The problem was not the particular candidate, it was having a social liberal.
Posted on 11/16/2008 12:50:09 PM PST by Kukai
In a nation turned blue, the South remains largely red. That's the takeaway from the 2008 election, and the Republicans' best hope for resurrecting their party.
John McCain — for all his political waffling and personal idiosyncrasies — still held on to the South. Except for Virginia and Florida (two states heavily infiltrated by Northerners) and North Carolina (a race so close it couldn't be called until three days after the election), the South remained solidly in the GOP column.
From Florida's Panhandle to Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee, McCain actually garnered a higher percentage of votes than George W. Bush did in 2004.
Four border states — Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia and, as of this writing, Missouri — also went for "the Maverick." Include them, and the South provided him with 129 of his 174 electoral votes.
McCain was pretty much a drag everywhere else. Republican turnout declined 1.3 percent nationally, and the percentage of voters calling themselves Republicans fell from 37 percent in 2004 to 32 percent this year.
Much of that erosion was due to the profoundly unpopular President Bush and a lousy economy. Yet even with those favorable tailwinds, and a fatter bankroll, Barack Obama barely registered more than half the popular vote against the Republicans' weakest candidate since Bob Dole.
"This election was in many ways a referendum on Bush. Using that measuring stick, Obama should have received 75 percent of the vote," says Craig Shirley, author the 1976 book, "Reagan Revolution."
'COMPASSIONATE DISASTER'
Since politics is a pendulum that swings left and right, Republicans can be almost assured that Obama will overreach and self-destruct. Frankly, his agenda looks like Jimmy Carter's second term (which, of course, never happened).
Yet some in the Republican Party want to turn the GOP into Obama Lite. Count Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer and his acolyte, Gov. Charlie Crist, among this group.
Greer recently told The New York Times: "It is 2008, not 1980. The party needs to focus on Hispanic voters and African-American voters. It is the future of the Republican Party."
Greer's calendar is correct, but his thinking is as squishy as McCain's. To these folks, it's all about slick marketing, not fundamental principles.
South Carolina's GOP chairman, Katon Dawson, sees things differently. He blames moderation for the party's setbacks and recommends, for starters, a vigorous push against illegal immigration (one of the many issues on which McCain lost contact with reality).
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford agrees, saying that the party's "rebranding" efforts failed to expand its base and turned off conservatives.
"That is what 'compassionate conservatism' was about," Sanford told The Times. "It was a disaster."
Cultural and social values matter in the South. If Republicans abandon those values, where are they going to take their stand? New England? With the defeat of Republican Rep. Chris Shays in Connecticut, the GOP doesn't field a single congressman north of Greenwich, Conn.
Naturally, Northeast elites and the media deride conservative ideas. And if conservatism is defined by neoconservatives, there's much to mock. As Shirley puts it: "Neocons are neither 'new' nor 'conservative.'"
Bush's costly global adventurism and foreign entanglements to "make the world safe for democracy" have historically been policies of the Democratic Party. McCain's agenda is similarly bastardized. Taxing health plans? "Reaching across the aisle" to give amnesty to illegal aliens? McCain-Feingold? Joining Obama in voting for a $700 billion bailout larded with pork? This is all very bad stuff.
Fact is, the South isn't the only bastion of conservatism. Ronald Reagan captured large swaths of the West, as well as key Midwestern states. Those votes are still there for the taking.
A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 59 percent of Americans agreed with Reagan's assertion that government is the problem, not the solution. An overwhelming majority favors less government and lower taxes.
Obama successfully tapped into the taxes part of the equation by concocting cuts for the "middle-class." But does anyone really believe his numbers will add up? Check back in four years.
The biggest mistake Republicans could make would be to throw out the social and fiscal conservatism that brought victory in the 1980s. Neocon imperialistic foreign policy, open borders and deficit spending are not a winning ticket.
HOUSE HOLDS IN SOUTH
Despite predictions that evangelical voters would flock to Obama, McCain won 74 percent of white, born-again Protestants. Imagine how much better a true conservative would have fared with this segment that now accounts for one of every four voters.
Whether it's faith, rural sensibilities or simply commonsense, the South remains the bulwark for Republicanism insofar as the party espouses true conservative values. While Democrats picked up 19 seats in the House, only four came from the 11 states that made up the Confederacy. Subtract Florida and Virginia, and the Democrats registered no net gain in the South.
And though Obama took Florida, Tallahassee remains firmly in Republican control. No Senate seats changed and Democrats picked up just one seat in the House, leaving the GOP with commanding advantages of 26-14 and 76-44 respectively.
These are significant statistics because the South is growing, and the 2010 Census may award an additional half-dozen electoral votes to the region.
Meantime, the national media fixate on political sideshows and recriminations. Recent reports quoted an unidentified McCain aide calling Sarah Palin and her family "Wasilla Hillbillies." YeeHaw! When pundits blame the Alaska governor for McCain's loss, neocons and nervous party hacks like Greer are only too eager to pile on.
But Republicans who rely on the press for their guiding light will continue to wander in the desert. Remember, McCain was the media's favored candidate in the GOP primaries, only to be kicked to the curb in the general election.
A party that sacrifices core principles and trims its conservative roots will leave its Southern base cold, and leave itself with nowhere to call home.
The problem was not the particular candidate, it was having a social liberal.
McCain was the media’s favorite candidate when he wasn’t GWB. When he tried to run as a Maverick, he found that the MSM love the Real Thing (their Kool-Aid Candidiate) more than him. He was useless to them; they had a better ham with B Hussein Obama.
You have ‘neo-con’ in your article. Your gonna get attacked.
Yeppers...
We’uns in the South are carrying the conservative/Republican flag...
Y’all Northerners done let us’uns down...
:(
Bingo. Always will be.
The only thing this election showed us is that a known RINO will lose to anyone, even a Communist.
Any and all conclusions must be drawn starting with that FACT!
Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina are all a disgrace.
There’s a lot wrong with this article but I’ll only speak of my home state.
Here in Michigan the state usually goes republican in all but 9 or 10 of our 83 counties. In this election it swung wildly blue over most of the state. I attribute that just as much to McCain as I do Obama and all his help from ACORN.
In the future the GOP would be well advised to take a look at Reagan’s Michigan playbook. We are after all the traditional home of the Reagan Democrats. Writing us off in election after election only guarantees the state to the democrats. We are after all a state that has opposed same sex marriage, affirmative action, and voted in support of concealed carry.
I disagree somewhat. The people of those states are not the problem. The real disgrace is shared between a Liberal Party structure leading to a Liberal candidate leading to typical Liberal ability to manipulate and "fairly count" the vote.
Ignore the thinking that generates this crap. The real potential for inclusive gain for the GOP may be, ironically, due to Obama's win. If it enables the black community to begin to emerge from their historic wallowing in dependency and victimhood, more will feel free to vote their actual values and interests. That means conservative republican, when they begin to take an honest look at it.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Tennessee Nana,
Ye be right. It be good livin’ in a land o’ common sense that wuz votin’ fer Guvner Palin.
Them Northerners looks down on us regular folks whut ain’t refined enough fer their delicate sensibilities. :O(
Tennessee Twinkie ;O)
South Carolina’s GOP chairman, Katon Dawson, sees things differently. He blames moderation for the party’s setbacks and recommends, for starters, a vigorous push against illegal immigration (one of the many issues on which McCain lost contact with reality).
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford agrees, saying that the party’s “rebranding” efforts failed to expand its base and turned off conservatives.
“That is what ‘compassionate conservatism’ was about,” Sanford told The Times. “It was a disaster.”
IMHO Sanford has it right! You cannot rebrand because then you don’t stand for anything. What you can do is say this is what we stand for and reach out to groups with conviction of conservative principles. Doesn’t mean we have to shut off all dialogue to moderates and Dem conservatives because both of those groups helped McCain win every county in OK. What it does mean is that we don’t sell out on our core values.
McCain’s dissed conservatives for years and when he needed them, a lot didn’t vote for McCain. Here in Oklahoma, Obama scared us more and we loved Sarah Palin. We even had black Republicans I know support McCain here in OK and wouldn’t have voted for Obama under any circumstance.
Money quote.
“THE ONLY THING THIS ELECTION SHOWED US is that a KNOWN RINO will lose to ANYONE, even a COMMUNIST.”
Bears repeating.
When I’m right, Im right
And I’m always right...
:)
The "deep south" states down in Dixie, on the other hand, elected many socialist RATs. Several of them switched from GOP to Dem. Chicagoan Obama became the first Dem since LBJ (who was a lifelong Texan) to win Virginia and North Carolina, and he also carried Florida. None of those are "border states", they are all south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Those states also elected large amounts of RAT Senators and Congressmen, including both of Arkansas' Senators are Dems (Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor), both of Virginia's Senators are Dems (Webb & Mark Warner), both of Maryland's Senators are Dems, a Dem and a RINO in FL, a Dem Senator (Laudrieu) in Louisiana was re-elected, and a Dem Senator in North Carolina was elected (Kay Hagan). Again, compare this to the western dustbowl states -- which all have two Republican Senators, except for a DINO (Ben Nelson) in Nebraska and some Dems in the Dakotas. And there's Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, which Congressional delegations are about as Republican as you can get.
And lastly, the deep south states in Dixie have a number of RAT governors and RAT legislatures, including allegedly "conservative" states like Alabama. Kansas and OK elected Dem governors recently, but their track record shows both of those cases were flukes and not a regular occurrence.
Actual it is their historical roots, the black community voted 95% conservative until kenndy bribed the black preachers to support him.
Well, I may live in the north...but my heart belongs in the south....
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.