A Word on Negative Campaigning

In a past post, andyclark quoted Palin’s statement that the GOP should “resolve not to be the negative party.”  As nice as that sounds coming from her now, where was it during the election?  I have been a McCain supporter for a long time, but I was ashamed of some of the negative advertising that went on during the campaign.  I get it…we needed to go on the attack, especially as the summer turned into fall.  What Republicans should be doing now is asking how we got to that point. 

McCain had the opportunity during this election to highlight his record against government waste, expertise on foreign policy and bipartisian record.  Sure, it was easy to go after Obama for voting “present” some 130 or more times in the Illinois state senate, his general lack of experience, or even his dubious links to shady people and organizations.  But did we have to go negative?  Or could we have at least stayed a bit more positive?  I think so, and here are a few reasons why. 

Trent Lott knows about cellulose-to-fuel technology and the potential to harness algae for energy.  Why did the campaign fail to present these and other innovative ideas during the campaign?  All the Democrats said on energy was that we needed to conserve and that drilling offshore and elsewhere was not a permanent solution.  These are empty words, and we should have filled the void instead of following suit.  I will holler “drill baby, drill” any day, but we wasted the opportunity to hold intelligent conversation on that subject.  Instead of simply pandering to voters who love gas-guzzling vehicles (their numbers are shrinking), we should have appealed to the business community and independent environmentalists alike to show how market-based solutions would best serve our nation’s energy needs.  But instead, the campaign went negative, and hindered itself from showing the potential dominance we could have on this increasingly important issue.

The way the McCain campaign attacked Obama’s voting record was also a disappointing aspect of this race.  It was very easy for the Democrats to incite distaste for McCain in this regard, simply because he comes from the same party as our not-so-beloved President 43.  For our counterattack, McCain advertisements linked Obama to the ambiguous “liberals in Congress” and Nancy Pelosi.  While all of us who pay close attention to the political world know exactly what those phrases symbolize, what to they mean to the average American?  We live in a country where a large fraction of the people do not understand how Congress works, let alone who leads it.  Not to be condescending to the average voter, but who do they care who Nancy Pelosi is?  And what does “liberal” mean to them, anyways?  Instead of playing the same name-calling game the Democrats did, the McCain camp should have been name-dropping.  From McCain-Feingold to McCain-Leiberman, we can go on and on with the bipartisan voting record and ability to compromise McCain is known for.  We could have stayed positive with our Maverick, but decided not to, and I think we should be regretting it.

I could continue until 2010 with my opinions against negative campaigning.  Even if it has worked in the past, I truly believe it creates an unhealthy political environment.  If Republicans took a stance to emphasize their own achievements and potential in the future, I think we would be better off as a party and as a country.  When politicians make mistakes, I think they should be called out, no doubt about it.  But that should not be the primary focus of a campaign.  My hope is that, over the next two years and beyond, the Republican Party rethinks how it will promote itself and ideals on the national level.  If this includes positive advertisements displaying why the GOP is best for America, that will be change I will truly believe in.

DeMint Hits On John McCain

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has become among the first to unload on Senator John McCain, blaming him for the election defeat.

“McCain, who is proponent of campaign finance reform that weakened party organizations and basically put George Soros in the driver’s seat,” DeMint said. “His proposal for amnesty for illegals. His support of global warming, cap-and-trade programs that will put another burden on our economy. And of course, his embrace of the bailout right before the election was probably the nail in our coffin this last election. And he has been an opponent of drilling in ANWR, at a time when energy is so important. It really didn’t fit the label, but he was our package.” (Jonathan Martin, Politico)

I know DeMint is known as a big reliable conservative, and in a sense he is both wrong and right. John McCain was much more moderate and less militant than most Republicans in Congress have been. But is that really a crime? McCain tried to talk about issues that people actually care about, particularly the environment. Sorry DeMint, but the GOP’s policy towards the environment can’t be “Just Say No” any more. At least McCain tried to put the Republicans back on the playing field when it comes to environmental issues.

Cap-and-trade would be an unnecessary and burdensome program on our economy, but at least the Democrats are saying something about it. Why don’t we start applying conservative principles to curbing carbon emissions? Free-market based approaches? Governors, thats your cue….

On immigration reform back in 2005/2006, McCain handled the situation all wrong. But he realized that the Republican Party needs to reach out to Hispanic voters, not militantly alienate them. It’s not even a matter of principal at this point – it’s a matter of practicality. If, God forbid, 9 million illegal aliens were all of a sudden granted not only legal status but the right to vote as well, would you want to be known as the Party that fought to prevent that from happening? Just like with the black vote, we could lose the Hispanic vote for generations.

The lesson we should be learning from McCain is not that he wasn’t conservative enough, but that he tried to extend the GOP’s reach into a sea of issues that Democrats have long held the advantage on. For all we know, McCain could become the Barry Goldwater of 2008 – while his candidacy wasn’t appreciated after his election failure either, he set the tone for future Republican Presidential candidates and campaigns.

I do agree with one precept of DeMint’s argument:

“One of our principles is that power corrupts, and you need to disperse it,” DeMint said. “And if our own party allows ourselves to be destroyed by this idea, and are not willing to stand up, then we have to change everyone at the top.”

I’ve been saying for awhile that we need to get rid of a lot of our leaders in Congress – and I don’t necessarily think it should stop at just the top. Fresh people can bring in fresh ideas.

A final word of thought: one great conservative philosopher, Russell Kirk, a favorite of Ronald Reagan, had this to say about the conservative movement and the environment:

“… In America, an impression began to arise that the new industrial and acquisitive interests are the conservative interest, that conservatism is simply a political argument in defense of large accumulations of private property, that expansion, centralization, and accumulation are the tenets of conservatives. From this confusion, … the forces of tradition in the United States never have fully escaped.”

Republican Governors Conference and the Sarah Palin Love Rollercoaster

The Republican Governors Conference met today in Miami, Florida today, serving as a big Republican “regroup” after the big Democratic landslide election – and Gov. Sarah Palin’s presence there certainly spiced things up a bit.

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS), and Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) were also all there, as was former E-Bay CEO Meg Whitman (who is a possible Republican candidate for California’s governorship in 2010). Almost all of the above mentioned are possible 2012 candidates.

For starters, I hope other Republicans and conservatives realize that this event, and particularly the Republican governors themselves, are our first and best hope for a Republican comeback in 2010 and 2012. With no strong national leadership presence, the only way we can showcase a new Republican “agenda” of innovative conservative reforms is through Republican governors actions and reforms in their own states.

But for the most part, at least as far as the media goes, it seemed like a big, awkward, unwilling conservative debate on the consensus around Sarah Palin – and to make it even more awkward, Palin clearly didn’t want it to be.

For starters, during a joint press conference in which all the governors lined up to answer questions, all of the questions asked were about Sarah Palin, her career, and the campaign that just ended. After every question, she would step back into line – at one point she even told the reporters that the event was about all of them and their agenda, not just her. “You know, we’re going to focus here on what we can do as a team of Republican governors together,” she quipped. The reporters didn’t really care.

Inside, it was even more stiff. The reporters kept on asking the other governors on various panels what they thought about Palin, which led to some bemusement and annoyance. No one said anything negative – yet no one said anything overwhelmingly praising either.

Bottom line is that the event was supposed to be one that showed a united Republican effort to make a new agenda. Instead, it became an event that “showed” a Republican Party “united” around Sarah Palin as the default leader, a troubling thought for many of the other governors who’d like to run in 2012.

Palin I thought did a good job of being that default leader. Her best quote: “Let us resolve not to be the negative party.” We need ideas, not a repeat of what the Democrats have done for the past eight years. She gets that we need to shift our attention to budget balancing and cutting, domestic energy, tax, health care and environment policies. Governors can do that.

I’m a big Palin fan, but a word of constructive criticism – when asked how the Republicans can reach out to Hispanic and women voters, say something more substantive than “You know, I treat everybody equally.” Sounds good on paper, but it doesn’t really mean anything, ya know?

Democratic and Republican Governors