.
.

The GOP Must Stand for Something
By KARL ROVE, May 15, 2008Tuesday's election results highlighted challenges for both Democrats and Republicans.
Republicans received a hard shot in Mississippi. Greg Davis (for whom I campaigned and who was a well-qualified candidate) narrowly lost a special congressional election in a district President George W. Bush carried four years ago with 62% of the vote. Democrats pulled off the win by smartly nominating a conservative, Travis Childers, from a rural swing part of the district who disavowed Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and hit Mr. Davis from the right.
This blow to the GOP came after two other special congressional election losses in recent months. Republicans lost former House Speaker Denny Hastert's Illinois seat and Rep. Richard Baker's Louisiana seat.
Both of those losses can be attributed to bad candidates. But that only shows the GOP can't take "safe" seats for granted when Democrats run conservatives who distance themselves from their national party leaders. The string of defeats should cure Republicans of the habit of simply shouting "liberal! liberal! liberal!" in hopes of winning an election. They need to press a reform agenda full of sharp contrasts with the Democrats.
Why is it tough sledding for Republicans? Public revulsion at GOP scandals was a large factor in the party's 2006 congressional defeat. Some brand damage remains, as does the downward pull of the president's approval ratings. But the principal elements are the Iraq war and a struggling economy.
Gallup's 2007 report found that fewer voters identify themselves as Republicans now than at any point in the past 20 years despite the fact that less than a fifth of Americans agree with Mr. Obama's call to rapidly withdraw from Iraq. And while many Americans are concerned about the economy, most are satisfied with their own finances.
As Republican ranks declined, the number of independents and Democrats grew. Has the bottom been reached? It's too early to know. But Americans are acknowledging progress in Iraq, economists are suggesting the economy will be in better shape this fall, and a recent ABC/Washington Post poll found GOP identification rising.
What is clear is that John McCain and Republicans will prevail only if they convince voters that there are profound consequences at stake in Iraq, and that more and better jobs will follow from the GOP's approach of lowering taxes, opening trade, and ending earmarks and other pro-growth policies.
Republicans also face challenges with the young (whose opposition to the war and attraction to Mr. Obama have made them Democrats) and Hispanics (the fastest-growing part of the electorate). A recent survey offers some encouraging news. Mr. McCain is polling as high as 41% with Hispanics close to President Bush's 44% in 2004.
Democrats shouldn't be complacent after Tuesday. Their problems start with Mr. Obama's 41-point loss to Hillary Clinton in West Virginia. Mr. Obama lost the primary because the rejection of him by blue-collar voters is hardening. The last Democrat to win the presidency without carrying the Mountain State was Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
Barely half of Mrs. Clinton's supporters in Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia say they're ready to support Mr. Obama against Mr. McCain today. Without solid support from these voters, Mr. Obama will be in trouble in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Wisconsin and other battlegrounds.
So far, Mr. Obama owes his success to elites captivated by his personality. But in the general election, most folks will care more about a candidate's philosophy and stand on the issues. And what's considered mainstream values in a general election is different than in a primary.
Mr. Obama knows this, which is why he peppered his North Carolina primary night speech with culturally conservative language. And it is also why he is reaching out to Jewish voters.
Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain 61%-32% among Jews. John Kerry won the Jewish vote 74%-25% in 2004. A weak performance for Mr. Obama could make it harder to win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio or Florida. It could even put New Jersey in play.
Then there are the record low congressional approval ratings. No Congress has fallen as far and as fast as the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid-led House and Senate. Unlike President Bush, congressional Democrats will be on the ballot this fall, and can do little to improve their lackluster record before then. It must also be disconcerting for Ms. Pelosi that the Democrats' winning formula has meant conceding ground on guns, prayer, partial-birth abortion and other issues that matter to social conservatives.
Both parties face major challenges and have little time to alter the dynamics of the election to their advantage. Recognizing underlying problems and correcting them within a matter of a couple of months is one of the supreme challenges in politics. Whichever party does that fast and well will benefit come November
"Our two nations both faced great challenges when they were founded, and our two nations have both relied on the same principles to help us succeed. We've built strong democracies to protect the freedoms given to us by an Almighty God. We've welcomed immigrants, who have helped us thrive. We've built prosperous economies by rewarding innovation and risk-taking and trade. And we've built an enduring alliance to confront terrorists and tyrants."
Today, in his speech to the Knesset he said anyone who claims that talking with terrorists will result in peace is experiencing a foolish delusion.
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.* We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history, the president said.
While Bush never mentioned Obama by name, aggressive personal diplomacy with Iran is an oft-stated proposal by Obama as a means to end that countrys support for insurgency in Iraq and its nuclear programs.Obama swiftly criticized Bush for a false political attack and said the presidents foreign policy has failed to secure the U.S. or Israel.
Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the presidents extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel, Obama said.
I am disgusted with the thin-skinned pettiness of many people currently in public life, especially libs. It sickens me that they're all so quick to whine about being misquoted, moan about being treated unfairly and then expect a public apology. None of them can muster up the uh, er, courage to stand by their words. What a crop of cry babies. He can deny it til H#!! freezes over and all the dems can rally around him but Obama said he would sit down and talk with terrorists and he surely wasn't thinking of President Reagan's presidency when he said it. His remarks are indefensible.
* Quote attributed to William Edgar Borah, a "progressive" republican from Idaho. Borah was headstrong and often disagreed with the conservative wing of the party. When told of the senator's love of horseback riding, President Coolidge replied, "It's hard to imagine Senator Borah going in the same direction as his horse."
And thin skinned at that.