Posted on 03/06/2009 5:35:41 PM PST by Delacon
How should Republicans respond to Obamanomics?
Because of the breathtaking speed and size of the new president's proposals, critics have yet to coalesce around any clear, single narrative. This is a problem, since six different responses to Obamanomics are almost the same as no response at all. Worse, Republicans have tended to fall back on old, time-tested framings that sound, well, old.
Republicans say: The stimulus package/new budget expansion is "pork"; it contains something called "earmarks," they tell the American people. It is "wasteful" government spending that drives up an abstraction called the "deficit." Obama we fear is engaged in "class warfare," which is fundamentally "unfair" given that, as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg blurted out, 1 percent of the taxpayers pay 50 percent or more of the taxes.
All true enough, I suppose.
But Obamaheads chuckle as they listen to these responses. They understand that Americans are not an ideological people -- no more than 20 to 30 percent of Americans respond viscerally to this kind of rhetoric. For too many economic conservatives, living in a bubble, the electoral problem of the GOP is social conservatives -- those funny Americans who care about abortion and marriage and God in public schools. Obamaheads, by trying to downplay social issues and highlight economic ones, show they understand that it is the conservative position on things like the minimum wage that, however economically correct, are politically problematic.
These are not your mama's liberals. Sure, the Obama administration may not understand how to stimulate economic growth, conserve the family, protect religious expression or even defend the nation militarily (that remains to be seen), but they understand domestic power and its uses far more than the Reagan revolutionaries ever did.
The first trillion of your
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Democrats would never even have thought of the “stimulus” bill with McCains pen fired up and ready. And as much as I don’t like McCain on so many issues, he would have held the line on social issues and came at the economic crisis with some fiscal responsibility. Social cons went crazy in the last election. It was “my way or the highway”. We got the highway.
Certainly the economic angle is the one to play for 2010. But will we have candidates, and party, who can articulate the ideas for victory the way Newt did in 1994?
Newt and the contract with America was about reform. Thats what we need again. Reform. Never has there been a chance for a party to establish itself as the reform party in the face of Obama’s egregious power grabs and trough filling. People forget that Clinton tried to hit the socialist ground running and nobody believed 2 short years later that Newt would help hand the republicans a massive victory. But it happened.
Do you think a message of reform will be successful? That seemed to be the cornerstone of McCain’s campaign, and look where it got him. It might be...I’m just throwing that out there.
I don’t think Obama even wants to “remake” the United States into a socialist state.
I think he wants to KILL all the white people in America, through economic chaos, freezing, starving, terrorist attack, etc.—and is willing to see a lot of black people die, too, if that’s what it takes.
Just as he is happy to see most black pregnancies end in murder, just as long as white babies are murdered, too.
You failed to notice that Maggie was describing the viewpoint of “economic conservatives, LIVING IN A BUBBLE.” Maggie IS a “social conservative.”
I don’t think Obama even wants to “remake” the United States into a socialist state.
I think he wants to KILL all the white people in America, through economic chaos, freezing, starving, terrorist attack, etc.—and is willing to see a lot of black people die, too, if that’s what it takes.
Just as he is happy to see most black pregnancies end in murder, just as long as white babies are murdered, too.
“Do you think a message of reform will be successful? That seemed to be the cornerstone of McCain’s campaign, and look where it got him. It might be...I’m just throwing that out there”.
Yes, well imho yes reform is always the way to go. Not change but real reform. McCain never was vested in reform. Nobody believed him because he so much likes the power of the federal goverment and how it was run that he felt fat and happy with McCain Feingold and trying to sneak amnesty by us. Nobody trusted him. He likes big government. Reform will have to come with handing power back to the states.
I don't know that you can blame McCain's defeat on the social cons.
McCain simply had too much baggage for many Republicans to support him. CFR, amnesty, global warming, etc., have nothing to do with social conservatism. Indeed, abortion and judges were one thing that McCain was likely to be relatively okay on (though you couldn't be certain).
However, if a number of social cons had chosen to adopt a "my way or the highway" attitude toward McCain, I could fully understand -- after what he did in 2000.
McCain is a vengeful and opportunistic politician who was probably way short in a critical area: presidential temperament. His pissing all over social cons in 2000 when he lost the primaries reveals his inadequacies in this regard.
In short, McCain was absolutely the worst GOP nominee since, perhaps, Thomas E. Dewey. He came as close as he did (10 MM votes) because a lot of people who hated his guts voted for him. For that, he should be grateful...
Better than Obama? To be sure. Better than Bob Dole? I don't think so.
“In short, McCain was absolutely the worst GOP nominee since, perhaps, Thomas E. Dewey”.
No, I’d say Nixon was our worst nominee wouldn’t you? But he kept Humphrey and McGovern out of the big chair, his two only shining achievements. Yes McCain’s defeat can’t be placed squarely at the feet of social cons, he pissed of many factions but dammit we should have all pulled together and kept Obama out of office. Because it comes down to this, any republican is better than any democrat. When the nominee is picked, it is up to the base to get 100% behind him. Obama just proves my point.
Most people are fairly conservative personaly, beyond that they diverge for various reasons, upbring, family tradition etc. The ones calling themselves ‘ ‘liberal’’ usually don’t have common sense enough to know when they’re getting screwed.
My impression is that, Watergate aside, Nixon was actually a reasonably effective President. At least on the foreign affairs front. As he promised, we got out of Viet Nam and gained "peace with honor". He opened the door to China. And he achieved detente with the USSR. Positive steps all. He can't be held responsible for what the Democrt Congress and Jimmeh Cahtuh did to screw it up after he left.
Oh, and not only that, he won! Twice!
[McCain] pissed of many factions but dammit we should have all pulled together and kept Obama out of office. Because it comes down to this, any republican is better than any democrat. When the nominee is picked, it is up to the base to get 100% behind him.
Agreed. That is the way it ought to work. But it's never worked that way...and it never will.
Fact is, if the Republican party and the Republican nominee want the base's support, they've got to do a few minimal things to earn it.
The GOP Congress seemed committed to doing the very opposite of what they'd been sent to Washington to do. Thus, the loss of the majority in '06 and further losses in '08.
Moreover, they can't incessantly kick the base in the teeth -- as McCain seemed particularly fond of doing -- and expect our enthusiastic support.
It's not just their votes that the party needs to be after. It also needs our enthusiastic support. And our money. They did little in the last cycle to warrant either.
I guess what I'm saying is that, not only does the base have a responsibility to support the nominee, the party and the nominee have a responsibility to speak for and act toward that base. Politics works both ways...
Yeah, I can certainly blame the Republicans who stayed home. But I can also blame the party and the nominee who utterly failed to earn their support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.