RSS Feed MenuWhile attending my Georgetown college reunion I took the opportunity to ask some classmates why they voted for President Obama. The running chorus I heard from several people was summed up nicely by one who asserted “new and improved vs. relic of the past.” There is something to be learned from her comment.
During his campaign, she said Obama represented a “modern, new type of political.” She added he was very intelligent and showed a willingness to listen and his charismatic personality. She said she also felt Obama ran a “masterful” 21st century campaign that leveraged technology to fundraise and attract young voters, like Howard Dean began to do in 2000. Finally, this Obamabot, as some conservative bloggers have dubbed Obama supporters, noted “Obama never went to the gutter with his campaign, attacking McCain or Hillary.” It was a display of a different kind of politics and to her it seemed everyone else was playing catch up.
When asked about her view of McCain during the presidential campaign, she said he seemed to implode toward the end, becoming a caricature rather than a commander in chief (citing his cancellation of appearing on the Letterman show then showing up on Katie Couric and his pick of Palin as a running mate.)
Another classmate explained his vote for Obama similarly, smiling and saying he felt Obama was an intellectual and he wanted to have a smart guy in the White House. Despite the fact that he didn’t agree with all of Obama’s platform and isn’t thrilled about the auto bailout, he felt McCain was “more of the same old thing” where Obama represented a new direction for the country.
It’s easy for the Republican base to excoriate moderate conservative and liberal voters alike as “Obamabots” for voting for a “smart guy, who can communicate effectively” but the fact of the matter is – it worked. And when weighed against the alternative—a candidate who came across as old and stuck in the past, the new and improved choice looked like the better bet to voters.
Picking up the case for Obama again Saturday morning, my female classmate wondered aloud why the GOP allows Rush Limbaugh to seemingly wield such influence over the party. She asked how the party expects to attract more people with polarizing figures like Rush at the helm. I told her many Republicans don’t view him as the voice of the party but she shook her head.
When Republicans want to jump over the fence into the Democrat’s tent, whether to endorse a candidate or win an election, the Democrats say “come on over, we’re glad to have you.” In contrast, Republicans aren’t often welcoming to people with different perspectives within their party. As a moderately conservative black woman with some strong viewpoints, I don’t feel the welcome mat being rolled out for me, as demonstrated by comments to my earlier post.
The GOP’s motto at the moment appears to be it’s our way or no way, come along for the ride but we’re always “right” even when we lose elections. Sounds like an appealing invitation! This type of politics cannot and will not win elections. If Republican leaders are serious about re-energizing the party and becoming more relevant Americans, they need to find better bearers of their message.
Why didn’t I vote for McCain? I embraced McCain’s policies and before he announced his running mate, I was considering voting for him. When he unveiled Sarah Palin, it was clear to me she didn’t have the muscle for the job of Vice President. She couldn’t even remember what newspapers she read. In the final weeks of the election, stacked next to Obama, McCain looked old to me like he didn’t have the stamina to lead.
The GOP needs to find and elevate candidates who can win elections — individuals, who can deftly communicate conservative ideas, connect with voters and demonstrate an authentic, not feigned, willingness to listen. Conservatism does work when it has the right messenger.
A lawyer who refuses to acknowledge his opponent’s powerful arguments is a bad lawyer, as is a general who dismisses his enemy’s strength and tactics. Both will likely lose their battles. Just as conservatives who cannot understand why 10 million more Americans voted for Obama than McCain are doomed for failure.
When the Republican party starts elevating its own “new and improved type of politician” with winning appeal across ethnicity, age, and gender, then dogmatic conservatives can ask moderates why they voted for the other guy. Instead, if the choice is to keep endorsing the same old type of candidates then the yield will be the same old results. But perhaps the party of NO relishes knowing they’re always right even when they’re losing. C’est la vie. By refusing to pitch a bigger tent on a new terrain, the GOP is striking out.
Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Don’t Democrats like to increase taxes on things they think are immoral, like cigarettes, soda, etc?
balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“I think if you slaughter other innocent people, you forsake your own right to life. “Given that you consider abortion slaughter of innocents – does this mean you don’t believe Dr. Tiller had a right to life, if there was someone out there who wanted to take it?I see you are unable to distinguish between encouraging certain behaviors and mandating certain behaviors. Not a surprise.
Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I dont support what Mr. Tiller did because it gives leftists like you a poiltical prop to justify more abortion, which is exactly what you are doing right now.Bullseye.
Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Using taxes to force your morals on people is bit of a mandate.
Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I meant to say I don’t support what the killer of Mr. Tiller did. I’m a poet and didn’t know it.
balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:51 pm
“I meant to say I don’t support what the killer of Mr. Tiller did. “Again, we’re capable of believing that people have a right to do any number of things that we don’t support them doing.But you seem to imply that he had a right to do so, given that you don’t believe Dr. Tiller had a right to live.
sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Dr Tesla claims: “I never see ‘moderates’ attacking Democrats and lecturing them to moderate on their beliefs. That didn’t happen after Gore and Kerry lost, or Dukasis and Mondale.”FYI: In 1985, Al From, Chuck Robb, Sam Nunn, and other moderates in the Dem Party formed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), right after Mondale’s landslide loss to Reagan one year earlier.Their purpose was to demonstrate to their fellow Dems that hard-left policies weren’t going to fly anymore, and that in fact the Dems should moderate their platform and try nominating a Southern moderate for a change.And in 1992, they got the candidate they wanted: Bill Clinton, from Arkansas. And he went on to win two terms.What David Frum is trying to do is create a kind of “Republican Leadership Council,” to argue that hard-right policies won’t win anymore. And just like Al From in 1985, David Frum today is running into the hard-core true believers who consider any moderation as equivalent to surrender.Of course, Al From could point to the failures of McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. Maybe the GOP base hasn’t had enough failures yet to demonstrate that a real change is needed.But they will.
midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Tesla, said “I don’t care if you are gay or not…I’m just trying to understand why you have this Christian-phobia and anti-social conservative hate thing going on. Did a Catholic priest rape you or what?”There you go again, now I have a Christian-phobia and you bring up Catholic priests and rape. What’s your past like? What’s hidden in those deep recesses of your brain? Again and again you bring up the strangest things to say about people you know nothing about. I can only surmised that it is a reflection of your own feelings or history.Are you a Catholic? Were you an altar boy? Do you have thoughts about violence often? Do you want and need corporal punishment for your sins? Tesla, in normal circumstances I would suggest professional help. But in your case, you are effective symbol of what is wrong with the GOP, so I wish you well and happy posting. But you know, I’ve got a sneaky suspicion you are looking at a lot of other web sites. But hey – we all have our vices, but you seem to spend a lot time wondering what ours are.
sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Dr. Tesla: The ideologues on BOTH ends of the political spectrum don’t like the idea of the American people making choices they don’t approve of.You’re right, liberals have adopted “Small Is Beautiful” type regulations (defying the legacy of FDR and JFK). Lower thermostats, smaller cars, doing more with less, etc.But over the years, social conservatives have demanded crackdowns of their own. They have supported sodomy laws, subjecting gays to arrest even for sex in the privacy of their own homes. They have demanded that the FCC crack down on so-called “indecency” on TV broadcasts. They have refused to allow even cancer patients to smoke marijuana for pain relief. They have even demanded that Congress pass a ban on Internet poker, of all things.It’s understandable that liberals do these things–they believe in Big Government. But it’s atrocious to see social conservatives demanding that the Government use its power to promote a more moral lifestyle. That’s hardly consistent with the principle of limited government.If we’re going to oppose the liberals’ demand for a Fairness Doctrine in TV broadcasting, then we should drop any demands for a “Family Hour” in TV broadcasting. Anyone can control the TV broadcasting very easily–with the on/off switch on their TV.Or even better, just unplug the TV and don’t watch it again.
trueblue // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Crystal,Let me just say welcome, and roll out the virtual mat for you to enter the GOP. I understand what you’re saying about the 2008 election. I was initially heartened by the pick of Sarah Palin because she seemed like a reformer who could blow a breath of fresh air into the party. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, it became apparent that she simply did not know enough–or at least was not able to fake it well enough–about national policy. I understand why many thought she was unfit to be VP, even if Joe Biden is such a joke. Anyway, don’t be dismayed by some commenters on a blogpost!
Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:10 pm
The problem Frum has is that the Party has not run as what he considers “far right” except Reagan and Bush, and Bush turned out to be pretty liberal on many issues. THe other “moderate candidates to include Bush Sr, Dole, and McCain lost. I think suggesting Palin is why “moderates” voted for Obama is just a liberal talking point because they of course want to cut the more conservative person on the ticket down to size. Since there is no doubt she gained McCain votes due to a depressed conservative base, it’s amusing to hear liberals continue to assert she is why McCain lost and it was because these moderates just thought she was so stupid and religious they bolted to Obama. Nothing about Obama’s thin resume to be president bothered these precious moderates though, or his associations with a racist hatemonger preacher (Wright) or a former terrorist who wished he had done more (BIll Ayers). I personally don’t see how a moderate votes for a man like Obama based on his associations alone. No white guy would have won with those kind of associations, and I daresay, no white Democrat with his unremarkable lack of experience, including zero executive experience and only 3 years in the senate, would have even been in contention for the nomination.
Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:18 pm
WHy does this Crystal lady think she is above criticism? IF she comes out blasting conservatives and engages in pretentious lectures about what the Republican party needs to do even though she voted for Obama, she’s going to get some blowback.This victim card that she is playing and that Frum played for her in a previous post is amusing.The message seems to be is that conservative base has to bow down to the moderates who apparently only reason for voting for Obama was because Palin did a poor interview. (The Truth: she and most moderates voted for Obama because he’s black plus they are pro-abortion….it didn’t have crap to do with Palin’s experience and the Couric interivew.) Did all moderates vote for Democrats? That seems to be the impression that Democrats want people to believe. I would argue it was the surge in new minority voters that lead to Obama’s big victory. It certainly explains his win in a state like NC where Democrats usually lose but the state has a very large black population.
Dr. Tesla // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Midcon,You are obsessed with social conservatives. You hate them, you never shut up about them.I’m just curious why they are always on the brain. I just through out some reasons…I know some homosexuals that really hate Christians and/or social conservatives because of the gay marriage issue. I”m just trying to understand your intolerance of others. No big deal if you don’t want to share.
midcon // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:16 am
Tesla, You continue to prattle on about gays, anti-Christians, etc. My only conclusion is that are predisposed to react that way. Either your upbringing or genetics are the two most likely causes. Or, perhaps when in a difficult situation you respond with “Your gay!” Regardless of the reason, it is at best juvenile. At worst it confirms what I and many others think about the universe of social conservatives.It is amusing to see you write about intolerance. In fact it is almost as amusing as calling the nominee for the Supreme Court “racist.” Again, as I remind you, I welcome your output because you are an ideal poster boy for the fringe right. Please don’t let anything I say moderate your behavior. Honestly, it is the last thing I would want. Besides, who cares what moderates and liberals might say anyway, they are the ones descended from apes, not the 6Kers like you.
balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:37 am
Contrary to what Tesla asserts, I’m pretty sure that Democratic strategists don’t believe that all moderates voted for Obama in 2008.But given the way the current chess match is going, with Obama consistently reaching out to listen to moderates, and much of the Republican Party sending out the message “you’re welcome to the table, as long as you shut up and learn something” they may well do so in 2012.
sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:07 am
ottovbvs sez: “Obama has taken office during the worst financial and economic crisis since the depression which was largely the product of the Bush admin and he’s having to spend a load of money to stop the economy from going over a cliff.”This is wrong on two counts.The seeds of the economic collapse were sown in 2000, when Clinton was still in office. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, co-sponsored by Phil Gramm and signed into law by Clinton, gutted SEC oversight of Credit Default Swap (CDS) derivatives. Over-speculation in those derivatives (to the tune of $40 trilion) led to the collapse of AIG and other investment firms, and nearly brought down the entire financial system.A lot of liberals also like to complain that the repeal of Glass-Steagall also contributed to the financial collapse. But again, this happened under Clinton and the GOP-led Congress.Bush’s fault was that he ignored the warning signs until it was too late. But he didn’t create the mess in the first place.The other point is that conservatives like me recognize that extreme measures need to be taken when a financial collapse looms. But the measures I wanted to be taken would sunset (go away) after the financial crisis ends. For example, a huge tax cut could have been passed for economic stimulus, with provisions it would sunset in three years.But Obama launched a slew of social engineering projects under the guise of “stimulus.” Those will be nearly impossible to stop even after the economic crisis has passed. For example, if groundbreaking has already commenced on an infrastructure project, will the project be shut down after the economy is humming? Of course not. I live in Boston, where the Big Dig highway project incurred a cost overrun of 400%. Once it started, with downtown Boston torn up, they couldn’t just stop it and leave Boston in that condition. Much of what Obama is doing as “stimulus,” his liberal supporters wanted done anyway, long before the economic crisis hit. And they will want it continued, even after the financial crisis ends. Even if that causes double-digit inflation or steep tax increases to pay for it allAnd when that becomes apparent to the American public, Obama’s approval ratings won’t be what they are now.
sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:16 am
Dr. Tesla sez: “The Truth: she and most moderates voted for Obama because he’s black plus they are pro-abortion….it didn’t have crap to do with Palin’s experience and the Couric interivew.”I agree with you that the running mate is rarely a significant factor. In 1988, Dan Quayle was made into a laughingstock by the Dems (unfairly, in my view), but Bush 41 won a landslide electoral victory anyway.But Ms. Wright said that she voted *against* McCain, because “In the final weeks of the election, stacked next to Obama, McCain looked old to me like he didnt have the stamina to lead.”McCain fell apart when the financial crisis hit. He suspended his campaign, raced back to Washington where he accomplished absolutely nothing on the financial crisis–and then he resumed campaigning again. And in his debates with Obama, McCain kept babbling on incessantly about earmarks, while the entire world financial system was threatening to crumble. The GOP had nominated McCain on the assumption that the Iraq War would be the big issue of 2008. McCain’s credentials on defense issues are terrific. But the big issue turned out to be the declining economy, a subject that McCain himself has admitted isn’t his strong point.That is why McCain lost the moderate voters. They didn’t care about Reverend Wright or abortion. They wanted someone to keep the U.S. economy from going down.
balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:22 am
re: Commodity Futures Modernization Act and Glass-Steagall. You are correct. Contrary to the “Klinton-Communist” silly rhetoric that many used, President Clinton was quite pro-business. This was the main reason why the Greens/Nader split off in 2000.Many laud the Clinton-GOP Congress for its budget control during the 90’s. But Clinton also signed some significant anti-regulatory legislation that came out of the Gingrich Congress.But Bush’s fault wasn’t just ignoring warning signs – it was an ideological disposition (and some might say, an intellectual lack of curiostiy) that made him fundamentally incapable of hearing or seeing warning signs.Add that under Democrats, there has been a committment to maintaining an aggressive, professional federal bureaucracy that looks for problems and brings them to the top. One of my major beefs with the Bush Administration was that it favored the appointment of Heritage Foundation approved ideologues over experienced professionals for too many key jobs – and these appointees saw their primary roles as justifying their ideology, and not as making the bureaucracy work.Where we disagree fundamentally, I think, is over what responsibility government has when it is spending tons of taxpayer money (or worse, borrowed money) to stimulate the economy. At that stage, I believe that government has a responsibility to direct the money to those places where it concludes the money will best provide stimulus – that anything else is irresponsible. From your perspective, I think, government has a responsibility to increase the money supply via tax cuts with the belief that the private sector will direct the money where it will do the best good. I am more comfortable with government borrowing in my name to spend money in a way that they tell me about ahead of time – you are more comfortable with government borrowing in your name to give to people without really knowing a game plan for how it will be spent.
sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:39 am
balconesfault: You misunderstood my point.My point was that doing stimulus by tax cuts makes it easier to turn off that stimulus when it’s no longer needed. (Indeed, the original Bush tax cuts were programmed to sunset automatically.)Whereas if the Government hands out money to specific groups and constituencies, it is creating a voting constituency that is going to demand that spending be continued indefinitely. If today’s stimulus package starts construction on a new superhighway somewhere, for example, that superhighway’s construction will need to be completed, even if the economy is booming by then. I really don’t see how all the spending Obama has initiated can ever be brought under control again. The prices of commodities like metals and energy, which had collapsed along with the financial collapse, are now rising sharply again. We’re headed for stagflation, just like the 1970s, and Obama won’t be able to stop it.
sinz54 // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:53 am
balconesfault: One more point I should have made. A tax cut could have gone into effect immediately–all of it.Whereas only about one-fourth of Obama’s so-called “stimulus” package will be spent this fiscal year. The rest is spread forward over at least four years.That doesn’t sound to me like an emergency stimulus to avoid economic collapse ($200 billion is small compared to the size of the U.S. economy). It sounds to me like the usual list of liberal pie-in-the-sky projects, which will continue regardless of what the state of the economy is next year.