Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) has a good piece in the Politico where he hits on why the GOP lost (Hat Tip: Don Surber.):
Instead, voters rejected the fact that while Republicans have campaigned on the conservative themes of lower taxes, less government and more freedom, they have consistently failed to govern that way. Americans didn’t turn away from conservatism, they instead turned away from many who faked it…
Well said, and then Sanford lays out three principles for rebuilding the party. The first is key:
First, let’s go back to the principle of saying what you mean and meaning what you say. A political party is much like a brand, and brands thrive or wither based on how consistently they deliver on what they promise. Along those same lines, it’s important for brands to stick to their knitting. If John Deere’s tractor sales are declining, they don’t say, “Tell you what, let’s make cars and airplanes, too.” Instead, they focus on producing better tractors.
I make that point because there’s a real temptation in Republican circles right now to try and be all things to all people. We tried that already — it was called “compassionate conservatism,” and it got us nowhere
Emphasis mine. Sanford’s other principles include a loyalty to ideas and not individuals, and looking to the states and not to Washington for leadership and solutions. Good stuff. It’s also clear that Sanford is taking his job as Chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association seriously, heaping praise on Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, Rick Perry, and Bobby Jindal.
As chairman of the RGA, Sanford may be the highest ranking Republican in America to have some inkling as to why the party lost. He’s definitely someone to watch and listen to the next few years.
November 30th, 2008 at 4:09 am
I know his IQ is not high enough for knepper. But Sanford is a fantastic pragmatist.
November 30th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Sanford is rejecting the “re-branding” theme for the GOP. He is talking about refreshing the GOP brand. Not another coat of paint – but rather, stripping away all the coats of paint and revealing the old woodwork, the genuine underpinnings of the Party.
I like it.
November 30th, 2008 at 4:44 am
Can Sanford win in Iowa or NH?
If so I predict he will be Mitt’s only serious challenger.
November 30th, 2008 at 7:07 am
I like Sanford and he is right that the GOP shouldn’t discard it’s core principles and key selling points, but some of the comments he has been making since the election suggest he underestimates the degree to which the Republican ‘brand’ has been damaged.
Focussing on building better tractors is only a winning strategy if 50.1% want to buy tractors. If the GOP want to be a national party rather than a regional interest group, they are going to have to sell themselves to the millions in the North East, Midwest and West Coast that haven’t shown much interest in buying tractors lately.
The GOP really should aspire to more than rounding up 50.1% of voters and swing states to scrape an electoral college majority.
November 30th, 2008 at 7:34 am
I don’t know if Politico is claiming this as original piece, but this quote originated at CNN, like two weeks ago.
November 30th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Mark Sanford has the potential, should he run, to scramble the field a bit. He could end up being like Tom Harkin in 92 on the Democrat side who won Iowa but petered out afterwards, allowing Clinton to sweep the Southern primaries.
If Sanford were to win South Carolina, he could take that State off the table, so to speak, subverting it’s historic ‘bellweather’ status as GOP kingmaker. If so, Sanford would be a key ally and stalking horse to Mitt, who could then focus his efforts on Iowa, N.H. and Michigan.
If Mitt were smart (which I know he is) he would be cutting a deal with Sanford now.
November 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Unless Sanford falls on his face somewhere along the way, a Romney/Sanford ticket may fly almost as well as a Romney/Jindal one.
November 30th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I think DeMint as Romney’s VP is more likely than Sanford.
November 30th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Sanford is a strong economic conservative and was my early choice for VP, though he never gained much support and I don’t know if he was seriously considered.
I could easily support him in ’12.
PS: Geez, the delusional Rombots are already selecting the veep. Don’t you think you ought to wait until your guy sweeps the early primaries, like he did this time? Oh, wait …
November 30th, 2008 at 11:18 am
“We tried that already — it was called “compassionate conservatism,” and it got us nowhere”
Thats interesting. I thought that compasionate conservatism got y’all within half a million votes of Al Gore, and through some strange magic, actually into the White House. For 8 years actually.
And unless you could make the case that the invasion of Iraq, and the rape of FEMA, and the events leading to the financial meltdown were all the specific result of compassionate conservtism, then its hard to see how that approach is really to blame for your present predicament.
The bottom line here is that most people – the overwhelming majority of people who will be chiming in on the great “whtiher the GOP’ debate, are not people who intend to ask any serious questions, or to fairly analyze the history of what has happened. Rather they will be people who will seize upon the present situation and interpret it in such a way as to spin things in favor of the position that they have always held. These people do not care about learning from failure, just in using it.
November 30th, 2008 at 11:51 am
At this point, I think a Romney/Jindal would better than a Romney/Sanford ticket. I think it fly better. However, I for one would vote for a Romney/Sanford (or Romney/DeMint) ticket if that is what happens. I do agree with BobH that it is a little early for the Romney camp to choose VP candidates. I realize that I will have absolutely no say in the matter, but for my two cents, Romney/Jindal would be a well balanced ticket. I am not saying that Mr. Jindal would necessarily be the best choice, but I think ticket balancing is something to consider. Than again people in other parts of the country may have a slightly different view about how to balance the ticket.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
A Romney/Sanford ticket would indeed be a strong one but so to would be a Palin/Sanford ticket. The most compelling ticket for me at this point is a Palin/Gingrich ticket – could be very potent.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I think there is something to the point Sanford makes; there is a perception of hypocrisy, regarding all office-holders, but especially republicans. No doubt that hurt republicans this year. But I agree with Tano’s very insightful post. I don’t think the electoral shifts indicate that people would have voted for republicans had they been MORE conservative. It seems like there are certain issues in which people’s minds are changing: health care, for example. That people would be open to conservative solutions to these problems I think is true. But I don’t think a kneejerk shift to the right is the best strategy. So, I think we’re taking the exact wrong lesson from this defeat, which may in turn engender more future defeat.
November 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
#13:
I think voters would have been more apt to vote Republican had Republicans actually been ehtical and comment
November 30th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I know his IQ is not high enough for knepper. But Sanford is a fantastic pragmatist.
UHHHH…I SUPPORT SANFORD.
November 30th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Is Sanford running?? Every good conservative in the party has always liked him, including me, but unless somebody knows something I don’t, I doubt he will run. He would go well with Mitt, given that their political philosophies are in synch and they both have a track record of governing effectively and of keeping their campaign promises. If he runs, I wish him well.
November 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Sanford has said he has no interest in running, but, that could always change.
November 30th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
#17:
MatthewK where did he say he had no interest in running in 2012? I know he didn’t have an interest in 2008. Do you have a link?
November 30th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
It was the same statement – he said his re-election campaign would be his last.
November 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Mark Sanford represents where the battle for conservative leadership will be fought over the next four years – the State level. The States may act as a huge buttress of opposition to the Federal government on a range of issues. In this respect, history may see Fred Thompson as the visionary and lone voice in the wilderness prescribing His unyielding vision of Federalism (or “Frederalism). Fred may well be the Moses to the Joshua of our next conservative leader as he or she pursues the delicate balance and innovative covenant of Federalist principle. If you want to know what direction conservatism will go in the next few years one must watch States such as South Carolina, Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, Florida and Minnesota as they block federal intervention.
November 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
#19:
That’ll have been 6 years ago by 2012.
http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/local/4582991.html
I’ve met Sanford and I don’t think he’s got a big desire to run for President. One thing might get him in, but I’ll save that for when I get into talking about Sanford’s “potential” candidacy.
November 30th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
You’ve got to be kidding. Sanford was once rated as the 3rd worst governor in the country. He is considered one of the worst governors for business. If he is the “new” face of the GOP, we’re sunk.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
November 30th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
#22 SJ Reidhead Says:
November 30th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
You’ve got to be kidding. Sanford was once rated as the 3rd worst governor in the country. He is considered one of the worst governors for business. If he is the “new” face of the GOP, we’re sunk.
Rated third worst by whom? TIME magazine? If so, I recall that article a few years back. Seems, IIRC, the best way to get a favorable rating in that rundown was if the governor raised taxes. I think they rated Nevada’s then governor, Kenny Guinn quite highly also. I sent the link to my GOP county party member Uncle in Nevada – he was not amused.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:11 am
If Gov Sanford is correct, I am 99.99999% sure he is that voters reject fakers, that has to bode badly for the Romney campaign.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:14 am
24,
How badly did it fare for the Obama campaign? Because last time I checked Mr. End The War is keeping Gates on at Defense, brought on an early war supporter as VP and is bringing on his old primary rival with whom he clashed on support for the war.
It appears that winning campaigns are choc full of fakery.