If John McCain loses this election, it will because, in large measure, he failed to promote a consistent conservative economic message.
You see in national elections, we Republicans are at a disadvantage to the Democrats.Â They can get by with running against.Â We have to run for something.
In 1974, Democrats increased their majorities in both Houses of Congress when voters overwhelmingly rejected Republican incumbents and candidates to punish then-recently disgraced former President Nixon’s party for Watergate.Â In 1976, Jimmy Carter won by running for “a government as good as the people” which was really his slogan to capitalize on residual distrust of the GOP.
Four years later, to oust that incompetent executive, Ronald Reagan presented a plan for economic recovery.Â It worked, both on the campaign trail and for the economy.
Fourteen years later, Republicans finally recaptured Congress by running on “The Contract with America,” “a detailed agenda for national renewal.“Â Twelve years later, however when an majority of House Republican had lost sight of the principles undergirding that contract, Democrats ran against their corruption, regaining the majority with vague promises of making the 110th the “most ethical Congress in history.”
Two years later, Barack Obama is running for president promising change from “the last eight years,” his favorite expression in the second presidential debate this year which, as I noted before, he used more often than Sarah Palin used the word, “maverick.”Â While change may seem a positive message, in many ways, it’s just a negative campaign tactic, signaling that he’s running against those last eight years.
He still hasn’t really spelled out what he means by change.
It just may work.Â For the better part of the past thirty-odd years, Democrats have won by running against something while Republicans win when we run for something.
And the media accuse us of cynicism and negative campaigning.