The next time someone says to you “but the Republicans have no health insurance plans”…
…refer them to this.
It’s quite a list, isn’t it? But the meme goes on, because Big Lies work.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
…refer them to this.
It’s quite a list, isn’t it? But the meme goes on, because Big Lies work.
A bigger list than I had thought, although I knew there have been a few.
But the Republicans have only themselves to blame. As with everything else, they’re brain dead about how to market their ideas. Democrats market their ideas and plans. Republicans introduce bills, then go back to their offices.
Until they figure out that Americans are conditioned to respond to advertising and marketing campaigns for nearly all information, they will never succeed. They need to invest in professional advertising help on a massive scale to define their image and to sell ideas, and not rely on traditional means to get information across – like the nightly news.
Every time a Republican steps up to a microphone, he should have a handful of slogans and phrases that have been crafted by professional marketers to promote their image and the idea they’re trying to get across, and it should be consistent for all of them.
But I’m not holding my breath anything will change.
“But the meme goes on, because Big Lies work.”
The reason this and other memes “go on” is because we have no one able to articulate a cogent defense, who also has the limelight.
If you don’t have the presidency, there are only two other figures in Washington D.C. capable of attracting MSM attention when they call for it: the Speaker of the House, and the Senate Majority Leader.
The Minority leaders in each case attract attention too sporadically to be effective (though the Senate is not as bad in that regard).
Because of this, John Boehner is effectively the face of the Republican party.
The man is a walking caricature. Fake orange-tanned, weepy, and rather marble-mouthed. A Speaker that cannot speak. THAT is why these memes persist.
And yes, I know that the MSM will always try to minimize his message. But that makes each of his appearances all the more vital. Each punch must count.
Now maybe John Boehner is a fine, moral person…a real salt-of-the-earth type (though I doubt it). THAT IS IMMATERIAL. Leadership has certain requirements, and if you don’t have the qualifications to be an effective leader, you shouldn’t be in a position of leadership.
If we had someone like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul in Boehner’s spot, I suspect the whole environment would be quite different.
Pursuant to my point above, if we want to replace Boehner as Speaker we need to learn from what happened two years ago:
History:
There was a bit of a kerfuffle, as Boehner was challenged for Speaker. But the effort was rather ad-hoc and not planned out in advance. Several candidates timidly stepped forward at the last moment, including Eric Cantor (Boehner’s lieutenant)!
In classic fashion, the vote was split and nobody else came even close to Boehner.
A funny thing about that: not a word of reproach was heard about Cantor’s “betrayal.” He went right back to his previous position. This, of course, suggests that his “candidacy” was a ploy by Boehner to divide the opposition.
So, some lessons:
1) Boehner is Cantor and vice-versa. Not only is there no functional difference, but they collude to keep each other in power. Reminds me of McCain and Graham.
Oh, and you might as well add the third-place RINO McCarthy to that list.
2) Conservatives need to caucus well in advance of the vote, and decide amongst themselves who their candidate will be. This would minimize splitting their vote for the Speakership.
3) If egos get in the way, look for outside endorsements to settle the issue. The replace-Boehner caucus must not be split. Endorsements from Heritage or others would go a long way to dissuading rogue candidates that they had a realistic chance.
Notes:
Personally, I think the tactics employed by Boehner are more evidence of why he shouldn’t be Speaker. I know Mark Levin said that he arose to his current office through whispering campaigns, backstabbing and back-room deals. That is a record of ambition decoupled from morality.
Some will say that “politics is a dirty business.” While true, this is a matter of degrees. This is not a fight between Democrats and Republicans. It isn’t even a fight for a candidate’s seat in Congress. It is an intra-party discussion about what direction we choose to take, and who is best to take us there.
Underhanded tactics should have NO PLACE in such a debate. The willingness to use them should be viewed as evidence of malign intent.
How come the Democrats who had no plan for Iraq or Afghanistan, get to tell us we have no plan for saving humans in America?
Another example of Bill Whittle’s “Bamboo Spears” metaphor?
Matt_SE,
I don’t get your feeling that Rand Paul would be a good speaker. He seems to like the limelight a bit too much for my taste, and I don’t trust him at all on foreign policy.
It is apalling that the Reublican ideas never got any coverage and that Bush was totally ignored. But it doesn’t surprise me. Bush was labelled an idiot before he even took office, and the labellers did all they could to make their label stick.
Chronic beats BIG any time.
Hence, there is no let up.
A friend said this about the Republican healthcare reforms: “What they need to do is distill the top 5 or so bullet points, make an ‘elevator pitch’ out of them, and then have everybody pound that whenever they have a media interview, no matter how short.”
That approach was what Obama did with his, “If you like your policy/doctor/hospital, you can keep them. Period!” It worked pretty well for him.
Makes far too much sense. The Rs are too splintered and unorganized to ever do it.
The Left has always used divide and conquer to split up their enemies.
expat,
I used Rand Paul as an example of someone who can speak effectively, as opposed to Boehner.
I don’t necessarily want him for Speaker of the House.
Ymarsakar,
We are doing this to ourselves. The left has little to do with it. We need to ditch the current leadership.
You reply, “The Republicans are the party of the rich, and can afford their own health care and so are in no need of Exchange plans.”
You reply, “Not having absurd, dangerous, and idiotic ‘plans,’ is a goal, not a deficit.”
expat- In order to get the message across, you need a person who enjoys the limelight, who’s comfortable in it, who’s articulate when interviewed, and to a large, has something controversial to say . The media are drawn to controversy. the remaining ingredient is that individual has to be able to walk a fine line between sounding like a jerk, and getting independent minds that are still reachable, to consider a different position.
Rand Paul is one individual who seems to have those qualities. He would make a good majority or minority leader in the senate for starters.
As Matt_se points out, Boner has generally the opposite set of skills – he’s inarticulate, boring, and avoids any controversy unless he’s forced into it. He likes being in charge, but he’s got no vision for his party other than to keep himself and a few of his buddies in office. Every one of his democrat opponents know these things, and make him look like a perfect ass every time there’s a controversial vote.
Rand Paul might not be the guy for president, but people like him need to be promoted by the a republicans to get their message out – you first have to get the media’s attention.
Remember Newt Gingrich’s example – he got their attention repeatedly, but lacked the grace that was needed to keep from becoming labeled the grinch. But he DID overcome a lot of entrenched Democrats in the House, as well as media bias, and he did it by drawing attention to himself with bold statements and action.
Matt_SE,
To take a different look at it, are you under the impression that the Catholic priest rapes of children and teens were also an internal problem of the Catholic Church?