Ray Malone's Commentary

When Republicans won the presidency seven of the last 10 times it has taken the voting support of all of the groups that make up the party. Republicans never win when that coalition is divided. What must be remembered is what it takes to put that coalition together to achieve a victory in the General Election.

There are several groups with different important issues that make up the Republican party. We all need to understand who they are and what the stand for. We need to understand what each of them will and will not do.

There is the hawkish foreign policy branch. They were those that came to support Ronald Reagan and his successful strategy to take down the Soviet Union. They are the ones supporting George W. Bush in his principled stand on the war onTerror.The Hawks are a large part of the Republican party. But they don' have enough voter support on that issue to elect anyone president.

The second big group are what I call the Free Enterprise Republicans. They are for lower taxes to stimulate the economy. They believe that government is best that governs least. They believe in individual responsibility and initiative. They believe in everyone taking care of their own. The Free Enterprise Republicans are certainly a large group but not nearly big enough to elect a president on their own.

The third group is smaller but no less important.. they are the so called Religious Right. Their big issue is abortion. They are much more committed to their view than most other Republicans. Let me explain their position for those who may not be aware. To the Anti-Abortion Republicans there is no other issue that can override abortion. According to their beliefs abortion is murder, and to vote for someone who supports abortion is to commit a sin that will send them to hell for an eternity. Therefore they will not vote for a candidate that supports abortion.

Many Hawks don't understand the Religious Right's position. The Hawks say, "Don't you realize that the terrorists have sworn to come here and kill us all? " "It is our very lives that are at stake... How can you be so foolish as to fail to support a candidate that is Hawkish on the war on terror?"

But that does not persuade the Religious Right. They are well aware that the militant Muslims might well try to kill us all. They will even grant you that they might succeed. But according to their beliefs, the end result of their death at the hands of a terrorist is an eternity in Heaven. But if they vote for a candidate that supports abortion, they might well live a long life here on earth. but they would spend eternity in Hell.

The Religious right will not trade an eternity in Heaven for an eternity in Hell... no matter what the cost is here on earth. Especially if the cost is only their and their loved ones lives. That is very, very hard for the pure Hawks to understand.

The fourth group is the pro gun group, they are smaller than the Religious Right, but their votes must be gained if a Republican is to win. They will not support a gun control candidate. They believe that someday, if not already, this nation will be controlled by those that want to remove all freedom. And pro gun folks believe that their only chance to survive with freedom is to have guns to resist that government take over. They see no difference in two candidates that both support gun control. They will not vote for either.

Some of this group may be Hawks as well as Pro Gun. But their argument is, it makes no difference if they are disarmed and enslaved by their own government or the Muslims.. they will be slaves either way. To many pro gun people other issues are not nearly as important as gun control.

These four groups tend to make up the Republican party.

Of course there are those that belong to more than one group. There are those that belong to all four groups. But the outcome of elections depends in large part on those that only belong to one or two of the groups. They have to support and vote for the Republican candidate for that candidate to have any chance to win.

The other side of the coin is the Democratic party. Today Democrats are on the other side of all four issues. But members of these four groups don't vote Democratic. They either vote or they don't vote. it is as simple as that.

Now how does a Republican stand a chance of winning a general election for President?

It should not take much analysis to understand that all four groups have to have a candidate for whom they can vote. If the nominee does not support any issue out of the four, then his chances of winning are slim and none. That is just a plain fact that election returns have proved over, and over, and over again. But some of us still don't understand these cold hard facts of life.

But even if these four groups find a candidate they are all enthusiastically support , there is no chance that candidate can win unless that candidate can garner the votes of at least half of the swing voters,

Swing voters chose a candidate on two issues. "Who do I like" and "What will a candidate do for me." Bush in 2004 won the "likability" issue with moderate voters and lost "What will you do for me?" moderate voters. Bush and John Kerry split the moderate voters 50/50.

Does any one with a brain think that Hillary will lose that half of the swing voters that vote on what will government do for me? Why do you think she is pitching "free" health care? Yes. that is what her supporters think it is... free health care.

Does that mean the Republican candidate must win the likability race? Certainly. He must win it, just as George Bush did. No Republican candidate in 2008 can expect to do better on likability than George Bush did in 2004.

But what about Hillary being unlikable? Yep some 48 percent of the voters don't like her. Lets see, that would be all Republicans and not quite half of the Moderate voters.. would it not? Those would be the almost as many people as voted against Kerry in 2004 wouldn't it?

So how can the Republican party afford to lose the support of any part of its base? The answer is it cannot!

The Religious Right is about 4 million voters. Take 4 million from Bush and who wins in 2004? But the question some keep asking is, can't a candidate with moderate positions take millions of votes away from Hillary? The only place that is possible is in the 'What will you do for me?" voters.

So how many Free Enterprise Republicans do you think a Republican candidate will lose to get those 'What will government do for me?" Moderates? Karl Rove figured it at about 2 for 1. To get one "What'll government do for me?" Moderates it only cost two Free Enterprise Republican votes. As they say in Texas, that dog won't hunt.

There are zero ways to garner more moderates with out losing a larger portion of the base.

The problem faced by George W. Bush in 2004 was putting that coalition together. Today inexperienced Republican candidates and their followers think they can write off one of the Republican party base groups and make it up with moderates. That, as I've just explained is a huge joke waiting for Hillary's smiling face to enjoy on her inauguration day.

There are those that say that this or that candidate can do better at getting moderate votes than George Bush did in 2004. Do you really think that those who voted for John Kerry will not vote for Hillary Clinton? DO YOU REALLY?

Do you think the Kerry campaign that nearly beat Karl Rove's best efforts was a better effort than the Clinton effort will be? Was Kerry a better funded, better managed, more experienced campaigner, with more media support, and had a sharper staff than Hillary has? Do you think that any Republican candidate will have a campaign manager as skilled and as knowledgeable as Karl Rove?

The odds in 2008 are against any Republican candidate for President winning, but anyone who thinks that any part of the Republican coalition can be tossed away, just doesn't understand the real world.

I would ask each Republican reading this column to think before you vote in the primary. Ask yourself, "Can the candidate I am going to vote for get the support of all factions of the Republican party?"

If your answer is no and you still vote for him, then you just voted to make Hillary Clinton our next President.

It is sometimes helpful to think of the political spectrum as a clock face. At the bottom of the clock are the centrists at about 6 on the political dial. If we consider the right being from about 1 to 4:30 on the clock face then the moderates make their home from 4:30 to 7:30 and the left makes their home from 7:30 to 11.

In the general election for president it is almost always the moderates who pick the winner. There are about 17 states that have a lot more Democrats than Republicans. And there are about 17 states that have a lot more Republicans than Democrats. That leaves the so called battleground states. They have about an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. As a result the winner of those states is almost always determined by moderate voters. The moderates are often referred to as swing voters because they sometimes vote for the Democratic candidate and sometimes for the Republican.

You would think that those who almost always pick our president would get lots of attention. They don't. In fact moderates make very little noise. One reason is they are not ideological. They don't really have a political philosophy. If you ask them they will most often tell you they vote for the man and not the party. Some moderates vote for the most likable candidate, others vote for the candidate they think will do the most for them and least to them. It is about the candidate. it is not about the party.

The swing voters rarely pay much attention before the late summer of the election year. There was an exception in 2004. That year moderates made up their minds early in the spring of 2004, and they split nearly evenly. Half were for Bush and half were for Kerry. That meant that the party that did the best job of getting its base out would win. But 2004 was a rarity. It was the exception that proves the rule.

But what about what we hear in every election. Will the base come out to support its party? Bases always come out to vote. They just do. Then what is the media talking about?

They are talking about those on the far left and far right. Those on the far left exist from 11PM to midnight on the clock dial. Those on the far right exist from midnight to 1Am on the clock dial. What about them? I want to make the case that they are not worth a moments time or effort. No matter what they tell you they are not.

First let me say that I use a clock dial because the far left and the far right are very similar in the tactics and views they hold about the rest of the political spectrum.

It came as a shock to many that the far left voted for Nader in the 2000 election rather than Gore . Can you imagine how green you have to be for Al Gore to not be Green enough for the Green party voters?

The Green party voters voted for Nader to teach the Democrats a lesson. In the future they had best nominate someone they felt was green enough. Can you imagine a voter who was convinced that Al, Earth in the Balance, Gore was not green enough to get his vote?

There are about 3 percent on the Left that will never find a Democrat they can support. There are about 3 percent on the Right that will never find a Republican they can support.

Yet every election cycle they are out their screaming at the party on their side of the clock that they had better nominate someone they can support or they are going to teach the party a lesson.

In 2000 the far left told the Democrats that there was no difference between Gore and Bush. They were not going to vote for Gore because there was no difference between them. But that is not unusual. The far right did not see any difference between Bush and Gore.

What happened to the far right in 2000. Their was no media savvy far right candidate. When there is no third party right wing candidate they do not vote. They stay home and pout.

In 2004 many in the media thought that the far left would be in the Kerry fold. After all there was no far left party candidate to garner their votes. But what happened? Another very close race that Bush won. That 3 percent on the left that had voted for Nader 4 years earlier stayed home and pouted that Kerry was just not left enough.

In both 2000 and 2004 the far right stayed home and did not vote.

But yet both the far left and far right are very vocal. They are all over the web. They call all the call in shows to tell everyone who will listen that they will teach the dang party a lesson it will never forget.

The truth is they haven't a clue about how to teach a lesson or garner influence. They always withhold their votes. So no candidate that hopes to win will give them the time of day. Why would any candidate for either party. Those on the fringe never vote for the party's candidate. They vote for a third party candidate or they don't vote.

As we draw closer to the primary season, there will be louder and louder shouts about how the far right and far left are going to do this and that if they parties don't do this and that to please them.

It is interesting to note that the Democrats, this year, are bowing to the far left. Why? Well among other reasons, the far left this year is well funded by a very, very, very, rich man.

The Democratic party has always been made up of three components... the very very rich and the working class and the poor. The great mass of those that vote for Democrats have their hands out. They do not donate to the party. The Democrats need the money of the rich to stay in the game. Their candidates have to pander.

But wining elections is rarely about money. It is about doing smart things that persuade voters. Taking positions and doing things that appeal to moderates. That is what it takes to win.

In the final three weeks of the 2004 campaign Kerry outspent George Bush on TV by a significant margin. . Bush knew that being on TV too much cost votes. Kerry apparently didn't. Kerry had the money so he spent it on TV and it cost him votes in Ohio.

Wining is about organization, and hard work to get out the base, and making publicizing the candidates views in a way that appeals to both the base and moderates.

It is paying zero attention to the fringes of either party.

Neither the right or the left Fringe has never elected a president and they have never defeated one either.

Many, like Hillary. think it is all about raising the most money and pandering to whoever makes the most noise. That is almost always the fringes and they are never there for any major party candidate on election day.

OH you heard what Hillary said didn't you?

"What are they going to do if they catch me? HUH? The most they can do is Hsu me!"