In the past two weeks, various contenders for 2016 have been making news. Newt is being his typical a-hole self, attacking Romney and everyone else with bombastic and unconstructive verbal jabs meant make people think Newt be smarts. Chris Christie has been trying to explain why embracing Obama the day before the election wasn’t a problem. Paul Ryan is trying to fight Obama for the good of the country, which I can respect but is not my preferred strategy at the moment. Marco Rubio went to Iowa and assured us he does love rap.
Meanwhile, Bobby Jindal has been giving interviews all over the place and gave a solid speech as the incoming Chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association. What has impressed me with Jindal is that he seems to get it.
Jindal called on the party to “stop being the stupid party” and to make an effort to attract a broad swath of voters. As he put it, we need to “campaign for every single vote.” Absolutely. Unfortunately, that is something many conservatives don’t understand as they continue to talk about us losing because we didn’t get out the vote. A party that wants to represent America must actually represent America, not just one shrinking part of it.
And in that regard, Jindal noted that we need to come to terms with liking the people we are seeking to attract. And the first step in that is to stop insulting them: “You don't start to like people by insulting them and saying their votes were bought. . . We also don't need to be saying stupid things.” His second comment there was a direct reference to Indiana and Missouri, but it applies much more broadly too. It applies to all the things we talked about the other day which come across as hateful, racist, sexist and religiously exclusive. It applies to what Jindal called “dumbed-down conservatism” and “simplistic” and “bizarre comments” which “insult the intelligence of voters.”
But even more importantly, Jindal beat the same drum I’ve been beating for a long time: “Simply being the anti-Obama party didn’t work. You can’t beat something with nothing.”
Hallelujah! I’ve been making this point for a long time and I am deeply frustrated that the party doesn’t get this. Romney had a platform, though he didn’t sell it well. But beyond him, the party really doesn’t stand for anything people want. Yes, it produced an official “platform” – the one which whines about abortion and censoring the internet to save the children, but beyond that the party has produced no ideas since the age of Jack Kemp and his enterprise zones. Seriously, if you think about it, tell me what you think the Republican Party is offering other than the status quo and opposition to the Democrats. Are you satisfied with the state of the country? Doubt it. So why do you think a platform of “we’ll make sure nothing changes” will resonate with anyone?
We need to put forward a bold, yet simple to understand and easy to personalize, series of policies that promise to improve: (1) the jobs market, (2) the small business environment, (3) individual economic security, (4) the housing market, (5) retirement, (6) health care, (7) education, (8) national security, and (9) the environment. We need to tell people how our policies will make their lives better!
And as we think about this, we need to focus on the people who really do matter to this country: the middle class. Our policies need to tell the poor how they will become middle class, tell the middle class how we will protect what they have earned, and tell the aspirational class how we’ve cleared the way for them to benefit from the risks they take. Indeed, we need to tell the artists, the inventors, and the entrepreneurs that the government will stop punishing them, stop trying to stop them, and stop taking the benefits of their efforts. The one thing we do NOT need to do is to promise to protect the rich and powerful. Again, Bobby Jindal put this well:
“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything. We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”This is exactly the point. But sadly, right now we have it backwards. Right now, the Republicans have become the party of Wall Street, of the rich, and of Big Oil. Those are the only groups that are guaranteed to get a blank-check defense from Republicans and that needs to stop.
I’m liking Jindal’s new approach a lot. There is much wisdom here and we need to see if he can transform his ideas into policies. Let’s hope he succeeds.
As a final aside, Rick “the socialist” Santorum wrote an editorial this week as well. In it, he blames Romney while saying we shouldn’t blame Romney. Then he endorses the get-out-the-vote argument as the reason we lost. He shoots down the idea of Hispanic outreach as “analyses coming largely from the academic and pundit crowd.” And he suggests that what we really need to do if we’re going to win is to promote policies that “encourage family stability.” Retard.
66 comments:
Gov. Jindal doesn't have the charisma necessary to energize the Republicans. Sorry. He doesn't. I am not opposing his message, but I don't think that this particular messenger has the traction to RAISE MONEY. That'a one thing that Mitt Romney did and it's Barack Obama's strong suit.
Anyone planning to go head-to-head with Hillary Clinton - and make no mistake that she is running - needs to be able to raise money. That was always Santorum's problem. The money simply didn't follow his campaign. A long way out, I predicted that Romney would be the Republican candidate. I made this prediction based on two very simple criteria: (1) He raised money (2) He didn't make mistakes. Romney ran a very measured campaign - very calculated.
The Republicans need to come to grips with the reality that the media and Hollywood will oppose them and it's a very powerful enemy to contend with in this or any nation. They will LIE, they will DISTORT and they will promote the Democratic Party candidate. If the mainstream media was at all fair, Mitt Romney would have become President Romney.
I agree, Bobby Jindal is awesome (His deep southern accent too!)! I wouldn't be surprised if he actually reads Commentarama on a regular basis! ;)
The GOP needs more people like him! But sadly I have to agree with Mr.LL, he's not powerful and politically savvy enough to go against the inevitable candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
I'm leaning towards potential candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Rand Paul, or Condi Rice.
I haven't paid a ton of attention to Jindal, but I agree with his recent comments.
I hope the party and the 2016 nominee (in the likely event it isn't the somewhat charisma-deficient Jindal) heed his advice.
Maybe I'm thinking too far ahead, but when I look at your nine areas to improve, I can't help but note that improvement in each area requires some dismantling of current policy.
Democrats have a solid counter to that: they will claim that a) their policies are the only thing keeping everything together, b) said policies are what reins in Big Everything and the GOP wants to loose them all, and c) the Republicans just want to destroy what we've all worked so hard for.
I'm probably asking for a follow-up article, but how do Republicans make a real case for reform without a) scaring those who can't imagine a smaller gov't, b) being accused of fighting for Big Everything anyway, and c) getting smeared as saboteurs to the phony American Dream?
As a follow-up question, if we do somehow get into power and start enacting reforms, how do we get through the growing pains of such reforms without Democrats effectively making the case that everything is coming apart?
My goodness Andrew, a conversation about 2016…exhausted. But, I like Bobby Jindal. He’s quick on his feet, effective, and states his case with a common sense delivery. This also goes against the MSM’s meme about the Republicans becoming to white, and too male. Caveat: I do not ever like to fight from the ground laid by the press the “white” narrative. A side note, this country is 73% white, 12% black, 11% Hispanic, 4% other, so looking at ’08 and ’12 this country is beyond race, Washington is not. Whoever our candidate is, he or she must appeal to all groups, not with giveaways or takeaways, but common sense conservatism ala Reagan.
Watch out for Jeb Bush, he’s being pushed by the establishment, is it his turn?
I get that the establishment is reeling from the election (aren't we all...here), but if i have to see 4 years of jeb bush pressed on me, i may have a crazy-pants moment. to run simply on a platform of what we stand for, won't get the job done. we live in a society that glories pop-culture; if we're gonna fight for every vote, that means we have to appeal to that segment as well. how do you do that with conservatism?
while my fighting spirit is far from dead, i don't think a politician is gonna get us out of the mess we find our country in. i don't know the answer (other than MORE DRINKS!) at the moment, but I'm open and willing to find it, as are most folks I talk to these days.
How do we do it? Watch and read most Joss Whedon shows and films. We need a sense of humor and an "anti-establishment" message.
Conservatism has always had the "anti" gov't meme. If we start relating to people of all ages that WE are the rebels, WE are the iconoclasts and non-party line thinkers, then we can get more people to support conservative values.
"I aim to misbehave" is a great tag line for conservatives.
Patriot: i'm in *and* I aim to misbehave. no surprises there ;)
Further evidence for why I was rooting for a "Ryan/Jindal 2012" ticket from the beginning. But noooo....
Like Stan, I'm not really ready to talk about 2016 yet. I have every hope, though, that when it does come time to talk about it (so, mid-January?), Jindal's name will be in stronger circulation.
Patriot, just so long as you don't listen to Joss Whedon personally.
LL, Charisma is one area where Jindal is still lacking. But I don't know that he needs it if his message resonates, and I'm looking at the message. I'm looking at the fact that one of the earliest presidential contenders is directly changing the message from "protect the Bush tax cuts" to "diversity+no hate+middle class." I think that's a critical change and I am encouraged by that. And I think it's great that he will become one of the new "faces" of the party.
On the money front, it really depends how things play out.
Snape, Four years is a long time, so give him a chance to see what he can do about 2016. In the meantime, what I'm hoping is that he manages to become a new face of the party -- someone who can drive the message and change the image.
I like Paul a lot, but I think he can't win the primaries. I like Rubio. Rice would be a mistake. She's got zero political skills.
Anthony, My guess is that Jindal is destined for a VP slot.
But in any event, I think the message is what is important here. I hear this as a declaration that it's time to change away from the bad things the party has become. I particularly like the idea of competing for every vote and for dropping the "big" stuff.
tryanmax, The short answer: (1) manufacture a crisis mentality, and (2) propose a solution that aims right at the middle class (rhetorically and otherwise) and which paints anyone who disagrees as protecting the rich, crony establishment.
At the same time, there needs to be a huge rhetorical shift that repudiates the things where we have been stereotyped. For example, shoot the next guy to say "but protecting the rich creates jobs" and talk about "the rich can protect themselves, we need to help middle class Americans."
And don't forget, this is about sales first and foremost, not policy. What we are talking about is creating an program that people will want -- whether or not we deliver is irrelevant at this point... it's just about changing the image right now. Getting the policies in place comes second.
But in that regard, as for surviving the bad period: (1) blame the messed up system you inherited. (2) start the reforms already in the states so that a good chunk of the problem will be gone already. (3) blame the Democrats for sabotaging reform even if they totally go along with it.
Stan, 2016 is now and this is about changing the message and he image of the party so they can win in 2016. We can't wait until 2015 to try to change things.
On the white issue, the country really hasn't moved beyond race -- look at the voting patterns. If anything, it's become more racially polarized. So adding more non-white faces to key positions is vital. Jindal does that perfectly... but he's just one. We need more.
I will never vote for another Bush.
By the way, speaking of minorities, the GOP did it again. The House committee chair list is entirely white males. With a million committees, who f**ing hard is it to pick one single woman?
There is really something wrong with the party.
Patti, The things is, Jindal is saying the things we have been saying. If he can become influential on the national level and others join him (like Rand Paul and hopefully Rubio), we stand a good chance of fixing the things that are wrong with the party. That will got a HUGE way toward solving the problems we've been facing.
As for winning people over, the answer is threefold: (1) stop turning them off, (2) come up with ideas that they will see will benefit them, and (3) become more media/image savvy.
Right now we're stuck on stupid and won't stop pissing people off, can't come up with ideas, and think any attempt to come up with a media strategy means "abandoning our principles." We have a party of idiots, and it takes people like Jindal to slap them down and move us forward.
P.S. Patti, I will never vote for another Bush. As a family, they are dead to me.
Andrew,
I'm a bit more fond of the Bushes than you are but this was my response when I heard that Jeb might be our 2016 nominee:
LINK
Patriot, I totally agree. Americans love underdogs and rebels and the local boy who makes good. We don't try to sell ourselves as any of those things. We are trying to sell the image of the nagging church lady or the principle who says "this will go on your permanent record."
T-Rav, This is about the future, not just 2016.
A Ryan/Jindal ticket probably would have won. But you never know.
Kit, Yep. That's pretty much the response you'll get. And I can tell you that a good number of the conservatives I know simply will not vote for another Bush. I'm not alone in this. Two a-holes trying to destroy conservatism is enough... we don't need to give a third a chance as well.
Jeb Bush 2016. Inevitable.
Just lie back and think of England.
K, Don't say that.
Given the extent to which the party has turned against neocon policy, I think Rice would have an extremely hard time getting nominated, regardless of election prospects.
T-Rav, I hate to say this, but has it really? Ran Paul and some Tea Party people suggest cutting the Pentagon budget and they can slammed by conservatives. Obama does nothing in Egypt and he gets clammed by conservatives for not nation building them. Conservatives are more likely than any other group to want to invade Iran, complain about leaving Iraq, and want to stay in Afghanistan.
I don't see much repudiation of neocon foreign policy.
Three things on three issues a GOP Presidential Candidate should say:
The first two.
-BAILOUTS: No bailouts to CEOs who run their companies into the ground. If a group of executives run their business in such a stupid manner that they are driven to bankruptcy then maybe their employees deserve better. Ford didn't receive a bailout and it is booming. In West Point, Georgia a linens factory, West Point Stevens was forced to collapse due to bad management, jobs were lost, its true. But then another, better company, Kia, a South Korean car company came and built a factory that has now created thousands of new jobs. That is beauty of the free market. Sometimes, what seems like the end of the world, such as the closing of a factory, can be the beginning of something brighter.
Americans don't need bailouts that reward CEOS and companies that run their companies stupidly and keeps their employees in the employment of idiots.
If you run your company into the ground, you should pay for it. You should lose your job. The government shouldn't be bailing you out with taxpayer's money. No, you cooked your cake, you eat it.
-OUTSOURCING: First two points. One, most car companies build factories in China to sell cars to the Chinese. You're probably not going to see any of those cars in the United States going down (nearby interstate). Second, employees in the United States, who are often given a stock in their company, for example Ford does this. And not just management, the guys on the factory floor get this stock in their company as well. If those cars in China sell well and make a profit, then your stock in the company will go up in value so you benefit from that factory being built.
Now, as for why the factories in the US are closing, I believe that is a separate issue. The reason for that is because of a massive government regulatory bureaucracy, high capital gains taxes that penalize entrepreneurship, high income taxes that force Americans to buy less, unions who bite off way more than they can chew, look at Hostess Ho's 4 years ago where a union, despite being told the company could not survive what they demanded, went on strike and nearly sent the company into Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Which, unlike Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, means the company is, for all intents and purposes, Six Feet Under.
My administration will work to cut taxes that penalize success, cut the bureaucracy of regulations that put unnecessary and unneeded costs on companies so that they can hire more employees. Also, again, I won't give bailouts that reward and subsidize bad business practices. If you run a company in the ground, you should pay your own debts. And if you try to Enron your employees? Then May God Have Mercy On Your Soul.
The third one:
CAPITAL GAINS TAXES: Capital Gains Taxes are a different breed from Income Tax. The income tax is a tax on your salary. Capital Gains taxes, to summarize, are taxes on investments. Like the aforementioned stocks employees have in their companies such as Ford. The money you receive from that stock is a Capital Gains. The reason Capital Gains taxes are typically lower is because that money is money you are hoping to receive in the future from a current investment, not a regular salary you are receiving now. Many businessmen will tell you that success is not guaranteed. For example, did you know that for its first decade of existence Pixar was constantly bleeding money and its lone investor, Steve Jobs, didn't really see a return on his investment in Pixar until the release of Toy Story. The 1937 Disney movie Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is a similar example. During its production it was bleeding money and the costs were going well beyond what was predicted. It was so costly that many were calling it "Disney's Folly" and said it would flop. Well, when it came out it was a huge hit. The money the investors, who had faith in Walt Disney, made from its success was a Capital Gain. It was not guaranteed. Snow White could've flopped as many predicted it could and a lot of money could've been lost.
Great rewards only come with great risk.
A high capital gains tax penalizes the Americans who take a chance and put their own money into an idea with the faith that it was a good one.
On foreign policy, let me say this: I am in favor of an aggressive foreign policy. Bombing Iran if need be.
But I guess what separates me from the neocons on foreign policy is This:
While I think these countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan or even Palestine (unlikely) could become functioning democracies one day. Unlike Neo-Conservatives, I believe it takes TIME!
Look at South Korea. We began investing in it in 1947, though we did not start to seriously treat it as an ally until the Korean War. During that time and all the way until the elections of 1989 and 1993, South Korea was a dictatorship. Its first Dictator Sing-Man Rhee, was as corrupt as they come. Park Chung Hee was a little better, as benevolent a dictator as you can get. And by "benevolent" I mean he opened up the markets to foreign imports, normalized relations w/ Japan, and took South Korean economy that was been in shambles and laid the ground for the thriving economy we know today while rigging elections, used the army to crush protests, and sent out a secret police to harass, detain, arrest, torture, and sometimes kill dissidents.
Many brought up Japan, how we successfully turned it into a democracy. That is true, it did become a democracy after World War 2 and has since been a thriving democracy. But what they left out was that starting in 1955 and going up until 2009, Japan was nearly always under the leadership of the Liberal Democratic Party. The only exception being 5 or so years in the early 90s.
And, considering that the Liberal Democratic Party was a formed as a merger of the Liberal and Japan Democratic Parties then it arguably it goes back to 1948.
And remember how Germany's first experiment with modern democracy ended?
It takes time.
The above comment re foreign policy was in response to Andrew's statements on Neocons.
Kit, I would argue that those items are not something that should be talked about in a policy statement -- they're too deep in the weeds for most voters. They may form part of the agenda, but they aren't what you would sell.
Also, talking about capital gains is again "supporting the rich" talk. We need to be more careful to make everything we say sound like it will help middle class people.
The thing about neocon foreign policy is that they want the US to intervene in those places and build up the governments for them.
(I deleted the last comment due to half of it cut off.)
I'm not worried about Mr. Jindal's oratory skill. It's not like Hillary is some oratory genius.
My wife (who is a physician as well) were talking about Obamacare recently. As much as people seem to hate it, it should have been Obama's doom. It wasn't because Romney had nothing to offer. We heard about repeal, repeal and replace, etc. but never an overall plan and the previous system was problematic. I won't go into how Obamacare only doubles down on those problems, but with perception is reality in politics, people saw that he was trying to do something. Ryan's proposal of a voucher plan was the closest, but his group refused to run on it although I think it could have been a winner.
Most people out there look at health care coverage different from we do. Most use it sparingly but also see around them that if you get sick it gets expensive fast. Most get coverage through some other mechanism other than directly buying it so they really don't know how much insurance costs. Most people really don't understand the difference between preventative treatment vs. curative treatment vs. palliative treatment and see all of these as interchangeable.
Most importantly, most have few choices in their care. The employer selects the insurance, the insurance selects the doctors, hospital, treatment, etc. What difference is it to the common guy whether United Health Care pays or the US Federal Government? This is going to be a much more difficult thing to help people understand and may take a complete collapse of the system to fix it.
Koshcat, That's exactly right. (1) People don't understand details. They don't get economics, they don't grasp cause and effect, they don't understand how things really work. (2) People want solutions. Combine these two points and what you get is that the guy who offers the plan which sounds like it might "fix things" will always win.
That's why conservatives need to learn to create a positive agenda. Right now, all they do is say "look, we'll hand this over to the private sector and they'll eventually sort it out." That's not a plan that will convince the public. They need to learn that this can actually BE the policy, but they need to sell it with bells and whistles. That's why you always add things that sound like they will work, even if they are just for show, so that people buy the plan without ever bothering to know what's in it.
Conservatives really don't understand salesmanship. And I see this every time they start talking about how details and substance will carry the day. IT WILL NEVER WORK! The "that sounds nice" sales pitch will always win the public.
Whereas many people don't trust the government, they trust big companies even less. At least with the government there is the perception that you have a say, even if it gets lost among the other 300,000,000 people.
Too many conservatives get into the "government is the boogie-man" argument but their solution is to trust a giant insurance company to do the right thing? Or how about the market controlling your retirement? Heck, I believe in the market but still don't trust many of those especially at the top.
We have lost the argument about no government involvement into healthcare. Period. Get over it and move on. Now, what can we do to really make it better? Think like a company that has just had a law passed that hurts their bottom-line. Change things from the inside. It may take time and the changes may be incremental but you can get closer to what you want. I think the overall approach should be to change from defined benefits to defined contributions. It still maintains their precious wealth distribution but without eviscerating the wealthy. It also makes budgeting so much easier.
Koshcat, Agreed. It's a total loser to say, "look, Obama wants to let the government handle your healthcare, we want you to be prisoners of insurance companies."
People don't like the government, but they don't think it has evil motives. They do think big companies have evil motives. They also know too many horror stories of denied claims, people getting kicked off insurance after making their first claim, abusive spending hikes, etc.
The Republicans can't win with that strategy. They need to talk about freeing up doctors and patients, and the things they propose need to sound like that. The line "we'll just open up insurance across state lines" translates into: "more freedom for Big Insurance and no change at all for you." You can't win with that sales pitch.
Andrew, I have no idea which conservatives were going after Obama for not "nation-building" in Egypt--I never heard of any--and apart from Rubio and a handful of the older crowd (McCain et al.), no one really said much about it for Libya or Syria, either.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, I see that less as an adherence to neocon policy than an unwillingness to admit defeat and withdraw. As far as I'm concerned, hawkish neoconservatism essentially died with the Iraq War.
Andrew Kit and Koshcat.........Your arguments are why I mentioned Joss Whedon approach to selling conservatism to the masses. Andrew, you hit it on the head...Americans like to think of ourselves as "fighting the power...the Man" whether he be the big business man or the government man. When the libs sell their medicine its always what it will prevent. Not what it will do for you except to alleviate pain. Avoiding pain is what sells.
So, we need to have people visualize the worst possible scenario from lib policies. Thats what they do to ours, so lets play their game. Healthcare controlled by the government? Sure..no problem...just be prepared to wait 6 hours to see a doctor. Toothache......you will have to wait 3 days to see a dentist. Mother has a broken hip? Sorry, not cost effective to replace it....here's some pain pills. Good luck! (With a smile) Nuclear Iran? No big deal....... Show Chicago going up in a mushroom cloud. Abortions on demand? Sure, we'll pay for it......minority women in this line, pretty young girls in this line (What?! The minority line stretches around the corners and there are only a half dozen pretty white girls in their line? The opportunities for slamming our points home are endless. Let the f'ing libs defend how their policies won't lead to that. Use our money STARTING NOW to blanket the media with these type stories/ads/vignettes. Because its all about the benjamins fellas.....the NYT and WAPO will run these ads strictly for the ad revenue. Millions of dineros speak very loudly to a corporation....especially ones that are bleeding red ink.
I know the creative minds here could come up with many scenarios. Bottom line, we need to take the most extreme results of lib policy and show the American people what it will be like. Be extreme...be flamboyant...be NEVER FRIKKIN ENDING....that's the ONLY way we're going to beat these bastards at their own game. Because sure as hell what we're doing now isn't working worth shite!
Patriot - I understand your thinking and is probably a basic approach we should look at. I don't think the long waits for medicine story will work because most people will not experience it on a day-to-day fashion. I think the approach should be more that no matter who is covering you, you have no control over your care. Compare health care coverage to auto care coverage where if a company ticks you off, you leave for another. Also in auto coverage, the longer you stay with the company the lower your rates, try that with a health care policy. Granted, we will have to put up with more ads during our favorite football but heck the auto-insurance ads are some of the best to watch anyway. Basically, sell the idea of a system where companies are fighting one another to get your business instead of trying to find ways to dump it. I don't know how to state this in a simple format.
T-Rav, The criticism I heard from conservative quarters about Egypt tended to be: "he should have engineered a more careful transition that let us make sure the new government was more to out liking." No one was specific about how to do that, but the only real way would be to get involved one way or another -- troops or a bevy of diplomats and money.
You could be right about Afghanistan, that could be the motive.
Patriot, I think you're on the right track. We need to stop being fair. We need to spin liberal ideas into their full-on nightmares. We need think tanks to do research to back up the worst possible claims.
At the same time, we need to change the way we try to sell our ideas: "this will provide economic benefits" will never beat "this will make you rich." And "taxation on the rich will reduce the number of jobs" will never beat "job killing, business destroying taxes aimed at the company you work for."
We also need to get better at presenting ourselves in images that appeal to modern America. The Republicans are still using the 1950s playbook of the nuclear family sitting around the wireless television. That's not how people see themselves. They see themselves exactly as you say -- puttin' it to the man... the underdog... the cool teacher...
Look at what sells beer and cars and clothes, that is how American sees itself, that is what sells.
Finally, we need to frame everything as a matter of freedom... freedom always wins.
Koshcat, The problem is the Republicans needed to offer a genuine reform plan, which they didn't. So the only argument they had was, "trust insurance companies."
Honestly, what really worked and I am loathe to credit her with anything, was "death panels." That got people's attention because people could connect the dots... "government spending is limited means rationing means I don't care means I die." That freaked out the liberals and was worth more than all the policy arguments combined when it came to shifting public opinion.
We need to learn again how to tell people something in a way they can understand and which strikes them.
BUT we need to be good at it. Calling Obama a socialist, for example, was counter productive because what he proposed didn't sound like socialism.
Andrew, I hate to give her credit, too, but the Dems went after Palin like they did for a reason: she knew how to sum it up. If anything, she should have been the comm director for a presidential campaign. But that ship has sailed.
I'm having a major case of the blahs today, meaning I'm feeling extremely pessimistic. To everyone who was like, "2016, already?" I say, "yes, already!" The Dems are already set upon the logical GOP frontrunners to smear them. MSM is already working on making Rubio a religious fanatic by asking him questions about the age of the earth. And on that note, if Jeb Bush runs and wins the primary, I'll don sackcloth and sit in ashes b/c that will mark the end.
I've been ruminating today over the analogy that Bush 42 was the Hoover to Obama's FDR. It seems a more apt comparison daily. This may seem totally out of nowhere, but I've also been worrying that an impending natural gas and shale oil boom will mask the economic effects of Obamacare and Obama's other policies and fool everybody into thinking that the lunacy works.
tryanmax, I give her credit on that one moment. I don't see that she was able to do that consistently, but at that moment, she really hit a home run.
I couldn't agree more. Now is absolutely the time to talk about 2016. The MSM is already at work undermining us (they never stop actually) as have the Democrats.
Bush 42 as Hoover makes sense, but Obama as FDR doesn't work for me. Bush 42 was like a modern Hoover, but Obama is like Bush 42-lite. And 2012 has eerie comparisons to 2004.
"We need to stop being fair."
I can handle that thought! I've saying it for a long time now (not necessarily here though), but it went over everyone's heads. I kept hearing, "We can't stoop to their level". The HELL we can't!
It sure sounds like the adrenaline is flowing here today.
Jen, not to muddy the waters, but I would say we need to start being fair, as in, we need to play by the same rules they do. After all, that's what fair is, everybody playing by the same rules. Until now, we've been playing like a team that declines every penalty in the name of "good sportsmanship" while the other team draws fouls and accepts every one of them. I know I drifted between sports there, but the game is so off, I don't really consider it a mixed metaphor.
Guys...and gals......(or commentaramers with female sounding names!).....do the libs/dems lie and exagerate in their comms? Hell yes they do! So we use their tactics against them. (Oh patriot we cant stoop to their level) .... We give examples and vignettes of children in re-education camps beimg tauht how to think "correctly" We show cute old grandmothers in a doctors office in pain as the kindly doctor tells them they must learn to live with the pain because the new healthcare regulations say we can't afford to treat you. We show vignettes of a young woman who just had an abortion sitting on a park bench watching mothers play with their children in the park. (With the dulcet voice over of what she'll never have). Graduations of children......etc. Indolent OWS'ers getting federal govt checks and laughing while the middle class couple is shown their house getting foreclosed on by a heartless beaurocrat.
Cme on guys....we know how to do this. Heck, just look at the libs/dems on how effective this type of manipulation is. Get with it repubs!!
Andrew, you're probably right about the Bush-lite thing. I don't mean to give 0bama credit for more savvy than he possesses. I notice you're not talking me down off of the energy-boom speculation, though.
Somewhat related to the 2016 distortions already in progress, now that some Republicans have woken up to the foolishness of Norquist's pledge and are actively talking about eliminating deductions in terms of sopping it to the rich,* the MSM is already taking that and spinning it into a tactic to protect the rich. But the average idiot thinks it's all about the top tax rate, so it's no surprise they'd do this. What I expect next is for the Dems to treat getting rid of deductions as a BIG concession to the Republicans that should come in return for a higher top rate anyway. Oh, and entitlements will remain off the table, of course.
*I just about fell out of my chair when I first heard it!
To quote a great movie....."Attack...attack.....attack!)
tryanmax and Jen, As I'm sure you both know, you're saying the same thing, only with different words.
The concept of "stop being fair" as I said above, doesn't mean stop being fair to the Democrats, it means stop playing by rules that are generally considered fair in terms of how one debates. To follow up on tryanmax's analogy, the Republicans are playing strictly by the rulebook because they think it's good sportsmanship and they expect the Democrats will do the same. But the Democrats only use the rulebook when it suits them.
I guess it would have been better to say, "stop playing by imaginary rules invented by people who have a rosy view of politics which was never true."
Patriot, Exactly. (1) Always attack. (2) There are no rules. You do whatever works without causing you more harm than good. Never assume the other side will play in good faith.... never give an inch.
Andrew........and have some senators with spines start to attack harry reid and his outrageous comments. When they hit the microphones, say "Some say harry reid was overrheard calling obama the N word". Or some such b.s. My gawd....reid claimed romney didnt pay his taxes! And what did the stoopid party do....."Oh...oh.....well we'll release his re cords to show he DID actually pay his taxes". ThT will show them not to make outlandish claims! Idiots......
Oh........and they should NEVER agree to another debate moderated by only msm useful idiots......
Tryanmax, I was just repeating Andrew's comment.
I agree with what you say though on the "we need to start being fair, as in, we need to play by the same rules they do". I can handle that thought as well.
AndrewPrice said:
(1) Always attack. (2) There are no rules. You do whatever works without causing you more harm than good. Never assume the other side will play in good faith.... never give an inch. HELL YEAH! And when all else fails, see #s 1. & 2.
Yes, Andrew, I realized that me and Tryanmax were saying the same thing. I wasn't following along for a while there, but I'm back for just a few minutes, then I have to go. Don't have too much fun without me. ;)
P.S. I like to play the same game as the guys do, it's much more fun. And since none of you have actually met me in person, you have NO idea how I REALLY am. It just doesn't translate the same electronically.
tryanmax, I've noticed that as well. The MSM is already spinning "go ahead and raise taxes on the rich" as "while trying to protect the rich." Amazing. But it won't work if the Republicans get unified in their rhetoric. Spin only works when people can see support for the spin.
On the natural gas boom...
yeah...
That is honestly the catalyst for the second golden economic age of America. The question is when its benefits will begin to kick in. I don't think it can happen in four years because there is still a chicken and egg problem to be solved. But once that is solved, you are looking at basically adding the wealth of Saudi Arabia to the American heartland.
Patriot, Exactly! They need to learn to never speak nicely about the Democrats and to ALWAYS attack no matter what the event. Never give the Democrats a moment peace. That is something the Republicans need to learn -- never praise, always give backhanded compliments, always blame, never stop.
Jen, We will try not to have any fun. LOL!
I second Patriot's motion! Or maybe I first it, since yesterday I posed the Twelfth Commandment, "Never speak well of a Democrat."
P.S. I also knew that Jen and I were saying the same thing. I'm just too literal for my own good.
tryanmax and Jen, I did know you both knew you were saying the same thing.
And yes, you did first that yesterday. LOL! I like your Twelfth Commandment.
Another thing (I'm coming out of my funk): The Republicans need to get unified on their rhetoric about eliminating and/or capping deductions and they need to do so on the message that these are better than raising the top rate. (The question posed by every hostile reporter is, "Why not just raise the top rate?")
Structure of the response is crucial. The superiority of targeting deductions must be asserted in a short, sound-bite friendly way. We see the capping and eliminating of deductions as a way to bring in more revenue than a simple rate increase. After that is said, you can offer some additional support, but it too must be short and sweet. By focusing on deductions that are simply unavailable to the middle class, we better protect the middle class from rate hikes. Then, move in on the counter proposal by telling the audience how they are smarter than that. The Democrats want to draw an arbitrary line at a particular dollar amount (don't say the amount), but Americans are smart enough to realize that making one dollar more doesn't automatically make someone rich. Finally, sum it up once more with lots of buzzwords. Targeting deductions is the only way to target the rich without accidentally catching some of the upper middle class, who as you know, are our nation's job creators.
I'm sure a pro could do better, but I'm pretty proud of my amateur effort. Besides, I don't even expect anything half as slick from the Republicans on the Sunday shows.
tryanmax, How's this:
Q: Why not just raise the top rate?
A: It won't help. It doesn't get you enough money because the people hit by the higher rate just hide their money in the loopholes and deductions. We need to eliminate those loopholes... take them out of the tax code... stop these multinational corporations and rich people from buying these loopholes... and make the system fair for all Americans while raising genuine revenue.
Ooh, that's much more to the point. I still think a little audience flattery is called for, though. Republicans just don't do enough of that. People are dumb so even when the flattery is inaccurate it's the kind of rhetoric that makes them say, "I like him. He gets me."
Tryanmax, I think Andrew was testing us.
tryanmax, I'm glad you like it. And you are right, stupid people love to be flattered and told how smart they are. The Republicans need to learn that the right kind of flattery works.
Why whould we be against raising taxes? Because invariably the history of taxation in this country shows they lower the taxes of the super rich. How could this be... no I am not giving a laffer curve argument although there is truth to that.
Invariably what happens when you raise taxes above 40 to 50% is that you stiffle the economy. Money gets invested off shore where it is not subject to US tax. Money gets invested in schemes to delay tax recognition and the economy starts hurting.
So what congress does and especially DEMOCRATS when they are in Congress is look at sectors of the economy and say hey... we need to help the people in the fill in the blank industry so they devise some tax loophole. They have already done this. Tax cre4dits for a Volt anyone. They create tax credits, deductions, exclusions for specific expenses and the rich start investing in these things to avoid tax because they can afford the Big Four CPA fimrs (it was Big Eight whern I was in school) to craft these investments to engineer not paying taxes legally.
As much as it would harm my fellow CPA's one of the things I think we as Republicans should focus on is Tax Simplification and especially we should highlight tax loopholes and corproate subsidies to remove. We need to have the main voice be the TEA party because it is near impossbile for Archer Daniels Midland to lobby the local grass roots Tea Party Patriots organizations to defuse this.
By makeing sure that the TEA party is about identifying the loopholes and publicizing them. By making sure the TEA party is about removing those loopholes. By making sure the TEA party is about removing subsidies and fighting future bailouts waiting to happen such as the "Too Big to Fail Clause" of Dodd Frank we can find a cause even Progs who want higher taxes can't argue against. TAX SIMPLIFICATION and elimination of Loopholes.
We get to have a second benefit to this. We get to tie known democrats to the tax loopholes and subsiedies they create and show them as IN with Wall Street and the rich. The reason Warren Buffet does not talk against higher taxes is that he does no intend on reporting his earnings as taxable income anyways.
The Prog Politicians will be in a bind because the loopholes are something the Occuppy idiots won't understand but are something their Chrony contributors won't let them back away from. They rely on the obtuseness of the public and the inability to understand the purposeful complications they put into their schemes work to mask their true purpose.
By identifying the loophole and lablelling it a giveaway to the rich we can throw it back in their faces. Then when they start talkiing about the nuances of their "plan" it will appear they are the ones being crafty and corrupt.
Just a thought
Post a Comment