TV: More sexism, more self-promotion
Last week the RNC held their convention at the Xcel Energy Center in Minneapolis and The NewsHour and Democracy Now! covered the convention. It wasn't pretty for anyone but the GOP.
Let's start with the convention itself which we watched like anthropologists studying another culture. ...
The 'fear card' was not played at the RNC convention. Let's dispel that myth right from the start. The fear card was played at the Democratic Party convention in Denver -- over and over, as they attempted to say that John McCain was exactly like the Bully Boy. ...
9-11 is not just a 'hot button' issue to the Republican base, it is an indication of what they see as the differences offered in leadership from the two parties. That's a very important point and one that those killing trees with all their useless 'how to win!' books better start grasping. After nearly seven years, you'd think they'd have figured out something but their bad (and banal) writing demonstrates no knowledge learned or even that basic facts have been grasped. ...
Those wrongly insisting the Republican convention offered nothing are begging to lose every election because they refuse to see what really went down. ...
Minor perceptions were utilized as well. One example would be the wrongful stereotype that Democrats don't give a damn about the country. John McCain's military service was stressed, Palin's son and nephew being in the service was stressed, the men and women serving was stressed. "We stand up in time of need!" was the call. ...
Utilizing perception management, the convention played to why people identify as Republicans to begin with. Palin would give a crowd pleasing speech (and an amazing speech) on Wednesday night but the convention all week was about solidifying the base behind the ticket. ...
That's what the Democrats didn't grasp. That's why their convention flopped. They didn't manage perception. They insisted upon making the entire convention about Barack. ... Reality is that the Republicans were no more solidified behind McCain in the primaries than Democrats were behind Barack. ... Republicans used a winner-take-all strategy for awarding delegates from each state and they did so because that's how it works in the general election for the electoral college. ... They're not interested in soothing egos, they're interested in winning. They aren't interested in a primary system that allows stragglers to stay in the race, they're interested in finding out who is the strongest candidate. ...
The Democratic 'leadership' seemed truly confused that the unfair system could backfire on them. ... They thought they could run their crooked and rigged system and appoint a leader who was not popular with the base. As it dawned on them (due to polling) they decided they could 'heal' the wounds by selling Barack throughout the convention. It was an embarrassment and it wasn't effective.
If Barack loses ... It will be noted, in higher toned language, that speech after speech informing people how 'groovy' Barack was really wasn't the way to drive Democrats to the polls. It will be noted that the gauzy sop tossed out over and over about Barack was issue-free and, as it repeatedly stressed how 'groovy' Barack was, only made the point he must not be so 'groovy' if everyone can't shut up about it and get to the issues that matter. ...
On every level, the Republican convention was a success. ...
[Laura Bush and Cindy McCain] managed to send the message (true or false) that the Republicans were about the American people and after Barack's latest bit of vanity, it was a highly effective moment. Democrats closed asking America to worship one man. Republicans opened asking Americans to pull together.
That journalism student has a lot to learn. But [s]he’s probably been influenced by ultra-lib profs anyway.
Why Not Blame Obama?
The media favorite has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.
By Larry Kudlow
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTEwYWUxNjY0ZTJmNGY4NjAwYTM4NmJhNWMzZWYxNzc=
But here’s the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.
First off, you don’t raise taxes during a recession. That’s a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows.
The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.
Obama also proposed uncapping the payroll tax, another blunder that will hit people up and down the income ladder. While Obama pledges tax hikes only for folks earning more that $200,000 a year, his tax hike on payrolls would actually slam middle-income earners. The cap on wages subject to the payroll tax is presently $102,000. By eliminating that cap Obama will be soaking veteran firemen, cops, teachers, and health-service workers, along with a variety of other occupations.
In fact, in America’s largest cities, a firefighter married to a school teacher can earn close to $200,000 filing jointly. So not only will each spouse separately pay more for Social Security and health care under Obama’s plan, together they’ll also be slammed by Obama’s cap-gains tax increase.
This is more than just a failure to understand the Laffer curve.