A few days after the election, regular commenter Angryclown (an old friend of mine, by the way) left this bit in a post-mortem about the election:

 Palin, Quayle, Shrub: stupid.

Bush 41, Dole, Kemp, McCain: smart enough.

A cacaphony of comic routines from the eighties and nineties rattled through my head as I pondered the response; when George HW Bush was in office, his verbal tics, bumbles and occasional attack of food poisoning certainly got their press; Kemp was only obliquely a factor in presidential politics, but he was usually portrayed as someone who’d taken a few too many concussions during his years as an NFL quarterback, especially when he got on the radar during his years as Reagan’s HUD secretary; Dole’s campaign was pretty much DOA in ’96, so his portrayals were a milder form of ridicule.  As to Mac – well, we’ll come back to that.

I responded:

Any Republican can be “smart enough”, when he/she is not a contender or a threat.

Bush41, Mac, Kemp and Dole are all “smart enough” now that they’re retired. When they were contenders, they were all “stupid” or worse.

Sorta like McCain; “Maverick” was every Democrat and media outlet’s favorite Republican, until he actually got endorsed. Then he was a crazy old man – until his career ended. Now he’s “smart enough”.

If Palin retired from politics tomorrow, all the “Palin be dum” stuff would disappear overnight.

It’s true, of course; to the Democrats and the media, the only good Republican is an irrelevant one.  Whether that irrelevancy comes from expired shelf-life (Dole, Kemp, George HW Bush) or being indistinguishable from Democrats (Arne Carlson, Dave Durenberger, and the media’s official “Good Republican”, Chuck Hagel – in Minnesota terms, any Republican that Lori Sturdevant endorses), the idea is the same; the media and the left will tolerate Republicans who are no threat whatsoever to Democrats.

Take the example of John McCain.  He has for the past decade been every liberal’s favorite conservative.  I can’t count the number of Democrat friends who, between 2001 and 2007 or so solemnly intoned “McCain is the only Republican I’d ever think about supporting”.  And conservatives were duly lukewarm on him; he earned an American Conservative Union rating of 87, only a point or two better than notorious moderate (and fellow “Democrat’s Favorite!”) Jim Ramstad, the departing Congressman from Minnesota’s Third District.

And yet the moment he got through the endorsement process, what did his years of accomodation, his “maverick” appelation, his “goodwill” and “reaching across the aisle” get him?

Along with being labelled an “extremist” Republican by a media that managed to shunt Mac’s moderate past down the public memory hole with record speed, I mean? 

Bupkes.

In the wake of the Republican Governors’ Conference, the MSM’s talking heads are prescribing…running to the center. 

Patterico looks back at his own predictions on the subject:

One post that I think has held up pretty well is one that I wrote on February 4, 2008, while the Republican primary was still going hot and heavy. My post was titled John McCain: The Myth of an Electable Candidate. Responding to a Wall Street Journal piece by Steven G. Calabresi and John O. McGinnis calling John McCain the most electable Republican, I said this:

It’s my view that McCain only seems electable because of his media image, which will collapse once the country actually gets to know him in the general election.

. . . .

Many voters will eventually learn that McCain’s image is nothing like the reality. People who know nothing of McCain except his image are finally going to sit down and watch a debate. At that point, a lot of them are going to say: “Holy crap! That’s the guy I thought I liked?!” The antiwar crowd will finally realize he makes George Bush look like Neville Chamberlain. And everyone will see McCain’s smug condescension, born of a background of elitism and privilege. It will manifest itself in that self-satisfied mockingly contemptuous grin that he can’t hide.

As one should beware of Greeks bearing gifts (unless it’s Michael Dukakis trying to look martial astride an M-1), conservatives should beware of the approval of the agenda media.

So what should  we do? 

More later.  Like, over the course of the next year.

The Community Organizer was made famous by our President-Elect as his sole “qualification” for the job – save running a successful but financially corrupt Presidential Campaign. Credit is due; Obama changed politics and campaigns forever.

Obama’s success underscores the failure of Republicans to enlist the same level of grass-roots participation among conservatives and centrists that could (and that’s a probably a stretch) have swung the 2008 Presidential Race in John McCain’s favor.

John McCain lost the election not because he was a conservative. He lost because he wasn’t conservative enough. In any case, this election probably wasn’t lost in 2008, rather over the last eight to fourteen years.

The election of 2008 was probably over before it began as the conservative movement ended with George W. Bush’s first State Of The Union address. Republicans have failed to show Americans how they can best serve the interests of middle Americans, moving to the center and leaving the right unoccupied, sometimes desperately adopting quasi-liberal positions in the interest of political expediency.

For naught it turns out.

America hasn’t ceased to be Center Right but Republicans made the fatal mistake that Center-Right is where they should camp out to wait for them. The GOP has failed to make the case to the American people that conservatism represents the best hope for the values that the majority of Americans still hold to be true. Worse yet, Republicans have failed in their leadership by not notifying Americans that this crisis calls for sacrifice and discipline – not another government bailout. A bailout that in retrospect, John McCain should have voted against.

The promotion of Universal Health Care (albeit a “conservative” version), No Child Left Behind, buying ill-gotten mortgages and the most fiscally liberal Republican in modern history have left conservatives without a candidate – or a party.

The result? Kamikaze conservatives actually voted for Barack Obama to hatch another Jimmy Carter backlash.

…but many more stayed home.

Liberals have overrun conservative strongholds by gathering legions of new voters under the banner of esoterica, lead by “Community Organizers.” These Pied Pipers, heretofore dismissed, armed with the internet and credit card terminals are the new tools of political power aggregation and management. The meteoric and unsubstantiated rise of Barack Obama is the ignoble manifestation of this grass-roots groundswell. It bolstered voter turnout (although not as much as expected) among liberal constituents during a contest that concurrently exhibited a mediocre turnout among conservatives.

Lesson learned.

For ’12 -nay ’10- it behooves conservative Republicans (sadly, there is a distinction) to steal Obama’s playbook, rend the chapters on “How to Garner Fraudulent Contributions via Anonymous Credit Card Donations”, “Deflection and Projection”, and “How to Hypnotize the Electorate by Saying Nothing At All” and enlist their own “Community Organizers” to educate, motivate and mobilize the would-be conservative base for the next go-around.

The cause? A new Contract with America? A renewal of unabashed conservatism among Republicans. A rejection of the notion that our federal government is the solution to all ills personal and national. An acknowledgment that our government has become bloated, corrupt, and insolvent.

Moving to the center seemed like a good idea at the time. Average Americans however, are less ideological and more pragmatic. They just want to know who will help them keep their job, keep their taxes low, protect them from evil and share their values of family, freedom, and independence.

Republicans need to sell true conservatism as the only way to serve the long-term needs of the greatest number of Americans. True conservatism is good for the economy and our national security. True conservatism creates real wealth, real jobs and real charity. True conservatism promotes accountability and self reliance; still core values of America to this day. True conservatism promotes democracy and protects the world from tyranny while at the same time champions the rights of the smallest lives. True conservatism recognizes that some traditions got that way because they work.

Republicans have failed to close the sale that Ronald Reagan teed up for them. There’s a good chance Barack Obama and his cortege will meet them half way, but Conservatives need to make Liberal a bad word again. One voter at a time.

…we have two years.

On Saturday, King and I filled in for John, Chad and Brian on the second hour of NARN Volume I.  To kill the time with as little effort as possible, we did our “Top Ten” lists of best and worst things about having an Obama Administration. 

Because it beat doing show prep, that’s why.

Anyway, one of “best things” was “Conservatives make better underdogs”.  Another was “Maybe our ‘leadership’ will finally get the message” – but we’ll get back to that.

“Evil Conservative” over at TvM extrapolates on the thought:

My first feeling and it’s a surprising one both in how strong it is and that it’s lasting even until now – relief. Relief from the stress of following the election. Relief from defending George W. Bush all the time. Relief from defending Bill Frist when he wants to ban internet gambling. Relief from defending House and Senate Republicans when they get together to do something colossally stupid like, y’know, banning internet gambling!

For all of you on the “right” that tried to ignore all of us Forbes supporters back in 2000 – you may express your apologies, at least as re spending and economic issues, in the form of bottles of single-malt and/or good vodka.  Thanks.

The bottom-line: the pressure is off us at last. We have had some semblance of control of the federal government for 14 straight years. In that time, many Republicans have lost their way (Lott, Bush, Santorum), many have become embarrassingly corrupt (Foley, Abramoff, Stevens), and many are flat out hypocritical (Larry Craig, most who voted for socializing the banking system especially the No votes the 1^st time around who voted Yes the 2^nd time around when it was loaded with pork).

One last bit of relief that connects my points above about the past and my points below about the future. I’m relieved that our side is taking the correct steps to right the ship. We are not reacting like spoiled little babies like MoveOn and the nutroots in the DailyKos did in 2004.

Actually, I’m impressed by all three of the principals’ approaches to the transition, so far.  Bush is by all accounts being gracious about the transition (and seems unlikely to tolerate the vandalism and less-visible obstruction that his predecessor did eight years ago); McCain has done his best to quell the anger on the part of many of his supporters (although I’m looking forward to him dropping the hammer on some of his more petulant soon-to-be-ex staffers), and Obama has exercised his prerogative to be manganimous in victory.  All to the good. 

Suffice to say I’ll be particularly merciless to any rightybloggers that want to take the low road.  Don’t bother; its still too crowded with leftybloggers who’ve been squatting there for the past four years.

Onward:

There are no more targets on our backs. The media has to report on Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They have no choice but to be negative to sell, re-state their expectations of The One that they have promoted for the last 18 months, and resist the backlash now that the meme of the media favoring Obama is accepted by at least half of the audience – many who are refusing to watch or buy.

Not so sanguine here.

Of course they have a choice.  The media soft-pedalled Bill Clinton’s transgressions years ago (remember, it took Matt Drudge to get Newsweek to stop sitting on the Lewinski scandal?), and I see no reason to believe they won’t try again.

Of course, the media scene has changed since 1998; blogs, talk radio and a phalanx of alternative media have broken the logjam of “gatekeepers” that so benefitted Clinton.

Prediction:  Congressional Democrats will try to institute the “Fairness” Doctrine; it’ll be a dumb, ugly overreach that starts people thinking “maybe these people are too powerful”.

The Strib’s post-election editorial holds no major suprises – those all came before the election, when the Strib surprisingly endorsed Norm Coleman over Al Franken.

But when I say “no surprises”, I also mean there’s no change in their overall policy toward Republicans; “the only good republican is one that’s indistinguishable from a DFLer”. 

First, on Governor Pawlenty:

Despite losing out to Sarah Palin in the VP competition, Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s future within the Republican Party remains bright. He’s a legitimate candidate for the GOP nomination in 2012, when he might well face Palin again. What will Pawlenty’s national aspirations mean for Minnesota?

Actually, they’d make a great team:  Palin, given four years to polish her approach, has the potential to be a Reagan-like spokeswoman for free-enterprise, limited government, and America as a “shining city” (as opposed to a sick, old giant that needs intensive care – the central message of Obama’s supporters, if not The One himself).  Pawlenty could provide the George HW Bush role – the duo’s technocrat, the head-knocker, the detail guy. 

That’s unclear, but what is certain is that Minnesota needs the governor to provide the state with skilled and pragmatic leadership as we negotiate a deep economic downturn and serious budget challenges. In January, he’ll be working with a new Legislature comprising more DFLers and fewer moderate Republicans. Pawlenty should read DFL legislative successes as a call from voters for him to take a less rigidly conservative posture as the state addresses what is expected to be a major budget deficit.

Good lord, why?

Indeed, that’d be exactly the wrong “lesson” to take from the election.

“Moderate” Republicanism – the GOP of facile sloganeering and going along to stay in power – was the biggest loser of the last two election cycles.  If Pawlenty doesn’t see the real message – that real conservatism, in the guise of Michele Bachmann, Erik Paulsen and John Kline was the big winner (among GOP factions, obviously – we got beaten nationwide, surely enough) in this past election – then he needs to.   

More than ever, Minnesotans need and expect problem-solving compromises at the Capitol.

And to Strib editors, “compromise” unfortunately always seems to be “shut up and go along with the DFL”. 

We can not have that.

The Strib moves on to the Ventura “Independence” Party.

Even harder questions need to be asked by, and of, the Independence Party. After another round of weak showings and indistinct messages by its candidates, the IP’s reason for existence is no longer clear. What is clear is that IP candidates were spoilers this year, contributing to the election of candidates who lacked majority support in several key races. David Dillon, the party’s Third District congressional candidate who won 11 percent of the vote, hit the right note Wednesday. “It’s a legitimate, fair question. It bugs some people in the Independence Party that we have to wonder what our purpose is if all we’re doing is ruining the results for one side.”

It’s a question I keep asking my V“I”P friends:  since your party really is nothing but Jesse Ventura’s ever-eroding legacy, and in non-presidential years you barely cling to major-party status in Minnesota, and the party’s essense is really just the most irritating possible combination of “DFL-Lite” policies and third-party idealism (“We greens/libertarians/Constitution Party/whatever are not in power, and never really will be (shaddap about Ventura), so of course we can solve all the world’s problems – in our minds!”), and they will never again win a single significant office in this state (and Minnesota’s  V“I”P is nothing but the ghostly, solitary echo of what was once Ross Perot’s “Reform” party, nationwide – then why do you exist? What is the goal?

Don’t say “Winning elections” – the Libertarians say the same thing, with about as much credibilty.

Does the  V“I”P really want to just go on as spoilers forever?  As they soak up votes for moderate/pragmatic DFLers (and people who are suckers for idealistic sloganeering) I’m fine with that, of course, but for your (plural) own good, you might wanna think about it…

One of my biggest worries coming out of the 2000 Republican Convention as a disappointed Forbes supporter was the thought that the party had turned into a support mechanism for George W. Bush more than for a set of first principles.

Jay Reding noticed the same thing, and examines its role, among other things, in McCain’s defeat:

From 2000 on, the GOP was unified around George W. Bush. From about 2005 on, Bush was as toxic as a mortgage-backed security. Political movements based around single individuals do not tend to last, and by hitching their wagons to Bush, the Republican Party sowed the seeds of their own downfall…

…The failure of the McCain campaign must be tied to the failure of the Bush Presidency. He fought on a completely uneven playing field. The media was in the tank for Obama, and the Democratic machine was energized. But that doesn’t excuse the mistakes of the McCain campaign. They had the right message in the “Country First” theme, but they never really used it effectively. McCain could have won, but it would have taken an incredibly smart campaign to have done it. Instead, the McCain campaign went for the tried-and-true techniques of Bush 2000 and 2004—in a political climate that could not have been more different.

Via whatever means, the GOP needs to reorganize itself – and fast – around conservatism’s first principles, and providing a meaningful alternative to the Dems. 

Clearly, the party showed that where we do this – for example, the Third and Sixth Districts – the message resonates with people:  liberty, prosperity, security, culture, limited government and family works as a message.  Certainly better than “better than the other guys, plus with earmarks!”

Oh, yeah – while the GOP became the Bush Party for  a couple of terms,  Jay notes…:

(Note that the Democrats are doing the same with Obama now. Sic transit gloria mundi.)

I’m waiting to see what happens when people wake up and find out Obama’s not going to give them bread and circuses pay their gas and mortgage bills.