When Will They Ever Learn?

My good friend Gary Gross has a post up at True North and Let Freedom Ring that is a very compelling read.

Victor Davis Hanson’s column at NRO is this morning’s great reading. In it, he discusses the competing theories about what happened to the GOP this election cycle. Here’s the first theory Dr. Hanson discusses:

It was a sort of fluke. Party faithful will shrug that almost everything conspired this year against the conservative brand: two wars; the sinking economy; eight years of presidential incumbency; a biased, unethical media; Bush’s low ratings; the absence of an incumbent president or VP candidate on the ticket; more exposed Republican congressional seats than Democratic ones; a charismatic path-breaking opposition candidate, etc. The stars were wrong, rather than the ideas.

So, the theory goes, just make McCain appear a little younger, Obama sound a little bit more like John Kerry, and take away the mid-September financial meltdown, and, presto!, a Republican would now be in the White House.

This thinking should be immediately dismissed. This thinking is status quo thinking, which is the most stagnant thinking within the GOP. It’s defeatist thinking and it shouldn’t be tolerated.

I have been hearing this particular line of thinking out of the GOP "experts" since 2006 and Gary is right - this type of thinking should be dismissed with all due prejudice.

It’s foolishness from a strategic standpoint. It doesn’t address inspiring workers (ed - and voters) to do the mechanics of campaigning; it doesn’t address the advantages Obama has in terms of GOTV, fundraising and event planning. The GOP won’t be competitive nationwide until the GOP steps vigorously into the 21st Century.

One change that must happen is in candidate recruitment. Too often, we’ve run the person who lots the election before. Too often we’ve recruited someone from the state senate. These candidates shouldn’t be expected to win. The voters rendered a verdict on the ousted incumbent. More often than not, state senators aren’t the assertive people that representatives are. Picking the ‘next in line’ guy is a great way to lose elections. Legacy picks are disasters-in-waiting.

Great candidates are identified by how energetic and articulate they are. Great candidates are identified by their adherance to conservative principles AND their energy AND their ability to articulate conservative principles.

I’d further opine that great candidates (a) naturally go on the offensive on the biggest issues of the day, (b) challenge their opponents statements and (c) are naturals at answering the voters’ why questions.

A case in point is our own freshman Congressman Jason Chaffetz who took DC by storm last week. When he was campaigning he took on a sitting incumbent in the primary and dispatched him with ease - a feat he duplicated in the general election. How he did it was hard work for sure, but he was also not afraid to go on the attack when his opponents tried to mischaracterize his statements in order to score cheap political points. He took his case directly to the voters in numerous town hall meetings - bypassing the filter of a not too friendly media - and he answered their questions. He showed clearly that a conservative candidate can win.

Jason also did the one thing that the old school GOP experts have thus far refused to do. He had a massive on line presence - a la the Ron Paul and Barack Obama campaigns. The online presence allowed people from the far flung corners of his large district to communicate and to strategize.

One thing that the GOP needs to do if it is going to move forward in the 21st century is to JOIN it technologically! Until that time comes.....