PDA

View Full Version : Can This Guy Be In Charge for a While?


The Reaper
09-15-2006, 11:35
I like the way this man thinks.

Will the leadership get it? Will they force a few tough votes between now and the election so that people will know where their candidates stand? Will they run the right ads, motivating the base and capturing Indy voters?

I think for the Dems, running only under a "We aren't the party of President Bush" is a risky strategy. Tell us how you would do better. What is your platform? Do Michael Moore, Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and the ACLU represent your party? Will Pelosi and Reid do anything different, other than getting their own snouts into the trough and continuing the attack on the President and his policies?

So far, given the comparison of the Lieberman support (who was selected to be their #2 man in 2000) in the primary by the Dems national leadership, versus the Chaffee support by the national Repubs speaks volumes about the parties and their agendas. Which seems to you like the tent more open to opposing viewpoints?

TR

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/is_there_a_new_republican_mome.html


September 15, 2006
Is There a New Republican Momentum?
By Jed Babbin

Those who wear their cynicism with pride often call this the "silly season," the period between Labor Day and the election when candidates do their best (and worst) to capture votes. This year it's reason season, time to motivate voters go to the polls and convince them to vote your way. Democrats seem content with nothing more than, "vote for us because we're not them." That may work for two reasons. First, the politically active media will spend the next two months telling voters that voting Republican will render the earth and Hollywood barren of life. Second, because Republicans control the White House and Congress, they can't escape responsibility for what does and doesn't emanate from them.

But - as Donald Lambro and I wrote last week, and as Rush Limbaugh analyzed with mathematical elegance Tuesday - Democrats are not in as strong a position as they say. The momentum shift of the past six weeks may be profound, and among the things it portends is not Democratic control of congress. The Dems are so worried that a deal reportedly has been struck this week between DNC Chairman Howard Dean and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Rahm Emanuel, whose disdain for each other cannot be exaggerated. Dean is giving money to Emanuel for 40 House races on condition that Emanuel stops trashing the DNC. But the breach between them remains: a huge gap between the faux moderates of the Democratic House and their hyper-liberal national party.

If Republicans are smart enough to follow the path set by three of their best thinkers, and launch the thematic ad campaign to nationalize the election, they can retain control of Congress and set themselves up for 2008. The thematic ad campaign has to tell a narrative, and connect all the pieces - war, the economy, the conservative vs. liberal contest - in coherent, connected steps. Three people who have it right are Sens. Mitch McConnell and Elizabeth Dole and former Bush-Cheney 2000 political director Tony Feather.

Republicans have to make this election about the Democratic Party and show America just who the Dems of 2006 really are. Mitch McConnell had it right when he said, "What they'll do is cut and run in Iraq, they'll raise our taxes and they'll try to impeach the president." Elizabeth Dole had it right, too. She said the Democrats will raise taxes and confirm judges who will threaten our values. McConnell and Dole clarify the differences between Republicans and Democrats and make the essential connection between domestic and war policies. Tony Feather understands how to write and get that narrative across.

Feather's group, "Progress for America," has put out a low production cost television ad that's a good start. No big-name actors, no million-dollar graphics. It's a series of images of terrorists with a narrator intoning that "some" want to cut and run from Iraq and "some" want to stop the surveillance programs that enable us to thwart terrorists' plans. Feather's ad is good because it's the kind that can be done quickly, the money saved on production to be spent buying TV time to show it and clone it in print media. That's the model for the ads the RNC should do.

The first ad should weld every Democratic candidate to the identities of their national leaders. It should show Howard Dean at his red-faced "blame America first" shouting worst, Ned Lamont's victory moment, John Kerry accusing American troops of terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the dark of night, and Jack Murtha pronouncing the war unwinnable. Run this on a video background of white flags and the last helicopter lifting off from the roof of our embassy in Saigon. The narrator should say that the Dems want to do to Iraq what they did to Vietnam. Linking "cut and run" abroad to the domestic security issues like the NSA surveillance program, the PATRIOT Act and weak ACLU-type judges builds a fence around the Dems that they can't climb over or tunnel under. End the ad with Ted Kennedy's attack on Judge Samuel Alito and show the incredible page-1 photo of Mrs. Alito in tears as a result of Kennedy's attempt to smear her husband.

The second has to be the "L word" commercial. The Dems are liberal, and the liberals are Dems. Voters should connect the two reflexively because, in truth, they are synonymous. "Liberal" is the most powerful negative word in America's political lexicon. Applied properly, as NCPAC did in 1980 and Reagan did in 1988, it's enough to win elections almost by itself. The RNC needs to show the Dems' close ties to the ACLU, to the lib media, wacky liberal college profs and Hollywood. Remember how Bush 41 made a big issue of Dukakis's ACLU membership in their first debate and how it stuck? The ACLU is the Dems' farm team for judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It's the anti-religious, pro-abortion ACLU that's at the forefront of every court battle against the values most Americans share. Show Michael Moore in Jimmy Carter's presidential box at the 2004 Dem National Convention. And remind voters that the Dems - the Ivy League, ACLU, cocktail party liberals - are elitists. The "E" word is second only to the "L" word. This is the cornerstone of the narrative the RNC has to tell.

The third ad is McConnell and Dole's penance for having good ideas. They are the ones who can best explain how the Senate works. They can explain how every senator votes to pick committee chairmen before they vote on bills or nominations. They can explain that Dems will put people such as Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Barbara Boxer in charge of key committees. If Pat Leahy is chairman of Senate Judiciary, Sam Alito will be the last conservative confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Essential to the national ad campaign is the economy. Is Larry Kudlow the only person who understands that the Bush Boom is no accident? How many people remember that it was the 1994 Republican congress that created the economic recovery despite Clinton? Oil prices are falling and the stock market is rising. And the American economy - thanks in large part to the president's tax cuts - is much stronger than the Dems want to admit. Productivity is high, wages are rising and unemployment is down. The Dems can't engage in any debate on the economy for precisely this reason. Put a few Dem presidential wannabes on the screen talking about rolling back the tax cuts. Voters will get the message. So will employers and investors.

Another commercial should focus on other domestic issues. Is Harry Reid still proud that, for a moment, the Dems killed the "PATRIOT Act"? Why not put him on screen again? Voters need to be reminded - using the California example - that Dems use domestic programs to pay off the special interests that back them in election season. They make a mess, tax the middle class into stagflation and the Republicans have to come back in to clean up their mess. The Dems spent the past three years in a state of near-hysteria over the Plame nonsense, but uttered not a word about leaks published by the New York Times and Washington Post that did great damage to national security. Why should they not be held accountable for sympathizing with leakers who make Americans less safe?

Last, or perhaps first, none of this will work if the RNC doesn't go after the political activist media. The major media outlets that act as 527 Groups for the Dems will be working overtime to help them. If the Republicans don't go after the 527 Media - with humor, not anger - the hyper-liberal editorial pages, network news shows and others will sink Republicans in a deluge of daily "October surprises."

Once the Republicans get their ad campaign under way, they have to take the battle to every state, Red and Blue, and against the liberal lions of the Senate. 2006 is not 1980, but there are, in unlikely places, the beatable McGoverns, Churches and Bayhs of 2006.

If the Republicans push aside the consultants' advice that "everyone knows that" and tell the big truths about Dems, this could be a much better year than anyone can predict. I'm not predicting (yet) that Republicans will make gains in either the Senate or the House, but odd things happen in odd years such as 2006.

Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a contributing editor to The American Spectator and author of Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States (with Edward Timperlake, Regnery 2006) and Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think (Regnery 2004).

© 2000-2006 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved

incommin
09-15-2006, 12:19
Good post! Good Plan of attack!

Jim

Goggles Pizano
09-15-2006, 12:56
As a conservative I hope this plan is put into action ASAP!

jfhiller
09-15-2006, 15:02
Very strong ideas - points that, sadly, most folks aren't very clued in to. I wouldn't mind seeing an ad telling about how the Republican leadership has gotten the message that spending has been too high; then sharing some details of a new defined plan to ensure that the problem is corrected. That's among my biggest frustrations with the current Republicans. If you're supposed to be conservatives, quit playing Democrat-lite.

Of course, advertising one of your biggest faults may not be the way to attract voters :rolleyes:

Roguish Lawyer
09-15-2006, 15:56
Eh

The Reaper
09-15-2006, 16:01
Eh

Concise comments, Counselor, but not terribly helpful to the exchange.

TR

Roguish Lawyer
09-15-2006, 17:11
Concise comments, Counselor, but not terribly helpful to the exchange.

TR

I generally like the message myself, but I am not so sure it is such a great campaign message. Too complicated, assumes the electorate's prior knowledge of facts and agreement on issues, and overlooks some real problems the GOP is facing in November.

I think we're going to get creamed, and I am not so sure we don't deserve it. We've got both houses and the WH, and what have we really accomplished? Not enough IMO. I will elaborate later -- sitting in airport with Blackberry so I have limited post length.

Roguish Lawyer
09-15-2006, 17:18
Someone explain to me what Republicans have done to deserve re-election. Besides the GWOT -- it's the economy, stupid! (I hate Carville, but I respect his political abilities.)

The Reaper
09-15-2006, 17:18
I think we're going to get creamed, and I am not so sure we don't deserve it. We've got both houses and the WH, and what have we really accomplished? Not enough IMO.

Much better feedback. Agree completely.

Outside of two uncertain SCOTUS nominees, unrealized potential.

TR

incommin
09-15-2006, 17:41
You are right in that the Repubs have not done enough. They fought over small battles instead of tackling larger issues. However, the left has not been in power to really screw things up. I say that even though my opinion of our elected officials is not very high. One has to remember that the Capital is a place where power corrupts. People get elected to go there and they become politicians! Anyone in favor of term limits and stopping pork? Or how about going out and jousting with some windmills?

Jim

Roguish Lawyer
09-15-2006, 18:13
I would like to disqualify all legislators from voting on anything that directly benefits their district or state (i.e. Project built there, item built there, etc.). This would require ending omnibus legislation. And make it a crime to cut a deal with another legislator to get around the purpose of this rule.

Not sure it would work in practice, but we need to break the barrel.

The Reaper
09-15-2006, 18:22
I would add that no amendments should be permitted that are not directly relevant to the proposed legislation.

Like that amnesty for Reggie Bush I heard you requested.:munchin

TR

Roguish Lawyer
09-15-2006, 18:31
Don't you know the liberal media is out to get The President?

Plus, you'd be amazed at what SC RBs can get away with . . . :D

jfhiller
09-15-2006, 19:29
I think we're going to get creamed, and I am not so sure we don't deserve it. We've got both houses and the WH, and what have we really accomplished?

Well, I guess there's always the "we're not them" argument in reverse, which is pretty pathetic, but not entirely invalid. :rolleyes:

tk27
09-15-2006, 19:42
Sirs,
How is Mr. Babbin’s strategy different from what got us here?

- Pointout how Looney the libs are in order to polarize the electorate (The part Mr. Babbin lays out)
- Isolate the remaining independents / undecided, and win them over with emotionally charged issues like Stem Cells, late term abortion.
- Satisfy our base of “values voters” and interest groups by beating the drum on these emotional issues

The unintended consequence is that we are forced to use our political capital by going to the mattresses for things like comatose women in Florida. Instead of focusing on vital issues like a ballooning government, a soaring deficit, and an addiction to oil. And unable to hammer out reforms in the education, tax, and tort systems.

Aren't we making our own bed by using this strategy? Doesn't this lead conservativism on social issues but democrat-lite fiscally?

CoLawman
09-15-2006, 19:45
Someone explain to me what Republicans have done to deserve re-election. Besides the GWOT -- it's the economy, stupid! (I hate Carville, but I respect his political abilities.)

You are absolutely correct, it is the economy. A mighty robust economy I might add. I offer as proof:
DOW approaching an all time high. (Again)
5 % unemployment rate.
Interest rates at unbelievable affordable rates for all Americans. (See the Jimmy Carter years)
CD rates now paying near 6 percent on the short term.
Technological advancements and outsourcing manufacturing jobs that continue to drive the price of "the good life" down. DVD player $39, Color TV $125, Digital camera $250, Desk top computer $500. Clothing that continues to plunge in price.
Gasoline prices are coming down....... 25 cents a gallon decrease here.
Inflation, ask a 20 year old what his experience is with inflation. Then research the Jimmy Carter years.
Disposable income has increased 8% since January of 2001.
The 40 year average deficit is 2.3 percent of GDP. At the end of 2005 it was 4.5 percent of GDP. Putting things in perspective, we are fighting a costly war against terrorism. If we stay the course and win this war the deficit will be taken care of by Federal receipts that continue to grow consistent with the economic growth. Now I am no accountant, but I do know that Federal receipts have increased 20 percent during 2004 and 2005. I wish I was averaging that type of pay increase!

Sure there are concerns with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We can address it through a growing economy or allow the Democrats to increase taxes to pay for it.

I am not a Sean Hannity clone. The President and the Republican Party have there problems. But I live a great life with alot of freedoms. For all the hand wringing that goes on about the economy and the deficit.......one would think I need to be making drastic financial sacrifices to sustain a decent life. Haven't felt the need before, but since the economy is so bad.........I am going to sell one of my houses, one of my three cars, my boat or my fifth wheel, cut my dive trips to Mexico down to one a year, and go back to dial up computer service. Then I will go back to college and get a high paying job, instead of being a cop, so I can buy all my toys and luxuries back.

Obviously I am being a tad facetious. The point being, we have not had to make the sacrifices the "greatest generation" had to during WWII. We are not experiencing the protests and riots that occurred during Viet Nam, in spite of the MSM and the DNC's best efforts. My belief is alot of it has to do with consumer confidence and complacency as we are experiencing the good life. We have handled grand scale attacks on our economy and our country. We have survived hurricanes back to back. And we continue to prosper.

There is one compelling reason I am going to stay positive and upbeat about the Republican Party, and never publicly disparage them for fear of influencing an undecided, It is for my son. In my mind the only thing I can control is who is going to be his Commander in Chief. And I can think of no greater cause than the welfare of my son, a soldier.

BoyScout
09-15-2006, 20:11
Who ever wins will have independants to thank in part. I keep hearing people either claiming independant or leaving their party in disgust. They seem like the same polar ends of a pair of magnets, flying of in oposite directions when they get close to on another. The only time I claim a party is durring runnoff elections so I can vote. I also pray for a cultural backlash to MSM and Hollywood. There will always be those who are like my grandfather who are blindly loyal to one party and those like me who most like never have a party. I would love to see this plan implemented, but I honestly dout it will. We will most likely see this same recycled strategies...or at least I will in Oklahoma.

Then again, I'm learning disabled and a bit on the mad side. I could be very wrong.

Roguish Lawyer
09-16-2006, 01:35
CoLawman:

Unfortunately, the surveys I have seen so far do not suggest that the electorate shares your sentiments. They think the country is headed in the wrong direction, they are fed up with gas prices, and they actually think the Demos would do a better job. :(

jfhiller
09-16-2006, 08:51
Sure there are concerns with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We can address it through a growing economy or allow the Democrats to increase taxes to pay for it.


CoLawman, I thought your points were very good and agreed with most of them, but I take issue with this one. While I'm very pleased that the economy is growing as rapidly as it is, I never liked the excuse for structural deficits (or other deficits for that matter) being "we'll grow the economy out of them". We're still massively growing the federal government beyond it's original (Constitutionally very limited) intent and therefore increasing the power of politicians and incentive toward corruption. If Republicans would act like conservatives, these trends could reverse and I believe that the electorate would reward them with huge victories. After all, for all the pork spending, I have NO idea what my Congressman or Senators have brought to my state (and thus no reason to vote for them because of it) -- and I keep up with this stuff fairly closely.

Sorry for the rambling rant; like many of you, I get a little heated when talking about this stuff.

incommin
09-16-2006, 12:18
Is it our fault (we the people) for allowing the government to grow into areas that are not of a national interest? Is it our fault because we do not demand more of those we elect?

Jim

jfhiller
09-16-2006, 16:21
Is it our fault (we the people) for allowing the government to grow into areas that are not of a national interest? Is it our fault because we do not demand more of those we elect?

Jim

Collectively, I think the answer would of course have to be "yes, we are to blame". The power in our government truly is in the hands of the people if they choose to wield it wisely at the ballot box. Unfortunately, I think that various events in the history of the country have gradually shifted the understanding of the role of government away from the original intent and toward a much more powerful and controlling (daddy) federal government. I think it's fair to say that there are some benefits to that shift -- the strength of the standing military being one -- but on the whole I think it has probably diminished our character as a country and the development of individuals. However, when you have the biggest monopoly in the country, with a significant interest in self-preservation, controlling the education of our youth, it makes it awfully difficult to collectively return to a former mindset on the role of the fed govt. My own opinion is that if systematic reasoning and fundamental economics were basic requirements at every level of education (and were actually taught effectively) the problem would much easier to address. My confidence is not high that any of this will occur in the normal course of events. However, my hope does not lie in the rectitude of the people or the government, so I don't lose too much sleep over it.

Just my $.02.

Matta mile
09-17-2006, 16:46
"Is it our fault (we the people) for allowing the government to grow into areas that are not of a national interest? Is it our fault because we do not demand more of those we elect?"

Yes, it may in part be our fault but when the trust is violated, ie thousands of dollars "stored" in an officials refrigerator the bribes of the lobbyists and so much other nonsense its hard to know what many of these clowns will do next in the way of abusing power. The double standards, general lack of leadership and ethical bankruptcy of many is bizarre and embarrassing. I know that in any group of people you will have bad apples, but it needs to end.

I think there are too many folks in power that are self servants and not public ones. I will be glad to see "their rucksacks in the hallway" come election day.
mm:mad:

CoLawman
09-19-2006, 23:12
CoLawman:

Unfortunately, the surveys I have seen so far do not suggest that the electorate shares your sentiments. They think the country is headed in the wrong direction, they are fed up with gas prices, and they actually think the Demos would do a better job. :(

Newest USA Today/Gallup poll shows that the electorate is beginning to share my sentiments. 5 point jump in approval rating since the last poll earlier this month. For the first time since December 2005 a majority of the people polled did not say that the war in Iraq was a mistake.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14905096/
As gas prices continue to fall the confidence in this administration will increase.

Two interesting indicators of the strength of the economy were announced today. A record was set today in Federal Tax receipts for a single day. Translation: The strong economy is paying dividends.

The Fed may hold interest rates down due to falling oil and gas prices. Oil is down 20% and gas is down 15%. Besides cheaper gas prices, this also has a positive impact on inflation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

jfHiller
CoLawman, I thought your points were very good and agreed with most of them, but I take issue with this one. While I'm very pleased that the economy is growing as rapidly as it is, I never liked the excuse for structural deficits (or other deficits for that matter) being "we'll grow the economy out of them".

Though I am not a fan of deficit spending I believe that a strong economy can and will reduce the deficit. I much prefer a strong economy to fight budget deficit than the Democratic alternative of taxing our way out of deficit spending. The Dems want to spend just as much money, they just want to do it on mine and your disposable income being reduced to taxes. 89 billion dollars in tax revenue in one day!!! That certainly puts the deficit in perspective.

The Dow is poised to surpass the all time high of 11,722. At it's current pace it should break through that mark and perhaps surpass 12,000 just before the November election.

Nothing but bad news upon bad news for the Dems.

jfhiller
09-20-2006, 08:18
Though I am not a fan of deficit spending I believe that a strong economy can and will reduce the deficit. I much prefer a strong economy to fight budget deficit than the Democratic alternative of taxing our way out of deficit spending. The Dems want to spend just as much money, they just want to do it on mine and your disposable income being reduced to taxes. 89 billion dollars in tax revenue in one day!!! That certainly puts the deficit in perspective.

No disagreement here on that. I think the ideal way to reduce deficits, though, is to reduce the spending, especially the structural and growing portions of the budgets. In comparison between Reps and Dems, there's no question which approach I prefer, but neither seems to be taking the "reduce the overall spending" approach.