Thought-provoking article by Frank Luntz in the Washington Post. I’ll link here, but you may need to register to access. Below are some excerpts, and my comments.
"Republicans in Congress cannot regain their majority merely by relying on a coalition of traditional conservatives and evangelicals. They must reach out to what I call "the fed-ups" — a large and growing constituency of independent voters who have held the balance of power in every election since 1992, and will hold it again in 2008."
This is especially true in NH, where according to one source I read independents are 44 percent of the electorate. Continuing to bellow "NO INCOME TAX" is no longer enough.
"It doesn’t matter whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, the outlook is grim: a war with no end in sight, rising costs of health care, borders that are poorly patrolled, schools that are failing, manufacturing that is disappearing, and a culture that is coarsening.
Congressional Republicans didn’t seem to notice in 2006, and certainly didn’t seem to care. For the all-important swing voter in the center — the current version of those 19-plus millionPerot voters — Republicans came to represent the politics of hypocrisy and failure. They didn’t have a message. They didn’t have an agenda. They didn’t have a purpose. And so on Election Day, these voters — now about 16 percent of the electorate — went elsewhere."
By any objective standard, the outlook is not "grim;’ we enjoy an unprecedented quality of life in America. BUT in politics perception is what matters, so the GOP had better pay attention.
Just like the national GOP, the NH GOP "didn’t have a message. … didn’t have an agenda." I tried to tell them that in 2004 and 2006, but all I heard in return was "NO INCOME TAX — RALLY THE BASE — STOP THE LYNCH INCOME TAX."
" But what did national Republicans do as the new Congress convened and Democrats began pushing through their "Six for ’06" proposals in the first 100 hours? They called a news conference not to present counter-proposals to guide the minority over the next two years, but to complain that the Democrats were treating them unfairly. They objected that the committee process was being skirted and members were denied opportunities to offer amendments.
Were Republicans standing up for retirement security, control over health-care decisions or economic freedom? No. They were upset over who was or was not allowed to offer amendments on the floor. (Note to Republicans: Americans don’t care.) …
Republicans need a spirited, intellectually based rebuttal to every piece of Democratic legislation and an alternative to every policy — not a new parliamentary maneuver."
READ AND HEED NH GOP — what is your alternative to Lynch’s education funding scheme; what is your alternative to his creeping-socialism health care scheme; what are your alternatives to his nanny-state regulations? YOU DON’T HAVE ANY.
"As a pollster, I rarely hear voters call for smaller government. They tell me that they want more efficient and more effective government."
This doesn’t make me happy. But it appears to be true. The challenge for Republicans is to address the voters’ wishes regarding education, the environment and health care in a way that doesn’t make government bigger and more powerful. While at the same time re-educating the voters that more-and-more government is the root cause of why our public schools aren’t competitive and why health care is so expensive. The way NOT to do that is the approach that the NH GOP has followed, and continues to follow, which is SAME-BUT-LESS.
