Posted on 11/18/2008 9:07:26 PM PST by Coleus
FOUR YEARS AGO, in the week after the 2004 presidential election, we were working furiously to put the finishing touches on the book we co-authored, "It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America." Our central thesis was simple: The Republican Party had been taken hostage by "social fundamentalists," the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research. Unless the GOP freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.
At the time, this idea was roundly attacked by many who were convinced that holding on to the "base" at all costs was the way to go. A former speechwriter for President Bush, Matthew Scully, who went on to work for the McCain campaign this year, called the book "airy blather" and said its argument fell somewhere between "insufferable snobbery" and "complete cluelessness." Gary Bauer suggested that the book sounded as if it came from a "Michael Moore radical." National Review said its warnings were, "at best, counterintuitive," and Ann Coulter said the book was "based on conventional wisdom that is now known to be false." What a difference four years makes — and the data show it.
Loss of moderates
While a host of issues was at play in this election, the primary reason John McCain lost was the substantial erosion of support from self-identified moderates compared with four years ago. In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry held just a nine-percentage-point margin among moderate voters over President Bush. This year, the spread between Barack Obama and McCain was 21 points among this group. The net difference between the two elections is a deficit of nearly 6.4 million moderate votes for the Republicans in 2008.
In seven of the nine states that switched this year from Republican to Democratic, Obama's vote total exceeded the total won by President Bush four years ago. So even if McCain had equaled the president's numbers from 2004 (and he did not), he still would have lost in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia (81 total electoral votes) — and lost the election. McCain didn't lose those states because he failed to hold the base. He lost them because Obama broadened his base. Nor did the Republican ticket lose because "values voters" stayed home. On the contrary, according to exit polls, such voters made up a larger proportion of the electorate this year than in 2004 — 26 percent, up from 23 percent. Extrapolating from those data, McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago — 1.8 million more. But that was not enough to offset the loss of so many moderates.
Following the conventional wisdom of the past two presidential elections, McCain tried mightily to assuage the Republican Party's social-fundamentalist wing. His selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose social views are entirely aligned with that wing, was clearly meant to demonstrate his commitment to that bloc. Yet while his choice did comfort those voters, it made many others uncomfortable. Palin has many attractive qualities as a candidate. Being prepared to become president at a moment's notice was not obviously among them this year. Her selection cost the ticket support among those moderate voters who saw it as a cynical sop to social fundamentalists, reinforcing the impression that they control the party, with the party's consent.
Stockholm syndrome
In the wake of the Democrats' landslide victory, and despite all evidence to the contrary, many in the GOP are arguing that McCain was defeated because the social fundamentalists wouldn't support him. They seem to be suffering from a political strain of Stockholm syndrome. They are identifying with the interests of their political captors and ignoring the views of the larger electorate. This has cost the Republican Party the votes of millions of people who don't find a willingness to acquiesce to hostage-takers a positive trait in potential leaders.
Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness. On Nov. 4, the American people very clearly rejected the politics of demonization and division. It's long past time for the GOP to do the same. Christie Whitman, who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003, is co-chair of the Republican Leadership Council. Robert M. Bostock, a freelance speechwriter, was her co-author for the book "It's My Party Too."
Until we can attain a majority without them we need them with us. They have to be taught to accept us as the driving force and if that's unacceptable they leave. BTW, where would they go? The Rats don't want them.
Quote: “The Republican Party had been taken hostage by “social fundamentalists,” the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research. Unless the GOP freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.”
Oh, is that why one of the only true Republican victories in this election was the passage of Prop 8 in, of all places, California? Regardless, Christine dear, if you walk down the middle of the road, then sooner or later you will get run over. There is no such thing as a moderate on election day. Come election day a moderate goes into the booth and becomes either a dem or a republican depending on who he or she votes for. The democrats went hard left after the 2004 election yet they have emerged victorious. Who knew, turns out the voters preferred the real brew to the fake stuff (this means you, Christine). Going soft left in response to the democrats going hard left was not the answer.
One more thing to note, are the democrats not also “social fundamentalists?” Euthenasia, abortion on demand, secularism, need I go on. Yet they espouse these ideals with every bit of vigor as anyone on our side espouses our ideals. Why then, under your theory, Christine dear, did the dems win if they have “social fundamentalists?” Christine, go back to the country club where you belong and leave the driving to us conservatives.
Yes, and had it not been for the engineered economy 'bailout' which McCain fell for he most likely would have won this election.
One thing the 'moderates' seem to forget is that conservatives will almost always support the moderate candidate, even if they don't like him or her, in order to thwart the Democrats. It seems though the moderates don't care to return the favor, and will even abandon the moderate candidate, as we saw with Colin Powell, and others in this last election.
So, who exactly is BETTER for the Republican Party's chances, in any given election, Christie, the 'social fundamentalists', or the 'social liberals'?
She barley beat the hated tax-hiker Florio and Jim “Mark Foley” McSveevey then a pissant Mayor. Both races should have been beatdowns by the GOP.
No one should take her advice unless they want continued rat domination.
# 1997 Race for Governor: Christine Todd Whitman (R) (inc.), 47% - James McGreevey (D), 46%
# 1993 Race for Governor: Christine Todd Whitman (R), 49% - James Florio (D) (inc.), 48%
#
# 1990 Race for U.S. Senate: Bill Bradley (D) (inc.), 50% - Christine Todd Whitman (R), 47%
She never even got a majority. What a joke! What does she know about electoral success?
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.