Home › Blogs › NextRightNando's blog ›

Repairing the Brand Damage

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 16:19
in

In the 1980's a murderer killed seven people by tampering with bottles of Tylenol.

The response by Johnson & Johnson, the makers of Tylenol, has become a textbook example of crisis management.

It was quickly demonstrated that Johnson & Johnson were not at fault - there was no doubt that the capsules had been tampered with after they were on store shelves. And the problem was local - confined to Chicago.

Nevertheless, Johnson & Johnson pulled the product off the shelves throughout the entire country - destroying product worth $100 million.  It also took out adds advising people to not take any Tylenol capsules they already had in their medicine cabinets. They offered a free exchange of capsules for solid tablets.

Several months after the crisis was past, Johnson & Johnson reintroduced the product in tamper-proof packaging.

Before the crisis, Tylenol was the number one brand in its category. A few years after the crisis, Tylenol was once again the number on brand in its category.

Peak, abyss, and peak again, all in the space of a few years.

Let me analogize: the Republican Party is Johnson & Johnson, the presidency is Tylenol.  Neo-cons and hubris are the tamperers.

The tainted product - George W. Bush - has now been pulled from the shelves (albeit by the Constitution, not the Republican Party - but then again, few analogies are perfect).

The campaign to reintroduce the product runs from now until 2012. There is only one thing that will serve as the equivalent to "tamper-proof" packaging - the party has to repudiate George W. Bush. It is the only way to convince the American people that "we get it", and the next nominee can be trusted to run an administration that is competent and productive.

Failure to repudiate Bush will result in lingering questions hanging over the heads of all Republican candidates for office at all levels. Voters will remain skeptical regarding whether any lessons have been learned, and whether the new product might also be susceptible to tampering by the same malevolent forces that wrecked the Bush Administration.

Some of you may think "the Bush years weren't that bad". But recall: this is man who wanted Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court, that he blew up the budget to no productive purpose, and his response to 9/11 was to start the second-most costly war in our nation's history - with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Repudiate George W. Bush - it is the only way to repair the damage to the Republican brand.

2
Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

Comments

exactly what the liberals want us to do

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 17:14.

And especially what the trusted users at Daily Kos want us to do - throw GW Bush completely under the bus.  Absolutely not.  After spending all this time and money defending the parts that were right about the Bush administration, we will simply look like political opportunists for devouring one of our own.  When it comes to Bush's antiterror policies, we have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.  When it comes to the present state of Iraq, we have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.  And when it comes to the conservative judges Bush appointed to the bench, by God we really don't have anything to be ashamed of.

I am always amused when liberals give us advice on what to do.  It's not like they are going to vote for us anyway so why follow their advice?

Incidentally, when Democrats lost three presidential elections in a row in the 1980's, did they "completely repudiate" Carter and McGovern?  No.  They brought in an outsider, Clinton, one who was not associated with the screechy radical liberal politics of the 1970's, one who was not associated with the heavily unpopular Democrat Congress at the time, one who had youth and charisma, and one who promised a "third way", neither liberal nor conservative.  And they won.  That is the key to our success.  We bring in a Washington outsider, such as a Jindal or Sanford or Palin or Romney, one who has a record of solid conservatism, and one who promises to return the government to a place of fiscal sanity in opposition BOTH to what Obama and the Democrats are doing now AND to what Bush and the Republican Congress did.  But that is not "complete repudiation", that is a return to true fiscal conservatism, which Bush never practiced anyway.

I think Palin's a non-starter.

Submitted by centerfire on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 17:22.

She's attractive and telegenic, but at this point I think she's damaged goods.  Too much of the country regards her as a laughingstock for her to be a viable national candidate.  We can talk about who's to blame for that state of affairs, but it is what it is, and Republicans do themselves no favors by going with somebody who, once outside the nominating convention, is a punchline.

 

She would be the equivalent of putting out the same product

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 17:28.

It is extremely easy to paint her as GWB II: poorly read and, therefore, easily lead.

Much of the downside of Bush was based on his background

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 17:47.

That he was a a underachieving scion who had gotten where he was based on utlizing his father's connections and ready-to-go political operations; and once President, assembled an alumni club of advisers (ironically the one not brought back, Scowcroft; probably spent most of the past few years pissing in MSM wells over being cast out). And the most damaging single appointee, Michael Brown, reinforced the underachieving WASP meme. And any candidate we've run that remotely approached that genre got crushed.

Palin 2012 or 2016 would be sui generis ; she would have to get nominated based on force of will and ability to organize her own campaign.  This would have two effects; first, success is the bext way to disprove doubters in your ability( e.g. Hillary Clinton, NY Senate , 2000) and second; there is no way the rub on Bush--- "Shrub"-- that he was a weak imitation of his old man, could possibly apply.   Last time I checked Skull and Bones did not have a Wasilla chapter.

Could this end up being akin to Goldwater with more glamour and less ideological rigor?; well, it could. It could be Reagan 1980 reprised. That;s why they vote. But I think it's interesting how many people later were proud of the Goldwater race and how few now boast about being involved with Bush 43.

 

Too little, too late.

Submitted by artigiano on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 18:39.

Sorry Nando,

You have to call the fouls in real time while the game is being played, not after the fourth reverse angle slo-motion replay. OK, now that Bush's approval ratings are below Nixon's the GOP finally understands that he sucked from day one. Slow learners are better than no learners I suppose.

But coming out against the guy now after 8 years of cheerleading for his gross incompetence is just going to make these guys look even more opportunistic and clueless. About the only way I can see it being presented in a truthful fashion is if the Republicans said, "Not only did Bush totally suck for the past eight years, but all those times I said before that he didn't I was:

A) totally lying for political purposes

B) too clueless to recognize ineptitude even when presented with multiple examples.

But I'm all better now, so vote for me in 2010 or 2012. "

"And one more thing. When I point out deficiencies in the Obama administration you should disregard my previous track record about such things."

 

and yet nearly half the voters still voted Republican

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 18:47.

AG, it's not like after that litany of woe the voters were so sure the Democrats would have done an appreciably better job than Bush. Had they thought so, wouldn't this have been a landslide akin to Reagan/Mondale or LBJ/Goldwater?.

The GOP needs to convince one out of 14 Obama voters to change sides in 2012.   Surely he will find a way to disappoint at least that many people.

 

Yes, but

Submitted by WoodbridgeVa on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 20:49.

The GOP needs to convince one out of 14 Obama voters to change sides in 2012.   Surely he will find a way to disappoint at least that many people.

It is way past time for us to stop basing our electoral strategy on Democrat F*** ups and start providing a positive proactive message.  Waiting for them to mess up and then pouncing is an undependable way to rebuild our party and more importantly, it is not good for our nation.

 

True

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 01/20/2009 - 20:56.

My point was the task was less than insurmountable