| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Marketing Should Not Drive Policy
Submitted by Jon Henke on Sat, 02/28/2009 - 11:34
The problem is ... an echo chamber that has rotted our intellect, a grassroots that is ill-equipped to shape the Republican Party, and a Republican Party that has replaced strategy with tactics, substance with marketing.
The very serious Republican problem I described after the election - and which Patrick Ruffini cogently described as "The Joe-the-Plumberization of the GOP"- is pervasive and crucial. Unfortunately, Paul Krugman identifies another example of the problem...
What is the appropriate role of government? [...] [B]oth sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) [...] So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course. [...]
The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.
There's a time and place for ridicule, but it should be a byproduct of a coherent, intellectual policy framework and agenda. Policy experts do policy, communicators do marketing.
In recent decades, though, the Repubican Party has turned that process on its head. Now, marketing drives policy (e.g., tax cuts are the answer to everything, and transparency is only something the other guy should do). The policy experts are forced to spin the gimmicks, and the Republican Party grows farther and farther from reality. "Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." - Sun Tzu
(5 votes)
- Jon Henke's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Promos
Recent blog posts
Ironman
0 comments
John Smith
0 comments
Anita MonCrief
2 comments
Wayne from Jere...
0 comments
John Smith
2 comments
lgm
30 comments
Skip MacLure
3 comments
In between
2 comments
John Smith
6 comments
Brian Donahue
6 comments
Recent comments
-
mlindroo
-
John Smith
-
In between
-
Ray in TX
-
John Smith
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
Overcoming "talking point" conservatism
God bless you, Jon Henke. Overcoming "talking point" conservatism is crucial to our revival. Conservatives have grown far too comfortable with easy answers to difficult problems. It is as if we live in a world that poses no real challenges to human happiness except for the stubborness of those who fail to understand conservatism. We have grown complacent with regard to the hard work of policy and governance. Solving problems is usually difficult work that requires earnest, hard work, not talking points.
An appeal for a bipartisan approach?
"Solving problems is usually difficult work that requires earnest, hard work, not talking points."
This is a very perceptive observation. Why then do you think the GOP relies so often on the talking-points strategy when it doesn't appear to be succeeding based on polls that show little public support for the Republicans' monolithic opposition to Obama's early initiatives? When you speak of "earnest, hard work," is it correct to assume that this is a plug for a bipartisan approach?
Agreeded we need to pivot from Karl Rove style
50.1% and bumpersticker slogans doesn't do it anymore
Its pretty obvious that Obama at least sounded smarter or less incompatent than McCain on several issues during the campaign. Most notably the economy which I believe ultimately killed McCain.
Some would argue we need a contract with America type approach. Possibly but we need to take the issues Obama identified and show the Republcan alternatives. Environment, Health Care and Education
Hint the proper repsponse isn't
Environment - What global warming
Health Care - Socialized Medicine
Education - Mo money mo problems
Instead how about
Environment - What is the best balance of old and new energy how should business incentives be structured
Health Care - What is the Republican alternative (also have logical arguments ready for the D plan)
Education - Providing real choice and eliminating issues that don't work (a real opportunity to work with Obama here if Rs play their cards right)
Speaking of Jindal
We must also stop doing things like this:
And let's remember, Bobby Jindal is positioned as a serious, effective, policy-focused governor, the kind of conservative who will develop new ideas and new solutions. Yet, for reasons I find hard to derive, he advances views he apparently does not actually hold.
For the record, my family comes from Louisiana and coastal Mississippi. A high-speed connection from Baton Rouge to NOLA makes a lot of sense as similar lines would in many heavily-traveled corridors throughout the country. Why would Jindal ridicule such projects?
I'm not sure what is worse: when conservatives hear this kind of positioning with two ears--we know it is so much BS but we think it is good politics--or when conservatives take it at face value as sound policy. It is very frustrating.
When I lived there...
... ie New Orleans, Gulfport was a much more common destination for local travel than Baton Rouge. I think a New Orleans to Gulfport line makes more sense.
More than happy to let the locals hash it out
I'm more than happy to let the locals hash it out. I know several of my uncles drove to Baton Rouge for business probably 10 times a year for going on 20 years. That's not my concern here clearly.
A casino run would probably be well used. I just wish the casinos would go away, though I know they are here to stay. That's just me.
I understand your concerns
But the fact of the matter is that every public transportation project will never make up its operating expenses in revenue.
Still, it generates enough in economic activity to make up for it.
It costs $3 to cross the bridge to Manhattan. $1 to take the subway.
So, I'm thinking that the issue is not so much of subsidies for transportation, but rather one of whether it is in the best interests of the state for their main economic activity to be so closely tied to one city.
Exactly
And his mocking of volcano monitoring is more of the same. I spent an hour on net research trying to find where he decried federal funding of atmospheric monitoring for those little inconveniences his state experiences in the form of hurricanes. Couldn't find it anywhere. So he was just parroting one of the dumber GOP 'snickering points' and worse, it just screamed an "I've got mine, the heck with you" hypocrisy coming from a guy whose state is well-acquainted with the value of environmental monitoring. He may be the closest thing the GOP has to an intellectual but he's just another hack, happy to kneel at the altar of Rush and patronizingly parrot the claims he's smart enough to know are pure BS. I find that even more insulting than JTP or Palin, who at least don't know any better and aren't advertised as mental giants.
Its because they think your stupid!
HaHaHa the libs want magic levitation trains...............Ever been to europe?Japan?
and they want the government to buy cars...LOL..who else can buy a large order these days??
And volcano research ..LOL LOL!!.......Mt St. helens anyone?The volcanos in alaska?Yosemite?
At what point can you be insulted?
EVER?
I was talking with someone the other day...
I was listening to a radio show about Jindal's speech. Granted, most of the criticisms were inconsequential to substance (mostly stagecraft-type stuff); but it was noted that Jindal said many of the things that Rush had been saying for awhile now.
In a later conversation discussing that show, it was pointed out to me that Rush Limbaugh has been on the radio for 20 yrs now, and he already has all of the audience that he's ever going to get.
That is, for Jindal to echo Limbaugh is the path to obscurity and irrelevance.
But that's where the Republican Party is right now. "Screw the Promised Land; give us more wilderness!"
Stop playing their games
Political hack Paul Krugman calls out Bobby Jindal using grade school insults and the conservative brain trust thinks it's time to bash Jindal, too.
Jon, you know I'm a dumb mick lawyer from the 'burbs, but I like to think I'm bright enough to know when I;m getting played.
Jindal could have and should have offered a better argument for our cause, but how about explaining what argument he should have offerred before denigrating what he did offer. Are we supposed to ignore the legion of errors in Obamanism because the latte class thinks its "negative" or "nihilist" to complain? To quote Steve Martin "Excuuuuse Me!"
I guess, therefore, I'm not on the same intellectual plane as the think tank Republicans who are in process of being played by writing this sort of post.
What about the high-speed rail issue, Ironman
Is that a case of Jindal speaking conservative principles to power, or is it an opportunistic false-populism that the man apparently does not even believe in?
I'm at a bit of a loss. Looking to Jindal as a smart, new ideas conservative I want to think he's just blowing smoke on magnetic levitation technology and high-speed rail to make his "spending is always wrong" bones. On the other hand, I want to believe he's a principled, honest broker who doesn't blow smoke. It appears I cannot have both in this case.
I don't think Krugman's criticism as cited by Jon is off base, unfortunately. It is a real problem for contemporary conservatism.
Krugman was right!
There were a few economists who were warning of this INTERNATIONAL crisis and being laughed at.Krugman and DR.DOOM Roubini.If I go to a doctor and he misdiagnoses me then I find one who sees the problem who do I go back to next time I have an illness?
I guess we have your answer.
All the more reason...
... to have Billy Martin as the Chief Economic Advisor.
Krugman never took a team to the World Series...
That is to say, a hasty generalization in the form of a non sequitur.
I'm not playing "their games"
Perhaps you should Google around to see what I've written about Krugman in the past, here at elsewhere. You'll find I've had plenty of criticism for him, as well. But when I think he's right, I address that, too.
The "game" I'm playing is calling 'em like I see 'em. If you are looking for somebody to choose up sides and play team ball, look elsewhere. For instance, you might try people like Paul Krugman.
The criticism stands. I'm not going to withdraw it simply because you think it helps the "them" when we acknowledge that they have a point.
Well, Jon re-read your own columm
You criticize Jindal for being nothing more than an nitpicking naysayer about Obama.
And, hmmmm, what was what you said about Jindal any different?
Most conservatives think Jindal ought to have been himself and suspect he wasn't that night.
Now, while you were a) giving a poor presentation and b) offering the reader the wrong impression; could you explain what it was you were attempting to accomplish by making common cause with Paul Krugman on this issue? (please don't say you bashed Krugman before; why would a reader linked to this offsite have any means to know that?)
I'm going to presume that much as Jindal delivered a bad speech, you wrote a bad columm and will offer more light and less heat in your next bite at the apple.
And Jon, you could read my posts before assuming I'm a reflexive cheerleader for every Republican. I'll beat the crap out of anyone on our side who is clueless, craven or corrupt. And if Jindal is none of the above; I'm not gonna be happy when others pile on the Democrat attacks.
I'm a product of my environment---litigation over bad land deals and trying to elect Republicans in a blindlingly blue state. If this yields intellectually inferior reasoning for the think tank Republicans, well, pogue mahone!
You criticize Jindal for
That's not what I criticized at all. The post was about intellectually incoherent criticisms. Did you even read the post?
I feel an obligation to honesty and I make common cause with accuracy. I feel no obligation to prove my "team player" bona fides. If Krugman is correct, I will say it. If he is incorrect, I will say that, too. In this case, he was correct that Jindal's criticism was inconsistent with a belief in government limited to a proper role and scope, because while the program Jindal attacked may have sounded funny, it certainly falls into the category of public goods on which a limited government can legitimately spend money.
Jindal is an exceptionally smart person, with a great deal of promise and - based on what I've heard - a reasonably good record (aside from some fairly embarrassing things, such as his apparent belief in & legal support for creationism). I expect him to do better.
intellectually coherent defeatism
I presume that aligning yourself with the "Beavis and Butthead" statement is an example of what passes for erudite wisdom in DC circles these days. And giving support to Krugman's sophomoric kneecapping was due to "an obligation to honesty". Maybe you aspire to the same exalted status as Will, Noonan and Brooks by chiming in with opposition attacks. Since Ironman has no personal aspirations, I needn't worry what the chattering classes think about me.
If you want Republican and conservative candidates to win, one place to start is not to validate the central themes of attacks from the left. Then again, just ignore the dumb micks from the nation's 'burbs. It's not like the DC GOP hasn;t done that already for a few decades, now is it? Worked out great! Keep at it!
Don't look, don't see.
Take a lesson from Bill Clinton. He listened to what Republicans were saying about welfare and acted on it. He neutralized that issue. Even George Bush did it -- in No Child Left Behind. He listened to people worrying about education and did something about it. If Republicans refuse to see the good in what liberals are saying, they will never figure out how to lead.
Please rephrase. This got garbled. Whos the mick? You, or libs, or just a mick?
Well, this lets me explain things better
When Clinton reformed welfare, he didn't adopt Rush Limbaugh's rhetoric when he did it. He framed it as consistant with his own party's agenda.
I think it might be snarky to raise the ghost of Lloyd Bentsen here in comparing Henke to Clinton; but, you get the drift.
I'm the mick by the way. We're used to intellectuals telling us to STFU. hence the term, pogue mahone
Hearing the message, moving on from the past
Clinton did not use Limbaugh's hateful words, but he did hear conservatives' complaints about welfare. Urging Republicans to stick to Reaganomics is like urging Clinton to stick to Johnson's Great Society. Clinton chose to step away from Johnson/JFK and do what was good in the Republican agenda. He stood up to the "core" of his own party (and this is not the only instance -- NAFTA, `nuff said).
OK, kike to mick with Irish expletives -- the way to beat intellectuals at their own game is to learn what you're talking about.
I may not like the concept of social security
but if it's around in 20 years, you gonna attack me for cashing the check? Same here. Was Jindal supposed to let some other Governor built a rail line with this money?
In fact, a pretty good case could be made that high speed rail out of NOLA is a worthy disaster preparedness program. No one of any political stripe wants to see another Superdome fiasco because the city didn't evacuate ( Not rebuilding some of the more geologically problemative nabes might have been wise; but that road was politically incorrect to take)
You know JS, I saw Jindal handle a hurricane press conference once sans notes where he had enclopedic knowledge of who what where and when. He doesn't need Paul bleepin Krugman's stamp of approval, folks.
Jindal's ability to do a huricane press conference without notes
As you indicate, Jinhal is an intelligent competent person. So then why was he so utterly unable to offer a coherent narrative to the nation after days of preparation?
maybe he just whiffed
like Bill Clinton in 1988
Because on a national level
Because on a national level he's required to toe the party line and parrot the snickering points? Remember, he's one of Rush's darlings; how would it play with Rush's audience if he came out and exposed himself as an 'intellectual elite' by speaking intelligently and, heaven forbid, said something that The Base hasn't already been primed to hear? Heck, it could embarrass Rush and lead his listeners to question his judgment! Remember, unless Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al, have promoted a message, The Base doesn't know it's been approved for consumption and a GOP pol risks the fury of the echo chamber if they venture off the approved script.
As my attorney would say, this is non-responsive
As my attorney would say, this is non-responsive. The point is that Jindal said high-speed rail is not stimulative. He has declared that he will not take the unemployment money because it will entail changes to state law he won't allow. If the rail money is not going to stimulate the LA economy then why is he not taking a principled stand against it?
Again, to the conundrum: does Jindal really believe that upgrading the rail lines between NOLA and Baton Rouge would not create economic stimulus? I can't really imagine that that is the case since he seems to be very, very smart. So, what was that doing in his speech? I like to think he was pandering because I want to think he knows what economic stimulus is. On the other hand, he would appear to have every intention of actually taking the money! So, what is a conservative to think? Our leaders don't understand basic economics or we applaud their misrepresentation of their own knowledge and actions? What do we do with that? I honestly don't know.
But perhaps the first question to get to is whether you believe the NOLA/BR high-speed rail project would be stimulative or not. Was Jindal blowing smoke or does he think it is a pork-barrel project?
let me put it this way since you miss the federalism angle
a) the harm of highest interest rates et al will occur from federal borrowing in all 50 states. For a governor to turn down infrastructure funds because inherently, the excess borrowing will hurt the economy doesn't work; the money will be reallocated to other willing states and the generic harm will befall Louisiana's citizens whether they benefitted or not. This is macroeconomics
Let's say this money is used instead for a carousel from Vegas to Laughlin. The Louisiana resident gets the full pain, but NV gets better benefit.
b) presumably, building this rail line will be a net benefit to Louisiana citizens. Since Jindal has no power to prevent the negative macroeconomic effects (barring an implausible "strike" by all Governors on accepting funds) he need to weigh whether the rail line is the highest and best use to the local economy of federal funds; which is a microeconomic decision. Notice that if Jindal reaches this conclusion it would presumably require legislative approval; the more rancid pork tends to have a single congressional sponsor and does not represent a statewide political consensus on infratructure development.
c) The unemployment funds Jindal and presumably his legislature have concluded will have a negative stimulative effect because they have reached a reasoned decision the short term benefit of "free" dollars are outweighed by the long term cost to the economy of the added tax burden required to implement the program. JS, I dunno where you are from , but the New Deal bridges Robert Moses built in NYC are still used; and the cash doled out in the 1930's for the dole? It's not irrational to conclude investments in public works are better uses of public funds than transfer payments
JS. before you act like Paul Krugman and go around kvetching and whining think a bit on this point. Jindal wouldn't have been running the Louisiana hospital system on the short side of 30 if he wasn't up to making rational decisions based on what he could and could not control.
oops -- double post
<deleted>
I agree with you on Jindal's talent
I agree with this comment on Jindal's talent:
I believe Jindal is very smart indeed. That's the nature of the conundrum for me as I think the rail spending will, in fact, stimulate the LA economy. I flatter myself to think Jindal believes the same.
However, I gather from your comments that you do not believe there is any economic stimulus in the high-speed rail funding. I draw this conclusion from your justification of the governor's actions as purely defensive; since we're going to have to pay the interest we may as well spend the money. Insofar as that is the case I can understand why you see Jindal's comments as consistent.
I would prefer to hear something along these lines: while deficit spending can stimulate the economy, we don't believe stimulus is necessary and/or we don't believe stimulus spending by government deficit is an effective means of promoting economic recovery. But maybe that's just me.
Thanks for the discussion.
You're welcome
What is lacking is any idea whether over the long haul the return on investment on the stimukus money will exceed the cost of borrowing the money. The reason the likes of Paul Krugman are not asking this rather fundamental investment question is I suspect they know already the answer will be politically incorrect.
That said, it is our moral obligation is make sure the funds herein are used in as an effective manner as possible, no matter what party is running the White House, Congress or your Governor's office. The Republican deficit hawks in the Bush years do have credibility to question Obama's spending, and don't deserve the not-so-veiled attacks on their patriotism tossed in their direction.
i'll admit it. i'm a liberal
i'll admit it. i'm a liberal who has been reading this sight for some time. i like it. there are a great deal of conservative ideas that i can go along with in some form. and i'll say this: we need a viable right wing in this country. we need both. right and left. each works to correct the excesses of the other.
but something is missing right now. the world is changing in ways that the right needs to take stock of. the old "government can't do anything right" line has got to change, got to be more nuanced. sure government gets some things wrong. guess what, so does private industry. it's human nature. regulations are not all bad. some are helpful. the right needs to admit that to themselves and to the public so that they don't come off sounding irrational or silly.
sure, an overly socialist government is bad but so is a purely capitalistic one. the problem with the right's staking out a position that relies too much on free markets for all instances is that all it takes is a few instances in which this idea fails to seriously cripple your argument.
katrina did more damage to the right in this country than many people realize because there but for the grace of God go all of us. sure the we may not like the gov't at all times but when we need them to be there, they had better be there and be ready and be competent.
there was an article about the coast guard rescue of the crew of a fishing boat in Alaska i read a few months back. i was in awe of the 24hr round-the-clock readiness of the coast in all weather conditions. obvious i knew that that was there role but i hadn't understood the extent of the preparedness. they are life savers. and yet, they are also government. yeah the post office sucks, and the dmv is a bitch sometimes but the coast guards keeps open sea swimmers at the ready just in case i fuck up badly.
i love this country. i love it's flawed government. as a liberal, i know you and i may disagree on certain things but i know you love this country just as much as i do.
i don't think the private sector is evil.i love it too. i think we need it to survive. But the private sector has to make money and some things have to be done not out of concern for making money.
It is probably highly innefficient from an economic standpoint to be ready rescue people lost at sea but we do it anyway. Why? Because of our humanity. There is no cost benefit analysis for that situation. We do it.
what the right must do is come up with an idea for the role of government in that situation and in other situations that one could argue are metaphorically similar.
the country is feeling a bit "lost at sea" at the moment. what is government to do? the right's solution has to resonate not just with it's core group but is must also attract others.
until the right can effectively do that in these times, i think it's appeal and influence will constrict further. the economic situation now is branding people's expectations of government. and like it or not that is the framework in which the right will have to function and will have to master.
I'll agree to most of that
The aforementioned conversation was with a PolSci prof. He also said, "I think the Bush administration soured a whole generation on conservativism."
But we cannot reject the errors of the past and still save face, eh?
It strikes me that the rhetoric of the Right is overly broad. It needs to be more focused.
Example:
You have people out there that are paid by the state the sum of $850/mo. because they are alcoholics. They await their check each month so they can go on their monthly drinking binge.
Instead of attacking the criterion for being 'disabled,' the Right attacks the very idea of disability checks in general.
One short example that comes to mind. Feel free to add others.
i agree. the problem is the
i agree.
the problem is the right would rather get rid of a program wholesale than make it work better. why? because they don't believe in it. that's fine but a lot of people do and when you get elected to govern, people want those who will keep the program running. plain and simple. and when you don't do that, you lose.
you fix fraud and abuse by doing a better job of delivering the service.
governing is about services. business is about profit making. while profit making businesses can perform services, one shouldn't be mistaken for the other. should government manage it's services with the efficiency of a business, of course. that saves money for everyone.
but business efficiency is not a governing strategy it is a management strategy. The idea of disability payments is a political one. no business left to it's own devices would consider paying money to people who aren't working. it makes no financial sense. yeah, but so what? it's not about business, it's about people's lives.
Coca-cola doesn't care whether or not i get vaccinated but the state of Ohio did. Why? Because they have more to worry about than just making money.
the real argument now as i said is "What do we need government to do and why?"
if the right's answer is "Nothing, but get out of the way of business." then it becomes less a governing party and more a lobbying group and it cedes major territory to the left in the process.
It's been a long time
Henke writes:
The mess the Republican party is in now is a direct of their great communicator, who seems to have had little interest in policy -- Reagan. He's the one who chartered the course of keeping the rich happy with unfunded tax cuts and the gullible happy with social conservatism and macho. He created the tactic of disdain of facts and experts.
No Republican reformer is serious untill she/he is ready to repudiate Reagan.
I'd add the 11th Commandment
Surely there were some GOP members of Congress who weren't sold completely on Bush's agenda and profligacy but everyone kept silent, and in fact enabled it, so now every GOP pol pays the price. And the damage continues ... overnight everyone found religion on deficit spending (conincidentally when Obama took office, funny how that works!) and it just reinforces the GOP hypocrisy meme. We all know that six months ago no GOP pol would have raised a word of objection to Dick Cheney's claim that deficits don't matter.
But don't hold your breath on anyone repudiating Reagan. They're all fast and furiously back-pedaling away from Bush but to question Reagan is heresy. I'd settle for just not invoking his ghost every other sentence. He's been out of office for 20 years; let him rest in peace, and move on from the 80's.
Reagan needs to meet his coffin nails too
I am damned proud to have been able to vote against Reagan in my very first election.
I would love to be able to vote against him again. Repeatedly.
Had nothing against GHW Bush, but I voted against him because he was Reagan's VP. Would be happy to vote against him again. Even if bin Laden headed up the Dem ticket.
That said, I love Eisenhower.
Nixon is the reverse image of Geo. Bush-- dispicable as a person, while a capable administrator.
Much to be prefered above Bush. I see no reason that I should like our President on a personal level.
The more I read about it, the more I talk to people, Nixon had it down.
Trying to think of a summary statement, and the best I can do is that the GOP's roots don't run all that deep.
They like to pretend that they do, of course; but mangling facts rather than bending them has been old hat for some time these days.
I was in 11th grade...
... when Reagan got shot. I cheered.
Finally, our country need no longer to undergo the Sovietization of America.
But my hopes were foiled.
That bastard survived.
To the detriment of the greatness of our nation.
It's funny how they don't get that we all ain't down with Ron.
The way GOPers invoke the sainted memory of Reagan repeatedly and at the drop of a hat is pretty stupid when you are trying to attract voters who haven't already drank the Kool Aid.
Lot's of us hated the deceitful bastard then, and we hate the deceitful bastard now. Embracing the principles of Reagan doesn't impress huge swaths of the current electorate who either hold a negative opinion of him, or no opinion at all. When you invoke Reagan you are securing the support of those you already had just because of the R after your name. And losing all the rest.
Most of us Democrats thought Clinton was a damn good president too. But you don't see us lauding him with misty eyed praise five times a day. Were smart enough to realize that lot's of folks whose votes we want today and tomorrow, don't care for the guy. Sometimes Dems will harken back to "the Clinton administration." But that's a long way from the cult of personality Ronnie inspires.
We would all be better served if you guys stuck to Teddy and Abe, and we stayed on FDR and JFK.
Wow
I don't begrudge you disliking his policies, but cheering over a President being shot? That's despicable. I'll say this once: don't continue that here at Next Right. I don't intend to spend my time policing comment sections, and I have not banned anybody (except spammers) yet, but I'll draw a line at cheerleading the attempted murder of political opponents. That's not acceptable.
Chill
They had Nixon on tape talking price about how much it was going to take to whack his political enemies.
He still built a good team-- one of the best.
Not advocating shooting anyone.
Just saying that a happy coincidence is... well,... happy....
Damn, that's good, Jon! [Of
Damn, that's good, Jon! [Of course you know I would like the ref to Sun Tzu].
I hope you or someone is sending this Steele---hey, it can't hurt. Unlike the last 10 years we now have a Party Chairman who has some latitude and who just might listen.
a case in point
Henke’s and Rufinni’s discussion exemplifies the distinct disadvantage the Republicans face in winning elections. The Democrats have no compunction about aligning themselves with any constituency. This is because they seek power above all else. The phrase useful idiot (who can vote) comes to mind. I’m sure the stars will eventually align and the Republican porridge will be just right, not too hot , not too cold, it may not mean much however after the census is administered by the Obama administration. Any way guys enjoy your debate.
The quality of the lie
A major difference I see between the right and the left is in how one side respects my intelligence and the other does not.
Do Democrats tell lies? Yes they do. But in almost all cases the lies are less frequent and far more subtle than those told by Republicans. It takes a great deal of thought and research before I get to the crux of a Democratic lie and realize the inherent fallacy. It is a rare occurence, but it does happen on occasion.
Republicans, on the other hand, speak and I realize the lies immediately in real time. I'm astonished that any of them (Jindal) expect me to buy what is so obviously a load of bullshit. I'm truly insulted when someone smart acts as if I am stupid. And the lies come one after the other in bunches. An endless stream of mindless bumpersticker bromides that even an 11 year old should be able to dismiss out of hand.
Jindal spoke for about one tenth the time the president did and he has been excoriated on several different points. The only falsehood I have seen on any rightie website from Obama's speech was the line about the automobile being an American invention. And that amounts to a simple gaffe. It's no more important than Biden or Quayle pulling one of their usual boneheadisms. Obama could say, "Sorry I didn't know that history, but I believe my point about the current state of the American auto industry still stands." We all move on, no harm, no foul.
There has not been one thread on this site since the speech Tuesday that took the President to task on anything he said. The other four or five rightie sites I frequent are just as silent. No rebutal at all, except for the usual juvenile knee jerk, "If that bastard's fer it, then I'm agin it". You might not agree with Obama on a level of philosophical policies for governing. But you have to admit his speech treated you and I as if we are his equals. He may disagee with you, but he respects your intelligence, and surely deserves your respect in return.
I think that is why Obama's approval rating among Republicans went up this week from 26% to an astonishing 42%. That's higher than W's approval number among Republicans in early January. He is well on his way to a Kennedy effect ,where a year into his presidency far more people claim to have voted for him than actually did.
On the other hand, last week was the worst week for conservatives and Republicans since McCain suspended his campaign. A veritable turd polishing factory.
I hadn't seen that.
Republican approval of Obama at 42%? Link?
Gallup poll, Obama approval rating
Gallup poll, Feb 27:
Approval number worthless right now
A President's approval numbers are pretty meaningless a month into office. How can a new President's numbers tank, lest he be caught robbing a 7/11 or astride a hooker? Moreover, this President has a stealthy approach -- sounding moderate and agreeable in his speeches, which the public hears; then driving radical change in the details of legislation submitted by his Congressional spear-carriers. I think this President will enjoy strong but not overwhelming public support unless one of two things happens: He over-reaches, and exposes the lie to his public face of moderation ("I don't like big government"), or he is caught unprepared and appears weak in the face of a domestic or international crisis.
Marketing is necessary to enact policy
Jon's title might be true, but the Reps need better marketing.
Marketing Should Not Drive Policy -- but Reps don't quite agree on what IS the best gov't policy, right now, to minimize the depression pain.
No, "Tax Cuts" aren't the answer to everything -- but for Health, Education, and anti-Depression stimulus, Tax Cuts are far better than any other gov't action. In fact, the Dems have been quite successful at semi-false marketing against Bush's Tax Cuts. Tax Cuts which were effective at reversing the dot.com bubble pop incipient recession.
Had Bush in April, 2008, enacted $700 billion in tax cuts, I'm sure that the US economy wouldn't have suffered as much reduction as we've already gotten, altho the insolvent banks would still be insolvent. The tax cuts were successful; but then there was too much additional Rep gov't pork spending. Bush's successful policies, especially his successful Tax Cuts, need a lot better Rep support marketing than they've been getting.
No matter what policy is offerred, if it's going to be poorly marketed, it will only be as successful as the other policy is practiced and deemed a failure.
(And if there are going to be tax increases, it is far better that they are gas taxes that people see then hidden; best politically if the Dems vote in favor and Reps vote present.)
Cut taxes on the low end. They spend it all. . . .
and the multipler is higher--more bang for buck.
So let me get this straight.
So let me get this straight. 700 billion dollars in more tax cuts (mostly to the rich), which is more borrowed money from other countries and running up the deficit. At the same time we have sent 1 trillion dollars to Iraq, outsourced our middle class jobs overseas, closed down factories, cities and states going broke, more people without healthcare, and less in pensions. And we take the money and buy Chinese goods. Well, that sums up the last 8 years.