Ok, I realize my last post was too broad in topic to be meaningful (hey, I’m still getting used to this entire posting thing!), so I’ve decided to break it down into its component parts.  You start at the beginning, so let’s look at why Republicans lost big in 2006 and 2008.

Generally, it’s very simple.  Republicans lost because they lost credibility on the important issues of the day.  Those issues DO NOT INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: Iraq, the Patriot Act, and abortion (and similar related issues).  Those issues DO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: Fiscal responsibility and corruption.

Why not Iraq or the Patriot Act?   Yes, I know that public opinion was against Iraq.  It was also an “over there” issue.  People had bigger concerns at home (ever-expanding federal deficits while people suffered the early warning signs of the impending economic downturn).  As for the Patriot Act, most people realize we haven’t suffered another 9/11 since we implemented it, and they can live with the theoretical problems being screamed by liberals that don’t seem like much of a real threat.  While some people may have come to the polls and said these issues were important, they weren’t their primary reason.

Why not abortion (and other so-con issues)?  Well, very simply, it’s because Republicans did a good job pushing the so-con agenda.  Yes, I understand so-cons wanted more.  They wanted abortion outlawed in all 50 states.  They wanted the overturning of Roe.  They wanted the banning of gay marriage and civil unions.  In the end, however, they should be happy with what they got (and it wasn’t insubstantial), given that these issues are near the bottom of the list of what the American people care about, and that an aggressive posture on these issues tends to turn off those who don’t consider it a major issue (“Hey, why are you talking abortion when my economy is broken?”).

In summary, Republicans lost because they lost focus on why they were given DC in the first place.  They lost focus on what made Pres Clinton popular.  They got power, and they used it to enrich themselves and their districts, confident they could buy their places in Congress with other people’s money.l  Guess what?  It didn’t work, because you can’t out-liberal Democrats.

Fox News projects “The President of New Hampshire”, Sen. John McCain, the winner the 2008 GOP New Hampshire Primary.

Most of the analyses of the likely fallout from Hillary Clinton’s refusal to endorse or denounce the issuance of drivers licenses to illegal aliens in last week’s Democratic Party debate have focused on her and her party’s nomination horse race.

Will Obama or Edwards be able to use her lack of (Bill) Clintonian skills at obfuscation to derail her ride to the nomination? Yes, that is a very relevant issue even if her major rivals agree with her on the substance, i.e. Hillary issued a statement later that she agrees with giving illegals licenses. I think the main point of the matter from the Democratic Party standpoint is that many grassroots Democrats fear she would be a disaster to the party down the ticket and that with her historically high negatives she can’t beat a mainstream republican.

But the most important issues and lessons for Republicans revealed by this event are:

1) The Democratic Party is and will remain 180 degrees out of phase with the vast majority of the American people and probably a majority of rank and file democrats on what is probably the one of the top two or three issues that concern the electorate and which will drive a large number of one issue voters in favor of border security;

2) When forced to answer questions directly on substance, instead of Bush bashing, their liberal views cannot stand the light of day any more than a Vampire can; and, maybe most importantly,

3) The reason the Democratic Party cannot moderate their open borders stance is that they know that they cannot win elections free of voter fraud.

Excerpts and columns by liberal E. J. Dionne and conservative John Fund are instructive (and read the whole columns too):

The Issue the Democrats Dread

In the short run, Clinton’s exquisite calibration of her positions was the issue. But her debate dance reflects a deeper worry among Democrats that Republicans are ready to use impatience with illegal immigration to win back voters dissatisfied with the broader status quo.
The issue is especially problematic because efforts to appease voters upset about immigration — including a share of the African American community — threaten to undercut the Democrats’ large and growing advantage among Latino voters. For Republicans, the issue is both a way of changing the political subject from Iraq, the economy and the failures of the Bush presidency and a means of sowing discord in the Democratic coalition.

One poll finding this week that shook Democrats came in a survey conducted by Democracy Corps, a consortium organized by party consultants Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan and James Carville. It asked voters to pick two from a list of seven problems that explain “why the country is going in the wrong direction.”

The survey found that among independent voters, 40 percent — by far the largest group — picked this option: “Our borders have been left unprotected and illegal immigration is growing.”
By contrast, a lack of action on health care was named by only 24 percent of independents as a core problem, and Iraq by 23 percent.
The Democracy Corps poll, along with a Pew Research Center survey released this week, found Democrats with substantial advantages over Republicans on a variety of measures. But many Democrats fear that the more trouble Republicans are in, the more they will be willing to use immigration to attempt a comeback.

This has created serious tensions among congressional Democrats. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, has risked the ire of Latino groups by warning that the party must deal with concerns about illegal immigration.

Rahm will be unsuccessful on this, unlike his October Mark Foley 2006 surprise.

Why?

Listen to John Fund. Listen to this. (Wolf Blitzer impression. Sorry)

‘This Will Make
Voter Fraud Easier’
Why does Mrs. Clinton want driver’s licenses for illegal aliens?

Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked during a debate this week if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. At first she seemed to endorse the idea, then claimed, “I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.”
The next day she took a firmer stand (sort of) by offering general support for Gov. Spitzer’s approach, but adding that she hadn’t studied his specific plan. She should, and so should the rest of us. It stops just short of being an engraved invitation for people to commit voter fraud.
The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as “Motor Voter,” that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver’s license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote.

But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen. That greatly concerns New York election officials, who processed 245,000 voter registrations at DMV offices last year. “It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to . . . get a number of people registered who aren’t citizens and went ahead and got them drivers’ licenses,” says Lee Daghlian, spokesman for New York’s Board of Elections. Assemblywoman Ginny Fields, a Long Island Democrat, warns that the state’s “Board of Elections has no voter police” and that the state probably has upwards of 500,000 illegal immigrants old enough to drive.

The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that “4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in [a] disputed House election” in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.

Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.

Gov. Spitzer is treading perilously close to that. Despite a tactical retreat this week–he says he will only give illegal immigrants a license that isn’t valid for airplane travel and entering federal buildings–Mr. Spitzer has taken active steps to obliterate any distinctions between licenses given to citizens and non-citizens.

In a memo last Sept. 24, he ordered county clerks to remove the visa expiration date and “temporary visitor” stamp on licenses issued to non-citizens who are legally in the country. A Spitzer spokeswoman explained the change was made because the “temporary” label was “pejorative,” given that some visitors might eventually stay in the U.S. Under fire, Mr. Spitzer backed down this week, delaying the cancellation of the “temporary visitor” stamps through the end of next year.
But he has not retreated from another new bizarre policy. It used to be that county clerks who process driver’s licenses were banned from giving out voter registration forms to anyone without a Social Security number. No longer. Lou Dobbs of CNN reported that an Oct. 19 memo from the state DMV informed the clerks they don’t “have any statutory discretion to withhold a motor voter form.” What’s more, the computer block preventing a DMV clerk from transmitting a motor voter registration without a Social Security number was removed.

Gov. Spitzer’s office told me the courts have upheld their position on Social Security numbers. Sandy DePerno, the Democratic clerk of Oneida County, says that makes no sense. “This makes voter fraud easier,” she told me.

Despite her muddled comments this week, there’s no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration–easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure that she attracts between 46% and 49% support no matter which Republican candidate she’s pitted against–even libertarian Ron Paul. She knows she may have trouble winning next year. Maybe that’s why she’s thrown herself in with those who will look the other way as a new electoral majority is formed–even if that includes non-citizens, felons and those who suddenly cross a state line on Election Day and decide they want to vote someplace new.

The GOP now has the ammo to drive a stake thru the vampire’s heart, and the vampire is not Hillary, it’s the Democratic Party. They can’t cry for po’ illegals to vote, especially when 911 hijackers were registered to vote via drivers licenses. It’s not for the children.
Republicans, all republicans, should demand a national voter ID law in federal elections.
I come away wondering if the Democratic majorities achieved in 2006 were possible only thru voter fraud. This country is simply way too conservative as compared to its elected officials.
Hillary’s gaffe has presented the GOP with an opportunity to achieve the permanent majority Reagan and Newt put us the path towards.

It’s not about Hillary. It’s about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the national Democratic Party and its proven failed liberal policies that they continually try to hide by bashing Bush or DeLays or Foleys.

They cannot advocate voter registrations without ID without exposing themselves in such a way that would fully discredit them with the public.

Our nominees in the Race42008 must drive this home.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
http://www.win-the-war.com/

This article was originally published on October 11th, 2006.-KWN
___________________________________________________________________________________

Or: “Is Lieberman more conservative than McCain?”

Last night I set off quite the firestorm via a suggestion on one of RudyBlogger’s posts regarding the relative positions on the political spectrum of Joe Lieberman and John McCain. My comment, which I probably should’ve clarified more effectively, was in response to what was in my view a correct assertion by RudyBlogger that in a race involving Lieberman and a McCain-style Republican — say, Rep. Nancy Johnson — Lieberman would win the most Republican votes despite being far less conservative by any quantitative measure of political positions or voting records. The result was a hearty debate in the comments section, most of which questioned how anyone could call Joe-mentum the better conservative in such a contest (but, incidentally, none?of which argued RB was wrong about his prediction of a Lieberman victory in that sort of race). As such, allow me to attempt to clear away the confusion, or perhaps create more of it, by describing the manner in which I see American politics currently aligning.

Read on. (more…)

John McCain keeps losing!? What’s going on here?? This time, a new CNN Poll has been released showing John McCain losing to Al Gore of all candidates.? Barack Obama has also cut 5% of the gap between McCain and himself since the November CNN Poll, with McCain now leading Obama by 4 points.? Rudy Giuliani, on the other hand, leads Obama by 7 points and ties Gore.? Mitt Romney still loses by wide margins to basically any Democrat, but polls including Romney won’t mean much for another few months yet.

Here’s the results:

CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Dec. 15-17, 2006. N=1,019 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.
?	?	?	?	?	?	.
“If [see below] were the Democratic Party’s candidate and [see below] were the Republican Party’s candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for: [see below], the Democrat, or [see below], the Republican?” If unsure: “As of today, do you lean more toward: [see below], the Democrat, or [see below], the Republican?”
?	?	?	?	?	?	.
?	?	John McCain (R)	Barack Obama (D)	Neither/ Other (vol.)	Unsure	?
?	?	%	%	%	%	?
?	12/15-17/06	47	43	4	6	?
?	11/3-5/06	49	40	5	6	?
?	?	?	?	?	?	.
?	?	Rudy Giuliani (R)	Barack Obama (D)	Neither/ Other (vol.)	Unsure	?
?	?	%	%	%	%	?
?	12/15-17/06	49	42	4	5	?
?	11/3-5/06	50	41	4	5	?
?	?	?	?	?	?	.
?	?	Mitt Romney (R)	Barack Obama (D)	Neither/ Other (vol.)	Unsure	?
?	?	%	%	%	%	?
?	12/15-17/06	35	51	7	7	?
?	?	?	?	?	?	.
?	?	John McCain (R)	Al Gore (D)	Neither/ Other (vol.)	Unsure	?
?	?	%	%	%	%	?
?	12/15-17/06	46	47	4	3	?
?	?	?	?	?	?	.
?	?	Rudy Giuliani (R)	Al Gore (D)	Neither/ Other (vol.)	Unsure	?
?	?	%	%	%	%	?
?	12/15-17/06	46	46	5	3	?
?	?	?	?	?	?	.
?	?	Mitt Romney (R)	Al Gore (D)	Neither/ Other (vol.)	Unsure	?
?	?	%	%	%	%	?
?	12/15-17/06	37	53	6	3

As has been repeated in nearly a dozen posts these past couple?of months, John McCain, for all his “organization” and staff and money, may, and probably will, find himself in between a rock and a hard place now that he is a Senator of the minority party that will need every single vote it can get, especially from its “heir apparent” presidential candidate.? This means no more Maverick McCain, and that means no more lovefest from moderate voters and the mainstream media.? And the stinging memory of McCain’s insensitivity and downright disloyalty to conservatives in the past decade still lingers strongly.? The only reason McCain has been given as much ear as?he has been given is because voters think he can at least win.? But, if he can no longer even claim that, as seems to be the case, then what reason will grassroots conservatives have left to vote for John McCain?? McCain straddled the fence for far too long and has flipped too many flops since he started seriously campaigning for President, angering too many conservatives, and now he may well reap what he has sown.

For now, the only other realistic alternative to John McCain is Rudy Giuliani, who usually does a few notches better in the polls and, despite Rudy’s centrism, is still vastly more popular amongst the grassroots GOP voters than McCain.? If Mitt Romney shows good electoral appeal once his name recognition picks up, then he may well be a second major alternative, but for now, McCain’s losses are Rudy’s gains.

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll on the 2008 presidential race seems to highlight just how apparently weak a John McCain candidacy would be in the general election.

A month ago, SurveyUSA’s 50-state electoral polling surprised us all by showing John McCain defeating John Edwards by a margin of only 272 to 266 electoral votes, which is only one electoral vote more than the margin that Bush won in 2000.? To illustrate just how fragile McCain’s lead over Edwards is in this polling, take Minnesota for instance.? In SurveyUSA’s poll, McCain wins Minnesota and its 10 electoral votes by a margin of only 45% to 44%.? Should anything go wrong in Minnesota, with a few thousand swingvotes going the opposite way, Edwards would win the state and thus the Presidency by 276 to 262 electoral votes.

Or, take even a state as small as Maine.? In SurveyUSA’s polling, McCain leads Edwards in this state by only 44% to 43%.? Should Maine just happen to slip into Edwards’ column, it and its 4 electoral votes would give Edwards the Presidency by a 270 to 268 electoral votes–a tiny margin, but one that puts a Democrat in the White House all the same.

Were it not for this and other polls that show John McCain bleeding his “moderate/independent” support by the buckets full in the wake of his attempts at repositioning himself as the “common sense conservative,” this latest NBC/WSJ Poll might seem like a fluke.? But there is just too much established evidence at this point to ignore the fact that there is something about a John Edwards candidacy that puts McCain seriously at risk.

In this new NBC/WSJ survey, Edwards leads McCain by a margin of 43% to 41%.? Obviously, two things immediately come to mind: A). Edwards’ victory is still very much within the margin of error; and B). Poll results just less than two years out from the election are subject to great changes and fluctuations as campaigns progress.? However, this poll and others like it can not be merely tossed aside and dismissed–these polls pose a serious, serious problem to the very basic core reasoning of a McCain candidacy.? For the past many months, and years even, McCain has had as much presidential support amongst Republican voters because they think he can win.? Were it not for his perceived electoral power, McCain would be a nobody in terms of the presidential election–he would simply be a much older and feebler version of Chuck Hagel.? The fact that John Edwards, someone with nowhere near the experience and qualifications of John McCain, can win at this point, considering that McCain is already at or near 100% name recognition and has very little wiggle room to change/develop opinions, is detrimental to the very fundamental logic of McCain’s run for the White House.

As we here have been predicting for weeks now, ever since the monumental change of dynamics created by the Democrats’ Senate takeover, McCain as a minority member is now stuck between a rock and a hard place.? He has to, on the one hand, try to appease the same conservatives and Republicans he’s been infuriating for the past decade, but by doing so bleeds moderate/crossover support.? On the other hand, he has to retain his image as a moderate, but by doing so bleeds conservative/GOP support.? The major problem with this teeter-totter strategy is that as he flips back and forth, constantly trying to appease both ends of the political spectrum, he’s not actually making headway with either side.? He’s only damaging his relationship with each side by constantly running back and forth to appease each one’s opposite side.

Where once McCain was the GOP’s “Ace,” now McCain is beginning to become a liability.? For someone so immensely unpopular amongst grassroots conservative America, who also happens to be losing serious ground in the general election matchups, I just don’t see how McCain winds up with the nomination when all is said and done.

Confirming what everybody already knew, outgoing Virginia Sen. George Allen this weekend announced that running for President in 2008 is now out of consideration. While he did not rule out running for elected office again some time in the future, his loss to Democratic challenger Jim Webb in November effectively ended his presumed White House ambitions.

It was a long, exciting, and interesting nascent campaign to follow these past couple of years, but it has now officially come to a close. Recently ousted politicians never make very good presidential candidates anyways (Tom Daschle had enough sense to drop out on the Democratic side a couple of weeks ago as well). The Allen “campaign” was an amazing story. One that took an underdog, unheard-of young Senator to becoming the Insider’s frontrunner for the Republican nomination. And a story that brought him down with a single slip of the tongue. Allen can be both an inspiration and a warning to other candidates. May we wish him well in whatever he chooses to do after January 2007.

Thanks to reader John R for informing us of what is being called an “apparent stroke,” suffered by Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD).? Should the Senator pass away or be incapacitated and forced to resign, which none of us hopes will happen, South Dakota’s Republican Governor may appoint a fellow Republican to Johnson’s Senate?seat, creating a tie, which might leave the GOP (with Vice President Cheney’s tie-breaking vote) in control of the Senate once again.

But, far more importantly, putting politics entirely aside for now, we should all pray for Sen. Johnson’s health and well-being, and for his family and loved ones during this difficult time.

Gamecock’s Analysis of Top Three 2008 Contenders’ Post-2006 Positioning as viewed from his Carolinas’ Roost (and Atlanta branch office)…with apologies to one of my favorites, Newt…

With apologies for my light R4’08 postings during my post Election Day 2006 period of mourning and substantive issue therapy, I offer a few observations on the present positioning of the contenders for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination in light of the GOP’s loss of majorities in both houses of Congress.

McCain appears to be positioning himself to be the “I told You so Hawk” in case the Democrats force the U.S. to retreat from Iraq, rather than trying to help America win the war. We would expect no more from the MSM’s favorite armchair CINC critic of every word, act and omission of the actual CINK leading our troops in harm’s way. McCain says everything and nothing. He distinguishes himself by saying we must win more often that anyone save the President, but then he tells us we won’t and can’t unless we fight it his way. He isn’t that much less of an emboldener of the enemy than many of the Bushlied Dems, especially given his advocacy for a terrorist bill of rights, including ACLU legal representation. I still haven’t actually met a Republican in SC , NC or GA that prefers McCain over any major contender, and given his liberal votes on taxes, free speech, terrorist’s rights, gang of 14, head up hardball’s butt, socialist view of inheritance rights, amnesty for the Nation of Mexico, and his mealy mouth attempts to oppose gay marriage while trying to fool liberals into thinking he doesn’t, I refuse to believe he can win the nomination. McCain’s condescending questioning (more troops, more troops, more troops) of our military leaders in Iraq, rather than thoughtful discussions intended to enlighten, convinces me that McCain cares more about McCain than whether we win this war, and when compared with other nominees on a stage rather than with Democrats on MSM shows, the contrast is not flattering for McCain.

Rudy Giuliani remains largely an unexplored candidate with respect to large swaths of policy issues, as well as possible skeletons in the closet, but he probably was a net-gainer from the 2006 GOP losses, given his outsider status. The thing that characterizes Rudy’s speeches and comments are that they seek primarily to support the President and the country, and not Rudy. For this, as well as his competence under fire on and after 9/11, including his refusal of the Saudi Prince’s anti-Israeli money, I respect him as a patriot. The mayor has a lot ahead in terms of past policy positions, statements and behavior that he must answer for before he can realistically have a chance to be the GOP nominee, but competence, guts and proper public conduct during war are not among them.

Mitt Romney has completed a sterling 2006 pre-pre-campaign from his wooing of South Carolina Republicans specifically and Evangelicals sceptical of his Mormon faith generally; to his championing of traditional marriage against a hyper-activist Massachusetts Supreme Court and Legislature to his health insurance as auto coverage via the tax code plan that operates outside government programs. Romney is better positioned to claim the Reagan mantle than any of the other major contenders, except for possibly Newt Gingrich, who has had nothing but kind words for Mitt, especially of late. Romney also has a sterling character, long marriage and post-Kennedy closet search revealing no skeletons. The MSM is curiously running every suspected polygamy case as major breaking news, but I predict that Romney will satisfy Evangelical (Republican) concerns about his faith by, while refusing to discuss theology, bonding with Evangelicals and Christians generally by recounting his personal faith in Christ. He also has a very compelling conversion story on abortion and embryonic stem cells in which he was shocked into reality when a scientist made the statement that he need not worry about the embryos since “they kill them within weeks.”

One of the main advantages that Romney and Giuliani have over McCain, is that they will not be required to cast votes in the bastion of watered-down stand-for-nothingness, U.S. Senate. McCain risks further alienating the GOP base WHEN, not if, he compromises with the new Democrat majority, especially in the amnesty for illegals even though the Fence is not being built as we speak bill. Moreover, Romney has an even greater advantage over McCain and Giuliani with fresh battles against Leftists in his deep blue state.

More on Gingrich as well as promising newcomers Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter and GC suggested Dark Horse, Tim Pawlenty, later this week.

_______________________________________________________________________

A civil/criminal trial lawyer for two decades in federal and state courts throughout the South and presently Vice-President of a multi-state real estate investment firm headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Gamecock was a SC Democrat party activist, official and delegate for 20 years, until his June 2001 conservative epiphany that led him to leave the Jack Asses of the World’s Oldest political party to embrace the Elephants’ never forget Party of Lincoln and Ronaldus Magnus. You can read Gamecock’s outstanding personal blog at Townhall.com.

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Quinnipiac University released today a survey that asked about people’s feelings toward many leading presidential candidates and other politicians.? Quinnipiac’s famous poll, called the “feeling thermometer,” gauges how warm or cold registered voters feel toward?certain figures.? Here’s what this month’s poll has to say:

?
	?MEAN RATING	Unsure/ Refused %
Evan Bayh	43.3	76
Joe Biden	47.0	52
Hillary Clinton	49.0	1
John Edwards	49.9	20
Bill Frist	41.5	53
Newt Gingrich	42.0	15
Rudy Giuliani	64.2	9
Al Gore	44.9	3
John Kerry	39.6	5
John McCain	57.7	12
Barack Obama	58.8	41
Condoleezza Rice	56.1	7
Bill Richardson	47.7	65
Mitt Romney	45.9	65

Clearly, the person in the best position according to this poll is Rudy Giuliani.? Giuliani is, not only the sole candidate to break into the 60′s, but he doesn’t just break 60, he clocks in at 64.2, almost half-way to 70.? No question about it–no other candidate creates as many warm feelings as Giuliani.? Barack Obama comes in at a distant second with 58.8, and McCain is close behind at 57.7.? Granted, people might have warm feelings about Oprah, but that doesn’t mean they’d support her for President.? However, it is inarguable that Rudy’s reservoir of good will that he’s built up ever since 9/11 gives him an enormous leg-up in this race.? Perhaps this poll will help the media begin to see that McCain’s position as frontrunner isn’t as solid as assumed–that, perhaps, McCain isn’t in fact the only frontrunner for the GOP nomination.? At this point, I don’t see anything less than a dead even tie between Rudy and McCain on the Republican side.

Not surprisingly low?are Bill?Frist, one of the most frustrating and incompetent Senate Majority Leaders Republicans have had in a long time,?and John Kerry, who has plummeted since his “botched joke” earlier this fall.? I doubt we’ll be seeing much more from him.? Kerry made the same exact mistakes as George Allen: he A). said something incredibly stupid that there was really no way to explain way, B). tried to explain it away, and C). didn’t just make a sincere apology directly to those he insulted right away, but drew it out until it became a big deal and then gave a weasly, half-assed apology.? Let this be a lesson to all future presidential candidates–learn from Kerry and Allen’s mistakes.? 2008 will be the toughest race in years, and neither party wants to nominate someone they think is immature and untrustworthy enough to throw away an entire campaign with an ill-timed?slip of the tongue.

Surprisingly low, however, are Evan Bayh, the very popular moderate-Democrat?Governor-turned-Senator from Indiana whom we would expect to have a lot of crossover appeal, and Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House who is increasingly being touted as one of the top-tier major Republican presidential candidates.? I could see Bayh’s numbers rising?dramatically as he becomes better known to those unsure independents who might break for him later on.? The only reason Gingrich is?seen as such a contender, in my opinion, is the flaws in all the other candidates.? For some, it’s becoming clear that all the lower-tier candidates have serious problems, and as many of them pick themselves off by their own stupidity, Newt (someone who, so far, has avoided saying anything really damning) seems to just float around, letting the political corpses of his failing colleagues buoy him up higher and higher.? He hasn’t really done or accomplished anything significant or been in any sort of real executive role in close to a decade now.? He’s just playing it safe enough that he’s becoming many voters’ alternative to the centrist-Giuliani/moderate-McCain on one side and the conservative political underdogs/newbies on the other side.? I have to also give credit where credit is due–Gingrich is a great speaker and organizer, and he’s able to convey thoughts and solutions in a way that few politicians have ever been able to.? However, there is a persistently negative aura that surrounds him amongst the general populace, and while Gingrich has all the personal life muck of Giuliani, he doesn’t have the redemption that Giuliani has achieved as a result of 9/11 (or the executive experience, for that matter).? Somehow, I just have a feeling that Gingrich is being overrated and overestimated as a presidential contender.

Also suprisingly, for all of Mitt Romney’s active campaigning and work in trying to raise his national profile (which is earning him considerably more votes in the nomination polls), and for all of Bill Richardson’s political stagnation and stasis in the past year and a half, Richardson and Romney have about the same exact level of national name recognition according to this survey.? Even worse, despite having the same exact level of name recognition, Romney clocks in even colder than Richardson.? With all Romney’s charisma and qualifications and political organization and hype, he can’t seem to grab a greater foothold amongst the general populace than Bill Richardson, arguably the most boring and unaccomplished contender in the whole Democratic column.? What gives?

In fact, since this same poll was taken last May, Romney has only caught the eye of 3% more respondents (in May, 68% of respondents didn’t know enough about him to have an opinion, compared to 65% this November).? On top of that, his “warmth” rating has actually been steadily decreasing over the past year, going from a 47.5 in May, to a 46.8 in August, to his current 45.9.? Romney is also the only Republican candidate other than Bill?Frist?to be decreasing–every other candidate is picking up speed.? Perhaps it’s Romney’s shifting of gears as ’08 looms and he pushes further to the right, likely alienating many of the centrist supporters he had as Governor of Massachusetts.

Thanks to all those who participated in my contest?to come up with a catchy moniker for America’s new swing voter: the independent, moderate, secular male residing in the suburbs of the north and the west.? All of the suggestions were good, and assigning a fitting label to these voters remains a challenge.? As such, I’m not committing to any label just yet, and will wait to see what comes naturally when referring to that group of voters most responsible for delivering the country to the Democrats this year.

That said, every contest deserves a winner, and I have selected reader John R as the winner of this endeavor due to his apt description of America’s newest swing voter, who he refers to as “Football Dads.”? Here’s the?money paragraph:

They are white males who are not very religious but might go to church on occasion. They are deeply patriotic, anti-illegal immigrant, anti-spending, but don’t care about issues like the pro-life/choice debate. They feel Republicans are now as dangerous as Democrats because both want to tell everyone how to live and grow the government. They are skeptics and have a #quot;leave me alone#quot; libertarian streak. They leaned held their nose and voted Bush in 04 because they want strong security, but left the Republicans in 06 because they feel Iraq discredited Republican foreign policy. And as you guessed from the name – a common characteristic i see is they are obsessed with sports. They are the male football fans of the Northeast and midwest.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Regulars here at R4’08 know that I’ve been analyzing the election returns with the utmost scrutiny for the past couple of weeks trying to pinpoint the precise demographic traits of America’s new “it” voter — the voter that kept Republicans in power from 1994-2006, but decided to shift to the Dems this year.? As my posts over the last couple of weeks demonstrate, the numbers suggest that this voter is more likely to live in the north or west than the south or plains states, is more secular than?religious, and is more likely to be a political independent than a Republican or a Democrat.

Well, thanks to the NYT, we now have a comprehensive analysis?of Election 2006 that compares demographic voting trends over the past few election cycles.? Not only were my theories largely confirmed, but thanks to this analysis, we can add a few more traits to the bloc that will likely be the “it” voter of 2008.

Here are some key findings:

* The most significant regional shifts toward the Demcrats appear to be in the east, midwest, and west.? I’ve combined the east and midwest in my analysis, referring to both as the north.? By this I mean the 18-state bloc that includes New England, the mid-Atlantic region, the industrial north, and the Great Lakes states.? This is the region where we lost 19 of 29 House seats, and the finding that this region went disproportionately Democrat seems to be backed up by the NYT.

* Not only did independents shift toward the Dems, but moderates made a more significant shift than either liberals or conservatives.

* A majority of men voted Democratic for the first time since 1992.

* The Dems won a majority of the suburban vote for the first time since 1992.

So we now know the demographic profile of the “it” voter of 2008: secular,?moderate, politically independent?male voters who?reside largely in the suburbs of?the north and the west.? They kept the Republicans in power for 12 years, and it was this voter who pulled the plug on GOP rule this year.? Victory in 2008 means winning this voter back.

Now, every “it” voter has a catchy identifier.? We’ve had soccer moms, NASCAR dads, security moms, values voters, and so forth.? As such, this new “it” voter will need a label too.? Something that sums up their demographic status in a pithy and witty phrase.? Think you can come up with one?? Then leave your suggestions in the comments section!? The winner will see his idea used, at least by me, for the foreseeable future whenever I refer to the sort of voter that Republicans need to win back in 2008.? And who knows?? Maybe the term will be so clever that it will eventually be picked up by the talking heads.

So go to it!? And Happy Thanksgiving!

It’s an important question, and one that needs to be cleared up before too much misinformation makes its way into the political psyche.? Thankfully, we now have an answer.

Since the election, there’s been a dirty little rumor floating about that Republicans lost because the religious portion of “the base” either stayed home or voted Democrat.? Now, determining just exactly who defected is key to altering our formula and winning in ’08, so if this is in fact what happened, it should be duly noted.? This rumor is likely the result of the pre-election Cassandra-style warnings of liberals, who told us that Foley, Haggard, and the rest would break the GOP lock on the evangelical vote.

Well, guess what.? It’s just not true.? Evangelicals did vote GOP in 2006.? By a margin of 70 percent to 28 percent.? That’s not a significant change from 2004.? In other words, evangelicals now vote Republican when nobody else does.? And as I noted previously, the partisan breakdown of voters — 38 percent Democrat and 36 percent Republican — was also nearly identical to the 37/37 split we enjoyed in 2004.

So why did we lose?? Simple.? Those wily independents voted Democrat by a large margin.? They now hold the keys to the country.

But getting back to the topic of religious voting blocs for a moment, if the evangelicals didn’t shift in 2006, what were the religious identifiers of those who did?? That is to say, if the GOP didn’t lose evangelicals, which religious groups did we lose in 2006?? The article I linked to above answers this question.? Money quote:

#quot;People are looking for whether evangelicals left the Republican Party,#quot; Domke said. #quot;The data just doesn’t show that, because they still voted strongly Republican. The bigger story is that mainline Protestants and Catholics left the GOP and voted Democrat.#quot;

My emphasis.? So the voters we have to “win back” in 2008 aren’t the evangelicals.? They’re still here.? Instead, the prodigal Republicans are in fact mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics.? They are the voters who gave Democrats a majority this year.

Now, because I know this question will arise in the comments, and because I feel I can give it a pretty good answer, let’s just get it out of the way right now.? I often hear conservative political commentators, particularly those who aren’t Catholic, attempt to place Catholics on the same sort of socio-political spectrum as Protestants.? In so doing, Catholics sort of become lumped together with evangelicals as those religious groups most likely to support conservative policies, vote Republican and all that, while mainline Protestants make up the other end of the spectrum, those most likely to support liberals and Democrats.? I think this is a grand misunderstanding of American Catholicism.? And I would say that trying to lump Catholics onto the same spectrum as Protestants is an apples-and-oranges comparison.

A better way to think about it would be to imagine Catholics and Protestants as constituting two parallel socio-political spectra of roughly equal length.? On the right end of the Protestant spectrum, you have your evangelicals.? Similarly, on the right end of the Catholic spectrum, you can find your Santorum-style orthodox Catholics.? As you go farther left on the Protestant spectrum, you run into your mainline Protestants of various sorts.? Do the same on the Catholic spectrum and you run into your cultural Catholics, individuals who identify with the Church’s traditions and probably still use the label, but are distinctly secular.

That’s why I find it so difficult to formulate a pithy response to a question like, “will Catholics vote for Rudy despite his abortion views?”? That question is basically analogous to, “will Protestants vote for Mitt even though he’s a Mormon?”? Just as mainline Protestants probably couldn’t care less about the theological differences between their faiths and that of Mitt, many secular Catholics are quite socially liberal, and so any question that lumps Catholics together on those questions initially seems absurd.? At least to me.

This is a very long-winded way of saying that evangelicals did vote Republican in 2006, while mainline Protestants did not, and that orthodox Catholics likely voted Republican in 2006 as well, while secular Catholics were probably the ones that we lost.? And so the trick for 2008 is to get the secular vote back, which will be an extremely unpopular statement on a conservative blog, but nonetheless a true statement, and I’ve always cared more about truth than popularity.

Update: I do want to note that the ed. staff here at R4’08 would generally prefer this remain a political blog and, thus, one that avoids theological debate.? As such, please limit your commentary on this subject to the political implications of my post.? Thanks!

Michael Barone is a smart guy and an excellent political analyst.? But his recent?column?defending Bush Republicanism and big government conservatism just must be responded to, as it is likely the argument that will be heard from apologists for the GOP establishment for the next couple of years.

Barone begins his column by stating this interesting premise:

“Republicans who are saying that the party needs to go back to the principles of 1994 or Ronald Reagan should keep (former House Speaker Tip) O’Neill’s lesson in mind: Successful public policies render moot the issues that bring parties to power. They won’t keep winning unless they address new issues.”

Indeed.? In fact, I would argue that the single greatest destroyer of political coalitions is success w/r/t their feasible goals.? Take the New Deal coalition, for example.? Once the goals that the coalition could agree on (retirement security, WWII, etc.) were largely disposed of and dispensed with, and the issues facing the nation shifted to the Cold War and civil rights, the New Dealers were basically a couple with irreconcilible differences; the coalition had to part ways.? And it did, in 1968.

But I digress.? The point is, of course any successful party or political coalition must address the issues of the day and not of yesterday.? But Barone, in his statement, is confusing issues with principles.? The former include the problems that must be solved at any given time.? The latter, simply the philosophical prism that you apply to the problems to solve them.? Issues change; principles may be forever.

That is why Barone is so incredibly wrong to suggest that Republicans shouldn’t re-embrace the principles of 1980 or 1994.? Those principles, which in many ways were our First Principles, have won elections throughout American history, because those principles have always succeeded at addressing whatever issues?are facing this country.? No one is suggesting we should go back to the 1980s and fight Communism and the Soviet Union all over again.? But what we Goldwater/Reagan conservatives are saying is that the same principles that we used to address those problems can be applied to the current problems facing our nation today.

Now, I’ll forgive Barone because I suspect that the real point of his column was to respond to the seemingly imminent conservative insurrection against Bush Republicanism, and Barone, for whatever reason, doesn’t want that to happen.? We see this as we continue to read Barone, who describes “big government conservatism” as inevitable.? Barone discusses the big government of the Bush years, such as the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement and No Child Left Behind, the bill that put more power over education policy in the hands of Washington.? Says Barone:

“To be sure, this is big-government conservatism. But who thinks we’re going to get rid of big government? Bush’s approach has been to enhance choice and accountability, to rely more on markets and less on government commands.

It’s the only realistic conservatism for America today.”

Say it ain’t so, Michael.

Barone is once again using fuzzy logic.? He’s confusing two distinct types of governance, again trying to convince us that all is right with the world when it comes to the Bush Republicans in Washington.

What Barone describes is not “big government conservatism,” but simply a conservatism that understands its limits.? The type of conservative governance that Barone discusses was that practiced by Ronaldus Maximus himself.? Ronald Reagan didn’t come into Washington and try to eliminate Social Security, or welfare, or public education.? He recognized that doing so would be political suicide, as the public supported those programs by grand margins.? So instead, Reagan tried to make those programs work more conservatively, with more private forces involved, with decisions left as close to the individual as possible, and with a more efficient government that worked better and cost the taxpayer less.? Newt did the same thing with welfare in 1994; he didn’t eliminate it, he reformed it.? And David Cameron, the likely next Prime Minister of the UK, is reviving the Tories by doing the same thing east of the Atlantic.? This isn’t the hyphenated conservatism that Barone describes; it’s conservative governance from a realist perspective, the only type that is ever possible, because all governing will involve compromise.

Now contrast this with the actual big government conservatism that has been spearheaded by the president and other Beltway types over the last six years.? With NCLB, we saw an increase in the federal government’s ability to tell states what to do regarding public education.? Contrast this with Reagan, who tried to give states more power over its management.? With the Medicare bill, we saw a new entitlement created, one that no one has any idea how to pay for down the road.? Would Reagan have given us a new entitlement?? Barone’s commentary on the drug bill was that there was going to be one sooner or later anyway, so we might as well have a conservative?version instead of a liberal one.? By that logic, we might as well simply declare surrender on all size and scope of government issues because, as Barone implies, authoritarianism is apparently inevitable.? Who wants free health care?

No, this type of governance is not conservatism.? It’s just another form of the many big governmentisms that have come our way throughout human history.? In fact, I would say about the only philosophical framework that truly captures Bush Republicanism is one articulated by John Podhoretz of National Review earlier this year, who stated:

#quot;If there’s anything George W. Bush has, it’s a philosophy, and an intellectually coherent one. He believes that the individual has inherent freedom and dignity, and that this should be the hallmark of all efforts by government. That’s a philosophy, and it extends from #quot;compassionate conservatism#quot; to the Bush doctrine.#quot;

I would say that about sums it up.? And I’m not knocking the substance of that philosophy.? It’s certainly internally consistent.? And it’s probably a noble way to lead one’s life.? But it’s more of a moral or religious philosophy than a political one.? As a political philosophy, it certainly doesn’t seem to have any roots in American political thought.? It most definitely did not spring from the Founders’ restrained, skeptical, realist ideas about our government and what it can and should do.? And it’s not really rooted in the Republican Party either, from Lincoln to TR to Ike to Reagan.? Instead, it appears to be more of a moral code that has been grafted onto American conservatism and onto the Republican Party, which was rejected by each, and which will likely disappear as quickly as it came in, just as soon as the White House has an alternative occupant.

In sum, I think Barone and other apologists are wrong to try and continue to force big government conservatism on a party, and a movement, and a country that doesn’t want them.? I think that Republicans and conservatives should return to our original principles and traditions, because those principles work, and because they win the minds of the American people whenever they’re applied to the problems of the day, from the Founders on down.? And I think that, while circling the wagons is tempting after a defeat, it would serve conservatives better to come clean about the last six years.? Not everything has to be the subject of a “dog ate my homework” style excuse.? It’s okay to admit that mistakes were made, by the president, and by our leaders on the Hill.? In fact, it’s only after we have that conversation that we can return to a guiding philosophy that is distinctly political, conservative, Republican, and American.

The Pew Research Center has released their latest poll regarding the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, and while Rudy holds a very slim lead over McCain for the top slot, he still holds it nonetheless:

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Nov. 9-12, 2006. N=1,191 registered voters nationwide. Results below are among Republican voters.
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
“Now I am going to read you the names of some possible candidates for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. AFTER I READ ALL THE NAMES, please tell me which one you would most like to see nominated as the Republican Party’s candidate for president.” If unsure: “Well as of today, to whom do you most lean?” Names rotated
?	?	?	?	?	.	?
?	?	11/9-12/06	8/9-13/06	?	?	?
?	?	%	%	?	?	?
?	Rudy Giuliani	27	24	?	?	?
?	John McCain	26	20	?	?	?
?	Condoleezza Rice	20	21	?	?	?
?	Mitt Romney	7	4	?	?	?
?	Newt Gingrich	6	9	?	?	?
?	Bill Frist	4	3	?	?	?
?	Sam Brownback	1	1	?	?	?
?	Other (vol.)	1	1	?	?	?
?	None (vol.)	2	9	?	?	?
?	Unsure	6	3	?	?	?
?	George Allen	n/a	5

As noted in earlier posts, while Rudy Giuliani’s lead is usually a small one over John McCain, he still holds that lead in virtually every single poll.? I think this leaves a lot of room for McCain to hoist himself up over Giuliani in the polls, but I also think it is now starkly apparent that (regardless of the media’s favoritism) Rudy Giuliani is clearly the frontrunner for the Republican nomination amongst actual everyday voters.

Perhaps the most astonishing change in this poll’s results is the way in which Mitt Romney has vaulted himself past Newt Gingrich to take third place (discounting Rice, who will not run)–and I believe this is the very first time a scientific, national poll has ever clocked Romney in in third.? Just three months ago, in August, Romney followed Gingrich 4 to 9%, but now Romney leads Gingrich 7 to 6%.? I think Romney is beginning to catch on, while Gingrich has been laying quite low since last Spring.

Also, it looks as though George Allen has now been taken off the list, which might account for some of Romney’s newfound support.

Hate to say “We told you so,” but check out Giuliani and McCain’s considerably swelled numbers following the midterm elections.? The big dogs of the race seem to now be getting increasing attention, as the focus for Republicans in 2008 becomes electability.?

It seems that Republican voters are finally beginning to come to terms with the GOP presidential field and finding their niche with a certain candidate, as the level of voters who claim that “None” of the candidates are acceptable to them has dramatically decreased, from 9% of respondents to just 2%.? It looks as though the biggest beneficiaries as of now are indeed Rudy, McCain, and Romney.? It sure is shaping up to be a primarily three-man race now.? This is the last whistle for any more underdog candidates ala Hunter or Thompson who want to jump into this thing–the window for lesser known candidates to get in on the race is quickly closing, and soon the Big Three will begin to dominate the political landscape for the presidential election.? I predict within a few months, we’ll pretty much know who our serious candidates are going to be up until the Convention.

Looks like Barack Obama is gaining on Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Democratic side of things–I believe this is also the first time Obama has garnered more than 20% of the vote for the Democratic nomination.? HRC still holds a commanding lead over him, though.? However, with the Democrats’ penchant for disposing of their assumed frontrunner at really?random?moments during the race and yanking an underdog candidate up to the top slot, all bets are still pretty much off for who the Democratic nominee will be, and this fear of the unknown as to whom the Republicans will have to face in ’08 keeps the GOP’s focus all the more on the electoral titans in their column–Rudy and McCain.

By a vote of 25-24, according to sources, Trent Lott won the Republican Senate Minority Whip race today in somewhat of an upset over Lamar Alexander (who had previously claimed enough committed votes in this secret ballot to be able to secure the position), which is probably good news for conservatives and those advocating an aggressive opposition posture.

Mitch McConnell will be the Republican Minority Leader in the United States Senate during the 110th Congress and John Ensign will head the National Republican Senatorial (Campaign) Committee.

According to reporters Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz of ABC News, criminally convicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff is providing evidence to the United States Department of Justice with respect to “six to eight seriously corrupt Democrat Senators.”

Of course should any Senator be forced to resign, their term would be served out by a replacement chosen by the Governor of the state they represent. And I can think of at least one Democrat Senator who, according to sources, is among those six to eight?and represents a state with a Republican governor. And if just one Democrat Senator resigns and is replaced by a Republican as appointed by that state’s Republican governor, then the Senate would be 50-50 with Vice President Cheney breaking the tie, thus turning control of the body back over to Republicans.

As an additional thought, if there are indeed federal criminal indictments coming of Democrat Senators that would spread the congressional?ethical decay?complaints of citizens across both major political parties (given that voters in the mid-term elections already considered this an issue for Republicans), it will propel political corruption up with the war in Iraq and the global war on terror as issues for the 2008 election cycle – which helps Giuliani (as a former U.S. Attorney who prosecuted such cases and as a Washington, D.C. outsider with no congressional ties) and Romney (as a Washington, D.C.?outsider with no congressional ties), but hurts McCain and Gingrich (as Washington, D.C. insiders with congressional backgrounds).

Note that until I am convinced otherwise, my analysis of those with a chance to seriously compete for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 is going to be limited to Speaker Gingrich, Mayor Giuliani, Senator McCain, and Governor Romney. While plenty of others may run in addition and deserve mention for various reasons, I don’t see anyone, at this point, outside of those four with the ability to raise the kind of money necessary to go all the way.

Give credit where credit is due – Rahm Emanuel is a warrior and did a tremendous job running the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee this last cycle. He is profiled in depth by Naftali Bendavid in the Chicago Tribune.

In the face of Democrats wising up and putting their best people forward, it will be a true disappointment and setback if Republicans elect a status quo leadership team in the House as Robert Novak predicts will happen.

As interesting and germane as these profiles of political operatives are, I think it is important to remember that the best politics is good policy. I don’t think there is any doubt that the electioneering metrics of Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman saved Republicans from an even worse defeat; clearly the work of Rahm Emanuel had an impact on the success of the Democrats.

But had the GOP not been bogged down in the Iraq war, congressional scandal, poor perceptions after Hurrican Katrina, profligate federal spending, a disappointing legislative agenda that failed to get anything accomplished in the areas of immigration reform and tax reform and social security reform, and too many unprepared and poorly performing candidates, there is no doubt that it would have been a completely different kind of election regardless of the political types heading the campaigns for each major political party.

Reporter Nicholas Confessore of the New York Times provides coverage of the first public remarks from Mayor Rudy Giuliani about the November 7, 2006 elections.

The Mayor emphasizes reform as the key to a Republican resurgence, arguing that spending restraint, tax reform, and?immigration reform should be the immediate focus of the GOP in Washington, D.C. and that the war in Iraq requires a successful conclusion.

With Senator John McCain and Governor Mitt Romney certain to run for president in 2008, I think there will be a lot of scrutiny in the short term on everything Mayor Giuliani and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the other two potential high-profile GOP presidential contenders, do and say given that they are not absolutely certain bets to join the 2008 fray.

And so it begins.? I and others have been saying for months now that John McCain will not win, precisely because he’s depending on his independent and liberal-crossover appeal, while isolating the conservative grassroots voting base.? Once he enters the 2008 presidential race, the DNC will categorize him as one of their greatest threats, and will instantly enter into attack mode.? It seems?it’s already starting.

Yesterday, here’s what DNC Communications Director Karen Finney had to say:

“If the reports are correct, we welcome John McCain to the race.? The question is, which McCain is running: the McCain who called right-wing extremists like Jerry Falwell an evil influence, or the McCain who spoke at Liberty University as he attempted to cater to the far right in advance of a presidential run? Or the McCain who opposed overturning Roe vs. Wade or the McCain who said he would support South Dakota’s ban? As an opportunist who supports the Bush Administration’s failed policy in Iraq and changed his mind on tax cuts, a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her health care, and campaign finance reform, it’s hard to tell which John McCain will enter the race.”

As a member of the majority party in the Senate, maverick John McCain was once seen by Democrats as a savior who reached down to the minority party and “helped the little guy out” occasionally.? However, now that McCain is in the minority party, the GOP will need every single vote it can get, and any attempt by McCain to break from Republicans and reach up to the majority party will be seen as fraternizing with the enemy.? If McCain continues to shun his fellow Republicans and side with liberal Democratic Senators on key issues,?any shred of chance he now has at bagging the presidential nomination will be gone.? His only other option is to now go overboard and prove himself to conservatives by becoming a Republican party hack, siding in the mainstream GOP camp at every chance he gets to try to make up for lost time.? However, doing this will surely cut off much of that independent support he once enjoyed, and would also expose him as an opportunist who cares more about getting elected President than he does about real issues.? McCain has been walking a slippery slope and now finds himself between a rock and a hard place.? Perhaps his best option would now be to retire from the Senate, but surely he must know that if he retires and fails to bag the nomination, his political career is over.? Somehow I think McCain is too politically ambitious to accept that.

John McCain’s maverick role in the majority party was once a novelty for the minority Democrats–a series of annoying but cute antics that were tolerated for the time being by the Republican leadership and by grassroots conservative voters.? But now that the tables have turned, we have to stop and ask the question posed in the song by the famous British band, Joy Division: “So what are you going to do when the novelty is gone?”

That’s a question that McCain will have to begin answering when he returns to Capitol Hill.? One thing’s for sure: As soon as McCain makes his formal announcement next month, he will become the Democrats’ public enemy #1.

Newsweek recently released a poll asking people about what Party they want their next President to be from, and then about whether or not they would vote for several individual candidates.? The results are interesting, if not ironically humorous.? Keep reading… (more…)

Well this is mildly interesting…

Of the last three times?Congress has changed hands during a midterm election, the opposition party has retained the White House during the next presidential election.

In 1946, Democrats were in the White House and?Republicans captured both houses of Congress.? In 1948, Democrats retained the White House.

In 1954,?Republicans were in the White House and?Democrats captured both houses of Congress.? In 1956,?Republicans retained the White House.

In 1994, Democrats were in the White House and Republicans captured both houses of Congress.? In 1996, Democrats retained the White House.

In 2006, Republicans were in the White House and Democrats captured both houses of Congress.? In 2008…..

I’m very hesitant to use the “R” word, as I think it’s generally misused and overused by armchair pundits and political observers, but I cannot deny that 2006 was at least as much of a realignment as 1994, which is to say that it was a mini-realignment in which one region of the country culminated its flirtation with one of our major parties by making a full-scale commitment to that party.? In 1994, we saw the south embrace the GOP after flirting with the Republican Party for decades by finally throwing out the old Democratic guard and electing actual conservative Republicans in conservative southern states and legislative districts.? In 2006, we watched as the industrial north/northern midwest/Great Lakes region, the states in which the party of Lincoln was born and that voted heavily for Republican presidents and governors as late as the 1980s and 1990s, united with the northeast, tossed out veteran Republican incumbents,?and sent open seats like the Ohio governorship — which had been in GOP hands for 16 years — over to the Democrats.? In so doing, this region, which had been trending blue for the past 10-15 years, finally committed to the Dems, producing a 1994 style Democratic majority across America.

Following is a?portrait of the government we will wake up with in January, 2007.

U.S. House

It looks like Democrats gained 29 seats in the House, giving?Dems 232 seats to the GOP’s 203.? Of the 29 seats we lost, 19 were in the north/northeast, 3 were in the southwest, 1 was on the west coast, 1 was in the plains west, and?5 were in the south.? Moreover, 2 of the southern seats lost were TX-22 and FL-16, which were lost only because of the DeLay and Foley scandals specific to those two districts.? That means 66 percent of all GOP House losses occurred in the region?east of the Missouri River and north of Mason-Dixon.? The south and interior west largely held while the country went to the Democrats.? This is pretty much the death knell?of a regional majority strategy.? If Republicans want the House back, they’re going to have to figure out how to win the whole country, not just half of it.

U.S. Senate

Democrats will?have a 51-49 majority in the Senate.? Half of the GOP’s Senate losses occurred in the north/northeast, with a third taking place in the south and a sixth in the mountain west.? In January of 2007, 75 percent of the 36 senators from the north and northeast will vote for a Democratic Senate Majority Leader.? While it’s true that Democrats couldn’t have taken the Senate if MO, VA, and MT had stayed red, it’s also true that in both 2008 and 2010, Republicans come into the Senate contest with a major disadvantage, defending far more seats than the Democrats each time.? In fact, the first opportunity the GOP will have for major Senate gains won’t come until 2012, when the 2006 cycle is up again.

Governorships

Democrats will control 28 of the nation’s governorships next year, while the GOP holds onto 22.? Two-thirds of Democratic gains took place in the north/northeast, with another third coming out of the southwest and south.? Again, the movement in the north/northeast alone was enough to tip the majority to the Democrats.? Dems also control the majority of state legislative seats.? Of the 18 states that make up the north and northeast, 13 now have Democratic governors and only 5 have GOP governors.? Before the election, this region was split evenly, with 9 Democratic governors and 9 Republican ones.

The Mountain West

It’s still light red, despite the Democratic landslide.? The House seats in Wyoming and Idaho stayed Republican, though did so narrowly, and the GOP held onto the governor’s seats in Alaska and Idaho.? Democrats did pick up the Montana Senate seat, but only by a few thousand votes.? The mountain west is no longer the GOP bastion it was under Goldwater, but if the Dems couldn’t turn it blue this year, it’s probably safe for now, and would be much safer if Republicans were to return to their Goldwater roots.

The Southwest

It’s drip-drip-dripping bluer every election, but it never quite makes the transformation that many analysts think it will.? Then again, all that slow movement does tend to add up over time.? Democrats now have 3 of the 4 governorships of AZ, NM, CO, and NV, but the GOP still controls the majority of Senate seats out of those states and won some major Nevada races that should’ve been prime pickups in a year voters rejected big government conservatism.? Again, the west is probably best described as turned off by GOP governance but skeptical that Democrats will do any better.

Future Outlook

Those new Democratic House freshmen in the north and northeast will be ideologically right at home in many of their districts and even a strong GOP comeback in 2008 will likely fall short of recapturing the House.? Similarly, the Senate will get worse before it gets better.? Republicans’ best bet is to elect a?president in 2008, weather the 2010 midterm, and then re-elect the GOP POTUS in a landslide in 2012, taking the House and Senate back as well.? 2012 will be the first election after the next reapportionment of House districts, which will increase the number of districts in the sunbelt and decrease those in the snowbelt.? That, combined with the vast number of Senate seats the Dems will?be defending in 2012 due to their 10 seat aggregate pickup in 2000 and 2006 will give Republicans a real shot at holding Democratic dominance to a mere 6 years, which isn’t lengthy by historical standards.

As things stand now, the south and interior?west are still bright red, the mountain west is light red, the southwest is a hearty purple, and the north and northeast are solid blue.? Despite being called a dying region by many, the 18 states that make up New England, the mid-Atlantic region, the industrial north, and the northern midwest have demonstrated a political clout that matches that of the New South?and the?new economy sunbelt.? And the electoral math isn’t there for a GOP win in 2008 if each and every one of these states decides to unite again two years from now behind a Democrat for president.? Republicans need to figure out how to make significant inroads back into the land of Lincoln in order to make a comeback in 2008.? Otherwise, we may all find out just what an unfettered Democratic government would do.? The dread rises.

You knew I just had to pen one of these, didn’t you?

Up: Conservative Democrats.? Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t be Speaker without them, and they can exit the Democratic tent just as quickly as they came in.? The conservative Democrat is possibly the most powerful voter in the country right now, epitomized by the Democratic majority in the Senate, where Joe Lieberman basically gets to decide who becomes majority leader.? If 2006 was Perot’s revenge, it was also Lieberman’s.

Down: Beltway Republicans.? They rejected conservative principles, just like in 1976 and 1992, and once again got their hats handed to them.

Up: The industrial north.? This once powerful region is losing population and economic prowess by the day, yet it was able to use 2006 to reassert itself as a power player in American politics.? By realigning with the Democrats and tossing out a bevy of GOP incumbents, states like New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana become the focus of the next few elections, taking attention away from the growing sunbelt.

Down: The red-state strategy.? Republicans found out the fundamental flaw of base politics this year: it doesn’t work when everyone but the base votes against you.? Attempting to win a series of fifty-percent-plus-one elections via a million bridges-to-nowhere gets you nowhere.? A better strategy is to build a majority around actual conservative principles.? You know, like Reagan did.

Up: McCain and Giuliani.? Electability becomes paramount in 2008, and these two are largely viewed as most electable.? As the GOP field clears due to election night losses and GOP depression, the frontrunners benefit tremendously.

Down: Hillary Clinton.? Because Middle America simply will not put Washington into the hands of two hyper-liberal urban females.? And that’s not a sexist comment.? That’s a realist comment.

Up: Goldwater/Reagan conservatism.? In 1994, Republicans won 230 seats in the House of Representatives running as small government conservatives who wanted to balance the budget, cut government, keep Washington’s nose out of your affairs.? In 2006, Democrats won about the same number of seats after Republicans busted the budget, grew government, and brought every social concern under Washington’s purview.? It won’t take long for Republicans to realize which result they prefer.

Down: Big government conservatism.? This relic of the European continent has been rejected by Americans.? Again.? The knives are being sharpened.

Up: Mitt Romney.? With his prime conservative opponent George Allen out of the race, Romney becomes the natural choice of conservatives who can’t vote for Rudy or McCain.? Romney’s argument: that he can be the Newt Gingrich of 2008 and re-articulate conservatism the way Newt did in 1994.

Down: The Bush Doctrine.? The election results pretty much guarantee that no political party for the foreseeable future will commit troops to toppling a foreign government absent some sort of imminent threat to the United States.? Americans voted against remaking the world and for coming home, sealing the borders, fortifying our position, and allowing the world to self-destruct around us as long as we aren’t impacted.? A cynical, realist, Buchananite view?? Absolutely.? But that’s what Americans voted for, and until voters are convinced otherwise, look for movement in that direction.

Anyone else notice the “I told you so” look he had on his face during every interview on election night?

His stock will go up before it goes down.? But judging from the guy’s history, does anyone think he’ll go two months, let alone two years, without saying or doing something that tees off conservatives?

It seems that every election cycle brings with it a new “it” voter — that segment of the voting population that supposedly “decides” the election and that, in the eyes of the punditry, will determine who holds power in this country for the rest of human history, or at least until the next election creates a new “it” voter.? In 1996 and 2000, soccer moms were the “it” group.? In 2002, it was NASCAR dads and security moms.? In 2004, the values voter became the deciding factor.? Just who then is the “it” voter of 2006?

Put simply, 2006 saw the return of the Perot voter: economically populist, socially moderate voters with highly nationalist tendencies.? Had the Democrats not courted candidates who fit this mold in a number of high profile races, Republicans would almost certainly control the Senate right now if not the House.? Democratic candidates like Webb, McCaskill, Casey, and Tester all won by appealing to this specific group of voters who found themselves once again disenchanted?with a Republican Party led by a president named Bush.?

Because this voting bloc will almost certainly be labeled the “key” to 2008 for the next two years (until 2008 actually occurs and we discover that an entirely different voting bloc was actually key), it’s probably a worthwhile effort to dissect the positions of our new “it” voter based on inferences from the 2006 election results.

First, on social issues, this group appears to be moderate, or libertarian, or tempermentally conservative, depending on your label preference.? That is to say that Tuesday’s results showed a very strong trend towards a rejection of governmental attempts to impact the culture one way or the other.? Voters told the social left to shove it in a number of states by passing amendments that preclude judicial introduction of same sex marriage into their states.? Similarly, these same voters rejected the social right on abortion and stem cell research.? Like Perot, these voters basically have no use for a government that attempts to modify the culture.? That’s why I call them socially tempermentally conservative — they want the culture?free of?government and resist governmental attempts to change it.

On economics and foreign policy, there are also hints of Perot.? Voters selected Democratic candidates who value balanced budgets over low taxes (still not sure why we can’t have both) and who are vehemently opposed to Iraq.? It’s a Buchananism of the left: economic populism,?hands off?the culture,?and the shunning of foreign adventures.? My guess is this group is also anti-free trade and strongly opposed to the president’s immigration plan.? Again, Perotism rises?14 years later to defeat another guy named Bush.

The new Democratic majority has these voters to thank for its ascendancy.? Without their votes in the industrial north, west, and?midwest, Republicans would still be in charge.? And the Democratic leadership, which forgot long ago how to manage a diverse coalition, will now have to keep the Kos kids from going for the jugular of voters whose views on social change and immigration they find reprehensible.? This gives Republicans a real shot at winning these voters back if the Boxerites take over the party the way they did after these same Perot types voted Democrat back in 1992 and watched as the party veered to the far left.? Whatever the case, Perot has indeed had the last laugh, as this particular type of swing voter is the new “it” voter in American politics, for better or worse.

As we exit the nightmare of campaign 2006, the GOP must directly confront its MSM handicap or it will have no chance at success in 2008.

cross-posted at http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock

FNC was a breath of fresh air for conservatives when it was founded a little over 10 years ago, and remains more breathable than any other MSM news network on cable or broadcast. The contrast between the way it covered the news and the rest of the MSM was stark in its respect for conservative ideas and its scrutiny of liberal conventional wisdom.

But unlike its critics claim, FNC has never come anywhere close to the advocacy journalism engaged in by the rest of the MSM, unless one considers being patriotically for One’s own country as it wages war against Islamo-Facist terrorists and Baathist-Fascist mass murdering terror-sponsoring regimes to be improper “advocacy”?

Fox prides itself on being “fair and balanced,” and compared to the MSM, it is, whatever “fair and balanced” means beyond having Combs eat up Hannity’s valuable time.

However, given the recent spectacle of the MSM’s grossly biased behavior as a 527 adjunct of the Democrat party during the recent campaign and their historical bias for the Democrats in varying degrees since the 1960′s, America needs FNC to be the “balance” against the MSM for the sake of Jefferson’s imperative that democracy cannot succeed absent an informed electorate.

How could Fox perform a balancing role and maintain their fairness and integrity?

Why not have a program fashioned after Brent Bozell’s MRC, Newsbusters and Hot Air, and display the lunacy of the MSM as well as their factual inaccuracies and lack of similar treatment of democrats and republicans in similar situations?

Why not have a program that explores what patriotism meant to our founders and to Americans during previous wars?

Why not have a program that dissects liberal myths such as the Wall of Separation, McCarthyism, the unheroic 60s hippies, the noble cause in Vietnam and the carnage the Dems wrought with their activism, etc.

Why not cover Congress like a campaign commercial with a truth detector review?

Why not provide a regular forum for conservatives to advance their cause without being constantly interrupted by an emotional substanceless Democrat?

Why not occasionally deciding for themselves what is news instead of letting the NYT decide for them?

If this country is going to have a chance to staunch the Slouching Towards Gomorrah, modern day Liberalism, of the kind that Europe is dying from, the Democrat Party is sick with and which has given the GOP a rash, must be fought and weakened if not defeated outright.

We must have a public that hears the truth told in English and not the Orwellian 1984 PC speak of the MSM.

The MSM planned October surprises to divert the attention of the American people from the issues and Fox followed along with its nose up the MSM-Foley butt.

It has got to be tough on conservatives in the beltway. They are surrounded by stupid liberals that they want to be friends with, which makes it harder to call them stupid. But the MSM libs have no problem calling us racists, starvers of the old, the poor and the children, warmongers and religious kooks. And too many conservatives just smile and grit their teeth. This kind of go along get along crap will lead either to the fall of America or a bloody Civil War.

Can anyone doubt after the spectacle on the MSM in campaign 2006 and the behavior of the Dems and the MSM since soon after the invasion of Iraq, that the liberals are a clear and present danger to defeating our enemies abroad and maintaining the values necessary to our domestic strength?

Orwell feared an all powerful State. He had it half right. The Media is imposing 1984 on the State. We must have an ally in the milieu from whence the threat is borne.

Conservatives must own and use television media to combat the MSM political party, so dubbed by Howard Fineman and other honest liberal MSM reporters.

http://gamecock.townhall.com

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

According to various sources, the top leadership positions in the United States Senate on the Republican side for the 110th Congress may be set in stone based on vote commitments: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as Minority Leader, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as Minority Whip, and John Ensign of Nevada as National Republican Senatorial Committee (campaign) chair.

A few other leadership positions exist, but those three are the keys. I think that will make a strong, conservative, articulate, and passionate team on the Republican side of the aisle in the Senate.

On the Republican side in the United States House of Representatives, some tough leadership elections loom for next Friday. The key races:

Minority Leader: Joe Barton, John Boehner, and Mike Pence; Minority Whip: Roy Blunt and John Shadegg; National Republican Congressional Commitee (campaign) chair: Tom Cole, Phil English, and Pete Sessions.

My votes would go to Pence, Shadegg, and Cole (who previously served with distinction as the NRCC Executive Director awhile back) – though I think all of them will need to recruit stronger staff for such increased responsibilities.

?

According to a recent Washington Times article, top RNC officials have offered the Chairmanship to Lt. Governor and former Senate candidate of Maryland, Michael Steele.? Apparently, Steele has not yet made a decision on whether or not to accept.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, whose party just lost both chambers of Congress, will leave his position in January, and the post as party chief has been offered to Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.
????”It is true,” Mr. Mehlman told The Washington Times when asked about reports last night that he would resign. “It’s something I decided over the summer. No one told me I needed to. In fact, folks wanted me to stay.”
????Mr. Mehlman said he “told the White House over the summer it was my decision” to leave the RNC post, “win, lose or draw.”
????Also last night, Republican officials told The Times that Mr. Steele, who lost his bid for the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, has been sought out to succeed Mr. Mehlman as national party chairman. Those Republican officials said Mr. Steele had not made a decision whether to take the post, as of last night.

This comes on the heels of a discussion we had on this blog about Steele’s future prospects just two?days ago.? Of course, this could very well make Steele a major contender for the GOP’s Vice Presidential slot in ’08 as well.

Here’s what an Arizona news article reports on McCain ’08:

McCain is actually one of the winners of last night’s (Tuesday’s) voting,” said Frank Luntz, a pollster with GOP ties. “He’s in a better situation today because Republicans will have lost both houses of Congress.”

Luntz’s way of thinking, Americans will be less likely to elect a Democrat as president in 2008, given the possibility that Democrats also could continue to control the House and the Senate.

“McCain’s electability becomes an essential component of his (campaign) strategy,” Luntz said. “(The idea would be) you may not agree with John McCain on everything, but you’d rather have him in the White House than Hillary.”

This does indeed seem to be the message coming from the McCain camp so far in the early stages of this campaign.? We’ve heard little-to-nothing from McCain about fighting for conservative issues, and he has little-to-nothing to offer as far as executive management and administrative skill.? Most everything about McCain’s ’08 candidacy thus far has simply seemed to focus on the fact that he could beat Hillary Clinton in the general.

That’s all well and fine, but what’s going to happen to old McCain when he’s faced with other candidates, like Rudy Giuliani, who can defeat Hillary just as easily, but actually have a record of executive leadership and fiscal conservatism to run on?

Political analyst David Mark really provides the “ouch” quote on McCain:

“As a presidential candidate [McCain] is expected to try to appeal to center.”

And, of course, this would likely have to be McCain’s strategy in the primaries, because he has spent the last six years alienating the conservative base.? Yet, the McCain victory strategy of a Republican acting like a moderate to win goes against everything we just learned from the elections on Tuesday.? Republicans try to act like Democrats to retain power, but lose, while Democrats try to act like Republicans, and win.? McCain has the exactly wrong strategy–great for winning polls amongst those “Republican leaners,” but horrible for winning elections.

What the GOP needs in 2008 is not a Republican who attracts independent voters by waffling on issues like tax cuts and immigration, or by cozying up to liberals and isolating their base.? No, what the GOP needs in 2008 is a Republican who attracts independent voters by their straightforward candor, their willingness to stick to their principles, and their outstanding record of leadership and administration.

Over who exactly that Republican candidate is, there’s a lot of speculation, but one thing’s for sure–John McCain’s not about to be that candidate.