The Republican Winners, and Their Message

Some Republicans won in this decidedly difficult election year for Republicans. Do they have any advice the GOP should heed, as it licks it's wounds and tries to plan a strategy for 2010?

3 Successful Republicans Caution Against a Move to the Right

[...] Senator Collins, Senator Alexander and Representative King were among Republicans who defied the odds in a terrible year for their colleagues. Their re-elections provide a possible road map for how the party can succeed in a challenging political environment. The answer, the three veteran politicians agreed, is not to become a more conservative, combative party focused on narrow partisan issues.

“What doesn’t work is drawing a harsh ideological line in the sand,” said Ms. Collins, of Maine, who early in the year was a top Democratic target for defeat but ended up winning 61 percent of the vote while Senator Barack Obama received 58 percent in the presidential race in her state.

“We make a mistake if we are going to make our entire appeal rural and outside the Northeast and outside the Rust Belt,” said Mr. King, of New York, who easily won re-election in a region shedding Republicans at a precipitous rate.

“We can stand around and talk about our principles, but we have to put them into actions that most people agree with,” said Mr. Alexander, of Tennessee, a self-described conservative who was able to attract African-American voters.

Their comments go to the competing visions for the party’s future that will confront Republicans as they return to Capitol Hill next week to elect House and Senate leaders and begin the process of adjusting to a second consecutive round of resounding losses on Capitol Hill. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Notice they didn't say "abandon conservatism". They simply speak of being more flexible, reaching out instead of being too narrow and intolerant, and not putting all our eggs in one basket.

Some would call that common sense.

The Democrats regained control of Congress by their clever stategy of supporting Blue Dog Democrats, conservative Democrats, to gain wins against Republicans. I'm wondering if the Republicans shouldn't learn something from that, and try supporting "Red Dog" Republicans, liberal Republicans, to win against democrats in blue states.

Instead, a vocal element in the Republican party has become strident, labeling anyone who doesn't fit their definition of conservative as RINOs, moderates who need to be driven out of the party.

Look where that's gotten us today. The entire Northeast, once a Republican stronghold, has been lost to the Democrats as many of New England's Republicans have abandoned the party they feel has abandoned them.

Even here in Oregon, the Uber Republicans who felt our Republican Senator Gordon Smith was too liberal to support, decided to throw their vote away on the Constitution party instead. Now we have that disgusting pig Jeff Merkely as our new senator. How is that supposed to be an improvement?

There has been too much focus on trying to kick people out of the Republican party. It's clearly a losing strategy. Isn't it time we focus on trying GROW our party and to attract people INTO it instead?


Related Links:

Can't we all just get along?

"Politics is the art of the possible"

PAWLENTY CALLS FOR A MORE DIVERSE GOP
     

Why I support Mitt Romney for President

Because Fred Thompson dropped out? Well yeah, there is that. ;-) But even then I wanted Mitt for veep. But here is why I now support Mitt for president:

1.) Mitt was a Governor. I much prefer Governors to Senators as presidential candidates. Seeing how they governed a state gives you some clues as to how they might govern a nation, and if they are up to the job or not.

2.) He was Governor of Massachusetts. A Republican Governor, in a state where only 14% of the population is registered Republican. That's quite a feat.

I grew up in nearby Connecticut, and went to college in Boston for a year. I dropped out, got a job and continued living and working in the state for a while, till I saved up money and moved to California. I explored a lot of left wing political groups while I worked there. I'm no stranger to Massachusetts and some of it's political workings.

Anyone who is Governor of that state HAS to work with Ted Kennedy; he isn't just a Senator; he's a local "god". Whatever you think of him, you'd better find a way to work with him, or you will accomplish NOTHING.

The fact that Romney had enough appeal to get elected in such a blue state as MA is a wonder in itself. The fact that he could actually work with Ted Kennedy to accomplish anything is... probably more than I could do! In college, I learned very quickly to choose my words about the Senator very carefully when talking to the locals. Blasphemy was not looked kindly on.

3.) Democrats DID vote for Mitt! Ronald Reagan also had that talent. In a national election, it can be a handy appeal to have if you want to WIN.

Some conservatives don't like that he was Governor of a blue state. Even so, he lived and raised a family there; why NOT be Governor there?


We live in a country full of blue states as well as red. Being able to talk to and negotiate with the other side is not a bad thing. In fact, many would say it's necessary and important.

4.) He is a successful business man, with a long track record of successes. He lives in the real world, not Washington D.C. He's turned around many a failing business. He has an excellent understanding of economics and the things that cause an economy to flounder or thrive. Clearly that's something we are in need of now.

5.) He's a Washington D.C. outsider. He understands why many of us think Washington stinks, and we are fed up with it. He wants to turn it around, like he's done with many a failing business. That's a tall order, but I think the can bring the experience, the diplomacy, and a fresh perspective and the know-how to get it done.

6.) He is now the most conservative candidate running on the Republican side. To those he claim he's not conservative enough, I suggest that you look at who you might end up with instead.

Different people have different requirements about what makes someone a conservative or not. I don't require a 100% conservative straight jacket for any Republican candidate, and I'm pretty sure that most of the American voting public doesn't either. Mitt is conservative enough in the ways that matter to most. We don't vote for perfect candidates, we vote for the best one available for the job. The "perfect" is the enemy of the "good". Accept the good when it's offered to you, or you're likely to get... less. Much less.

7.) The Editors of National Review have endorsed Mitt. This means a lot to me. I've been a National Review fan for many years. I've found it's commentary and analysis over the decades to be thoughtful, considered and well reasoned, and I believe the editor's endorsement of Mitt is likewise. Thank you, NR.


8.) As Governor of Massachusetts, he introduced health care reforms by making existing systems function more efficiently, by assembling a task force to find out where the problems were, why people were not insured, and what they could do about it, and all without creating more taxes or a socialist bureaucracy. Some conservatives have unfairly called this "Hillerycare". Romney is in fact one of the few Republicans that has even tried to address this issue by actually doing something tangible about it. And he is FAR MORE open to the private sector and non-governmental solutions than Hillery would ever dream of. He is willing to think outside of the box. That is often how solutions are found.

Mitt is my new horse in the race. I hope you will consider him, too.


Related Links:

Romney to the Rescue

The Real Mitt Romney? Is he electable?

The Romney Agenda: The Romney Economic Stimulus Plan