Exit of a champion: Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich is defeated in Maryland.

REPUBLICANS and conservatives suffered a lot of losses last month, on Election Day. And one of the toughest to take was that of Robert L. Ehrlich, the governor of Maryland. He is a true-blue Reagan conservative, and he governed one of the most liberal and Democratic states in the Union. In 2002, he pulled off a surprise, beating Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, 51 percent to 48. This year, however, he lost to Martin O'Malley, the mayor of Baltimore. The vote was 53 percent to 46.

Thus has one of the brightest stars in the Republican party been sidelined, maybe permanently.

He is an unusual fellow, Ehrlich. Went to Princeton, where he did his thesis on Solzhenitsyn. Was elected to Congress in the smash Republican year of 1994. When he ran for governor, he did so as an unapologetic Reaganite. That was supposed to be poison in Maryland. He campaigned against gun control, against the minimum wage, against intrusive government generally. He is not the type to give different speeches to different audiences, either: He talks to everyone pretty much the same way.

In German, his name means straightforward, honest, direct--and no one denies that Ehrlich is that. He has pronounced multiculturalism "bunk" and "crap." No Republican is better at calling the Democrats on racial demagoguery. And he has pressed his points in every forum imaginable: from sports shows on the radio to black churches.

In his term as governor, his approval rating never dipped below 50 percent. It stood at about 55 when he lost on Election Day. He had never lost an election in his 20 years as a politician, and, a couple of weeks after, he talked freely (as always): "Losing stinks. That's just the fact of it." Moreover, he expected to win, particularly given his approval rating. Ehrlich points out that 55 percent is "pretty good, for an Eastern Republican who governed from the right."

And what does he think about why he lost? He begins his answer by saying that he has forbidden his staff to "engage in that sort of speculation." He has also forbidden himself--"because I hate whiners, I hate excuse-makers, and when you lose, you lose." That said, he offers a few thoughts. Polls told him that, while his administration was popular, voters were "not happy with Washington." Simply put, "we endeavored to separate our record from the national mood, and we just couldn't pull it off in a blue state."

Ehrlich notes that the big difference between the 2002 election and this time was white women: In '02, he won them by a lot; last month, he won them only narrowly. "White, moderate, Democratic-leaning women went home, to the Democratic party."

And that party is far from the Democratic party of old, says Ehrlich. "It is a hard-Left, AFSCME, trial-lawyer, teachers'-union party, and they play for keeps, unlike business."

Ah yes, business. Ehrlich is famous for chastising businessmen--his natural constituency--and to their faces. He once accused them of having "Patty Hearst Syndrome," meaning they were soft on their captors and abusers. He says that businessmen like to go with winners, or probable winners, rather than politicians who support their interests (low taxation, light regulation, etc.). And they are miserable organizers.

The governor cites an example: Facing a Democratic legislature--the only kind of legislature Maryland would have--he defeated an increase in the sales tax. So the retail merchants decided to have a thank-you event for him--to which only 100 people showed up. Ehrlich turned to an aide and said, "This is the problem. The teachers' unions can put 10,000 people outside my house overnight, but when we deliver for business ..." Not that the merchants weren't appreciative, says Ehrlich. It's just that they have work to do--shops to run--and little time for political activism. By contrast, "trial lawyers and other people who feed off government" are in politics virtually full-time--"and that is a political dilemma for anyone who approaches the issues as we do."

Despite a forbidding environment, Ehrlich had his accomplishments. He takes pride in his fiscal stewardship: He made government smaller, he turned a big deficit into a big surplus--he killed something like $7.5 billion in proposed taxes. Through the four years, he consistently emphasized economic growth, and Maryland flourished.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In addition, Ehrlich takes pride in being a sensible environmentalist, and in his appointments. He achieved "racial diversity," he says, but always considered merit, first and foremost. "I stayed true to my conservative principles while reflecting Maryland, which was my goal."

Many conservatives question whether there is any constituency at all for small government--and Ehrlich is one of them. He recalls being in Congress, where "so many people talked conservative and acted liberal. I saw safe-seat members unwilling, or unable, to vote for appropriations cuts," because they feared offending this group or that. In Maryland, Ehrlich did a lot of cutting, "which was very difficult to do, and tough, hard medicine. I stepped on a lot of toes," including those of people who identify themselves as conservatives.

He had a hostile legislature, a hostile political establishment--and a really hostile press. The Baltimore Sun was his bete noire, and he was its. Famously, the governor barred his staff from talking to two Sun writers, so appalled was he at their performance. And he likes to cite one headline in particular. It said, "Ehrlich Okays Secret Land Deal"--"only I didn't okay it, it wasn't secret, and it wasn't a deal. Other than that, the headline was perfectly accurate."

The Washington Post was no friend of Ehrlich either, although it did endorse him for reelection. That was a stunning development. Ehrlich went in for a meeting with the editors, thinking he had "zero chance" of an endorsement. "I let loose, though respectfully," criticizing their coverage, reading objectionable articles back to them. As if in atonement, or with a newfound appreciation, the Post said, "Reelect Ehrlich"--causing some conservatives to joke that they would reconsider their support.

Ehrlich is uncertain about his future, but another run in Maryland seems unlikely, "given the direction of the state." He reasons this way: You have what is widely regarded as a successful administration, you have ratings for honesty in the 70s and 80s, you run an excellent campaign, with plenty of money and a smooth organization--and you still lose, by a pretty big margin. "It gives you pause as to what, if anything, can be done." Before 2002, Maryland had not had a Republican governor since Spiro Agnew, elected in 1966. Will it be another 30 or 40 years?

As to Republican prospects nationwide, Ehrlich finds it hard to be optimistic. The GOP faces persistent problems with white women--those vaunted soccer moms--and blacks. Ehrlich spent a lot of time with black Marylanders, "and I was very well received." But black identification with the Democratic party is "very, very strong," and "at this time in history it seems almost impossible to overcome." Perhaps the future will be different, but who knows?

And then there is the problem of selling a small-government philosophy to a public not necessarily hungry for it. Ehrlich contends that it's extremely difficult "to get a '94 brewing": That spectacular year was "as much about Democratic scandals"--the House post office and so on--"as it was about the Contract with America."

Conversation turns to George W. Bush, and Ehrlich credits the president with understanding the "nature of the Terror War." The American public may be a different story. Ehrlich is a Churchill aficionado, and he notes that, in the '30s, the Conservative leader had trouble arousing Britons to the foreign threat. And then, when he won the war, they turned him out. Ehrlich had hoped, and believed, that 9/11 would be the "defining event" of our times. That has not proven to be the case, at all. What else can you think, asks Ehrlich, "when Nancy Pelosi is Speaker"?

The governor is not yet ready to declare a presidential preference for '08. But he will say this, unequivocally: "Because the Democrat has to lose, we have to win." And by "the Democrat," he means Hillary Clinton. "It's critically important for the country, for our national security, that the Republican nominee win in 2008. Another four years, or eight years, of a President Clinton would be intolerable," in this era of war. "We can't afford it. When the country was at relative peace, and the NASDAQ cocktail party was going on, a Clinton could be president. Not today."

Ehrlich has been a sight to behold, governing ultra-liberal Maryland as a "libertarian-influenced conservative" (his self-description). Just about all the forces have been arrayed against him. I mention that he has reminded me of a right-leaning professor on campus, without tenure: His fellow faculty gun for him, the university administration guns for him, the student press and activists gun for him--and they finally get him. Ehrlich laughs heartily at this analogy.

I later remember something he said to me last spring, when I talked with him in Annapolis. Discussing his admiration of Churchill, he said, "He stood on principle, and he was willing to lose." The same applies to Bob Ehrlich. Conservatives have suffered a bitter loss, but it was a kick to have him in for four years.