 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
Being a red state guarantees nothingAugust 8, 2007 |
Being a red state guarantees
nothing
A rather bright GOP consultant was telling me how he looked forward to the 2008 election in Arizona. He believes that the Democratic presidential candidate will be Hillary Clinton, and that will greatly accrue to Republicans because we are basically a red state and Hillary is disliked by most GOP voters. Another long-time Republican leader remarked about the forthcoming five-way primary in heavily GOP District 30 for the two state House seats being vacated by Marian McClure and Jonathan Paton. He noted there were four men running — Frank Antenori, David Gowan, Dr. Wayne Peate and Doug Sposito — and one woman, Sharon Collins. “She’s a shoo-in — that district has had a female Rep for years,” he concluded. They may be right, but I’ve never been a determinist in matters so volatile as electoral politics. I learned something a long time ago from reading a great volume of military history, “The Influence of Seapower Upon History” by Alfred Thayer Mahan. Mahan taught that one should never mistake a precedent for a principle. Both of the above are examples of precedents. Failure to grasp the difference often causes otherwise bright people to commit gigantic blunders. George Armstrong Custer, contrary too much historical blah blah, was a brilliant cavalry leader whose Civil War record ranks with the best. He later made one fatal error. Plains Indians when a village was charged by cavalry broke and ran — a precedent. Except for the time they didn’t at Little Big Horn. Newt Gingrich is one of the most erudite pols in modern times with a massive knowledge of history. Maybe too much because he loudly broadcast in 1998 that the party not holding the White House always gained House seats in the off year election — until 1998. One more example of a precedent biting you on the rear end. That loudly proclaimed prediction contributed to his loss of the Speaker’s office. Precedents can be useful. Political campaigns need to observe them and keep them in mind. Republicans tend to get caught up in them more than Democrats because Democrats have another potential chimera they over-rate — the trend. Not all Democrats suffer from the inherent philosophical ailments present in modern liberalism, such as a deep belief in determinism, but more so than Republicans they look for political waves to ride on. Opposition to the Iraq War is now one of them, which may hold them until November 2008. There are two inherent problems with this type of voter surfing: There are different types of waves requiring great skill to handle, and the waves may subside. To oppose current Iraq policy, one must choose among several options. And we could still hammer out a win. Republicans are in trouble for several reasons beyond Iraq. It is for the GOP just one of many problems, mostly self-inflicted. The recent immigration fiasco indicated the major disconnect between many GOP pols and their base constituencies, a not uncommon problem but one that usually isn’t noticeable. Just as many Democrats have no clue what their voters really want either despite polls and focus groups. The biggest problem the GOP faces stems from two items that have turned off the base the most — spending and corruption, which overlap. The Senator who pushed for the same “Bridge to nowhere” now has the FBI tossing his digs, not a good sign for an 83-year-old six-termer up next year. Senator Ted Stevens’ problems extend far beyond Alaska, with several more GOP Congressmen hovering somewhere near a grand jury. Iraq, immigration, spending and corruption combined all tend to depress turnout among Republicans, push independents over and raise Democratic morale. Like that oversized village on the Little Big Horn that didn’t run away after all, the red state precedent may not be that relevant, even against Hillary in 2008. |
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
