Thoughts from AFP: Where's the Conservative Movement

 I spent some time at Americans for Prosperity’s second annual conference in Washington, DC this weekend. I will have several things to say, but let me focus on a series of conversations that I heard in the hallways and at the dinners. Where is the conservative movement going?

First, this crowd is very pessimistic about the election. Nearly all were not supporters of John McCain in the primary, and they weren’t excited about a McCain presidency. But they didn’t think that they were going to have that problem. Everyone was talking about a Barack Obama presidency.

Second, people were worried about the Democratic agenda in the next Congress. Card-check, health care, and the environment all came up regularly. I also mentioned that the first bill signed into law in the Clinton Administration was Motor Voter, which provided, 3 years later, the statutory basis of  Obama’s lawsuit, ACORN v. State of Illinois.

Third, no one sees who the groups will be. Furthermore, the old conservative movement leaders weren’t there. I saw Grover Norquist and Ed Meese, but I didn’t see Morton Blackwell, Paul Weyrich, Ed Feulner, or similar figures. Interestingly, the old conservative movement leaders who were there were Reagan people but not Goldwater people. Many of the old conservative movement institutions predated Reagan.

Fourth, the fact that those leaders weren’t there raises the question: who will be the next leaders. None of these groups have a credible succession plan. The stature of these groups will likely collapse. National Review, which does have some wonderful people but cannot be said to be the opinion leader it once was, was cited repeatedly as an example.

Fifth, people hate the bailout. I think that we will find that this issue will resonate with the grassroots for years to come. If Republicans and conservatives build a real grassroots, the movement will be able to fund itself without the instincts that led to the bailout. This will bring, in some ways, the grassroots into alignment with the people responsible for building and executing the party apparatus. If we are not, we will continue to be dependent upon business leaders who saw the bailout as necessary. If the movement cares about taking control of the party, it will need to figure out how to fund the party. Otherwise, this tension will continue.

Sixth, there is a lack of leaders. People are interested in Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal. None of the other governors appeal. People know the names Jim DeMint and Eric Cantor. There aren’t other high-profile leaders that seemed to resonate. I don’t hear much interest in the other people who ran for President. The next round of GOP governors are going to create new models of conservative governance. And why didn’t no members of congress come to this meeting? Only James Inhofe, who got an award. Oy.

It really seems like it is time to build “the next right.” This old one doesn’t seem to exist any more. We will need new political leaders. We will need new organizational leaders. We will need new ideas.

I think that it is clear that AFP will be a leader in this space. AFP had more energy than any other group I have seen recently. They had 1,857 paid registrations in October 3 weeks before the election. Trade associations and unions put more people into rooms in DC, but I can’t think of any conservative interest group other than NRA which has a larger national convention.

  

0
Your rating: None

Comments

The Republicans should blame themselves.

Can can a political party develop leaders while going through eight years of pathetic leadership, pathetic policies, and pathetic governance.  That the Replubicans consider Palin the future shows how bankrupt the conservative movement has become.

The real question is how much longer can the Republican Party remain relevant to politics.  Given the changing demographics of the U.S. and the chance that an Obama Adminstration will put 20 million illegal aliens on the fast track to citizenship and being automatic Democratic voters, there is little hope for the Republican Party or conservatives. 

 

True, But Like Bush, Palin Never Was the Future

If the new conservative movement learns anything, it will be to avoid choosing candidates based on the belief  that the voting public needs only to relate to the candidate on a personal level, and nothing more.  Palin was an attempt to reuse the Bush formula, using the candidate as a trojan horse of sorts, filled with the next generation of neo-conservative policies the candidate themself can barely comprehend.

It's all about leadership

I know those who founded this website think it's all about technology but they are wrong.

It's all about leadership and until we have solid conservative leaders we will be living in the socialist world of Obama.

Conservatives didn't want McCain. They thought he didn't have what it takes to be president or even to become president and they were right.

You can thank the Republican Party elite, the coastal/beltway elite and those who scheduled the primary for the socialist president this country is about to elect.

Conservative leaders will emerge once McCain is finally out of the way and hopefully this will be the death knell for RINO Rockefeller Republicans.

I don't think that we think that it is about technology

For the most part we write about leadership and strategy and tactics. Only some of those involve technology. But the leadership is not just candidates. It is also grassroots organizations. It is also good elites.

They are almost all rotten, dead, or dying.

I still think that McCain had the best chance of winning this election. The other candidates would be dogfood already. 

Are we watching the same

Are we watching the same campaign?

I see a weak, fumbling, muttering old man who is incapable of expressing himself, explaining his policies or defending himself. McCain was a war hero, a thorn in the side of conservatives, a darling of the media (until now), and a so-so senator. I honor him for his service and that's the most I can say.

We expect McCain to explain Obama's past associations and his socialist positions and what do we get? He tells us that Obama is an honorable family man. Well ok, then. Why vote for McCain if Obama's so great?

I'm furious, and not with John McCain. I'm really angry with people like you, Dayton. The Beltway insiders, the coastal elites, those who think they know more than the people know. You got what you wanted. Do you really still want it?

Conservative groups and leaders will step forward when McCain is gone. Until he actually loses he is our leader, like it or not.

Why are you angry with me?

I'm just a Republican activist who wrote about the campaign and picked a guy and backed him.

Are you angry with the Republican voters who nominated him? John McCain had the highest favorables among Republican of all the candidates for the nomination for the entire duration of the primary.

Be angry at Republican voters. They picked the guy who didn't disqualify himself.

Thus Highlighting the Failure of the Two Party System...

You picked a guy that was the most electable along party lines, if I'm reading you right? This is what the two party system we have today forces us into - partisan based evaluations of two 'bad' choices.

Highest Favorables? What does that mean? I think it means that "This candidate sucks the least out of the bunch". You see where I'm going?

So why do you, Dayton, continue to ride a lame horse? Because you are a Republican, and that's just what Republicans do? She may be angry b/c Republicans made a bad choice, acknowledge amongst themselves that it was a bad choice, but publicly espouse the choice to be a good one and ride that horse into the ground...

I would challenge you to vote for the person you felt was the most competant for the position, party affiliation be damned. America needs more people to do this, now more than ever...

No, I don't think so...

John McCain was not picked solely by Republican voters. I'm surprised you don't know that. He was picked by independents and even Democrats in the open primary states that were frontloaded on the primary schedule.

I believe that schedule was set deliberately to get McCain or Guiliani the nomination. If we had to have a moderate it's too bad it wasn't Rudy because at least he can speak and at least he will fight for what he believes.

Unless we close our primaries and change our system we will continue to see independents and Democrats choosing our candidate.

We badly need conservative leadership at the RNC that doesn't come from the East coast, the Beltway or the past. We must bring in the next generation and stop recycling these old, old men.

Michael Steele, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Matt Blunt, Mike Pence, Eric Cantor, Jim DeMint and there are more. The Republican Party must move forward or die. It's ok that the old war horses didn't come to the meeting. Their time is done. We must change the guard now.

We also need pundits who will support the younger generation and forget about whose turn it is. McCain missed his turn 8 years ago and what we have been seeing from him this time is nothing short of embarrassing.

Conservatives helped McCain Win

The fact is McCain won the nomination because he was the 2nd choice for more voters than any other GOP candidate. When you combine that with no Republican grabbing the imagination of the voters you end up with "the next best thing"... John McCain.

Hey, I would have loved it if more voters would have supported by former boss Fred Thompson (I worked on his Presidential campaign). That didn't happen. That's life.

One note: the primary that pretty much sealed the deal for McCain was Florida. It was a closed primary yet McCain won. He even beat Romney 35-32% among voters who called themselves "somewhat conservative." Enough GOP voters thought McCain was "good enough" when none of the other candidates wowed them.

One other point: could you see any other Republican candidate doing as well in the polls as McCain? This is one hellacious environment. Maybe Thompson if voters really were interested in atypical Presidential candidates.

McCain's "win"

I failed to mention one big factor in McCain's win. It was Mike Huckabee. McCain wouldn't have won Florida or anything else without him.

Fred Thompson was a non-factor. He convinced everyone that he didn't want the nomination.

So, you think McCain is doing well in the polls? I bet you supported Bob Dole too.

I guess you can argue till you're blue in the face that McCain was the right candidate but somehow that's just not very comforting when we're looking at extreme liberal justices on the Supreme Court, at least 4, probably 8 years of extreme socialism, if not outright communism, being built into our government.

The party must change or die if it's not already too late.

 

Lynn, I'm lovin' what you say...

...don't back down. The problem w/the GOP candidates like FDT, Hunter and Tancredo (and even Romney)  is that they tried to run a traditional/conventional GOP style campaign.  Where everything is stacked against them. Look at the debates - nothing but a beauty pageant for the benefit of the msm and political pundits. Conceived, orchestrated, choreographed by the liberal msm to highlight the more moderate candidates and minimize the most conservative.  The fault of the above mentioned candidates is that they turned their campaigns over to some of the worst collection of advisers/consultants imaginable.  Ran lousy campaigns that could not possibly win.   Although in the case of FDT, I still remain convinced that Galen was working for McCain long before Fred's campaign ended.  If you know what I mean.  Let me say it - I think he sabotaged it.  Putting Fred on a bus and motoring him around the back roads of Iowa, NH and SC.  Great job keeping him obscure and out of the spotlight.  How else could you explain such a pathetic losing strategy?  My opinion.  

We must convince some good conservative candidates to, in the future, break free of this traditional method and run a "renegade" campaign.  There is more than one route to the destination.  It may be a game trail rather than the super highway that the rest of the pack travels on but if one hustles/works hard they can reach the prize ahead of the rest.  Darvin Dowdy

Back down?

I only back down if someone proves me wrong and I don't see that in any responses so far.

But, I'm not going to agree with you completely either. Sorry. Hunter and Tancredo were solid conservatives but one issue candidates with no charisma and no chance.

Thompson displayed his lazyness in time for voters to say no thanks. Too bad McCain didn't say he was going to go home to AZ every weekend.

 

Don't see it that-a-way Lynn...

...I blame it on the absolute derth of forward thinking, capable advisers/consultants within the GOP.  These candidates would've done better to find a successful commissioned sales person or a coach with a winning record.  These were/are  top notch individuals but they picked the wrong people to surround themselves with.  And those that were chosen built an impenetrable wall around the candidates so they couldn't get any alternative opinions or guidance.   Oh well, spilt milk right Lynn?  DD

The Republican primary system is broken. In part...

for the exact reasons you espoused Lynn.  I told a good friend that the tragic error of Giulliani's campaign was that he mad FL the "do or die" state.  It should have been CA on super-duper tuesday.  The reason being he would of swept the CT, NJ, and NY winner take all primaries.  And he would of done well enough in the proprtional primaries that he would of looked pretty smart being tied with McCain the next morning and it would have been a fight between McCain and Giulianni through April.

Now my beef is why do three states that are deep blue hold so much sway over a party's candidate. Just look at the political map and we can all say this makes no sense.  Its like asking the DNC for advice.  This is a problem the RNC needs to address.

Yes, it's broken...

And it's broken because the RNC and Beltway elites broke it. 

Close the primaries and change the schedule.

I much prefer a national primary day and I don't buy the argument that candidates can't campaign everywhere. Sure they can if they want votes from that state. Absent a national primary then let's go to 4 regional primaries.

But the most important thing is closed primaries. No independents. No Democrats. Let Republicans choose their candidate.

Was there really a Dem hijacking?

I've often thought about that since January, and at first I was convinced that the Democrats did hijack the process.  However,  the numbers simply don't back that up.

Let's take a quick look at the pre-Super Tuesday primaries, the ones that essentially gave McCain the nomination.  In New Hampshire's semi-open primary, the Democratic candidates received 48,000+ more votes than the Republicans when just over 500,000 total participated.  South Carolina, where the parties held their open primaries on separate days, saw 87,000 more participate in the later Democratic primary with just under 1,000,000 total participants.  Only in Michigan and Florida, where the Democrats believed at the time of the primary in each state their votes were worthless, did the Republican primary outdraw its Democratic counterpart.  Michigan, which had an open primary, had about 275,000 more participate in the Republican primary (just under 1.5 million total), while Florida's closed primaries saw spread of 200,000 with 2.7 million participants.

John McCain won 3 of those 4, with only Michigan as the outlier.  If I were to believe the Democrats, or even independents, were responsible, I would expect two things - a larger participation in the Republican primary than in the Democratic one, and for that to correlate to the states McCain won.

On the other hand the, fact that Mitt Romney had won almost all the pre-Super Tuesday caucuses, with Mike Huckabee winning Iowa and McCain finishing 4th there seems to contradict that.  Then again, caucuses draw in only the hard-core political types.

There is something to what Sean Hackbarth said.  Even though McCain wasn't my 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd choice, it is obvious that he was enough Republicans' 2nd choice.

As for the "turn" factor, there is definitely something to that.  Since Dwight Eisenhower, every Republican nominee can claim some sort of "next in line" heritage (sitting/ex VP, 2nd in the previous contested nomination season, son of an ex-President).

I was at AFP also

It was a somewhat pessimistic place, considering what is going on.  The desire for big government is at its greatest in at least 40 years, if not 75.  The attendees know this and feel very threatened by something it seems like they cannot stop.

The crowd skewed older than most DC conservative events.  The typical attendee seemed to be a 50 something business person.  On Friday, George Will gave a great speech about the economy, focusing on how much overconsumption there has been in the past decade.  The rest of the speeches were alright, but preaching to the choir.  There weren't that many big names at the summit.  Last year, they had nearly every GOP presidential candidate speak, so it was natural that this year's speaker schedule would be less decorated.

I have long ago given up on the current wussypants Republicans

to do the right thing.  They have shown themselves to be spineless cowards afraid of conflict.  The Dims have ripped the guts out of Republicans over the past 8 years.  I look forward to the new generation of republicans who will fight for our country and freedoms.  This current bunch of wussies cannot go fast enough for me!

Jeff Lebowski

www.angrywhitedude.com

It really seems like it is

It really seems like it is time to build “the next right.” It is obvious.

Papers for sale