PATRICK MCSWEENEY TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
Published: March 29, 2009

Frank Atkinson, a longtime participant in Republican politics at the highest levels, offered his analysis of the 2009 Virginia gubernatorial race in last Sunday's Commentary section. His conclusions, as usual, are thoughtful, but don't withstand close scrutiny.

Atkinson begins with the obvious proposition that a winning candidate must attract support from swing voters who are not committed to either of the major political parties. For decades, neither of the two parties has enjoyed the dependable support of a majority of Virginia voters. Every statewide candidate has had to earn the support of his or her party's base as well as a sufficient number of independents and members of the opposing party in order to prevail.

Contrary to Atkinson's suggestion, no one (not even those he labels "partisan true-believers") has argued that the Republican candidate should appeal to his hard-core base exclusively. The debate within the GOP is over how best to secure the support of a majority of voters.

Atkinson was a member of George Allen's inner circle during the 1993 gubernatorial race. Allen portrayed himself as a principled conservative and won handily. His successor, James Gilmore, also ran as a dedicated conservative and defeated a popular Democrat, Lt. Gov. Donald Beyer, in 1997.

The last two Republicans who ran for governor -- Mark Earley in 2001 and Jerry Kilgore in 2005 -- blurred their positions on key issues in an attempt to gain the support of independents and Democrats. Neither came close to obtaining the support of conservatives and moderates that Allen and Gilmore had obtained.

Kilgore's disastrous debate performance before the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce was emblematic of the failure of his campaign strategy to avoid taking a strong position on social issues. He refused to take a stand on whether he would sign or veto legislation prohibiting abortion, saying it was a hypothetical question.

The moderator of that debate, the late Tim Russert, then asked Kilgore if he would veto a tax increase. When Kilgore answered he would, Russert pointedly remarked that the tax question was also hypothetical. Kilgore never recovered in that debate or in his campaign.

Earley ran his campaign in 2001 aggressively reaching out to Democrats and independents. He failed to hold the Republican base and gained little ground with other voters.

What greatly distresses many who have faithfully supported Republican candidates who pledged to hold fast to conservative principles, but too often didn't, is to be told that Republicans can't win unless they compromise those principles. Conservatives have heard that contention since at least 1964 and have never been persuaded.

Ronald Reagan rejected that argument in his famous "Time for Choosing" television speech immediately before the 1964 election. He challenged it again in 1976, 1980, and 1984. From the outset, Reagan was considered by the media and many GOP insiders to be too conservative to win.

John McCain is presumably the kind of moderate that Atkinson considers a model. McCain made an extraordinary effort to appeal to Democrats and independents, highlighting his record of bipartisanship. His inconsistent support for conservative principles left voters confused about his political agenda and how he would make decisions if elected. What support he received from conservatives depended less on his message than on his selection of a conservative running mate.

It is worth noting that George W. Bush received 40,000 more votes in Ohio in 2004 than McCain did in 2008. Bush attracted social conservatives by taking strong positions on their issues. Many of those voters either stayed home or supported Barack Obama last November.

Former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm was fond of saying that the Republican Party attracted him to switch parties because it was a Big Magnet, not because it was a Big Tent. He argued that Republican candidates could continue to galvanize the party's base and simultaneously draw support from independents and Democrats by unapologetically campaigning on conservative principles. That's still a winning strategy.

Conservatives in the Virginia GOP have watched the party lose control of the State Senate, much of its overwhelming majority in the House of Delegates, the past two U.S. Senate elections, and the past two gubernatorial elections. For conservatives, the answer is obvious: Republican candidates and their consultants decided to downplay or even abandon conservative positions and to run Democrat-lite campaigns.

The moderate Republicans who urge this approach are driven by polls, not principles. Their commitment to limited government, the free enterprise system, and moral verities will not survive the first puff of popular opposition. Positions are determined by what consultants and pollsters conclude the voters want to hear. There is no room in their playbook for principled leadership based on genuine conservatism.

The problem for Republicans is not that they have tried conservative principles and have failed. The problem is that they have not tried them enough.

Patrick M. McSweeney is a Richmond attorney and former chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia. Contact him at pmcsweeney@mcsweeneycrump.com .