Now
Fair
20°
High
32°
Low
18°

Kramer: Time to return to GOP values

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY DON WALTON / Lincoln Journal Star

Friday, Nov 14, 2008 - 12:21:26 am CST

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.

Story Photo
David Kramer

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.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Ernie wrote on November 14, 2008 1:36 am:
" No one cares if the federal budget is 17 percent of the gross domestic product or 22 percent. What Americans care about is the bottom line: Under the G.W. Bush admnistation we spent more and received less. I want an FDA that protects us from bad drugs and poisoned food -- not one tied in knots over birth control pills. I want an FAA that is funded so I don't die unnessarily in a plane crash or midair collision -- not an FAA starved for funds and dependent on old technology and an overworked staff. I want regulators to prevents mortgage meltdowns, credit crises and the like. Most of all, I want our proud military not to have to fight bogus wars based on lies from our chief executive -- and I want them to have the best equipment and health care. Leadership flows from the top, and I hope Mr. Kramer realizes that Republicans will not rule again until they give us age-appropriate candidates with integrity and experience. I would have voted for McCain over Bush in 2000, but I couldn't support McCain paired with someone as uneducated as Sarah Palin. This is a big world and if the U.S. is going to remain a world player we need better leadership than the Republicans offered us in 2008. "

Hamon Righ wrote on November 14, 2008 4:45 am:
" Eh, Bush “presided over one of the largest expansions of government in our history,”? No Child Left Behind? That's why Republicans lost? The man lives in denial just like most of the politicians in the party. "

thank you wrote on November 14, 2008 5:32 am:
" Thank you David for recognizing the situation and stating the obvious. PLEASE don't just talk about the situation and what needs to be done, WORK overtime to get r done. "

I would be nice ... wrote on November 14, 2008 5:38 am:
" ... if the Republican Party was more like the GOP of the Eisenhower years in contrast to the Bush years. Our current president is as fiscally liberal as it gets. We need to stop that madness if we hope to regain the trust of the middle of the road voters. And no to Sarah Palin! We need educated, well spoken communicators, not rabble-rousers. And we need representatives that hold the line on spending. It has to be a message that Americans can believe in, not a slogan to make the other party look worse than ourselves. "

DJ wrote on November 14, 2008 5:53 am:
" Voters stopped trusting Republicans because they bought into the Washington media’s mantra that America craved more moderates. "

Justice wrote on November 14, 2008 7:21 am:
" Maybe Kramer should take his own advice and get back to true conservative principles...which includes equality of all men. His support of the discriminative and prejudicial policy of affirmative action is an affront to all Nebraskans and Americans who believe freedom is best instilled into a society which is free from discriminating based on race and gender. "

David Kramer conservative wrote on November 14, 2008 7:50 am:
" Really? I sure recall seeing his mug on a lot of debates during the affrimative action debate where he was against the proposal. I know he is a hired gun but he could have said no to accepting the case. "

Greg wrote on November 14, 2008 7:58 am:
" Dream on, David Kramer. The Republicans lost because they are out of touch with the motivations and aspirations of the emerging majority. If they want to stop the precipitous decline of their party, someone must (to paraphrase Adlai Stevenson) drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st century. "

Foolish wrote on November 14, 2008 8:21 am:
" Mr. Kramer, there is a difference between Biden's gaffes, which are misworded but at least out of an informed mind, and Palin's utter lack of information. How can you see them as one in the same? This is a woman who talks as if her main sources of information are Glamour magazine and a few Left Behind novels. She makes fun of research without bothering to find out how it might help her own family. She doesn't understand that there even is such a thing as competing schools of thought in foreign policy. It's not sexist, sir, to call Palin out for being willfully ignorant. I am a woman and I can communicate intelligently far better than she can. "

Ex-republican wrote on November 14, 2008 8:21 am:
" I voted for Dem Pres. for first time in my life. Rep's have lost the way with embracing radical social positions and increasing fiscal irresponsibility. I hope we can have a Fed. gov that will work for all, not the radical rights vision of what is best. Why does the Rep. party sell itself as the more Patriotic party, when results are we have less freedom because of their policies? I voted for Bush 2X's, and regret it. "

Brenda wrote on November 14, 2008 8:25 am:
" Americans don't hate "big government" so much as they hate "stupid, inept, and incompetent government". We would like to get what we pay for. We pay taxes to provide all of us with certain basic services. During the Bush years, we paid the same taxes (unless you were a millionaire, in which case you paid less!!!), borrowed a ton of money from China and the Bush admin. still could not provide services properly. Heckuva Job Bushie!

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:
" "Governing, as we discovered is really hard."? Well it if it's too hard get out of the game. The Republican Party is filled with spineless individuals who don't believe in America and only believe in themselves. Pointless wars, unprotected borders, fear mongering, assaults on the Constitution and spending on a scale the world has never seen that has obviously benefited only a very few. This former Republican is likely never to vote Republican again. The Republican Party is out of touch and is meaningless now. It's interesting how the Republicans seem to only have begun to understand the demographic challenge they are up against, some of us saw that 8 years ago. I would suggest the Christian Right remove themselves from Republican Party affiliation and go third party before they too become as irrelevent as the Republican Party. Republican Party you created this mess with your greed and actions of treason against this country. Go away already. "

JB wrote on November 14, 2008 9:22 am:
" What values? Money, big business, guns, and no rules or regulations! Anti women. Anti minority. Anti poor. Anti blue collar. "

The Omega Man wrote on November 14, 2008 9:26 am:
" Does Kramer mean there was time to leave traditional GOP values? "

Rockwell wrote on November 14, 2008 9:47 am:
" You have to admit that the shakeup the '08 Election has generated in the GOP is pretty entertaining. Mr. Kramer - yes the government grew expansively under a conservative administraton, a big part of the GOP downfall.

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:
" Social and fiscal conservatism? What's conservative about socialism for the rich? What's conservative about torturing prisoners? What's conservative about attacking our Constitution and the traditional values of our country, like freedom of religion and the strict separation of church and state? I just don't get it. Republicans want to change our secular democracy into a theocracy - a Christian Iran, in fact - and that's supposed to be "conservative"?

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:
" How he says us Repulicans "lost" the election. To me it really felt like the Dems "won" it. They won it by putting together the best campaign ever ran and catering to the majority on the issues that matter (economy and war). I am a life long republican, but I don't like to see our only platform is "he pals around with terrorists" and "he's to radical." Enough about him, what are YOU going to do for me. I don't want fear based, social issue governance. I want someone who listens and governs more than just the rich white republicans. "

Captain Logic wrote on November 14, 2008 11:03 am:
" Yes, nothing like a right-wing supporter claiming that after losing big to the leftists and moderates the best plan is to pull further right into a little corner, rather than moving toward a spirit of bipartisanship. But what do you expect from someone who is still enthusiastic about the choice of the underquallified and unprepared Sarah Palin. The one thing he got right is that governing is hard, and the Republicans have proven during the last eight years and in this election that they aren't up to the task. "

clh wrote on November 14, 2008 11:38 am:
" WCG where in the constitutuion does it say strict seperation of church and state. I believe the words are Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Raised Out West Living in Lincoln wrote on November 14, 2008 11:47 am:
" I was going to comment on how "Social Values" under the GOP is a misnomer for "social tyranny." But it seems that several people have already attributed to that debate. I'm glad I am not the only one who sees right through that shallow argument offered by people who don't comprehend what they propose is more harmful unto them than the ones they single out.

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:
" Whenever you see Obama and disaster in the same sentence you can be sure its a comedy writer. These past eight years were a disaster. Count the ways, own up to it. They are running out of fear-factors to sell us and least of all is Obama. Want war? Prove it - raise taxes to pay for it, reinstate the draft, and mandatory service by a family member of every elected official. Oh, and the wake up call for the GOP began with their 2006 election losses. "

J wrote on November 14, 2008 1:18 pm:
" i would argue that the current democratic party, since the Clinton years, has been the more fiscally conservative party and has believed in a limited government. I am a democrat who always votes for fiscal conservatives, but you really have to look into their past and to their policies to find them. I am also vehemently against social conservatism. I see this as another way to say if you are different, we don't care, you must follow our rules. This turns into hatred very easily. Look at the homosexual communities and the way that they are treated by the "social conservatives." I thought they were supposed to be Christian. That is why I am a democrat and follow mostly democratic ideals. Otherwise I very easily could be a republican if their ideals fit mine, but currently they are way out there. I don't want a theocracy, look at Iran. "

Hey Dave wrote on November 14, 2008 5:15 pm:
" Look at the stock market if you want to know why Republicans lost. The market is down 37 percent this year, which means that the $100,000 I had in my 401(k) on January 1, 2008, was down to $63,0000 on Election Day 2008. And this is the same stock market you Republicans wanted to put my Social Security money into? "

To David Kramer wrote on November 14, 2008 5:44 pm:
" Here's why I as a Republican did not vote for McCain this time :Sarah Palin.Anyone who claims to be Christian but whose speech vilifies someone,impugns his character,slanders his name, lies without compunction and speaks half truths the rest of the time,reveals what's really buried in their hearts;one's speech is a window to one's soul.I will not allow my self to vote for someone who may claim the same social conservative values that I have but who's intent is to exploit my religious beliefs for their self-centered purposes.I simply do do not trust her.
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:
" What I have just never been able to understand is that a Republican government is the worst enemy of the State of Nebraska yet the State is fiercely loyal to them. Without the government hand outs from the Liberals this State would take its place next to the poor third world countries. "