Commentary: Are we there yet?

One question has relentlessly plagued campaign consultants since November 8th 2006.

Have Republicans reached the bottom yet?

This question was asked to a few prominent lawmakers on a trip I took back to DC a month ago(that’s right, I’m a big deal). Their answers were intriguing, though not surprising. One Republican Senator thought it was just a bad year for the good guys and we could only move up. Two Republican Congressmen thought we had not reached the bottom yet and only when we learned to “act” like Republicans again would the electorate see the true differences between Republicans and Democrats and start the shift of the pendulum back our way. The one Dem Congressman I met with thought that we had not reached the bottom and only when we learned to disagree with our President would Republicans start the trek up that mountain we call polling.

The different answers to this question also represent three very different strategies in the '08 elections.

The Senator’s response was that it was a freak year and that there was very little we could have done to prevent it. He thought the same campaign strategies, that brought the worst year to Republicans since 1974, would be much more successful in 2008. History would tend to agree with him. The average loss of seats for the sitting Presidents party in an off year election is around 30 seats, however the 6th year (or later if term limits had not yet been imposed) for a sitting President is far worse. The infamous 6th year has brought debacles such as 71 Dem seats in 1938 for FDR’s 6th year, another 55 seats for FDR’s 10th year in 1942, 49 Republican seats in 1958 which was Eisenhower’s 6th year, 47 Dem seats in Kennedy’s 6th year in 1966 and finally the 49 seats we lost in Nixon’s 6th year in 1974. In the 6th year elections where you see a huge loss of seats for either party, you see a slight pickup of those same seats the following election. Republicans stayed status quo in the 1976 election’s losing one seat to the Democrats. If '08 holds true to history, then yes Republicans have reached the bottom and will be able to stay firm to the same campaign strategies we had in '06 and not lose more seats.

The two Republican Congressmen thought we had not reached the bottom yet and only when we learn to act like Republicans would we gain our seats back. It sounds simple enough. Given the option of less government, lower taxes and an emphasis placed on the American family it is hard for anyone to find fault in the Republican platform. When you contrast this with the jumbled and mired Democrat platform, the decision is made even easier. However, if we as Republicans refuse to hold these values paramount then it is hard for voters to see a real contrast with the Democrats. If you have heard Dick Wadhams on the stump these past few months you would know that his strategy is to make clear the distinctions between Republican and Democrat candidates. Make these differences simple and clear in the mind of the voter and we win. To me this is the strategy that makes the most sense, however Karl Rove I am not(I just like to pretend).

The last response came from the one Democrat Congressmen that I met with and that was the key to Republicans winning back some seats is to turn their backs on a President whose approval ratings are in the mid 30’s. Though it guilts me to take campaign advice from a Democrat Congressman, it may very well work. The strategy for the Dems in '06 was to simply say that the Republican candidate was in league with an unpopular President and leave it at that. Remember the DCCC ad against Rick O’Donnell? It was a picture of him getting off the plane with President Bush, and that was pretty much it(I would cut off my pinkie toe to see before and after poll #’s for ROD once that ad came out). Yes, the election strategy that saw us losing so badly in 2006 was simply that old taunt from elementary school “Rick and Georgy sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G…..” Will distancing a candidate from Bush in '08 help us win back some seats remains to be seen.

I think we can expect the three different strategies (stay the course, tell people what you stand for, and tell people you don’t like W) to all be seen in the '08 election. In my opinion it will be a combination of the last two that will see the best results (I still love our President, just saying what will work).

(Editors note: We will have a glimpse of what will work in the '07 Gubernatorial elections. There are only three seats up for grabs, and from what I can gather thus far, each of these strategies will be put in motion by the three different Republican candidates. I’ll write more on this next week.)

(John Galt is a pragmatic Conservative who, when not fighting liberal policies, enjoys spending time with friends and family. John is currently reading a book on regression analysis, needless to say the guy is a rock star.)

Commentary: US Military Still Behind President Bush

Does the U.S. Military still stand behind our President’s? My interest in this topic was heightened after reading my colleague If Josh Lyman Were Conservative's post yesterday about Ron Tupa hating our military. I checked the comments section to see what our readers were saying about Josh's post. A fellow named Dirty Dave, I wonder how one gets the nickname "Dirty" in the first place, anyways Dirty Dave or "DD" as I like to call him, said that 99% of the troops want to be there and feel like they need to be there to defend the people of Iraq. Dirty Dave was quickly rebuked by "anonymous", or "anon" as I like to call him, who said that only 28% of the troops want to be there and provided a link to back up his statistic.

That statistic reminded me of a recent segment on the competely unbiased (wink) 60 minutes where a "large" (probably 15) group of troops said that they felt we should not be in Iraq anymore. To me the entire segment was less about whatever they were saying about Iraq and much more about CBS twisting the segment to frame it as the U.S. Military not standing behind their Commander in Chief, it made me sick to watch.

Anyways back to our commenters Dirty Dave and Anonymous. I think Dirty Dave was making a generalization that the majority of our troops thought we should be in Iraq and I took it as such. The retort, or more accurately the link providing legitimacy for the retort, was what piqued my interest. It was a link to a Zogby/LeMoyne College Center for Peace and Global Studies. LeMoyne Center for what? Is it really that hard for me to believe a study done with a Center for Peace and Global Studies would have results saying our troops wanted out of Iraq? No. I will not go into all of the reasons why this poll holds little credibility in my eyes, much less a zogby poll in general, but if you would like to know more click here for info on the LeMoyne College Center for Peace and Global Studies unbiased findings and faculty.

Ok, forget the hippie poll and the fact it was done over a year ago and think about the soldiers you have had an opportunity to talk to on a regular basis. Having a brother in Iraq, Semper Fi!, and being in the field of politics I often get to talk to our men and women in uniform, call it a perk of the job. Having spoke to hundreds of our men and women in uniform(yes, literally hundreds) I have always got the impression that they aligned with Dirty Dave's assumption that they thought they should be there and more so thought they needed to be there to protect the people. The much more credentialed Oliver North has had a similar experience from the troops he has spoken with. Were these troops intentionally giving me a false impression because they knew that I was a Republican and thought that I wanted to hear that they supported President Bush’s decision? No, I do not think so.

Anonymous is probably correct in that only 28% of our troops "want" to be there. However if someone wants to be somewhere and if they feel that they should be somewhere are two very different things. I have met many, many soldiers who were proud to have served in Iraq and were glad they could serve their country. I have however not talked to any soldier in Iraq who has said that they "want" to be over there. Most of the time when I talk to my brother he talks about how much he wants to be back here in Colorado with his family, with his girlfriend, with his Fat Tire beer. He has never talked about wanting to be there, it's a hot, dry, sandbox where his friends and comrades have died. Who in their right mind would want to be there? Talk to my brother about if we should be there though and it's an entirely different story. The men and women in uniform over there have a deep sense of pride for not only serving their country but also defending the lives of the Iraqi people. I spoke to a Marine recently and while I will not repeat what he said (it's unappropriate), he basically said a big F U to Congress and those waving their white flags saying we need to bring our troops home before more people die. The Marine I spoke with was not sure if it was Republicans or Democrats that wanted to pull the troops out of Iraq, nor did he care, he was equally as mad at both sides of the aisle for letting it come to the point where we were talking about pulling our troops out at the expense of the lives of the Iraqi people. The Marines in Iraq know there are casualties, they also know that if we pull out from Iraq their will be even more blood shed as there will not be anyone to guard the chicken coop any longer.

The majority of men and women over there understand that our President has their best wishes at heart and that he is trying to do the right thing. A recent poll done by Military Times finds that more troops feel we should have went to Iraq than those who think we should not have went there. The poll shows that those troops who still think we can win in Iraq at being at 50% compared to 41% who do not think we can succeed. In regards to the troop surge, 26% think we need less troops over there, 13% think the current level of troops is fine and 38% think we need more troops over there. The war in Iraq is increasingly complicated and time will be tell if our actions over there were correct or not. While these numbers are not staggering support for the war in Iraq, they are alarmingly more in favor of the war in Iraq then those polls taken of civilians.

Should we pay more respect to the statistics of a poll of our troops than to a poll given to those back home? Given the circumstances, I think so.

With President Bush’s approval ratings in the mid 30’s right now, the best statistic to come out of the Military Times poll was that 52% of those in uniform still approve of George W Bush’s handling of his job as President.

(John Galt is a pragmatic Conservative who, when not fighting liberal policies, enjoys hanging out with friends and family.)