Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras

Breaking News:

Subscribe

HARDAWAY: Lessons for the GOP to learn

By Robert Hardaway

Published November 26, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

It should have been a slam-dunk for the Republicans in the 2008 presidential election. After all, the Democrats had inexplicably chosen as their nominee the least-qualified candidate in American history. Indeed, the only other candidate in American history to go directly from the Senate to the White House with neither gubernatorial nor military executive experience was Warren G. Harding, by consensus the worst president in American history. Moreover, Obama’s voting record in the Senate has also been rated as the most hard-left voting record in American history.

To lose to such a candidate required more than simple ineptitude. It required an almost pathological determination to lose.

And yet, it may yet prove of value to the Republican Party if it can learn the following lessons from its defeat:

First, if you are going to go against an obviously unqualified candidate, choose a candidate with substantial executive experience. Only a handful of candidates in American history have ever succeeded to the office of the presidency without at least some gubernatorial executive experience. The Republicans had their chance to choose Mitt Romney, who not only had experience as a governor, but also experience as a business leader and organizer of the Olympics. Romney also “walked the walk” on universal health care in Massachusetts, unlike Democrats who have traditionally only talked the talk.

Second, don’t reject a candidate because of his religion. Polls of Republicans expressed greater reservations over a Mormon candidate than an Islamic one.

Third, don’t choose a man in his 70s to go up against a candidate of youth, vigor, and charisma, especially when your own candidate also has no executive experience.

Fourth, don’t assume that independent voters will vote for the candidate who best upholds such traditional values as fiscal responsibility, strong national security, protection of our borders, and limited government. We should know by now that swing voters vote on the basis of personality and television persona. Thus, Obama’s impending victory no more reflects the electorate’s turn to the hard left, than Reagan’s 49-state electoral victory in 1980 reflected a turn to the right.

Fifth, don’t insult the intelligence of the voters with simplistic characterizations of the opponent’s positions. Those only fuel counterattacks by a sympathetic media eager to show that 30-second ads do not completely set forth the complexities of the opponent’s agenda. Rather, Republican ads need only have shown, without commentary, actual videos of Obama refusing to put his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem, his statement that he had visited “57 states” and the town hall video in which he talked about the need for asthma suffers to get “breathalyzers” — followed by the simple question: "Ready to lead? You decide.”

Sixth, ask voters whether the old American adage still holds true—namely that one's character is evaluated in large part by the company he keeps. And leave it at that. No need to name names.

Seventh, don’t let your party be outspent by such business tycoons as George Soros.

Eighth, and perhaps hardest of all, set aside social issues and concentrate on fiscal responsibility, national security, border protection, and fairness to the teeming millions of those seeking legal immigration. You don’t have to give up your principles on social issues, but, absent a Reagan-quality communicator as your nominee, you’re not going to win on them.

Ninth, decide whether public displays of support for such issues are worth losing an election.

And finally—at number ten— get some members of your party to audition for "Saturday Night Live." There should be ample material (see No. 5 above).

Robert Hardaway is a professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

Comments

  • November 26, 2008

    6:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Oh_Wise_One writes:

    "slam dunk" ? what world do you live in but it is not in mine. With the mainstream media playing cheerleader it was a downhill sprint for Obama after he beat Hillary.
    I think Romney was a better candidate too but others crowded the field in the primaries and he lost out. It was going to be difficult for any Republican to win this year. Your 20-20 hindsight anal y sis is a cheap shot.

  • November 26, 2008

    6:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Gonzopozo writes:

    I agree with Wise One (mostly) - after 8 years of GW, and the resulting economic headlines, I'm not sure anybody could have beat either Obama or Clinton. The voters didn't need the "mainstream media" to tell them how bad things were/are however. Our bank accounts speak for themselves.

  • November 26, 2008

    6:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    INC writes:

    mr Hardaway,
    you for got to mention that the republicans allowed the current president free reign when it came to plundering the national treasury, Invading a country on false pretenses, allowing torture, holding prisoners without hearing.
    in short tearing away at the Constitution...

    Then the lunacy of attacking the democratic candidate for going to a christian church at the same time accusing him of being a Muslim. Another violation of the constitution insofar as the clause in the constitution, "No religious test" required to run for and hold an elected position.
    Then trying to steal the limelight (the day after the largest attendance for an acceptance speech) with a VP pick that has a serious discrepancy when it comes to basic civics.

    Hind sight is indeed 20/20 fact is John McCain should have been the nominee and thus selected president in 2000.
    should that have occurred the embarrassment of the George W Bush presidency would not have hindered republican endeavors in 2006 and 2008.

  • November 26, 2008

    8:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    denverrose15 writes:

    Mr. Hardway... how come Mitt Romney has executive experience being governor but not Sarah Palin who is also a govenor doesn't? Me thinks your politics are highly suspect and hypocritical. I am not sure why you would ask why he won. Simply put he promised his constituents freebies on the backs of the wealthy. Who wouldn't vote for him? I'll tell you that, too. People who are of true fiscal conservatism wouldn't because they know government ruins everything they touch and don't need to be given all that power.

  • November 26, 2008

    8:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jmjohnson writes:

    Republicans,

    Don't worry, though a Democrat won, and Democrats now control Congress, rest assured, things will remain exactly the same, so long as you are in the upper 5%. The great thing about America is that you can only get elected if you have the support of the only Americans who matter, ie the socio-economic elite. Fail to please them, and you will not be elected.

    So as long as your annual income is greater than 95% of the rest of America and your net worth is in the millions, if not billions, you have zero to fear from this new president as he will ensure that you remain firmly at the top of the socio-economic ladder.

    You see, another great thing about America is that it doesn't matter which party wins in the end, as long as you're at the top of the ladder, you will remain forever at the top of that ladder. No president or congress is ever going to try to destroy their own power base by attacking the richest among us.

    After all, you can only be elected if you are rich yourself, thus our President and Congress represent the TRUE Americans, not the 95% of us who don't matter.

  • November 26, 2008

    9:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    CL writes:

    Well, I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Hardaway, but it's clear to me from posts like those from Oh_Wise_One and denverrose15 and many others that they still haven't realized that the Republican's losses are no ones fault but there own. On top of that, one of the biggest reasons, IMO, that the Republican's lost so badly is that they steadfastly refused to accept responsibility for their own mistakes - something Oh_Wise_One and denverrose15 continue to do.

  • November 26, 2008

    9:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jmjohnson writes:

    Personal Responsibility (what used to be a bedrock of the conservatives) is for other people, not themselves.

    Greatest examples: Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, and Mark Foley... Each of them blaming others for their own moral and legal failings.

  • November 26, 2008

    10:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    irisman writes:

    I get the impression that Mr Hardaway believes that Obama stole the election, and that Obama has no actual substance. He seems to have learned about half the lessons he needs to learn. He ignores most of the hate mongering, or Palin's speeches that appealed to the prejudices of the far Right. He also focuses on petty things like saying "breathalizer". Everybody who does a lot of public speaking make a goof from time to time, some of which are embarrassing.
    Still, we should give credit to Hardaway for recognizing many of the Republican mistakes, since so many of the True Believers apparently don't recognize any of them.

  • November 26, 2008

    10:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ted_in_Vegas writes:

    I agree on all points except #9; and, by the way, #8 and #9 are contradictory.

    As for the failures of morality on the right, the only reason Haggard, Craig and Foley stick out is because they're the exception in the party that stands against those social ills. The other party embraces social ills so the MANY with similar problems don't stand out.

  • November 26, 2008

    12:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Acemon writes:

    There are none so blind as those who will not see.

  • November 26, 2008

    1:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Zim writes:

    RE: "Fourth, don’t assume that independent voters will vote for the candidate who best upholds such traditional values as fiscal responsibility, strong national security, protection of our borders, and limited government. We should know by now that swing voters vote on the basis of personality and television persona."

    This comment, Mr. Hardaway, is why your party lost, and will dissolve into obscurity. Apparently in your limited scope of analysis, independent voters are nothing more than "American Idol" fanatics, simply because your candidate was rejected. I'm sure this may be difficult for someone of rather limited mental capacity to fathom, but voters (especially independents) voted in record numbers because they were exhausted from the failed policies and politics of a party neither in tune with its electorate, nor capable of solving even the most minute of problems.

    Voters do appreciate fiscal responsibility, strong national security, protection of our borders, and limited government--- however, the Republican party has proven it is entirely incapable of such accomplishments, and instead prefers fear-mongering as governance. Conservatism will one day prosper again once the bile and offal of clueless conservatives like you are thrown overboard.

    Your sour-grapes, cry-baby, my-feelings-are-hurt column only illustrates how far Republicans have fallen. Instead of being a man about the loss, and looking to the future at ways to improve the party, you cry like a schoolgirl on how mean and stupid everyone else is. You are a disgrace. Wither away, Mr. Hardaway, as history sweeps your weak-kneed and morally vacuous ilk to the dustbins of history.

  • November 26, 2008

    2:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jmjohnson writes:

    My point Ted wasn't their actions in an of themselves, as present day so called conservatives are wont to focus on, rather, it was their lack of personal responsibility for their actions.

    No one held a gun to their heads, no one kidnapped their children and held them for ransom, no one brainwashed them into committing their crimes/sins (there is a difference between the two concepts).

    The main difference is that, for social conservatives, they only have to claim they asked god's forgiveness and it's all peachy keen when it comes to sin, but with crimes, you actually have to subject yourself to the laws of our nation and serve the penalties required of your crimes.

    In the end, so called conservatives get away with their crimes because so long as they approach them as sins and claim that god forgave them and/or they enter rehab or counseling, everything is forgotten and no personal responsibility need be taken.

    In the end, they blame childhood abuse, satan, or secular culture for their failings as human beings. Meanwhile, they get up in arms with pregnant teenagers and young criminals who blame everyone but themselves for their actions.

    Practice what you preach, so-called conservatives, and take responsibility for the harm you've done to yourselves, your lives, the lives of those around you, to our nation, and to the world. Quit blaming invisible forces or childhood trauma for the fact that you want to participate in homosexual sex with male prostitutes, do drugs, and molest young boys. Again, no one forced you to do that, that was your CHOICE.

  • November 27, 2008

    11:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BlueCarp writes:

    "don’t assume that independent voters will vote for the candidate who best upholds such traditional values as fiscal responsibility, ... and limited government."

    Is that a joke? McCain is neither fiscally responsible nor in favor of limited government. McCain is a big-government Republican. He supported the $7 trillion nationalization of failed private business.

    When the Republicans nominate a pro-government Keynesian, they become irrelevant. That's the Democratic Party's territory.

    When the choice is between two big spending politicians, limited government believers have little reason to go to the polls.

  • November 27, 2008

    11:57 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ColoradoDave writes:

    Wow Hardaway must be a Republican because he gets his facts wrong in the very first paragraph, "Indeed, the only other candidate in American history to go directly from the Senate to the White House with neither gubernatorial nor military executive experience was Warren G. Harding."

    In 1960 John Kennedy went directly from the Senate to the White House with neither gubernatorial nor military executive experience. Being a Lieutenant in command of a PT boat hardly counts as Executive Experience, especially when the incumbent President was a Five-star General.

  • November 27, 2008

    5:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    guangping writes:

    Mr Hardaway,

    After reading your piece I now have to agree with Phil Gramm, you do represent a nation of whiners...

    I too,would have liked to have seen Mit Romney as a candidate, but only because I'd like to see the national debate that would ensue over Mormonism, which I consider to be a cult, not a religion.

    None of your arguments showed astute analysis, just regurgitating the official dirty tricks that was made up over Obama. They have been shown not to work, why do you persist?But thank you, you have shown why the Republican Party has to change its whole orientation and get rid of right wing ideas that are not pragmatic to finding solutions in the real world.

  • December 2, 2008

    3:46 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    TYoungman writes:

    Mr. Hardaway,

    Your column is a perfect example, for the GOP, of what not to do:

    *Don't linger on talking points, delivering the same old tired message about "conservative values"; the electorate is no longer mesmerized by that particular brand of hyperbole. Introduce some original ideas into the discussion.

    *Don't sound bitter, petty, and out of touch. Admit that your ideas (read ideology) are not infallible and focus your energy, instead, on practical solutions to real problems.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints