Kramer: Time to return to GOP values
BY DON WALTON / Lincoln Journal Star
OMAHA — On the eve of the Republican national convention, David Kramer created a stir.
“As a purely partisan Republican, I believe our party would be better off losing this presidential election than winning it,” Kramer said.
When his fellow Nebraska delegates read that newspaper story online at their Minneapolis headquarters hotel the next morning, Kramer heard some grumbling.
Ignored in some of the reaction was Kramer’s accompanying statement that, partisan considerations aside, election of Barack Obama and an increasingly Democratic Congress would be “disastrous for us as a nation.”
OK, it happened.
His party lost.
Now what?
Learn the lesson imposed by voters with their “repudiation of Republican governance over the last eight years,” Kramer says.
Restore the GOP to its conservative fiscal moorings, he says.
Embrace social and fiscal conservatism again and the party will be back to its winning formula.
Kramer, who served as Republican state chairman from 2001 to 2005 and sought his party’s 2006 Senate nomination, is sitting in a comfortable conference room at his Baird Holm law office on the 15th floor of the Woodmen Tower. Out the bank of windows, rain splatters across downtown Omaha.
“I don’t believe this was a repudiation of conservatism,” Kramer says. That wasn’t the issue.
President George W. Bush “presided over one of the largest expansions of government in our history,” he says, and that’s what voters repudiated last week.
Although losing its way fiscally, the GOP remained true to its social conservatism, Kramer says. The addition of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, he says, is the best evidence of that.
But government ballooned with enactment of No Child Left Behind educational reforms filled with federal mandates and approval of costly, unfunded prescription drug Medicare benefits, Kramer says.
“The size of the federal government expanded,” he says. “Its cost rose from 17 to 18 percent of the gross domestic product to 22 percent.”
That’s “the Achilles heel that lost us the election,” Kramer says.
Republicans, he says, simply lost their way.
To those who say the GOP must rid itself of social conservatism to build its future, Kramer has a blunt response: “I say baloney.
“The road map to achieve victory continues to be the marriage of social and fiscal conservatism,” he says. Along with a return to the Republican message of optimism.
But that message needs to be wed to the right messengers, he says.
Kramer looks first to Republican governors like Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Haley Barbour of Mississippi.
And, yes, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the 2008 vice presidential nominee.
Add to that list former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Kramer was enthusiastic about the selection of Palin two months ago, and says he remains so even after she became a polarizing and oft-maligned figure during the campaign.
“I think there was a double standard applied to her,” he says. “It wasn’t gender. It was inside baseball versus outside baseball. She was an outsider.
“She said far fewer foolish things during the campaign than Joe Biden did.”
But Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, was a Washington insider who was treated quite differently by the media, Kramer says.
Republicans need to pay more attention to the dynamic change in America’s demography, Kramer says.
“The face of America is changing,” he says, and the GOP needs to come to grips with the fact that an estimated 95 percent of blacks and two-thirds of Hispanics voted for Obama last week.
Combine that with projections that America will become “a majority minority country” in 2040. That’s when a majority of the U.S. population no longer will be white.
“We have to find a way to make inroads with those voters,” he says.
Despite his Republican allegiance, Kramer says there is reason to salute Obama’s election.
“We ought to stop for a minute and celebrate the nature of the moment,” he says.
“When he said ‘only in America,’ I agree with him.”
Like the president-elect, Kramer comes from mixed parentage. His mother was born in Panama.
“It will be really easy to be critical of what the Democrats are going to do now,” Kramer says.
“The hard part will be to offer insightful and thought-provoking alternatives.
“Being in the opposition is relatively easy. Governing, as we discovered, is really hard.”
Reach Don Walton at 473-7248 or dwalton@journalstar.com.

Facebook
del.icio.us
Fark It
Reddit




Post Your Comment
Standards and RulesYour posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
Hamon Righ wrote on November 14, 2008 4:45 am:
thank you wrote on November 14, 2008 5:32 am:
I would be nice ... wrote on November 14, 2008 5:38 am:
DJ wrote on November 14, 2008 5:53 am:
Justice wrote on November 14, 2008 7:21 am:
David Kramer conservative wrote on November 14, 2008 7:50 am:
Greg wrote on November 14, 2008 7:58 am:
Foolish wrote on November 14, 2008 8:21 am:
Ex-republican wrote on November 14, 2008 8:21 am:
Brenda wrote on November 14, 2008 8:25 am:
If the GOP wants to hold the White House again, they might want to consider becoming something other than the "Grand Old Rich White Guy Party" which is what they have become in the eyes of many. "
whatever wrote on November 14, 2008 9:11 am:
JB wrote on November 14, 2008 9:22 am:
The Omega Man wrote on November 14, 2008 9:26 am:
Rockwell wrote on November 14, 2008 9:47 am:
The greater factor is the social issues trumpeted by the GOP. Americans don't want your brand of religious extremeism made the law of the land. Your party is WRONG on the entire social platform. If you ever want to regain power in government, set aside the religious social agenda and return to TRUE fiscal conservative principles. The majority can be brought to vote GOP, but not on social policy. "
WCG wrote on November 14, 2008 10:16 am:
What's conservative about tax cuts for the rich and the widening of income inequality to third world levels? What's conservative about borrow-and-spend fiscal policies which took us from budget surpluses under the Democrats to the biggest deficits in history? What's conservative about invading an innocent, though oil-rich, country? What's conservative about abandoning habeas corpus, a fundamental legal principle in western societies since the Middle Ages?
It used to be that our enemies were the ones who tortured prisoners and who conducted preemptive attacks on other countries. But now it's somehow "conservative" when America does it? It used to be that the separation of church and state was a fundamental American principle, staunchly supported by BOTH political parties, but now it's supposed to be "conservative" to tear down Jefferson's wall? It used to be that the separation of powers in the federal government was basic to America. It used to be that our Department of Justice was not used for partisan political purposes. What's "conservative" about any of this?
OK, I guess that racism and sexism could be considered "conservative." And yes, opposition to Social Security and Medicare have always been "conservative." Maybe even fear-mongering and immigrant-bashing, I guess. But really, you need more than that to be "conservative," don't you think? The Democrats have become FAR more conservative fiscally than the Republicans. Forget the lying and the scare-mongering about Barack Obama (do you really think that Warren Buffett would support a "communist"?) and look at the evidence. Compare the Clinton and Bush presidencies.
And personally, I consider it to be "conservative" to support America's Constitution, Bill of Rights, and fundamental principles, such as the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the strict separation of church and state. Again, that points to the Democrats, not the Republicans. Sorry, but the GOP hasn't been "conservative" since religious fanatics took control of the party. "
Interesting wrote on November 14, 2008 10:54 am:
Captain Logic wrote on November 14, 2008 11:03 am:
clh wrote on November 14, 2008 11:38 am:
Raised Out West Living in Lincoln wrote on November 14, 2008 11:47 am:
That said, David Kramer has a lot of moxy for doing the things he does. I give him kudos for that. It takes guts to stand up against the "Heineman Machine." Obviously, Mr. Kramer is vetting for a new elected position and jostling for a bigger slice of the Nebraska Republican "power pie." If he ditched the talk of "social conservatism" then maybe I would vote for him. And this is coming from a loyal liberal of Nebraska. "
Whenever wrote on November 14, 2008 12:19 pm:
J wrote on November 14, 2008 1:18 pm:
Hey Dave wrote on November 14, 2008 5:15 pm:
To David Kramer wrote on November 14, 2008 5:44 pm:
As to the rest of the Republicans if you run a negative campaign (Pete Ricketts,Don Stenberg are a few that come to mind)-you will not earn my vote.
Yes-as Christian I would prefer to vote for other Christians but when a candidate's speech is offensive and negative,the Spirit indwelling in me reminds me that this person is a false prophet.... "
Ned wrote on November 15, 2008 1:20 pm: