs or initiatives would you cut or delay?” question from PBS news anchor Jim Lehrer.   Senator Obama has no clear record of reform as an elected official, nor has he stood up to his own party on issues of reform (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Congressional earmarks, unlimited amounts of campaign dollars or government corruption).     John McCain has taken on reform issues from campaign finance, to immigration to the reform of Fannie Mae.    Along with Governor Sarah Palin, a President McCain will reform the broken culture of overspending in Washington.

            The case for John McCain is solid and strong.    While his opponent is well spoken and smooth, he lacks what John McCain has: credible authenticity to be entrusted as the President of the United States.

© 2008, Four Corners Media, Jasper Welch  www.jasperwelch.org