An Easy Expose Of GOP Strategy
Feb 2nd, 2010 | 41 responses
The Republicans in Congress must think American voters are really stupid.
During the Bush administration they supported trials in federal court for Richard Reed and dozens of other accused terrorists.
Now they don’t.
They supported the TARP bailout of banks.
Now they don’t.
They supported a bipartisan commission to address deficit reduction.
Now they don’t.
They supported a pay-as-you-go spending plan in which any increases in spending must be offset by an equal reduction someplace else in the budget.
Now they don’t.
The list is endless.
The only common denominator linking the Republicans from changing their position is — trumpet fanfare here — Democratic President Barack Obama.
He endorses all these programs formerly supported by Republicans.
What changed Republican minds?
For terrorists to be tried in federal court, the answer is — more trumpets please:
“We now know that was a mistake,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
This case of Republicans saying no to anything Obama endorses was brought home magnificently by Rachael Maddow Monday night on her MSNBC show. I’ve provided a transcript of the show so you can decide for yourself.
One observation from Maddow I think was apropos of Republican strategy:
A health reform still simmers in the background, the next item on the president‘s agenda is, of course, financial reform. Thanks to Sam Stein at “Huffington Post,” we‘ve got the Republican strategy memo for trying to defeat that. Included in the “words that work” section of the memo, quote, “We don‘t need another federal government agency.” Frank Luntz, the Republican strategist, notes, quote, “The single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the big bank bailout.”
The show was not without its flaws. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, now chairman of the House Finance Committee, went unchallenged for selective memory. He argued he was in favor of assisting renters in cases they could not afford to buy homes. Yet, it was Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) as minority chairmen of financial committees that aided in relaxing borrowing standards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that contributed to the housing market collapse.
Of course, one would not expect a liberal of the stripes of Maddow to challenge a fellow liberal the likes of Frank. Maddow seems to save those salvos for the few conservatives brave enough to appear on her show even though she treats all her guests respectfully. Imagine her “get” by nabbing House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ill) for an interview.
It’s all part of the blame game in Washington, a practice Obama preaches against but is equally guilty in pinning much of his problems inherited from the Bush administration.
But this strategy by the GOP to oppose anything Obama endorses is not only hypercritical but a governing sham that insults the intelligence of voters.
It is shirking responsibility at a time millions are unemployed, hundreds of thousands homes are in foreclosure and 43,000 people die annually from diseases and suicides because they cannot afford health insurance.
Let it be known that as a majority or minority party, the Democrats historically have not been much better. And definitely not worse.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
41 Responses to “An Easy Expose Of GOP Strategy”
You think voters will be dismayed by the lack of philosophical substance? Ha. Hahahhahahaaha.
Let's look at the archetypal, most referenced and probably most influential republican: Reagan.
Reagan and Gun Control
*Reagan supported and signed a 15-day waiting period when he was governor of California. He then blamed it on the Democrats.
*Reagan supported and signed a law “prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.” The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers after their march on the California State Capitol, but affected all gun owners. He then blamed it on the Democrats.
*Reagan supported and signed a ban on the transfer of new manufacture fully automatic firearms while president and blamed it on the Democrats.
*Reagan vocally supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban after his presidency in the early 90s. Which were then blamed on the Democrats.
Reagan spoke of freedom and liberty and happiness for the honest workers. But he stood for:
Wars all over Central America, incl Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras.
Promoted Iran-Iraq war.
Sent Marines into Beirut, abandoned mission after terrorist bombing.
Broke detente with USSR until Gorbachev personally made things better.
Backed Contras in drug running schemes.
Supported right-wing dictators and movements everywhere, including:
Apartheid regime in SA.
Marcos regime in Phillipines.
Saddam Hussein and Baathist regime in Iraq, even after Kurds gassed.
Taliban in Afghanistan.
Manuel Noriega in Panama.
Augusto Pinochet in Chile.
Voters embraced all this evil just fine, because *Reagan made the lie as livable and viable as the truth and made the label more important than the content*. The fact that the jar contained tax increases *DIDN'T MATTER*, because the label said “REPUBLICANS = LOWER TAXES, DEMOCRATS = HIGHER TAXES*. Americans, already religious, could swallow this new kind of secular insanity just fine.
Reagan came to the Americans right when they were starting to feel middle-aged and devitalized. He gave them all wigs, facelifts and sent the blood from their tired brains and other organs to their erogenous zones, and the blood hasn't migrated since.
A man who walks around in a permanent state of, um, readiness and potency isn't going to be thinking very well and will ignore the state of his other organs just fine, no matter how ailing he is. In short
The GOP has no strategy, but unfortunately they'll win races only because they are not Dems. In two years the pendulum will swing back, and this cycle will continue. If the Dems could actually govern effectively, then the Repubs would seriously be a non-issue because they have nothing.
Its a pretty sad state of affairs really. But since we're going back in the time machine to marvel at the Repub about-face now that they're out of power, why don't we take a look at the Dem about-face now that they are in power? Once again, Glenn Greenwald provides a good history lesson (emphasis mine):
Maddow has a future, but she does need to get rid of the hypocrisy (as well as — if you've heard her, you'll know — the excess emotionalism and dearth of logic she shares with so many liberals).
“It is shirking responsibility”
Careful, Jer. It is not, repeat not, the responsibility, obligation, or natural function of the federal government to Do Something or assume responsibility or remove all risk or strife from this universe.
Seriously: if you were a Bush follower, wouldn't you feel as though you were owed a major apology for all the accusations and the fuss that came from Democrats and media figures, accusing you of supporting radical and Constitution-shredding policies when, it turns out, they actually crave those policies in order to feel safe?
That may be true with the politicians and media figures, but it isn't true on the ground. Everyone I know who opposed Bush's Constitution-shredding policies are upset that Obama has only modestly walked back from them.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily…
Wherein a “Moderate” right-winger openly says it is acceptable for the GOP to stop a hypothetical reform that would help people because Obama would benefit from these people becoming happier.
“Maddow has a future, but she does need to get rid of the hypocrisy”
Uh, huh. That tactic works so well for O'Reilly, doesn't it? No hypocracy found there.
Good post.
Reagan also closed all the state mental Hospitals in California when he became Governor, throwing the patients out into the street where many of them died of exposure the first year. Then he sold the buildings to business for a song. He sold the hospital in Modesto to Gallo wine for one dollar. They turned it into slum housing for their illegal alien grape cutters. Reagan was a jerk, not a hero and this proves that republicans will kill the weak and innocent for tax ideology.
“Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, now chairman of the House Finance Committee, went unchallenged for selective memory. He argued he was in favor of assisting renters in cases they could not afford to buy homes. Yet, it was Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) as minority chairmen of financial committees that aided in relaxing borrowing standards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that contributed to the housing market collapse.”
I think that whole thing is conflated. The heads of those two agencies don't work for Congress, they work for their stockholders. As long as they were making money, everybody was happy and now they are bums. Frank and Dodd didn't tell them to be stupid, but stupid they were because they had to keep feeding the money machine not because Frank and Dodd told them what to do.
Fair enough, but do they plan on voting the politicians out who offer nothing but lip service then? If they aren't, then they're just endorsing what the last guy did. Seriously, whatever happened to all of the anti-war protests? March is just around the corner, commemorating our lovely adventures in Iraq. I'm not sure anyone honestly sees an end in sight. Something tells me though that we won't see the masses crowding DC, and we surely won't hear any talk in Congress about cutting off war funding.
People scream at the Washington bubble, demanding all sorts of things. They send “their” politician into the bubble, knowing that this time things will be different. But when the new entrant is either corrupted or rendered constricted while inside, they scream and rail and try desperately to find someone new, someone who will sort things out. Actually changing or entering the bubble themselves or forcing it to change its nature by fundamentally changing the conditions outside the bubble? Unthinkable.
Fair enough, but do they plan on voting the politicians out who offer nothing but lip service then?
That depends. If the alternative is someone who offers more than lip service, yes. If the alternative is a conservative Republican who advocates for torture and the suspension of habeas corpus, then no.
Seriously, whatever happened to all of the anti-war protests?
You are confusing patience with partisianship. Obama campaigned on ending the war by 2011. In the SOTU, he said combat troops would be out by the summer. If 2011 comes and goes and we are still at war in Iraq, the protestors will be back in the streets again, madder than ever.
If the Dems could actually govern effectively, then the Repubs would seriously be a non-issue because they have nothing.~jchem
******
Exactly.
Because of the filibuster threat, the corporations only needed to snag one democrat. The republicans knew this of course.
No argument there. Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but I would like to think that the people should be able to demand better.
This isn't a matter of partisanship for me, and I'm sorry, but my patience has simply worn out. How many times did we have to listen to Bush tell us that we were making progress but we needed to be patient with him? Seven years is a lot of patience, and if you still have some you're better at it than I am.
Power is hard to give up. The Truman and Eisenhower found that out. They gave up a few things, but kept most of what FDR gained.
“That depends. If the alternative is someone who offers more than lip service, yes. If the alternative is a conservative Republican who advocates for torture and the suspension of habeas corpus, then no.”
So, did you vote for this “lip service” guy who continues the suspension of habeas corpus???
The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight. . . .
“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.
So, did you vote for this “lip service” guy who continues the suspension of habeas corpus???
Yes, though to be fair, McCain was in favor of the suspension as well. This is THE area where I really am disappointed in Obama. Worse, there is no alternative. None of the GOP candidates (except Ron Paul, who I would have considered voting for if he had won the primary) were an improvement in this area. Frankly, with their open advocacy for torture, some are worse.
It doesn't get any better for my choices among house and senate members, either. I live in a conservative state.
“That tactic works so well for O'Reilly, doesn't it?'
React any way you want; the issue was solely about Maddow. If you're curious, I don't follow O'Reilly.
And so the people feel held hostage to the lesser of evils and entertain their not very high standards with tit for tat loyalties – loyalties that barely scratch the surface of what might be possible if they gave the subject as much focus as they do their personal entertainment. Not aiming very high for a country that was founded on such lofty principles.
And by the way, thanks Axel for the Reagan reminisces. Lots of folks enjoy revering the “great communicatior” but I remember those years well and his main claim to popularity was that he made people feel good and made them feel good about America. The degree to which those feelings were based on substance wasn't worth exploring.
Even while he was in office, I still remember wondering why so few saw the huge disconnect between his talk and his policies. Maybe the internet has already changed things, since the focus is coming around much more toward policy and less about the speeches.
Wrong!!!
They don't think, they know…
And they are right.
Prof I hope you're right. The jury will probably be out on that for a while yet.
I mostly remember Reagan's second term, and I remember thinking it was apparent he was not playing with a full deck. And dismayed that more people didn't see it.
The Alzheimer's was making inroads, even then. He was, if not a shadow of his former self, certainly a poor rendering.
CO said, “The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight. . . .”
It is an excellent point.
I must confess pleasant amazement at the several main posts recycling the KOS poll today, which the liberals seem to be using to 'prove' that the Republicans are in serious trouble in the midterms because they are 'drifting away' from what the liberals consider to be their proprietary 'real world' view.
Just could not ask for more than seeing the opponent fall head and shoulders for their own propaganda and ask for several additional helpings. Keep up the good work!
American voters are stupid, and Republicans have understood this for years. Reagan was fantastically out of touch with truth, not to mention everyday life. His communication skills were abysmal. But the idea was not to communicate, but to obfuscate. The ghastly mess our government is in now reflects the inability of the general public to vote sensibly.
Would it were not so.
alphonsegaston,
There may be a distinction between “your truth” and the facts when you say, “Reagan was fantastically out of touch with truth, not to mention everyday life. His communication skills were abysmal.” The facts, not your version of the truth, are that Reagan connected with the American people at a visceral level, i.e. he communicated at an exceptional level about core “truths” shared by those who heard him.
I do not subscribe to every Reagan policy, and in fact disagree with many, but the man was sincere, endearing and believed what he said. I may not have agreed with every policy initiative, but I knew him and his family, and you are wrong.
That disconnect was the beginning of my drift away from being an independent who could vote for Republicans.
Ronald Reagan claimed he could increase defense spending, cut taxes, cut only “unnecessary” spending in the rest of the government and still balance the budget. How much more out of touch with the truth can you be?
Jim,
My view on this is admittedly personal, not professional. I was a personal friend of Maureen Reagan prior to her death, knew and had business dealings with Nancy Reagan and met President Reagan on several occasions. I will not attempt to defend specific policies of the Reagan administration, but I am convinced that he believed what he said. It does not mean that he was out of touch with “truth”.
History determines what “truth” is. At the time, there is no doubt in my mind that he believed in the Laffer Curve…as did many others, and in good faith. Reagan may have been incorrect, but it is a step too far to suggest that he was not cognizant of the “truth”. The Laffer Curve, and all other economic theories, are exactly that, theories. Their is no absolute truth, only belief in a theory, and Reagan truly believed in that theory. If history proves that belief to have been inaccurate, fine, but there is no need to denigrate the man for believing what he sincerely believed.
We need a new message as republicans, even as a conservative republican I know this administration has done a good job on many things, most importantly communicating with the American people. Obama has had more town halls and got on the tv to speak about issues, than Bush did in his entire 8 years. We need a new message and republicans should promote the message that is in this article This is the message this is the future check out the post on my blog:
http://bit.ly/republicanmanifesto
Come to think of it, Joe and Alito might disagree, but in the end, those distractions just flash in the pan, while the issues continue to simmer.
@tidbits–visceral level, yes. No brain, no pain. Sarah Palin is doing the same.
Alpho…,
As I tried to explain above, my association with the Reagans is personal, not political. Honest to god truth, I never voted for the man, though I liked him personally. Maureen, who was several steps to the right of her father, and I used to sit up till god-knows-when debating politics and never agreeing on anything other than to respect each other's views.
Nothing you say will ever get me to dishonor the memory of a deceased friend, or, in her memory, dishonor the father she adored. Every experience I had with Reagan was with an honorable man who believed in what he said, and I will defend the sincerity of his beliefs even though he and I (or his daughter and I) may not have agreed. What I saw in the Reagan family was love and admiration and respect, including respect for those who disagreed.
To suggest, as you do, “no brain” is unfair and judgmental. You're welcome to your opinion on issues of policy, but it doesn't need to get personal.
Best regards,
tidbits
OK, so the Republicans tried some things which they now admit didn't work. Now they are against those things. When/If they regain power, can a Republican tell me whether you really are for those things or against those things?
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by wintwitwon: Hello twitterers! An Easy Expose Of GOP Strategy http://bit.ly/9vANmf...
Let me just say that I am annoyed that I have to do this but I do. Reagan is not and was not the problem, the problem is irrationally running in the same direction for thirty years ignoring that it is unsustainable. Many regs that Reagan took down needed to be to move the nation forward as with the extreme tax rates, which were extreme until him but were actually pretty rational during his admin. We were at a flex point where we chose whether to keep going down an unsustainable path and unravel or change and move in a slightly new direction to continue growing. In other words much like today and I would guess those on the right who defend Obama are just as unhappy doing so but so goes the life of realists. Yes Reagan got credit for things he did not deserve and Carter took the heat for things he did not deserve but this is what happens at flex points of US history, much like the unfairly maligned Bush and what I believe will be an unfairly heroisk version of Obama by the end of his term and I say that as someone that dislikes Dem and GOP but does like Obama.
I am impressed once again with your personal sense of honor and care not a whit whether the context of your post had been Reagan or a prominent Democrat. That we might have more of such respect toward friends to buck the rip currents of cynicism pervading modern life.
I feel compelled to add one more comment here. As big of a disappointment as Obama is turning out to be on habeas corpus, I want to point out that he is maintaining the status quo of what Bush put into place with the, in some cases, ethusiastic support of a Republican House and Senate. Democrats are not the ones actively protesting against fair trials for terrorism suspects. They aren't the ones advocating for kangaroo courts. They aren't the ones protesting against US laws prohibiting torture. They aren't the ones who felt a president (as long as he is Republican) should be able to ignore laws at will. The democrats are not proving to be a friend of the Constitution. However, they aren't actively developing new policies to undermine it and screaming in the streets against its bedrock principles. When the choice for me is bad versus worse, I'll always chose bad.
And here's a perfect example of that evil Republican strategy in action to aid in the 'expose'
Chant after me: “Party of NO! Party of NO!”
House Dems trash Obama's plan for jobs tax credit (AP)
WASHINGTON – Some rank and file Democrats in the House are trashing President Barack Obama's plan to give businesses that add workers a new $5,000 tax credit for each job they create.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_bi_ge…
oh wait…
Which is what the parties depend on. Try voting for someone you want, but won't win (write-ins are fun!). It'll get more attention, and you'll feel better about it, especially when “bad” proves it.