GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
I’ve noticed a troubling trend. We’ve not only lost independents and moderates in the last 3 years. A look at exit polls shows every single demographic group in America has moved away from Republicans. Even our most loyal voters have shifted to being only “lean Republican”.
Often pundits will blame this mess on a segment of the party. Some elites blame social conservatives for hurting the party. That can’t be the whole story because Republicans have lost support even among social conservatives.
Some pundits blame Bush’s economic policies. However Republicans have lost support among economic moderates and economic conservatives.
Some pundits blame the pre-emptive war policy. However Bush and Republicans have lost support even among pro-Iraq war voters. Many of our troops have even turned against Republicans.
Why have Americans turned on Republicans?
I think the answer is simple. It’s one we focused on in the primary but have forgotten lately:
COMPETENCE
Voters of all shades demand a government that can handle the important things.
As Sean Oxendine likes to point out Bush was getting guitar lessons while Katrina hit. In the aftermath he allowed the bureaucracy to stumble along while people died. That’s not competent leadership.
Bush disregarded the advice of his Generals prior to the invasion of Iraq. He sent in too few troops and made devastating blunders in the first few weeks allowing chaos as our troops stood by. Bush took years to correct his mistakes. Most Americans supported the war in Iraq until Bush showed he didn’t know what he was doing.
Bush showed countless errors in economic policy. At a time of rising federal debts he eliminated the long bond. Bush has actually increased the national debt more than all other Presidents combined.
While all this was going on our Republican Congress faithfully supported every error. Now Republicans are tightly linked with the President.
Bush has ruined the old conservative rhetoric. Americans just don’t trust us anymore.
I’m not a Bush hater and I don’t have BDS. The President actually did a few things right, but who can say they got more than they expected in the last 8 years from Bush?
Am I wrong here? Or do we need to break from Bush and his rhetoric?
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:58 am
Doug,
This may be the first time I’ve agreed with you since you got front page posting rights.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 am
John McCain. Townhall meetings. Barack Obama henchmen. And the *C* word.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/willfully_ignorant_media_gives_obama_activist_pass_to_ask_mccain_about_the_c_word
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:31 am
The other problem is that McCain seems to have to talent for competence. Senator McCain seems imcapable for adequate preparation for a speech, debate, or public meeting. His staff seems incapable of fact checking. McCain will do the opposite of whatever his advisors say. Senator McCain seems ready to appoint the same idiot children of donors that have dominated the Bush Administration. And last, Senator McCain seems ready to select an inexperienced newbie politicians because they are the correct gender or ethnicity.
Just ask yourself, can the banner holder for the conservative really be stupid enough to believe the Republican Party and conservative issues can survive a open borders and unlimited immigration.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 am
Doug,
I agree whole-heartedly with this post. I think you’ve hit on something very important here: while various factions within the GOP are busy blaming each other, the real problem has been incompetent, hands-off leadership. I think it’s clear that the public does not feel that the powers of the office have been used effectively over the past eight years.
While I agree with many of Bush’s policy priorities (spending and immigration reform notwithstanding), his inability to articulate and execute his goals have left Americans of all idelogical stripes, and, as you point out, all GOP factions, shaking their heads.
Of course, this isn’t news. We all knew that Bush fatigue was going to create an extremely difficult cycle for all GOP candidates, both at the top and the bottom of the ticket.
Just as an aside, I was struck by your choice of title for this post. It took me back to the aftermath of the Florida vote in 2000, when James Baker emerged on the scene as a spokesman for Republican interests. A close friend of mine pointed out how, after 8 years of Clinton whoring around the White House, it was like the grown-ups had returned to take care of business. Too bad Baker and his ilk were passed over at the Bush W.H.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 am
I also think that many conservatives equate weak leadership with small government, and that’s a shame. Regardless the size of the federal government (or state, or local), strong leadership is helpful in preventing it from growing. After all, the easiest solution to any failure of governance is to throw more money at the problem. Strong, competent leadership finds more attractive alternatives.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Mitt Romney-The competent conservative
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 am
Mitt Romney’s campaign clearly demonstrated that he was not that competent. He was a blatant pandered who spent his time as government having his vetos overridden by the Democrats in Mass. and the day after Romney left the governorship, it was like he was never there.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 am
Excellent post. I still don’t understand why Republicans thought a guy who repeatedly failed as a businessman would be competent in the most difficult job in the world.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 am
“He was a blatant pandered who spent his time as government having his vetos overridden by the Democrats in Mass. and the day after Romney left the governorship, it was like he was never there.”
Your going to hold Romeny responsible for what an 80% Democratic legislature screwed up?
—
Anyway, I was going to wait for this to show up on its own, but it appears to have been overlooked by the site. Novak now thinks Romney is at the top of the VP list:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/30/novak-rumor-romney-heads-mccains-shortlist-for-vp/
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 am
Bush, Bush, Bush
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
As a former very very very strong Rombot could we please not turn this into a Romney post!
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:01 am
When you accept the premises of the left and the msm, and try to get along with them, you become marginalized. This is why we were a minority party until Reagan came along. You have to fight back.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
This can all be laid at the feet of GWB and our congressional leadership by the way . No leadership destroyed the conservative movement.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Steve S says in regard to Romney…”I still don’t understand why Republicans thought a guy who repeatedly failed as a businessman would be competent in the most difficult job in the world.”
George W. Bush is a perfect example of this, IMO.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
You nailed it, Doug. The only thing missing imo is the word “hubris”.
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Meanwhile in Guam Obama is up but only 54-46. One would think Obama should win this 2 to 1 easy.
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Sas-
No, I was referring to Bush. Romney has an impressive business career and I was pretty surprised he wasn’t a better politician.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
OK Steve-agree with you wholeheartedly then.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
You are right about this. And also the “my way or the highway” thing has hurt Bush and the secretiveness and disregarding of constitutional rights/responsibilities, etc. Of course, the war in itself might have been enough. If anyone thinks that isn’t the main reason we lost in 2006, they are wrong. It isn’t an accident that the republican who is viewed as in some ways the opposite of Bush (competency in the war, openness, some limit on American actions, bi-partisanship) is our nominee. He isn’t a default candidate - he was republicans’ choice in large measure, I believe, because he was seen as a counter to some of Bush’s failures. That being said, he does need to be careful and does need to intensify his preparation. Obama will be prepared, and if McCain doesn’t show he is as well versed in the details and facts, he risks losing the advantage he has in being viewed as the most experienced/most capable potential leader.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Diane: I think the primary reason why McCain was clearly the strongest candidate the Republicans could put up is because he has long been seen as Not-Bush.
The Dems have already started trying to paint his candidacy as “four more years.” This is their best possible tactic, and it would likely have succeeded with any other Republican nominee. With McCain, it will be a tough sell.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Yeah…”competence” is going to be a distinctive competence in the next president. Unfortunately McCain is running against two people who are not slouches when it comes to this. I think McCain can overcome this with Obama because of other issues that will dog him in the general. However I think Hillary will take this from McCain.
BTW #7 - look up the word “syllogism” and then try it again.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
While competence is important (why i was a romney supporter), katrina was non of the federal government’s business.
it was the local leadership that let the people of new orleans down. since when is it hte national government duty to be prepared for any local catastrophe. they are a helping hand, not the main body of responsibility. that is the way it used to be and the way it should be. be we are turning into socialists in this country.
i agree 100 percent however. bush was loyalty over competence which is why he has been such a horrible president.
what did it for me was him firing rummy the day after the 06 bloodbath. that was the straw that broke the camels back for me. he should have done that two years earlier but he was too stubborn and stupid and ‘loyal’ to do it.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
mccain will not be seen as ‘not bush’ come electoin time. the dems will do all they can to make sure of that. that is exactly how they won i 06. all they had to say was, hey this guy is in the same arty as w and that was that.
if i were the dems, i would hold fire on all other critcisms and simply repeat: “mccain = Bush”
whether its true or not, it works. mccain better start now getting himself as far away from bush as possible.
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Dem campaign slogan for 2008 Presidential race:
“McCain is Bush just 20 years older and more tempermental.”
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
John Galt: I think you are mistaken, but time will tell. It’s not easy to change a public perception when it is well-established, as McCain’s image is.
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Simply calling McCain another Bush won’t work, but highlighting where their policies are the same should be quite effective, especially on Iraq. And McCain’s repeated verbal miscues on foreign policy - supposedly his strong suit - won’t help him.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
This post is right on the mark. To echo a lot of others here, competency was why I supported Romney. But he did do poorly as a politician. And I just don’t see any signs that McCain, or even Obama or Clinton, would be better managers than Bush.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I think either McCain or Clinton would be better managers than Bush, simply because they have a knowledge base, and historical perspective, from which to draw. Further, I think there is alot to the expression “older and wiser”. They know people who can get things done, and can hit the ground running when it comes to most issues. They both have shown they can work with the other side, sponsoring bills on common issues, like veterans benefits.
Obama is a rookie, too “green” in my view aside from the fact that I think he is ampty suit,blowing whichever way the wind blows (if I may mix my metaphors). I don’t think he really even knows what his policies are, someone else write sthem up and puts them on the website.
And we have “Wright” and “clinggate” to hang around his neck for his political life -he is damaged goods.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
You think Bush was bad, wait til McCain (imcompent abundance with this guy) gets in office. More amnesty, more kissing up to democrats like Kennedy, et al and more global warming BS shoved down our throats.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:55 am
There is no proff that McCain can competently manage anything He always seems unprepared for public appearance. He cannot manage his staff and his staff seems incapable for thinking more than five minutes ahead. McCain will draw his political appointees from the same group of idiot children of the rich that Bush drew his from.
If McCain wants to make a different he should come out and say that the Bush Administraiton has been so incompetent that no one who worked in the Bush Administraiton will work in his administration. No amount of experienced gained working for Bush makes up for the culture of failure. McCain should also promise to campagin against anyone who worked in the Bush Administraiton who is not running for office. No one from the Bush Adminisration should ever be involved in government or politics again.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:57 am
BobH you nailed this election perfectly in #20. This is exactly why McCain was our best candidate from a horserace perspective.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Competence was a factor that was striking for its absence. But the main component was another C-word: Communication.
Bush failed from the beginning to articulate anything well (he takes after his father, unfortunately), which undermined his credibility by making him easy to deride and ignore as an idiot. Although this wasn’t my belief about Bush, I feel that it had significant effects on his ability to lead a cabinet of some quite articulate, powerful, and experience politicians like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft. The first two of these, famously, pursued their own agenda of trying to restrengthen the powers of the executive branch back to pre-Nixonian levels.
Miscommunication undermined Bush’s ability to lead nationally and internationally as well, and it contributed to general mismanagement of the federal bureaucracy. My perception was that the whole issue of “unlawful combatants” and “torture” got entirely out of hand because our head of state failed to articulate firm, immutable national principles in a clear fashion. An articulate national leader like Reagan or Clinton would have, I believe, responded more forcefully and much, much more effectively.
Bush’s inability to communicate — along with his apparent indifference to his problem — made for incompetence, mismanagement, and weak leadership.
As a side note: I wasn’t an ardent Bush fan from the beginning, especially because of his initial election-year pandering to keep the farm subsidies and steel protectionism coming. Bush kept his promises, while expanding entitlements and deepening federal meddling in education, which he had also originally promised. Unfortunately, by following the president down this path (or was he following the path of the congressional GOP majority after ‘98?), the GOP also became increasingly corrupted by the system.