Fred Barnes: Turnout Is Destiny (Karl Rove's new assignment is to get the faithful to the polls)

The Weekly Standard ^ | May 1, 2006 | Fred Barnes

[RWR8189]

NOW THAT HE'S BACK IN the elections business, Karl Rove has a huge task on his hands: assuring strong Republican voter turnout. At the moment, Republicans are in a funk. And their dejected mood may presage a low turnout in the midterm election on November 7. Should a large number of Republican voters sit this one out, Republicans could lose control of one or both houses of Congress. It's when Republicans are either inspired or angry that they show up in large numbers and win elections. So Rove, along with Republican national chairman Ken Mehlman, has the job of shaping issues that will make Republicans angry or inspired, or both.

There's one big problem--two, actually. First, Rove's magic won't affect the biggest issues dogging the Bush presidency and causing Republicans to be disheartened: Iraq and rising gas prices. But the second problem--President Bush's sagging job approval among Republicans--is one that Rove can address by emphasizing policies that appeal to Republicans and by creating strong fears of a Democratic takeover.

Let's be clear about turnout. It matters enormously. The sweeping Republican defeat following Watergate in 1974 was only indirectly related to the scandal. The Democratic landslide was directly attributable to the diminished Republican turnout that resulted from Watergate-induced dejection among Republicans.

More recently, the turnout factor has been the single greatest influence on midterm elections. In 1990, 27.4 million Americans voted for Republican House candidates, and the party lost 8 seats. In 1994, however, the Republican turnout jumped to 36.3 million, and the party captured 52 House seats. It dipped in 1998 to 32 million, prompting a loss of 5 seats. But in 2002 it soared to 37 million, and Republicans won 8 House seats.

In presidential election years, jacking up turnout is relatively doable, as the Bush campaign showed in 2004. Presidential elections unleash "incredible energy," a senior Bush adviser says, and that generates volunteers, donors, a campaign infrastructure, and a flood of voters to the polls. "By definition there's less energy," says the adviser, in nonpresidential years--and less infrastructure for a national campaign. The "key" in these years, the adviser continues, is to make "your base as inspired as possible."

With the 2006 midterm election six months away, the Republican base is uninspired. In the Fox News poll in mid-April, only 66 percent of Republicans said they looked favorably on the Bush presidency. This is a disastrous number for Republicans. Of course, it wasn't as bad as the overall Bush rating of 33 percent, which included Democrats and independents.

Low job approval can have a double whammy effect. By itself, a 66 percent rating means that turnout by Republicans is likely to be low. In 2002 and 2004, when Republicans won House seats, Bush's approval among Republicans was 20 or more points higher.

The second effect is to cause further Republican disenchantment. Low poll numbers like 33 percent approval are bound to prompt some Republicans to feel they must separate themselves from Bush and join in criticizing him and Republicans in Congress. This, in turn, leads to lower turnout.

It's a vicious political cycle, but it's not the end of the world for Republicans. There's a lot Rove can do now that he's freed from the administrative duties that went with his old job as deputy chief of staff. He's back to his first-term job as the chief political strategist for Bush and the Republican party. And he has closer ties to the new chief of staff, Josh Bolten, than he did to Bolten's predecessor, Andy Card. He's in a position to invigorate Bush's message and rally Republicans.

A political adviser who works closely with Rove has developed a list of issues that Republicans should concentrate on to spur turnout. They aren't a big secret. Republicans can't survive by relying on incumbency, money, and attacks on Democrats. They need a positive agenda to stir the Republican base in general and conservatives in particular.

So at the top of his list is passage of a federal budget with at least minimal restraints on spending. Before the Easter recess, the House failed to pass one. Since spending curbs are important to conservatives, they'd better pass a budget soon. Republicans also need to stress the "culture of life" by noisily opposing abortion, cloning, and expanded federal subsidies for embryonic stem cell research. And they should push to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and propose serious health care legislation. If they do all this, Bush's support among Republicans should rise and so should his overall approval rating.

But what about Iraq and gas prices? Here, Bush needs help from outside events. Since early 2005, his presidency has been beset not only by Iraq and gas prices but by other outside events, including Hurricane Katrina and the Dubai ports deal. Now, a Republican official says, "it would help to have an outside situation that we could take advantage of."

A permanent, elected government in Iraq might be one, especially if it leads to fewer bombings and further reductions in American casualties by this summer. A break in gas prices is unlikely, but stranger things have happened. It would help. And Democrats may foolishly contribute by making themselves more vulnerable than ever to attacks of the type that Rove is adept at organizing.

The old football saying about winning applies to turnout in 2006. It's not everything. It's the only thing. For Bush and Republicans, turnout is destiny.

 

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard and author of Rebel-in-Chief (Crown Forum).

[demkicker]

Absolutely nothing on immigration? Ridiculous, they're screwed...

Good old Fred is just as out of touch to have not mentioned sealing (not "securing") our borders! The GOP politicians really are screwed if they don't realize that the majority of their voters demand immediate attention to the border issue. That's the main issue we care about and if we continue to be ignored, Bush will definitely get impeached! It's that simple. The "wall" is in his court!

[Prokopton]

"This is not really an attack on you so much as on the broad attitude that it has become fashionable on FR to embrace -- in order to buttress some supposed array of conservative principles"

This is the fallacy of shallow "party primacy" people. It is not a "supposed array" of conservative principles, it is about the bedrock of conservative principles without which the Republican party is meaningless. You seem deathly afraid of Democrats getting into office . I'm afraid of liberals getting into office, no less if they happen to be Republican.

Your arguments are undermined by present reality. The Republicans already have control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. They have proven that Republican control, if the Republicans are liberal, is not much different than Democrat control. In some areas, such as profligate spending, it appears to be worse.

You can continue with the worn out arguments that the only thing important is to keep Democrats out of office. Some of us believe there are other things much more important. Your disingenuous questioning of my efforts to get conservatives elected is not only ignorant but is typically liberal. Frankly, you sound like a RINO. Do not attempt to make the argument that we should be on the same side. We are not. You are an anti-Democrat. I am a conservative. There is a big difference that, sadly, not only you but many Senators and the President fail to see.

The battle is between conservatives and liberals. The liberal side has Democrats and Republicans. The conservatives are against both if they are liberal. If Republicans ally themselves with the liberal Democrats, as is the case in the Senate, they should expect the wrath of conservatives no matter what party they have previously aligned with.

The elections should be interesting

[WhiteGuy]

More than a little race concious, eh, whiteguy? Policy is one thing; I'm for a fence, exactly as Tom DeLay has outlined. Race centered, however, no no and NO!

What the hell are you talking about? Here is what I wrote:

Fred misses issue # 1, the bush position on open borders.

I guess the copy he got from the WH left it off.

[jpl]

The Republican message will be very simple in this year election campaign: If the democrats win the House they will impeach President Bush in time of war. This will bring Republicans and Republican leaning independents by droves to the polls.

I really think the Republicans are going to need a heck of a lot more in the message than just "please save our President's behind".

[Zack Nguyen]

The Democrats will not impeach the President. Such an act would be politically suicidal. There are no Tom DeLays in the Democrat Party that are willing to risk electoral popularity to do what the base wants. The President is safe until he leaves office.

[dirtboy]

But this election, the one in November of '06, is NOT a presidential one and the many people, on this thread, carping about this president Bush, are proving just how little they know or even care about REAL politics. For them, it's all emotion and venting their spleen.

I hate to break this to you, but the one being clueless about politics lately is Bush. He has been told loudly and clearly by the base to drop his guest worker program. He refuses.

Meanwhile, the guys up for re-election this year, the GOP House members, are standing on the opposite side of the issue. So what does that tell you about the politics here?

[mountainfolk]

The Iraq people walked to the polls, knowing that with each step they took they could be killed. Can't afford to drive your own car? Call your Republican headquarters and they will provide transportation.

[HamiltonJay]

I'll tell you this right now... Unless the party quits turning a blind eye on immigration and on the willful and blantant manipulation of the oil industry the Republicans are going to pay a very very high price in 06.

[sasafras]

Rove - is pro-illegal. He confronted Hayworth and had the audacity to ask Hayworth if "he hated brown skinned people" just because Hayworth believes that Americans (of all colors) should come first and that our borders should be enforced.

Bush and Rove are setting themselves up for a huge loss. Bush Sr. blew a huge lead because of his elitist attitude. Bush Jr. is setting the party up for a huge loss in 06 and 08.

[tennmountainman]

"If we lose the House, the president wont be able to ever get the tax cuts made permanent and they weren't so measly. And President Bush hasn't raised taxes, as Reagan did, three times, after he cut a few of the tax brackets"

WHATS PREVENTING THE HOUSE FROM MAKING PERMENENT THE TAX CUTS NOW? THE GOP IS THE MAJORITY YOU KNOW.

[tennmountainman]

"Bush and Rove are setting themselves up for a huge loss. Bush Sr. blew a huge lead because of his elitist attitude. Bush Jr. is setting the party up for a huge loss in 06 and 08.

Instead of uniting Republicians,like Reagan, Bush, like his elitist father has divided us with his policies. This administration is in freefall.

[Owen]

>>
If Republicans ally themselves with the liberal Democrats, as is the case in the Senate, they should expect the wrath of conservatives no matter what party they have previously aligned with.
>>

A completely narrow and somewhat blind perspective.

Exactly how did the GOP senators align themselves with the DNC in approving Alioto for the USSC?

No, don't go hunting for your policies du jour. Focus on just that one question. If you think there is no difference between the parties, explain the vote differential by party on that one vote, and only that one vote.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I'm not nearly as upset with the GOP Congress and the GOP Senate... I have one good GOP Senator and he is running for re-election and he will get my vote. the second isn't up for re-election for six years and he wants to be president and he isn't getting a vote from me again, ever.

[Prokopton]

"If Republicans ally themselves with the liberal Democrats, as is the case in the Senate, they should expect the wrath of conservatives no matter what party they have previously aligned with." >> "A completely narrow and somewhat blind perspective. Exactly how did the GOP senators align themselves with the DNC in approving Alioto for the USSC? No, don't go hunting for your policies du jour. Focus on just that one question. If you think there is no difference between the parties, explain the vote differential by party on that one vote, and only that one vote" Supreme Court Justices, although important, come and go. The makeup of the Court can, and does, change on a regular basis. A liberal Court could become a conservative Court in the future and vis versa.
Once this Country is changed by the invasion of poor, uneducated, socialist leaning, non-english speaking, illegal aliens, there is no going back. The Country will be fundamentally and irrevocably changed and the United States will cease to exist as the Country that the Founders envisioned and which I have been fortunate enough to experience.
Your half-a-loaf logic doesn't cut it. Some issues are overwhelmingly more important than others. That there are differences between the parties on some issues is overshadowed by the similarities between some Republicans and Democrats on the overriding issue of the invasion of illegal aliens. The sovereignty of my Country is being threatened. That cannot be equated with minor issues. Any Republican (or Democrat) who willingly allows the Invasion to continue is my political enemy and, I not only won't vote for them, I will actively fight against them.

[Prokopton]

"If Republicans ally themselves with the liberal Democrats, as is the case in the Senate, they should expect the wrath of conservatives no matter what party they have previously aligned with." >>

"A completely narrow and somewhat blind perspective. Exactly how did the GOP senators align themselves with the DNC in approving Alioto for the USSC? No, don't go hunting for your policies du jour. Focus on just that one question. If you think there is no difference between the parties, explain the vote differential by party on that one vote, and only that one vote"

Supreme Court Justices, although important, come and go. The makeup of the Court can, and does, change on a regular basis. A liberal Court could become a conservative Court in the future and vis versa.
Once this Country is changed by the invasion of poor, uneducated, socialist leaning, non-english speaking, illegal aliens, there is no going back. The Country will be fundamentally and irrevocably changed and the United States will cease to exist as the Country that the Founders envisioned and which I have been fortunate enough to experience.
Your half-a-loaf logic doesn't cut it. Some issues are overwhelmingly more important than others. That there are differences between the parties on some issues is overshadowed by the similarities between some Republicans and Democrats on the overriding issue of the invasion of illegal aliens. The sovereignty of my Country is being threatened. That cannot be equated with minor issues. Any Republican (or Democrat) who willingly allows the Invasion to continue is my political enemy and, I not only won't vote for them, I will actively fight against them.

[Owen]

Your declaration that murder of unborn children is a minor issue will be one you will answer for someday.

[Prokopton]

"Your declaration that murder of unborn children is a minor issue will be one you will answer for someday."

What a preposterous and pathetic thing to post. How hard did you work to insure Harriet Miers was not the SCOTUS nominee? Yea, I didn't think so.
Your abject fear of fighting for principle, for what is right, displays your lack of core values. If you were around in 1776 you would have obviously been too timid to join in the Revolution because we were outnumbered and, after all, you had always supported the mother country. I'll leave that path to you. Some of us, including many FReepers, will not support those who would destroy our Country even if we have to forsake a Party that has been part of us in the past.
Continue to be a "good" Republican, supporting even those you know are wrong and that have betrayed us. Thats the typical "lockstep" liberal way. It's not my way and, I pray, not the way of U.S. voter.

[MaineVoter2002]

It's a fact, Clinton never got 50% of the vote I don't care if Clinton got 50% of the vote or if he lost the popular vote and won the electoral. He won! You're the first person I've ever heard claim that anything less than 50% makes you more vulnerable to impeachment. Furthermore, I never said Clinton got impeached because he could'nt keep his pants on as you falsely implied. I said everybody knew he could'nt keep his pants on.

It may have been "well known" to people in Arkansas, but it wasn't all that well known across the country and the MSM did everything in its power, in '92 to shield him

Perhaps they did, but you dont think those in his party also running also shielded the man do you? He was their opponent. It was brought up during the democrat primary.

You know, the republican party wins its elections because the facts and history is on its side. The democrats make up stories, lies, conspiracy theories and misquote. The facts and history are NOT on their side.

You may want to remember that next time you think about revising history. It makes us all look bad. Buy a clue.

[Criminal Number 18F]

First, Rove's magic won't affect the biggest issues dogging the Bush presidency and causing Republicans to be disheartened: Iraq and rising gas prices.

I'm not the least bit disheartened by either. But the corruption in Congress is out of control. (Look at the new story about Curt Weldon's daughter getting a mega-$$$ job at the European helicopter company he steered the VIP copter contract to. Look at spending, most of which is being done for personal gain by Republicans in congress, and Trent Grifting Lott going, "I'm sick of those so-called porkbusters." Look at the way they're so deep in the tank for big business's craving for slave labor that they won't touch immigration. Look at the judicial nominees that were sold out by Specter and Frist. Look at Bush's first and only legislative priority -- amnesty for criminal aliens. Look at the string of feeble neptoism appointees to security positions -- Julie Myers for Christ's sake. Look at the institutional party smearing Steve Laffey to support the execrable Lincoln Chafee, who inherited his seat and has never measured up to it. Do conservatives owe Republicans anything? About six or seven different screwings, it looks like).

Rove needs to give me one good reason to come to the polls, just one. "Or the Democrats will win" won't cut it. A Democratic House and Senate would be a good thing for the country for the next two years. It would stop the rape of the taxpayers (and their descendants unto the Nth generation) that Frist and Lott are embarked upon. Perhaps Bush would find enough manhood somewhere to veto a spending bill (not something to be depended on, for sure).

Many of us think the Democrats are not trustworthy. But we know from the evidence of the last 12 years that the Republicans are not. The Republicans in Congress are only interested in lining their personal pockets.

Those are the problems, Karl. Those are the reasons why I plan on sitting this one out (and I'm sure I'm not the only one that gets the fundraising letters and the pictures of Bush and Cheney and all that BS in the mail -- and throws it out. I'm sure your fundraising numbers are telling you that tale).

Dude, you had my money. You blew your allowance on Lincoln Chafee. Don't go asking me for any more till you grow up.

Grow up? Yeah. Such as:

1. A borders crackdown on criminal aliens and the corrupt businesses that hire them, that contains no amnesty whatsoever, and makes it ruinous for businesses to employ them.

2. An end to the corrupt practice of earmarking.

3. Deficit reduction by veto. Make Congress feel some pain.

4. Showing the no-good nepots the door. A good place to start is with the poster child for all that is wrong with this Administration and Congress, Julie Myers.

5. Cleaning house ethically.

"Do I want the Democrats to win?" No, Karl. We'd wind up with a liberal running the judiciary committee -- oh, wait. And a Congress spending uncontrollably -- oh, never mind. And feckless policy encouraging an invasion of people who don't share our language or values -- oops.

So why should I care which party gives the patronage to their unqualified sons and daughters? Or which group of insiders it is selling-off (and selling-out) the country to foreign invaders?

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F