Republicans … the party of change?

August 16, 2006

In 1992, towards the end of the presidential campaign, then-VP Dan Quayle acknowledged what all the polls were saying: people were unsatisfied with the status quo. Responding to the public’s desire for something different, Quayle told reporters, “Republicans are the party of change.”

It was a pretty weak sales pitch. The Reagan-Bush years had spanned 12 years at that point, and by conceding that the electorate was anxious for change, Quayle’s defense simply didn’t make a lot of sense — people want something different, so they should for more of the same.

Oddly enough, it’s happening again.

On Saturday, Minnesota Senate candidate Rep. Mark Kennedy announced his “Plan to Bring the Right Kind of Change to Washington,” a 14-page manifesto of the differences he hopes to effect in the Senate.

Last week, Iowa House candidate Jeff Lamberti called for “real change in Congress” and blamed Republicans for what’s wrong with Washington.

And in his campaign ads, Nebraska Senate candidate Pete Ricketts decries Washington politicians’ “erosion of our values,” pleading, “If you’re tired of what’s going on in Washington, I hope you’ll listen.”

These candidates — all of whom emphasize the need for “change” as often as they can — are Republicans. They’re in the untenable position of telling voters that the country will see a real difference if the party that’s controlled every branch of government for the last six years stays in power for at least two more.

No, I don’t understand the strategy either.

Republicans are supposed to defend the status quo. They’ve been running the show for a while now; if voters feel unsatisfied, it’s the GOP’s job to a) tell them not to believe their lying eyes; things are better than they seem; and b) tell them Dems would be worse.

Instead, plenty of Republicans are trying to thread an invisible needle — promising change by sticking with what we already have.

For GOP challengers, the “change” pitch might make some sense. They’re talking about more of a micro-change (different leadership for an individual district or state, not the nation). But as The Hill noted, incumbents — including Sen. James Talent (R-Mo.) and Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-Minn.) — are running on a change platform, too. It’s almost as if the Republicans are hoping that the electorate forgets who’s been in the majority since 2000.

In perhaps the most amusing example, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairwoman Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), hoping to boost GOP hopeful Mike Bouchard’s chances in Michigan, declared that Michigan voters “are looking for a change in direction.” I think that’s true, but it’s not the kind of trend that helps Dole.

Far be it for me to complain. If Republican leaders and candidates want to reinforce the Dems’ message, it’s fine by me. I just didn’t expect it; that’s all.

Bouchard’s campaign yard signs include the slogan “the change we need” or something like that. I haven’t noticed the appellation “Republican,” however.

  • Just point out to the Republican’t that if they want a change, they can effect it right now.

    Stop using the conference committees to add unlegislated earmarks.

    Start doing real oversight of the Bushites.

    Start acting like congressmen and women and not doormats.

    But with weeks of congressional vacations before the election, I think it’s a little too late.

  • Thanks for the Ricketts ad, CB,

    When I first saw Pete (the GOP candidate) mention the “erosion of our values,” and “If you’re tired of what’s going on in Washington, I hope you’ll listen.”, I asked my wife “Isn’t it HIS party that’s in charge in Washington?”

    So vote Republican, the because we don’t know what the hell we’re doing.

  • Anyone stupid enough to NOT know that the Republicans are the party in charge probably also believes that WMDs have been found in Iraq, and that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

    sigh.

  • Rep. Mark Kennedy is involved–that should tell you right there that the plan is bogus. All the political candidates are at the Great MN get together (That is the state fair for you out of staters). They meet people, give speaches and do interviews and debates for MPR. I hope to ask Rep. Kennedy some very pointed questions this year if he is unlucky enough to be there when I am. This guy drives me crazy.

  • Here is a story about the P.B.R.K.C.W.

    The change Kennedy seems to be pushing for is to put more Conservative Republicans in the Senate so the Senate will stop preventing important issues from being resolved. The problem is that there is not a super-majority in Washington who are willing to pass flag-burning, gay marriage, school vouchers, bomb the sand people, resurect crusifixion for non-christians (sorry, I couldn’t resist) laws.

    http://www.startribune.com/587/story/611173.html

    “The U.S. House, where the Sixth District Republican has served since 2001, “has done its work, but in some years there have been 40 major bills passed by the House that are not passed by the Senate,” even though both bodies are controlled by Republicans.”

    “Much of the “Plan to Bring the Right Kind of Change to Washington” incorporates positions Kennedy has taken before and are in line with those of congressional Republicans. For instance, he would eliminate the estate tax, make tax cuts permanent and withdraw troops from Iraq only after military commanders advise it.”

  • These guys acknowledge that change is in the wind, but their code phrase is “the right kind of change.” That’s where the BS lies. Even if these guys are earnest, the Repub culture of corruption would squash them like bugs.

  • Racerx, that may be, but what percentage of the electorate do those folks make up? I’ve learned my lesson about overestimating the intelligence of the American voter.

  • CB writes: “It’s almost as if the Republicans are hoping that the electorate forgets who’s been in the majority since 2000.”

    Well, they’ve never underestimated the intelligence of the average voter to date. But don’t these guys remember that “you’re not supposed to introduce a new product in August?” Rethuglicans knew that even before 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.*

    *Sorry, but Rethug strategy always includes the obligatory redundant mentions of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11…

  • In Washington state, Mike! McGavick, the challenger to incumbent Maria Cantwell (D), is using the same language in his commercials. It seems to be a pattern with R’s this year.

  • Although Democratic candidates will be campaigning and asking for votes all the way up until election day, it might be appropriate for Democratic supporters to cut way back on pleading their case and complaining about Bush, and simply start talking excitedly about plans and possibilities for when they take over the House and the Senate in January. A show of inevitability might be exactly what’s needed to dispirit the Talibornagain and Neoconmen wings of the Republican party.

  • Then there’s the tactic that Rep. Joe Knollenberg is using in Michigan – don’t mention you’re a Republican! The official re-election flier my wife and I just received from his campaign (don’t know why it was sent to us) is very “green” looking and portrays Knollenberg (a staunch Bush supporter) as a supporter of “conservation,” “energy independence,” “lower fuel prices” and green energy alternatives. The word “republican” is no where to be found. These guys are scared.

  • Fisher,

    Ricketts in Nebraska calls himself a “Reagan Republican”, because, as we all know, the values-eroding Republicans in Washington are just RINOs.

  • Several of you have made the important point that a number of Republicans have argued, absurdly, that the failures of the Bush administration have come because they Bushites ‘weren’t (their type of) Conservative enough.’ Given the fact that the only thing that gave the Republicans their small majorities in the last two Presidential elections — other than corruption and Blackwell’s maneuvers — has been the union of various ‘conservative’ positions that were, in fact, opposed to one another (the libertarians, the religious right, the no-taxers, the corruptionists, the RINOS — NONE of which could come close to a majority on their own), a Democratic win in November could institute an incredible internicine bloodbath between the various factions, leading, as I’ve said, to a Goldwater-style debacle for the party. (Of course, this assumes that Hilary is not nominated. Opposition to her is the one glue that could put the pieces back together.)

  • “Of course, this assumes that Hilary is not nominated.” – Prup

    Always with the dig at Her Likiness. Republican’ts pull together their unholy alliance because of fear of all liberal democrats, but what they really hate is Bill Clinton’s triangulation strategy, because he ‘solved’ so many of the issues they campaign upon (with not intention of ever solving themselves), notably Welfare Reform.

    Six years after Clinton, and what do the Republican’ts have to show for their ‘conservatives’ support. Squat, as far as I can see. A loss in 2006, even if they keep majorities, will bring out the knives.

    • Comments are closed.