A new GOP strategy: Get back on track with a national agenda and Steele

If there is one thing this year's Presidential election brought to light, it is that Republicans clearly need a new message.

Democrats were able to control the salient issues of the campaign, largely because the actions of national Republicans allowed them to do so. The economy was the overwhelming issue on the minds of voters. Democrats were able to define the meaning of this issue based primarily on the extreme increases in federal spending under Republican control, combined with a severe downturn in the economy. Once it was clear that the economy was going to be the deciding factor in this race, the Republicans were simply unable to frame this issue in a way in which voters could relate.

The Republican revolution of 1994 was significant in that Republicans were able to define the issues of salience. Republicans were successful in blaming Congress for many of the nation's woes. Many of the tenants of the 1994 Republican Contract with America were directed at reforming the administration of Congress itself. The GOP also successfully made the case that fiscal responsibility needed to be introduced into the federal government. Albeit, framing these issues was made easier with the relatively unpopular President Clinton. Clinton's 45 percent approval rating in 1994, combined with the success of the GOP in defining the issues, resulted in a 54-seat gain in the House and an 8-seat gain in the Senate. The GOP was finally in charge of Congress. The GOP also picked up numerous gubernatorial and state legislative seats.

Chambliss wins in landslide; Sarah Palin widely blamed

Liberals are so afraid of Sarah Palin that they rolled out one of their biggest guns to campaign for Jim Martin in Georgia -- Ludacris! (Their biggest ugly gun -- Rosie O'Donnell -- was too busy boarding up the windows on her new TV gig.)
But still the Obama puppet lost to Saxby Chambliss, 57% to 43%. (Al Franken swiftly issued a statement that he's contesting the Georgia results.)
Now that Bush is on his way out, libbies need someone new to hate. The scared little darlings feel so threatened by Sarah, they're mustering their most sophisticated, analytical arguments against her, such as, "Palin is stoopid!", "Palin is dum!", "Palin is a more on!", "Sara is a stoopid dum more on hik!". For convincing "proof", these brainiacs cite their own silly caricatures of her, as "reported" on the pages of their own New York Times. (In the holiday spirit, maybe Bush will pardon liberals for committing idiocy.)
Democrats keep telling themselves that Sarah's "15 minutes" are up, that her star is fading away, which must be why they can't stop whimpering and whining about her. The "fading star" has faded into getting almost as much coverage as Obama. Campaigning in Georgia, the washed-up has-been Sarah drew huge crowds in Savannah, Augusta, Perry, etc. Six-thousand at the Gwinnett Center in Duluth. The Washington Post reacted with impotent rage, using a porno reference in their headline: Palin does Georgia.
Speaking of purported newspapers, liberals at the Anchorage Daily News even attacked Sarah merely for campaigning for Chambliss because Chambliss six years ago defeated their sainted Max Cleland, who apparently is off-limits to criticism because he blew his own limbs off in an accident in Viet Nam.
In an editorial, Matt Zencey sniffed that Chambliss won the 2002 election by "running one of the most reprehensible campaigns of modern times," which itself is one of the most reprehensible lies of modern times. Naturally, liberals keep repeating it. Chambliss ran an ad criticizing Cleland for insisting on absurd union rules for workers at the Homeland Security Department, especially the useless workers. Liberals were so livid at the ad, they threatened to go to the U.N. to pass a resolution.
The ad had pictures of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, but also the U.S. military. Given liberals' fondness for the ol' Kurds-gassing, mass-graves-filling former Butcher of Baghdad, it's anyone's guess which of the other two pictures libbies were complaining about -- bin Laden's or the U.S. military's?
Obama ran attack ads mocking McCain for his war injuries and libbies were probing the size of Bristol Palin's belly but Chambliss "ran the most reprehensible campaign of modern times" because he criticized Cleland for pimping for union thugs.
In response, buffoon Cleland went Mary Mapes on Bush. After getting his butt handed to him, Cleland spent gobs of time on TV attacking Bush for his National Guard service, apparently auditioning for a job at CBS. Cleland complained hysterically that Bush didn't go to Viet Nam to serve his country, as opposed to Bill Clinton, who fought on the battlefields of Arkansas. Service in Viet Nam consisted of "shooting cattle and dogs for fun," "razing villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan," according to the liberals' other phony war hero, John Kerry.
In an interview on MSNBC at the time, Cleland told both viewers that the lack of pay stubs proved Bush was AWOL during the 12-month period in question, May '72 to May '73. After the White House produced the pay stubs approximately 3 seconds later, Cleland demanded to know why Bush, who got an honorable discharge, left the National Guard early in '73 when the war was practically over.
The losercrats tried the same 'so-and-so is a chicken hawk!' in the Georgia Senate runoff and -- in a total shock -- it flopped again.
But notice something -- I'm not gloating! I've decided to go with a no-gloat approach, and I'm sticking to it. It's awfully tempting to gloat about the fact that polls predicted a very narrow win for Chambliss, who went on to win in a landslide. But am I going to mention how wrong the pundits were? No. That they've got egg on their faces? No. That they look stupid and out of touch? No. Nor am I going to mention how the media were all set to shout from every rooftop that 'Chambliss's narrow win (or hoped-for defeat) is a further repudiation of Bushitler', blah, blah, blah. Not a peep from me either that tonight is a preview of the 2010 midterm elections. Oh, and did you catch the glumness at CNN when the numbers started rolling in? Heh, heh, heh! Whoops, wasn't gloating -- honest!
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"

As one who has been predicting this election debacle on these threads for more than two years, I hesitate to post my comments for fear that it will encourage the complacency that led us to this catastrophe. Yes there were factors unique to this election. Primary among them was Obama's race. He would not be in the White House today were he not black. That led the press to abandon any pretext of objectivity.

But the real Republican problem is secular in nature and will not be improved by a candidate who makes fewer mistakes than did John McCain, it can only be cured by a structural reorganization that is fundamental and profound. We have a demographic mountain to climb and we can only do that in the short term with a very compelling message. We can only have a compelling message if we ourselves know what our message is. That means that conservatives of all flavors must come to an agreement which can be embraced by fiscal and social conservatives. Having acquired a message, we must have party discipline. The discipline the only be imposed by a leader so one must emerge before a message can be delivered . I believe the leader will emerge precisely because he can deliver a message. If he can convince conservatives of all flavors, he can also get a good chunk of the mushy middle and begin to compensate for our structural disadvantages.

I think it is very dangerous for us us to believe that we lost because John McCain was inept. Yes, John McCain was inept, his campaign was pathetic in many respects but that is not the real reason why we lost. It is true to say that George Bush is more responsible for losing this election than was John McCain.

We can win if we can campaign with a conservative on a conservative message. We ran a man who was at best a cafeteria conservative and at worst an unrequited liberal who ran against his party's record which was at best only sporadically conservative. Small wonder the electorate would not entrust the country to this mishmash.

I'm trying to say that the reason we lost is not because the message was bad but because the message was not conservative.

That would make us a third party wouldn’t it? As appealing as the idea may be to some, I think that it would be self defeating for us. I fear all we would accomplish is to split our power and to enhance that of our opponents. We may take some consolation in the fact that we are true to our principles, but what does that really matter when we our out of power.

Might we be better served to take back our party, a seat at a time if necessary, and rebrand it, put a new, fresh face on it? I have to admire, in a sick, stop and look at the accident, kind of way, the way the Democrat party was rebranded over the last couple of years with the help of Soros, et al. Although it makes me sick that they were so successful, but I believe that there are lessons there that we may take away and use against them.

There are many here much more capable than myself at deciding what should be done given all of the material we have to work with. For myself, the firs thing that I would like to do is to find a way to prevent the “skulking dogs” from controlling the public image and therefore public perception of our conservative candidates. They are doing it now, with an increased effort, to Gov. Palin. They follow Gov. Jindahl everywhere to do the same thing. His success or failure will be what they report it to be.

John McCain was a terrible candidate. He was hand picked for us by these same skulking dogs, as he was the easiest to pick off. Even if he had prevailed, I fear he would have made a terrible President.

Also the Republicans need to learn a few things. Until they quit catering to the rich and start giving the common worker some respect the Dems are going to clean their clocks every time.

This is pure BS. Are you buying into Democrat lies? The truth is the Republican party is becoming the party of the middle class while the Democrat party is becoming the party of the extreme wealthy and the dependent poor.

It is disappointing that we didn't do better considering the issues that were handed to us on a silver platter.

The Republican party is the party with answers to energy, the economy, illegal immigration and national security.

Democrats are responsible for all the things the nation did not want. This shows the intelligence and knowledge of the average American voter.

We have to make it hip to vote Republican or at least frame the issues better.

Remember Pelosi's "culture of corruption"? The Democrats are masters at corruption but Republicans never use the issue against Democrats.

Voter fraud alone is a huge issue and evidently Democrats have very little confidence in their being able to win elections without fraud.

No, I’m not buying any lies from either side. If you want to believe that any party is for the middle class you keep on believing. Not this voter. Neither party gives a rats behind about the middle class. Its time to clean house or begin again which ever works the best. There are some good people but too much dead wood. All you have to do is follow the recent bailout money to see where the allegiance lies. They gave that money to the banks and they are sitting on it for their own purposes. As for energy I agree with you to a certain point. Pres. Bush should have been screaming from the presidential pulpit that we needed to get off of foreign oil. He mentioned it occasionally but not enough. It wasn’t till congress was about to adjourn in August that a few Republicans finally got it and treated the problem for what it is. But by then no one was listening. They had had enough. The republicans should have been screaming from the roof tops about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exposing Schumer, Dodd, and Barney Frank. But instead they sat back and left it go. Oh yes their was an occasional congressmen or senator that would have the guts to mention it, but they were few and far between. Voter fraud, it was unbelievable to me that they sat back and left Bertha Lewis of acorn spew the lie that they were non partisan all the while endorsing Obama. Once anyone endorses anyone they are no longer nonpartisan. But no one called her out. Oh yes they complained a little but I say it again. Most people had had enough. And the list goes on. There is a complete lack of leadership. Taking my Republican hat off and looking at it from a non partisan view I think many just didn’t see enough difference between the two candidates to reelect the Republicans back into the White house. As far as the MSM they will be worse next election because they have gotten away with there little games every election.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.