GOP Refuses to Nationalize the Election

conservativehq.com ^ | 9/23/14 | Richard A. Viguerie

[cotton1706]

A truism in American politics is that Republicans never win elections unless they are nationalized. Nationalizing an election doesn’t guarantee a GOP victory, Goldwater lost in 1964 in an election defined largely by national issues, but never in modern times have Republicans won a national campaign fought on local issues.

Democrats like elections that are fought state-by-state and deal with local issues because they are deliverers of services. If you want a pothole fixed, food stamps increased or federal grants for your local parks and museum, Democrats are only too happy to oblige.

The political brain driving the Democratic Party’s 2014 midterm election effort isn’t President Barack Obama; it is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Reid’s plan is simple – don’t allow Republicans to nationalize the election.

In opposition to Reid’s plan one establishment consultant told the Washington DC publication The Hill, our strategy is a “prevent defense” designed to “first do no harm.”

Football fans will recognize that the team that sits on the ball and engages in a “prevent defense” often loses. Politically, the content-free “first do no harm” campaign may bring a Republican majority to office, but it will be a majority with no mandate to confront Obama and the Democrats, let alone lead the country in a conservative direction.

The Washington Post on September 21 ran an article detailing how Republicans are, “moving to the center,” and getting sucked into backing increases to the minimum wage, granting in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants and other red herrings that alienate conservatives and have nothing to do with the real issues that could nationalize the election and decide it in a Republican wave.

[cynwoody]

Interesting. Mr.Vigurie raises tons of money—but only if the election is nationalized on broad national issues that he can promote through emails and mail solicitations to single issue voters.

Viguerie has been at it since mailing lists were maintained on reel-to-reel tape.

He makes a persuasive case in his article. Wave elections are not fought on local issues. "We're not Obama" is a weak strategy. As he points out, a cautious, first do no harm, prevent defense is a good way to throw away a historic opportunity to damn the Democrat brand for a generation.

This is not to say that local issues don't matter. But the GOP needs to project a bold and optimistic vision of reform and growth for the nation's future. Voters of all "identities" need to be persuaded how conservatism can help them, why they should abandon the 'Rat plantation.

[aumrl]

re read #17

[Eccl 10:2]

“Incorrect. Gingrich stated the principles well enough in 1994 in the “Contract with America”. We lack enough people who have the ability that Gingrich had to lay out the overall case and defend it ruthlessly from attacks from the Left.”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Unfortunately, you are not correct enough to refute my argument, which stands.

The weakness here is that Gingrich folded under pressure like a cheap lawn chair. His Contract With America was indeed brilliant and badly needed. But how much of it came to fruition? Virtually none of it. Why? Because Gingrich caved to Clinton’s dirty politics.

Leaving us where? Now anytime someone tries to resurrect any of the points of the Contract, it is met with a smug “Oh, we tried that already and it failed!”. It failed because Gingrich failed.

So again, I stand correct, not corrected.

[ckilmer]

Republican campaigns should all be ...”if you want more obamacare and amnesty vote democrat.”

do that on a national level. hang this around the neck of every democrat. and win.

but the pubbies have the culture of death.

[InterceptPoint]

re read #17

OK. I did that. What's next?

[Publius]

We must have lived through very different years in the Nineties.

Just about everything in the Contract with America was rammed through the House by Gingrich, and Dole didn't get in Gingrich's way. The items became law, and Gingrich accomplished a great deal. Gingrich's reforms in the Contract were so popular that when Clinton ran for re-election in '96, he decided that Gingrich's reforms were the best ideas that he, Bill Clinton, had ever come up with.

Nor did Gingrich "fold under pressure like a cheap lawn chair". Clinton succeeded in maneuvering Gingrich between the American people and their government checks during the government shutdown in early '96. That was the moment that the so-called "Gingrich Revolution" ended after a single year of accomplishment. After that event, Clinton cracked the whip over the Republicans and turned them into good, reliable purveyors of pork, something the voters tired of by 2006. But for that one glorious year, Gingrich laid out the case and got it done.

He deserves more respect than you're giving him.

[Eccl 10:2]

My point was that the Contract With America was a fine campaign tool, but virtually none of the major points came to fruition as law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

On the first day of their majority in the House, the Republicans promised to bring up for vote, eight major reforms [my comments in brackets]:

1. require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress; [Didn’t happen]
2. select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse; [Didn’t happen, at least to no meaningful extent I’m aware of]
3. cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third; [Didn’t happen, at least with no meaningful impact]
4. limit the terms of all committee chairs; [Didn’t happen]
5. ban the casting of proxy votes in committee; [If this ever happened, I am unaware of any impact]
6. require committee meetings to be open to the public; [no meaningful lasting change occurred]
7. require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; [Nope]
8. guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting. [Nope]

############################

Gingrich had the chance to show Clinton who was boss in the government shutdown showdown. And he caved. The government never shut down (not at least for any meaningful time that I remember), and it was business as usual after that. Nothing in the contract got done, Slick Willie did his thing, Whitewater went nowhere, and we are where we are.

This is not to say Gingrich had no impact - there was welfare reform, and some unreasonable spending increases didn’t happen, and we arguably had a balanced budget for a year. But that was because of the Internet coming into being sparking an economic bubble, and the Fed stepping on the gas. But it was not because of any revolutionary government changes as outlined in the CWA.

The CWA was a marketing tool, and little more.

[wildbill]

I just wanted to point out Vigerie has a vested interest in nationalizing elections for his fund raising efforts.

I’m not sure the GOP strategists have given up on some national themes as it is too early to tell—and the money isn’t there for big nationwide advertising compared to the Dems.

One reason for this is the resistance of the ultra right base to anything put out by the national GOP that they don’t feel ADEQUATELY represents their views.

The GOP is at a crucial implosion point because of the clash within the party over who is more conservative than who. Some see this as good, and some see it as short-sighted.

[Servant of the Cross]

SCOTUS is at issue in 2014. SCOTUS.

Bump that!

[Colonel_Flagg]

Politically, the content-free “first do no harm” campaign may bring a Republican majority to office, but it will be a majority with no mandate to confront Obama and the Democrats, let alone lead the country in a conservative direction.

And exactly when has the Republican Party EVER 'confronted Obama and the Democrats'?

The Republican House just passed a CR that fully funds Obamacare, for crying out loud.

[A CA Guy]

They are competing with Santa candidates with fear instead of a good alternative plan and a backbone.

[Colonel_Flagg]

SCOTUS is at issue in 2014. SCOTUS.

Kagan got five Republican votes. Sotomayor got nine. I wish I could share your optimism that electing moderates will somehow change that.

[arthurus]

That is why the Republican Party has fought the primaries with chicanery and dirt as vile as Democrats produce in order to prevent conservatives from winning and the resulting candidates have to plead against the tendency of conservatives to stay home rather than vote for another Democrat who claims to be Republican and to whom conservatives and conservative principles are anathema. The Republican Party simply does not care to win with Conservative candidates or principles.

[aumrl]

Now you must learn to think for yourself.
If you have to ask ‘what next’ YOU might be a mind numbed robot.
Perhaps you have heard the saying ‘Half a loaf in better than none’?
Or did you stop growing with ‘I’ll take my marbles and go home’ if I don’t get my way?

[InterceptPoint]

If you have to ask ‘what next’ YOU might be a mind numbed robot.

Congratulations. You are the first to discover that my posts are automatically generated by a very clever algorithm that was written by a young man who, unfortunately, never documented his code, is no longer a Freeper and is currently incommunicado.

So all I can tell you is that, although the comments from "me" that you read are brilliant, there is no way that I can actually (in all fairness) take any credit for them.