Earlier this morning, caught a good piece from Byron York on why winning the Hispanic vote would not be enough to secure a GOP presidential victory.  Here’s the crucial paragraph:

But here is the real solution. Romney lost because he did not appeal to the millions of Americans who have seen their standard of living decline over the past decades. They’re nervous about the future. When Romney did not address their concerns, they either voted for Obama or didn’t vote at all. If the next Republican candidate can address their concerns effectively, he will win. And, amazingly enough, he’ll win a lot more Hispanic votes in the process. A lot from other groups, too.

Read the whole thing.  Did recall reading something about a year ago on Mitt Romney’s failure to appeal to working class votes disaffected from the incumbent administration.  York is right; the next Republican candidate needs to effectively address their concerns.

Part of the answer, ironically enough (given the premise of York’s piece), lies in a piece Jill Lawrence published last week in the National Journal, a piece on Republicans’ challenges with Hispanic voters.  Lawrence cited a focus group whose participants . . .

liked what they heard about Medicaid, immigration, economics, and education in clips from speeches by some prominent party figures. But the people they listened to—New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush—are unusual in how they talk about these issues and seemed like anomalies to the focus-group participants. (more…)

In a piece on the immigration bill, Stanley Kurtz offers a nutshell version of the real problem facing Republicans today:

Republicans have been in a funk ever since Obama’s re-election. I’m the first to agree that there’s a deeper problem, but it’s got more to do with under-thirties and what education and the culture are doing to them than with anything a path to citizenship will fix.

When I listen to my non-Republican twentysomething friends talking about the GOP, I hear an image of a party drawn from Democratic talking points and college professors’ prejudices. Few are aware of the ideals of liberty and civil society that have stood as the guideposts for the conservative and libertarian thinkers who have defined the basic philosophy of the Republican Party since Reagan.

Many, as Arthur Brooks sagely observed last month in the Wall Street Journal believe Republicans are indifferent to the poor.  Republicans need to change that faulty perception.  They have to show the “under-thirties”, as Kurtz described this demographic suffering the most under Obama’s policies, that conservatives are aware of — and sympathetic to — their plight and will, if elected, put into place policies which will make it easier for them to find jobs commensurate with their talents and their training, allowing them to prosper as did young people in the Reagan Era.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Cactus Bill gets it:

There has been a bastardization of the language for some now. When compassion is defined by how much government can provide instead of what you can provide for yourself the notion of pursuing your own happiness is turned on it’s head. Real compassion is allowing an environment where a business of any type can actually HIRE someone. A real job is more compassionate and rewarding to the soul than all the government provided resources have ever been able to give. (more…)

From the Shark Tank:

This past weekend, Congressman Trey Radel was the latest to joined the growing choir of Republican supporters for inclusion of gays into the Republican fold. Radel stated that he did not care what sexual orientation a person was, as long as they stood by conservative values and principles…

Although I do not confuse outreach to gays with support for gay marriage (and neither should you), this news is interesting for coming on the heels of shifts in public Republican support for gay marriage, such as Senator Portman’s. Also, Radel’s outreach fits well with the founding principles of GOProud.

(Note to Gay Left commentors: This post is Jeff talking, not Bruce or Dan. I’m a current Independent and former Democrat; never been a Republican, though I have some Republican friends. The tired remarks about gay Republicans that some of you may now want to utter will not hurt me; only make me roll my eyes. )

GayPatriot.org has been given the full list of the Republicans and Conservatives who have signed onto the amicus brief on the Prop 8 case pending before the US Supreme Court.

This list has been provided to me by a highly-placed Republican source familiar with the Prop 8 issue.

Clint Eastwood, Producer, Director, Actor, Mayor
Paul Wolfowitz, President of the World Bank Group (2005-2007) and Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001-2005)
Cliff S. Asness, Businessman, Philanthropist, and Author
Charlie Bass, Member of Congress, 1995-2007 and 2011-2013
Thomas J. Christensen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 2006-2008
Jeffrey Cook-McCormac, Senior Advisor, American Unity PAC
S.E. Cupp, Author and Political Commentator
Michele Davis, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Department of the Treasury, 2006-2009
Janet Duprey, New York State Assemblywoman, 2007-Present
Tyler Deaton, Secretary, New Hampshire Young Republicans, 2011-Present
Chris Edwards, Special Assistant to the President and Director of Press Advance, 2005-2007
Mark J. Ellis, State Chairman, Maine Republican Party, 2005-2006 and 2007-2009
Juleanna Glover, Press Secretary to the Vice President, 2001-2002
John Goodwin, Chief of Staff to Raul Labrador, Member of Congress,2011-2013
Mark Grisanti, New York State Senator, 2011-Present
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director, Congressional Budget Office, 2003-2005
Cyrus Krohn, Digital Director, Republican National Committee, 2007-2009
Kathryn Lehman, Chief of Staff, House Republican Conference, 2003-2005
Alex Lundry, Director of Data Science, Romney for President, 2012
Beth Myers, Romney for President Campaign Manager, 2007-2008 and Senior Advisor, 2011-2012
B.J. Nikkel, Colorado State Representative and Majority Whip, 2009-2012 and District Director for Congresswoman Marylyn Musgrave, 2002-2006
Richard Painter, Associate Counsel to the President, 2005-2007
Ruth Ann Petroff, Wyoming State Representative, 2011-Present
Gregg Pitts, Director, White House Travel Office, 2006-2009
J. Stanley Pottinger, Assistant U.S. Attorney General (Civil Rights Division), 1973-1977
John Reagan, New Hampshire State Senator, 2012-Present
Adam Schroadter, New Hampshire State Representative, 2010-Present
Richard Tisei, Massachusetts State Senator and Senate Minority Leader, 1991-2011
John Ullyot, Communications Director, U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, 2003-2007
Sally A. Vastola, Executive Director, National Republican Congressional Committee, 2003-2006
Jacob P. Wagner, Chairman, New Hampshire Federation of College
Republicans, 2012-Present
Dan Zwonitzer, Wyoming State Representative, 2005-present
Frances Fragos Townsend, Homeland Security Advisor to the President, 2004-2008
Brian Roehrkasse, Director of Public Affairs, Department of Justice, 2007-2009
Larry Pressler, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, 1979-1997
Neel Kashkari, Interim Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability, 2008-2009
Aaron Mclean, Press Secretary to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 2007-2011
Luis Reyes, Special Assistant to the President, 2006-2008 [or Deputy Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 2005-2006]
Josh Ginsberg, Deputy Political Director, Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor, 2006
Meghan O’Sullivan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004-2007
Jill Hazelbaker, Communications Director, John McCain for President, 2007-2008
Corry Schiermeyer, Director Global Communications, National Security Council, 2005-2007
Alicia Davis Downs, Associate Political Director, White House, 2001-2003
Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
Tim Adams, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, 2005-2007
David D. Aufhauser, General Counsel, Department of Treasury, 2001-2003
Cliff S. Asness, Businessman, Philanthropist, and Author
John B. Bellinger III, Legal Adviser to the Department of State, 2005-2009
Katie Biber, General Counsel, Romney for President, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012
Mary Bono Mack, Member of Congress, 1998-2013
William A. Burck, Deputy Staff Secretary, Special Counsel and Deputy Counsel to the President, 2005-2009
Alex Castellanos, Republican Media Advisor
Paul Cellucci, Governor of Massachusetts, 1997-2001, and Ambassador to Canada, 2001-2005
Mary Cheney, Director of Vice Presidential Operations, Bush-Cheney 2004
Jim Cicconi, Assistant to the President & Deputy to the Chief of Staff, 1989-1990
James B. Comey, United States Deputy Attorney General, 2003-2005
R. Clarke Cooper, U.S. Alternative Representative, United Nations Security Council, 2007-2009
Julie Cram, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director White House Office of Public Liaison, 2007-2009
Michele Davis, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Department of the Treasury, 2006-2009
Kenneth M. Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President, 1981-1984 and 1987-1989
Lew Eisenberg, Finance Chairman, Republican National Committee, 2002-2004
Elizabeth Noyer Feld, Public Affairs Specialist, White House Office of Management and Budget, 1984-1987
David Frum, Special Assistant to the President, 2001-2002
Richard Galen, Communications Director, Speaker’s Political Office, 1996-1997
Mark Gerson, Chairman, Gerson Lehrman Group and Author of The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars and In the Classroom: Dispatches from an Inner-City School that Works
Benjamin Ginsberg, General Counsel, Bush-Cheney 2000 & 2004
Adrian Gray, Director of Strategy, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
Richard Grenell, Spokesman, U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations, 2001-2008
Patrick Guerriero, Mayor, Melrose Massachusetts and member of Massachusetts House of Representatives, 1993-2001
Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce, 2005-2009
Stephen Hadley, Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, 2005-2009
Richard Hanna, Member of Congress, 2011-Present
Israel Hernandez, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, 2005-2009
Margaret Hoover, Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, 2005-2006
Michael Huffington, Member of Congress, 1993-1995
Jon Huntsman, Governor of Utah, 2005-2009
David A. Javdan, General Counsel, United States Small Business Administration, 2002-2006
Reuben Jeffery, Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs, 2007-2009
Greg Jenkins, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Advance, 2003-2004
Coddy Johnson, National Field Director, Bush-Cheney 2004
Gary Johnson, Governor of New Mexico, 1995-2003
Robert Kabel, Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, 1982-1985
Theodore W. Kassinger, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, 2004-2005
Jonathan Kislak, Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture for Small Community and Rural Development, 1989-1991
David Kochel, Senior Advisor to Mitt Romney’s Iowa Campaign, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012
James Kolbe, Member of Congress, 1985-2007
Jeffrey Kupfer, Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy, 2008-2009
Kathryn Lehman, Chief of Staff, House Republican Conference, 2003-2005
Daniel Loeb, Businessman and Philanthropist
Alex Lundry, Director of Data Science, Romney for President, 2012
Greg Mankiw, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2005
Catherine Martin, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Communications Director for Policy & Planning, 2005-2007
Kevin Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2005-2009
David McCormick, Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, 2007-2009
Mark McKinnon, Republican Media Advisor
Bruce P. Mehlman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, 2001-2003
Connie Morella, Member of Congress, 1987-2003 and U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003-2007
Michael E. Murphy, Republican Political Consultant
Michael Napolitano, White House Office of Political Affairs, 2001-2003
Ana Navarro, National Hispanic Co-Chair for Senator John McCain’s Presidential Campaign, 2008
Noam Neusner, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Speechwriting, 2002-2005
Nancy Pfotenhauer, Economist, Presidential Transition Team, 1988 and President’s Council on Competitiveness, 1990
J. Stanley Pottinger, Assistant U.S. Attorney General (Civil Rights Division), 1973-1977
Michael Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, 2001-2005
Deborah Pryce, Member of Congress, 1993-2009
Kelley Robertson, Chief of Staff, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Member of Congress, 1989-Present
Harvey S. Rosen, Member and Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 2003-2005
Lee Rudofsky, Deputy General Counsel, Romney for President, 2012
Patrick Ruffini, eCampaign Director, Republican National Committee, 2005-2007
Steve Schmidt, Deputy Assistant to the President and Counselor to the Vice President, 2004-2006
Ken Spain, Communications Director, National Republican Congressional Committee, 2009-2010
Robert Steel, Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance, 2006-2008
David Stockman, Director, Office of Management and Budget, 1981-1985
Jane Swift, Governor of Massachusetts, 2001-2003
Michael E. Toner, Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Election Commission, 2002-2007
Michael Turk, eCampaign Director for Bush-Cheney 2004
Mark Wallace, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Representative for UN Management and Reform, 2006-2008
Nicolle Wallace, Assistant to the President and White House Communications Director, 2005-2008
William F. Weld, Governor of Massachusetts, 1991-1997, and Assistant U.S. Attorney General (Criminal Division), 1986-1988
Christine Todd Whitman, Governor of New Jersey, 1994-2001, and Administrator of the EPA, 2001-2003
Meg Whitman, Republican Nominee for Governor of California, 2010
Robert Wickers, Republican Political Consultant
Dan Zwonitzer, Wyoming State Representative, 2005-present

I know Dan and I agree that we prefer Gay Marriage, Domestic Partnerships and/or Civil Unions happen in the context of “the marketplace” (aka – The States) than by judicial fiat through the courts.

Therefore, I philosophically believe that the Prop 8 voters should be respected by the Supreme Court, though that would mean a further struggle in the marketplace in California to see gay marriage. Other states have accomplished it; quite quickly in fact.

That being said, there seems to be a cultural earthquake happening in the Republican Party and the Conservative movement aligned with the SCOTUS’ review of Prop 8 and DOMA.

Breitbart News has learned exclusively that Clint Eastwood has signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry. The brief, which will be released later this evening, has signatures from more than 100 Republican and conservative activists. It involves the case before the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn CA’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state.

Eastwood isn’t the story, folks. He’s probably always been pro-gay marriage — if not vocally. No, it is the names that previously opposed SSM, but will appear on this amicus brief.

Something is happening. The marketplace is working.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

One of the panels today at the National Review Institute’s Summit was “Solutions from the States.” The topics ranged from the transfer of income from high-tax to low-tax states, the impact of pop culture on conservatism and how to change it, and the broad wins at the state level that the Republican Party has had over the past several election cycles.

To that last point, John Hood – President of the John Locke Foundation – spent a few moments with me talking about how the strength of the state-based Republican Party can be translated to national prominence.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Charles Krauthammer suggests that the GOP House play it small:

Can you govern from one house of Congress…shrink government, restrain spending, bring a modicum of fiscal sanity to the country when the president and a blocking Senate have no intention of doing so?

…The more prudent course would be to find some offer that cannot be refused, a short-term trade-off utterly unassailable and straightforward. For example, offer to extend the debt ceiling through, say, May 1, in exchange for the Senate delivering a budget by that date — after four years of lawlessly refusing to produce one.

Not much. But it would (a) highlight the Democrats’ fiscal recklessness, (b) force Senate Democrats to make public their fiscal choices and (c) keep the debt ceiling alive as an ongoing pressure point for future incremental demands.

Read the whole thing. Agree/disagree?

Contending that Republicans “have a rhetoric and practical wisdom problem”, a young correspondent of The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol, considering New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s popularity, addressed the GOP’s image problem:

So I wonder, are Christie’s recent negative comments about Republicans something like Xenophon’s frequent sacrifices and invocations of the gods throughout the Anabasis? Might Republicans learn something from this? The vast majority of people are liberal today not because they have reasoned their way to that position, but because they believe in it as the average person used to believe in god. Authority—in schools, on TV and in print—tells them that the Republicans are evil. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that hating Republicans is the Last Man’s god. (I believe it was Allan Bloom who said that “anti-bourgeois ire is the opiate of the last man…”). So Christie makes sacrifices, as he must, to that hateful god. He invokes that god. He publicly embraces that god.

Via Powerline Picks.  Emphasis added.  Read the whole thing.  This guy is onto something.  My only quibble is that I would add “who are” between the word, “people,” and phrase, “are liberal”,  and add “arrive are this ‘designation’” after “liberal today” in the italicized portion

I do find that, in interactions with many who call themselves liberal or who support President Obama have not, as Kristol’s correspondent put it, “reasoned their way” there, but have accepted the designation or come to the support because that is what they believe “good” people do.  They talk more in abstractions than details, often preferring clichés to arguments.  Many seem oblivious when you point out details of Obama’s policies.

And some seem dumbfounded when they learn that ideas for change that they support are similar to policy reforms Republicans have put forward.

At present, I don’t have a solution to this problem Republicans face.  But, we need at least recognize the GOP’s image problem, especially among the chattering classes and consumers of popular culture. (more…)

Kudos to the folks at Yahoo! for linking this article, Larry Elder to the GOP: ‘Stop talking to blacks like they are children’, on their home page, though, I daresay, their intention was not to promote the GOP but to critique Republican for patronizing African-Americans.

The Sage of South Central reminds Republicans that although “Democrats have convinced blacks otherwise [,] Racism is no longer a major issue in this country.”  Elder, my favorite talk show host when I listened regularly to the radio, has just published a new book, Dear Father, Dear Son: Two Lives… Eight Hours, contends “that the greatest threat to the black community is . . . the scourge of absentee fathers.”

Republicans, he argues,

. . . need to explain how the welfare state has undermined the formation of traditional two-parent families. . . that the Democratic Party’s allegiance to teachers unions means urban parents are forced to send their children to schools the parents don’t like; that policies like minimum wage hikes destroy jobs for the unskilled; and admitting students under ‘race-based preferences’ means a higher drop-out rate for the ‘affirmative action student’; that raising taxes on the rich threatens the prosperity of all.

Would it that Mitt Romney, like his running mate Paul Ryan, were better able to articulate those arguments.  Had he fully understood them, he would never have said that he wasn’t concerned about the very poor for he would have known how the safety net often destroys families and undermines the social fabric.

And had Romney known, what Larry Elder knows, how the welfare state hurts those who depend upon it for their well-being, he would have been able to articulate how conservative reforms help not just the rich, but also the very poor — and everyone in between.

Kudos to Larry Elder for speaking out so forcefully.  We could use more voices like his in the GOP.  Just added his book to my amazon wish list.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter narrowly edged Ronald Reagan among voters under 30, with the Gipper scoring just 44% of the twentysomething vote. Four years later, the Gipper ]increased his share of the youth vote to nearly 60%.

And while Barack Obama did just as well among young voters last month as the Gipper did in 1984, his share of the young vote has declined since his initial election.  Young voters grew to appreciate Reagan for his accomplishments; they seem more enchanted with Mr. Obama’s image.

Some seem to think that that the Republican’s current poor showing among young voters suggests the party could lose an “entire generation”  to Democrats.  But, this notion assumes that voters party identification remains fixed.  And that is hardly the case.  How will these young voters feel about Mr. Obama and his Democratic policies when the job market for their generation continues as it has these past for years?  Come 2016 (even 2014), they could be quite open to a Republican message expressed in terms similar to those offered by Reagan in the 1980s.

That said, the GOP today doesn’t so much have a youth vote problem as it has an ethnic problem.  Ben Domenech reminds us that

Mitt Romney won white voters under 30, even winning white women under 30. The youth voter barrier to the Republican Party is really the same barrier as it is for all age demographics: an ethnic barrier which concedes black, Hispanic, and Asian voters to Democrats.

(Read the whole thing even as the piece’s focus is on a different issue than this piece.)  If Mitt Romney could have made, as Ronald Reagan did, a pitch to all Americans, he likely would have done much better among young voter of all backgrounds.

And that must be the task of future Republican contenders.

. . . , as this report suggests, than he did nationally, we need figure out why that is so and figure out a means to transfer that success to other states.

Grateful to Glenn who links and offers, “Remember, they want you to be depressed, and to respond stupidly and impulsively.“

In J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, Treebeard said that his motto was, “Dont’ be hasty.”

In the wake of last Tuesday’s debacle, Ace, aware that “the entire movement is depressed — almost suicidally” offers similar counsel because

. . . it’s never a good time to make important decisions with far-reaching consequences when you’re in such a state. I think we need to get some perspective on things before committing ourselves to wholesale changes. We need some data, and we need some thinking.

It strikes me that the public made a similar impulsive decision under emotional stress.

Maybe we shouldn’t be as hasty.

He’s right; we shouldn’t be hasty in deciding the way forward.  That said, we’re already beginning the process of considering the way forward.  Now is perhaps the time for consideration, to put ideas out there.  Later will come the time for action, choosing which ideas to adopt and determining the best ways to put them into practice.

UPDATE:  In  a similar vein, Peter Wehner believes . . .

. . . we should use this moment to encourage fresh thinking and not vilify those who engage in it. At the same time, it seems to me that trying to fully understand the consequences of this election and what it means for conservatism 72 hours or so after the vote is probably unwise. We have plenty of time to sort through the exit polling data and think things through in a prudent manner.

(more…)

Four years ago, appearing on PJTV the night of the election, I said that Rush Limbaugh had then become the interim leader of the conservative movement. Roger Simon, as I recall, disagreed.

In retrospective, I may have had a point. Rush did give a great speech at the following CPAC (2009) challenging the new president and articulating the conservative vision. But, that talker is more a cheerleader and a motivator, than an actual leader. To be sure, he helps us deliver our message and encourages us.

Perhaps Rush came to mind at the time because, in the first eight years of this century, the conservative movement had become increasingly moribund. The Tea Party was not yet born. Few outside Florida had ever heard of Marco Rubio. Bobby Jindal hadn’t even completed his first year as Governor of Louisiana.

Two years later, a whole host of articulate conservatives would rise to the fore, with Bob McDonnell elected Governor of Virginia the following year, then several thoughtful Republicans including Rubio elected to the U.S. Senate, including Ron Johnson from Wisconsin, Rob Portman from Ohio and Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania.

Paul Ryan would soon take over the chairmanship of the House Budget Committee. The Tea Party would become even stronger. (more…)

Few advocates for gay marriage make a strong argument for expanding the defining of the institution. They talk about “rights” and “equality” without appreciating the meaning of marriage.

By saying, for example, that we only have a right to marriage when the state recognizes it, they imply that marriage is a creature of the state — and in the absence of that government-issued certificate has no existence whatsoever.  And yet marriage existed long before any government ever recognized it.  And exists today even in the absence of state recognition.

Some gay marriage advocates do get the meaning of the institution; that’s why I have referenced Jonathan Rauch repeatedly in my posts on the topic. But, now in her piece offering some tips on how Republicans can take back the majority, Megan McArdle recognizes that marriage is more than just a “right” (or a question of “equality”):

The GOP would also help itself with those people by embracing gay marriage. To be sure, this might cause them some problems with the evangelical base whose organizing support is crucial to Republican get-out-the-vote efforts. But the GOP could assuage that tension by promulgating a hard-core, Republican version of gay and straight marriage. That’s why they should pair it with making marriage mandatory, and eliminating no-fault divorce. The message should be that if everyone can get married, then there’s no really excuse not to be.

(Via Instapundit.) Now, I don’t like the idea of making marriage mandatory, but do like the notion of pairing gay marriage with eliminating no-fault divorce. It shows that she understands the institution to be more than just a contract between individuals.

Seven years ago, as Jane Galt, McArdle wrote A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other. I read it back then; it’s well worth your time.

McArdle is one of the few people who has written intelligently about gay marriage.  Would it that there were more like her!

Jim Geraghty began his post-election Morning Jolt with a tone of considerable despair, calling the Republicans’ 2012 defeat “a much, much, much tougher loss than 2008.”  He could more readily understand McCain’s loss given the near perfect storm environment four years ago, the Democratic victory made more sense.

And while I too was initially glum at the time Geraghty offered that assessment, the more I pore through election results and exit polls, the more I realize that, in terms of prospects for the GOP and conservative ideas, there are much more grounds for hope now than there was four years.

When, the course of the 2008 election, it became pretty evident that Barack Obama was going to win a strong majority, Michael Barone wonder if we were seeing another inflection point in American history, with Americans rejecting the smaller government consensus building from the 1970s through the 1990s:

The protracted and painful experiences of those decades changed basic public attitudes on the balance between government and markets, between regulation and enterprise, between government-aid programs and self-reliance The breadlines and depression of the 1930s moved Americans in one direction; the gas lines and stagflation of the 1970s moved them in the other.

Which raises the question of whether the financial ructions of 2007-08 (09?) will move them back again. One reason to believe this is possible is the passage of time. Americans in the 1980s and 1990s were ready to accept deregulation and tax cuts and welfare reform because so few of them had personal memories of the 1930s.

Indeed, exit polls in 2008 showed that over half of Americans surveyed “wanted government to do more to intervene while 43 percent said it was doing too many things better left to businesses.”

This year, however, “those numbers have flipped.”  Four years ago, it could be said that the American people favored bigger government, but today, even in an electorate more Democratic than that in 2010, there is clearly a consensus for smaller government. (more…)

Like many conservatives in the wake of the reelection of a failed liberal president, I have experienced my share of sadness in the past few days, passing through several stages of grief, from depression when we learned the results to bitterness to anger, but then, starting sometime yesterday, not even forty-eight hours after the loss, I passed into a new stage resolve.

And it seems I’m not the only one.

Perhaps, the most striking contrast between liberals and conservatives I have observed in my Facebook feed has been the greater amount of bile coming from the left, even after their victory.  The seemed to react to the 2012 victory in a manner similar to their response to their 2004 defeat, lashing out at conservatives.

Now, to be sure, some conservatives have not been on their most, well, adult behavior in responding to the results, but, on the whole, they’re facing them with grim determination or considered resignation.  But, they’re also (and this in the third day after) coming up with solutions on how to rebuild the party.

What struck me about the Charles Krauthammer piece I excerpted here was how forward-looking it was.  Similarly, Jennifer Rubin has offered Ten fix-it projects for the GOP. On the same day, she also offered suggestions for building a bigger GOP.

Bookworm offered several Practical suggestions for bypassing the media and getting the conservative message out.  Michael Walsh also impressed upon the GOP the need to develop “alternative media” which could serve as “both as a sword and shield against the decaying, corrupt journalistic establishment.”  (Walsh via Reynolds.)

In short, many conservatives have stopped licking our wounds and are now, learning from our mistakes this year and focusing on rebuilding for the future.  Reagan conservatives have always been a forward-looking folk.

Amidst the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in the wake of Mitt Romney’s narrow loss earlier this week to Barack Obama, a few cool-head conservative strategists and pundits have reminded us that all is not lost, that the party suffered a minor setback not a fatal blow.

Today, Charles Krauthammer, as could be expected, offers perhaps the most sage insight into the way forward for the GOP:

They lose and immediately the chorus begins. Republicans must change or die. A rump party of white America, it must adapt to evolving demographics or forever be the minority.

The only part of this that is even partially true regards Hispanics. They should be a natural Republican constituency: striving immigrant community, religious, Catholic, family-oriented and socially conservative (on abortion, for example).

He outlines a way forward on immigration reform, then reminds us that on core fiscal issues, the GOP should not moderate:

Tuesday’s exit polls showed that by an eight-point margin (51-43), Americans believe that government does too much. And Republicans are the party of smaller government. Moreover, onrushing economic exigencies — crushing debt,unsustainable entitlements — will make the argument for smaller government increasingly unassailable.

Bear in mind, given that GOP turnout was down from 2008, that eight-point margin might actually be considerably larger.  It wasn’t conservative ideas which did Republicans in, but the standard bearer’s imperfect articulation of them: (more…)

In the wake of Mitt Romney’s narrow popular vote loss in the presidential election yesterday, Republicans need to do some soul-searching if f they want to regain the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016.  And right away, there are three big questions they need to ask:

1. Why did Mitt Romney fail to get as many votes as did John McCain in 2008?
2. How can the party better reach out to Hispanic and Asian Americans and other minorities?
3. How does the GOP recruit, as per my last post, the type of “genuine” conservative candidate “with political skills, policy smarts and impressive resumes in order to get elected”?

Two men elected to the U.S. Senate in the last two cycles, Florida’s Marco Rubio and Texas’s Ted Cruz could help Republicans explore both the second and the third questions.

Interesting that some of the leading lights of the GOP, these two men, along with Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico, are Hispanic.

As careful readers of this blog know, I had wanted former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to enter the 2012 contest for the White House.  Perhaps the Democrats would have run against him as the scion of the Bush dynasty.

He had been, however, a successful reform-minded governor of a major state, has withstood a fierce partisan challenge in 2002 and successfully reached out to Hispanic voters.  Perhaps, Jeb had (at least politically) a lousy last name, but I feared, as Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel put it, in their election post-mortem, that Mitt Romney’s

. . . biography hurt him. During a cycle when voters remained angry at Wall Street, Romney bore the weight of a finance background. And because of his own history in Massachusetts, he could never effectively go after President Obama on Obamacare, the president’s biggest political weakness.

None of this was ever a secret, but the Republicans nominated Romney anyway. They had no choice. The alternatives were unacceptable.

Exactly.  The remaining alternatives all carried more baggage that Mitt did.  Democrats were able to define him as a out-of-touch plutocrat rather than a real reformer.  (And I do wonder if some Republicans stayed home because they didn’t think the man who signed Romneycare into law was committed to repealing Obamacare.)

Anyway, Carlson and Patel wrote a great piece–one that I highly recommend.  They help define what kind of candidates Republicans need to nominate if they are to win elections.

We need, as they put it, “genuine conservatives . . . with political skills, policy smarts and impressive resumes in order to get elected.”  Fortunately, it seems, the two freshman Republican Senators are cut from that cloth.

May we see more of their like in 2014.

Yes, yesterday was a bitter blow, particularly given how many of us expected Mitt Romney to win.  And perhaps it was the difference between that expectation and the actual result that has caused so much despair in conservative ranks.

We should, however, not despair.   We have the better arguments and we have the deeper bench.  Our leaders have ideas for reform.  The president’s party may present themselves as the party of the future, but its leaders lack many new ideas, trotting out little more than retrofitted versions of the failed ideas of the past.

Eight years ago, Democrats too were glum.  Their nominee from the Bay State lost a narrow race to an incumbent from the opposing party.  Our party gained seats in the U.S. Senate, increasings its majority to 55, just as the Democrats did last night.

But, they didn’t then win the House, as we did last night.  And they didn’t any new ideas, as we do.  But, they still managed to come roaring back two years later, as we will.

We may be down today, but we’re far better off than the Democrats were when they lost in 2004.