Dear GOP: Show, Don't Tell

Hey, Jeb, Ted, Rand, Marco, Bobby, Chris and the dozen or more others I'm forgetting, here's something to write on your bathroom mirror in 2015 and beyond: The "P" in POTUS stands for "President," not "Pundit."

I understand that the Seinfeldian faux-holiday Festivus is behind us, but I want to get at least this one grievance in for next year a bit early. Republicans have a tendency to tell, not show. They feel the need to explain why they are saying something, rather than work at simply saying what they need to say convincingly. I call it "reading your stage direction."

The first president Bush was probably the worst sufferer of this political malady. The most famous example was when he was running against Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton was probably the best faker of sincerity in modern American politics. Sticking with the Seinfeld theme, he followed George Costanza's dictum, "It's not a lie if you believe it." Clinton could convince himself that whatever he was saying was the truth, and that helped him sell himself as the Great Empathizer.

Poor President Bush, a deeply humane man, surely cared as much as Clinton about the plight of the voters, but he came from more buttoned-up (and zipped up) patrician stock. And so sometimes he had to tell voters what Clinton could show with a bit lip and teary eye. So in Exeter, New Hampshire, Bush literally read his stage direction off a cue card, like Ron Burgundy in "Anchorman," proclaiming "Message: I care." I always wondered if, afterwards, some aide had to tell him, "Sir, you were supposed to convey that message, not literally read it out loud."

My favorite example came a year earlier, when former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke won a Louisiana primary. Bush came out and issued a statement in which he said "We have -- I want to be positioned in that I could not possibly support David Duke because of the racism and because of the very recent statements that are very troubling in terms of bigotry and all of this."

Rather than express his no doubt sincere disgust for David Duke, he talked about how he wanted to be "positioned."

Bob Dole told an audience "If that's what you want, I'll be another Ronald Reagan." His campaign strategy in 1996 was to "act presidential."

The low point of Mitt Romney's campaign was when he put on his analyst's hat and told an audience that 47 percent of the voters were simply a write-off because they were, in effect, moochers.

And it's not just the candidates. The GOP is infested with anonymous flacks and hacks who get a buzz from talking strategy with the New York Times. They admit they might have to "play the race card" or "go negative." I don't even know what the race card means any more, but if you're going to play it, play it. I've never met a poker player who said, "I'm going for an inside straight." And if you're going to go negative, by all means go negative. Don't telegraph to all the world, "This is just a cynical gambit we don't really believe." Outrage is so much more believable if you don't wink to the audience in advance. Don't worry, plenty of voters, never mind pundits, will catch your phony outrage without the advanced warning.

The same goes for optimism. If you want to be the next Ronald Reagan, be the next Ronald Reagan. Don't tell people, "Starring in the role of Ronald Reagan tonight will be..." Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich or whoever's turn it is at the podium.

I've heard nearly every 2016 wannabe tell conservative audiences about the importance of optimism. Jeb Bush is particularly high on it these days. He says the nominee must be "joyful." I agree. But stop telling me about the need for joyfulness and start showing me some frickin' joy!

One of the main reasons Republicans read their stage direction, I think, is that they see politics as a game. And, as a game, they don't take it as seriously as those who see politics as an obsession or even a religion.

This speaks well of them as human beings because it suggests that, unlike a lot of liberal Democrats, they don't think politics -- and by extension government -- is everything and all-important. That's a trait I want in a president. But it's a real problem in a presidential candidate.

Here's what I wrote to Jeb:

Jeb, your dad won the first time because of Reagan and lost the second time because of himself, even though he was running against a venal Southern Democrat horndog sink-wanker.

Then Bob "It's my turn" Dole, in spite of all the corruption and insanity of Clinton's first term, could not pull in enough votes to overcome the venal Southern Democrat horndog lip-biting, cigar-moistening, Waco-burning sink-wanker.

Your brother, though a nice guy according to those who know him, barely scraped by against two of the most buffoonish, lying, poorly-educated dolts ever to run for the presidency up to that point and then profligately laid the Hoover-like groundwork for the unbelievable excesses of the next president.

McCain, the Maverick against everything but folks like Ted Kennedy (an example of the Stockholm Syndrome which he displaced in time and space to his political captors) lost to a grinning, The Gods Must Be Crazy, red-diaper baby, Marxist, newbie about whom Tom Brokaw said five days before the election that nothing was really known about him.

Gee, Tom, it's true that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see, because there were a lot of us who knew a great deal about him in spite of his efforts to cover things up.

And then, after most of the rest of the country finally caught on about Obama, loser Romney, son of loser Romney, and architect of the prototype of Obamacare, sycophant in the most alarming John McCain way to Ted Kennedy and other Democrats, lost to the first guy in U.S. presidential history to get millions fewer votes in his reelection because even his supporters finally saw the petulant, pissy, condescending, lost without a TelePrompTer, promise anything to get elected, race-baiting grandiosity on a stick either for what he actually was or because he had not yet made the extreme leftward thrust into the heart of world capitalism his thoroughly Marxist pedigree from birth to adult seemed to have promised them.

All of these Republicans lost or just barely (and embarrassingly) won by the skimpiest of margins, not because they were running against strong and principled candidates but because they, the Republican nominees, were the antithesis of what won the massive, unprecedented Republican gains at all levels of government in 2010 and 2014.

And yet you want private lessons from the losers about how to fight against those responsible for 2010 and 2014 (and also the presidential electoral blowouts of 1980 and 1984, the candidate of which was bitterly opposed by your dad and Romney's dad in 1976 and by your dad leading up to 1980)!

Dude, you have GOT to be the bottom of the Bush barrel. Why don't you become Crist-like and run as the Democrat loser you appear to want to be?

“Liberal AWAYS do the wrong thing but RINOs do it against their own voters.”

This is where I think we conservatives make our error. Most republican voters are in synch with the politicians we call RINOs. They are following their constituents, not ignoring them.

Their constituents aren’t conservatives because conservatives are a minority in the Republican party and have nowhere else to go except home. And the politicians will take that chance before they go against the majority of the party faithful.

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.