Conventional Conservative Wisdom isn’t that wise

Adrienne over at Girl From the South wrote this about the upcoming election. 

Obama, Hillary and Edwards are pushing for expanded funding for abortion? Are they insane? Democrats are going to vote for them no matter what. Why are they pushing such a controversial issue this early in the campaign? After the Democratic party won the 2006 election by masquerading as Republicans, are they going to out-liberalize each other now?

Earlier in the post, she also wrote this –

Want to motivate conservatives to vote on Election Day so that you get a Republican in the White House?

Not to pick on Adrienne in particular, but she’s got it exactly wrong.  I’ve noticed a number of misconceptions about what it takes to win elections, weaknesses and strengths of both Republicans and Democrats, and the electoral prospects of Republicans. 

First of all, it simply is not true that the conservatives just need to motivate their base and they get elected.  This was the cover story for the Rove strategy in 2002, 2004, and 2006.  It had two effects. 

One was that it allowed Bush and congressional candidates to “talk to the right,” without isolating independents.  The idea being that all the conservative talk was just a part of the “strategy” and Bush would govern more moderately. 

Two – it provided a plausible enough reason for the success of their candidates.  The so called GOTV operation of conservatives masked the voter suppression effort that was being conducted nationwide, especially in key districts.  What history will show, and is starting to show more clearly with the investigations into the U.S. Attorney firings, is that Rove organized and directed voter suppression operations which when run in conjunction with getting out the vote, was effective in providing the winning margin in close races. 

It is also not true that many winning Democrats in 2006 ran as Republicans.  In fact, many of the more conservative Dems (for example, Harold Ford) who ran on conservative values lost.  Adrienne has fallen for one of the post-election spins put forth by Republican strategists to mask what was a resounding defeat for Bush’s agenda and the war. 

And supporting abortion rights will not hurt Democratic candidates.  The pro-choice position is the majority position in this country. 

The one thing, in my opinion, that will turn voters off more than anything is pandering.  Most voters, conservative and progressive, want moral clarity from their candidates.  They don’t like candidates who split hairs or have cute middle of the road positions on everything.  A candidate who unequivocally supports abortion rights will not be harmed by losing support from independents.  But a candidate who appears to be nervous about the issue and talks out of both sides of her mouth will be. 

From 2000 – 2005, Rove did an excellent job providing cover to conservative candidates who spoke unequivocally about their values.  They also did an excellent job forcing Democrats to vacillate in moral ambiguity between what amounted to a lot of false choices (i.e., support Bush or support the terrorists). 

The difference in 2006 for the candidates that won was that they carved out their positions with clarity and from that perch offered a compelling criticism of the Bush agenda. 

And the real ironic thing, in my opinion, is that the moral clarity of many Republicans has proved to be quite hollow.  Has there been a party in recent history more compromised by politics, sexual mores, corruption, and factionalism? 

The Rudy Video

Powerful.  See the Potemkin Candidate post below for more information. 

The Potemkin Candidate

First we had the photo op president (see here and here).  Now it looks like we’re getting the photo op candidate in Rudy Giuliani. 

Now it’s no secret that Giuliani’s entire campaign is premised on his 9/11 performance when he became known as “America’s mayor” by breathless media pundits everywhere. 

Apparently, the substance of that leadership is being disputed by the International Association of Firefighters.  You can find more information here and here. 

So how will the media cover what basically amounts to a refutation of the entire reason Giuliani is considered a candidate?  As a horse race, of course!  Digby has more.  But here’s the heart of her point: 

But for some reason, the media has come to habitually weigh the prospective competence and leadership qualities of candidates on the basis of how well they thwart smears. This stands in for real questions of leadership and competence, even in the case of Giuliani, whose entire rationale for running rests on his leadership and competence on 9/11 — and which is being attacked specifically in this ad. There is no need to substitute his campaign’s response for the real thing.

Gore

Even though he’s not currently running, Gore is winning in New Hampshire according to this poll.  A full 25% of Hillary’s support is siphoned off in that state if he decides to run. 

One of the interesting questions around the watercooler, in my opinion, is if Gore did decide to run, where would his support come from? 

I don’t think there’s any question he could raise money.  But as far as votes, I think he pulls supporters away from every other candidate.  Many of Hillary’s supporters believe she’s inevitable, but that changes if Gore throws his hat in the ring.  Many of Obama’s supporters crave a departure from the insulated beltway and corporate insiderism (and of course respond to his magnetic persona).  But Gore can tap into the netroots, the Deaniac crowd, and progressives far more profoundly than Obama can.  And lately he’s also been quite the rock star. 

Even at this stage, I think it’s Gore’s race.  If he wants it.