When it comes to public manipulation, Republicans have shown they have no equal.
How else can you explain their continued representation that they are the party of fiscal responsibility while those damned Democrats are miserable tax and spenders? But let's take a closer look.
It was Reagan who successfully molded this idea in the public's consciousness. And Uncle Ronnie proceeded to act on his mandate by pushing through tax cuts and, at the same time, increasing military spending. Although some often think of economics as a hopelessly complex affair, some of it is pretty simple: tax cuts = less money coming in; higher spending = more money going out. Add the two together at the same time and you get what, boys and girls? Deficits.
By the time Reagan was done reshaping our national economy he had tripled our national debt. Those who can recall the 1988 presidential election will remember that the deficit was practically THE issue. And, despite the fact that it was run up under a Republican administration, George Bush I was elected.
After Clinton was elected we actually had some surpluses and the Congressional Budget Office actually predicted record surpluses well into the future.
Enter George Bush II. Since 2000 the national debt has nearly doubled again, from $5 trillion to $9.4 trillion. One might ask how this was accomplished? Borrowing a page out of Uncle Ronnie's book, Bush pushed his tax cuts through the Republican-controlled Congress and increased spending with his war mentality.
Let's talk about those wars for a second. No American will quibble with Afghanistan. The perpertrators of 9/11 were hiding there and the Taliban government was giving them sanction. But the Iraq War is something else. Tune in to Channel 36 Thursday for Frontline's excellent dissection of "Bush's War." It's an eye opener, even if you already oppose the war.
So let's review. Republicans reduce taxes, increase spending, run up deficits and still have the audacity to claim the mantle of economic super heroes.
And you can bet your sweet bippy that McCain will be trotting out that tired dogma this fall, regardless of which Democrat runs against him.
And, you know what? The idea instilled by Reagan and conservative talk show hosts is so ingrained, Americans might just fall for it again.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Say goodnight, Jeff
Those who have read my weekly column in The Daily News will know I frequently have my issues with Gov. Carcieri. For the entire five-plus years of the Carcieri administration I have had frequent "discussions" with his spokesman Jeff Neal. We had a running debate for three years on the time-share legislation alone.
But I can tell you there was never a time that Jeff took our differences personally. He understood my job was to play devil's advocate to get the governor's position on issues I reported on. And I understood his job was to present the governor's position, and do it in the best possible light.
Since 1990 I have dealt with a series of gubernatorial press spokesmen and women. Some were tightly wound control freaks. Some acted like you were their best friend while giving you next to nothing. But I can honestly say I never have had a better working relationship with any of them than I have had with Jeff Neal.
Frequently he has to act as the administration's mouthpiece in its ongoing battle with the Democratically-controlled General Assembly. But that's what he was getting paid to do.
I can tell you I always felt like Jeff respected my job while, at the same time, realizing he was getting paid to do his own job. And I can respect that.
Last week Carcieri sent out a news release announcing Neal's imminent departure from state service. I'm going to miss our "discussions," while hoping against hope that it isn't creating a a new postion for Steve Kass, who was inexplicably moved recently from his $125,000 post as Neal's boss to public relations guru for the RI Emergency Management Agency. I say "inexplicably" not because it's hard to understand that he was moved OUT - because nobody could figure out exactly what he was doing - but that because as spokesman he will be earning much more than the RIEMA director himself.
The new PR person will have big shoes to fill.
But I can tell you there was never a time that Jeff took our differences personally. He understood my job was to play devil's advocate to get the governor's position on issues I reported on. And I understood his job was to present the governor's position, and do it in the best possible light.
Since 1990 I have dealt with a series of gubernatorial press spokesmen and women. Some were tightly wound control freaks. Some acted like you were their best friend while giving you next to nothing. But I can honestly say I never have had a better working relationship with any of them than I have had with Jeff Neal.
Frequently he has to act as the administration's mouthpiece in its ongoing battle with the Democratically-controlled General Assembly. But that's what he was getting paid to do.
I can tell you I always felt like Jeff respected my job while, at the same time, realizing he was getting paid to do his own job. And I can respect that.
Last week Carcieri sent out a news release announcing Neal's imminent departure from state service. I'm going to miss our "discussions," while hoping against hope that it isn't creating a a new postion for Steve Kass, who was inexplicably moved recently from his $125,000 post as Neal's boss to public relations guru for the RI Emergency Management Agency. I say "inexplicably" not because it's hard to understand that he was moved OUT - because nobody could figure out exactly what he was doing - but that because as spokesman he will be earning much more than the RIEMA director himself.
The new PR person will have big shoes to fill.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Just win, baby
Whatever you think about Republicans, at least on the national stage, in general you have to give them one thing: they know HOW to win. The Boston Globe reports today ( //www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/)that Republicans, spurred on by Rushbo and his brethren, have taken to voting in Democratic primaries and caucuses in large numbers for Hillary Clinton with the belief that prolonging the Democratic race only helps them in November. Some also apparently believe that Clinton would be easier to beat in November than Barrack Obama.
Regardless of what you think about that strategy, it shows incredible smarts.
Just four months ago it would have been hard to imagine a way Democrats could find a way to lose themselves this election. Iraq, though quieter, is still largely unpopular. The economy is going down the tubes faster than Eliot Spitzer - well, maybe not THAT fast, but every day seems to bring more unsettling news. The business page of newspapers is beginning to look like the obituary page.
So how can Republicans sell themselves this year? They could say sometehing like: "Hey, we got us into this quagmire. Only we know the road out." Don't think that'd sell well, though.
No, the way they return to the White House this year (and pack the Supreme Court so it'll be Republican-dominated for the next 30 years) is to have the Democrats implode. Although they don't often need help, Republicans seem more than happy to play their part.
Regardless of what you think about that strategy, it shows incredible smarts.
Just four months ago it would have been hard to imagine a way Democrats could find a way to lose themselves this election. Iraq, though quieter, is still largely unpopular. The economy is going down the tubes faster than Eliot Spitzer - well, maybe not THAT fast, but every day seems to bring more unsettling news. The business page of newspapers is beginning to look like the obituary page.
So how can Republicans sell themselves this year? They could say sometehing like: "Hey, we got us into this quagmire. Only we know the road out." Don't think that'd sell well, though.
No, the way they return to the White House this year (and pack the Supreme Court so it'll be Republican-dominated for the next 30 years) is to have the Democrats implode. Although they don't often need help, Republicans seem more than happy to play their part.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Pointing the fickle finger...
It was a moment that would have made folks like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter very proud.
At Monday night's forum on public access at CCRI in Warwick, a man in the audience became indignant when the panel would not address a question on illegal immigration in great detail. When moderator and Daily News executive editor Sheila Mullowney called on the legislative panel to give closing remarks it sent this man over the deep end.
He rose, yelling out his displeasure, saying the panel was more willing to talk about handicapped parking than illegal immigration. (The handicapped parking came up in discussion about making the legislative process more open - which obviously fit more in with the public access theme of the event than illegal immigration.)
The man walked up to the table of legislators (two from each party), shook hands with House Minority Leader Robert A. Watson and put his finger in the face of Senate Majority Leader Teresa Paiva Weed. "And you ..." he yelled at her. The rest was lost. Even Weed and Mullowney, who was sitting next to Weed, couldn't recall what he said.
The man then repeated his disgust, got into a shouting match with another spectator, who told him he was out of line, and finally left the room.
It was a perfect display of what people like Rushbo, O'Reilly and Coulter have spawned. It is now perfectly acceptable to act like a complete buffoon, disrupt an informational forum and publicly castigate lawmakers if they happen to have the temerity to disagree with your point of view or, in this case, not address it.
The first thing that needs to be said is that this man did nothing to help convince anyone 0f the legitimacy of his cause. Bomb throwers very rarely win people over to their way of thinking. The second is that when anyone goes off like this guy did they really weaken the credibility of anything else they may say in the future.
And this isn't limited to the right wing, although they perfected it first. Those on the left also like to attack the messenger personally if they disagree with the message.
I only hope that this is a swing of the pendulum and, eventually, people will tire of the histrionics and demand a debate on ideas and not personalities.
At Monday night's forum on public access at CCRI in Warwick, a man in the audience became indignant when the panel would not address a question on illegal immigration in great detail. When moderator and Daily News executive editor Sheila Mullowney called on the legislative panel to give closing remarks it sent this man over the deep end.
He rose, yelling out his displeasure, saying the panel was more willing to talk about handicapped parking than illegal immigration. (The handicapped parking came up in discussion about making the legislative process more open - which obviously fit more in with the public access theme of the event than illegal immigration.)
The man walked up to the table of legislators (two from each party), shook hands with House Minority Leader Robert A. Watson and put his finger in the face of Senate Majority Leader Teresa Paiva Weed. "And you ..." he yelled at her. The rest was lost. Even Weed and Mullowney, who was sitting next to Weed, couldn't recall what he said.
The man then repeated his disgust, got into a shouting match with another spectator, who told him he was out of line, and finally left the room.
It was a perfect display of what people like Rushbo, O'Reilly and Coulter have spawned. It is now perfectly acceptable to act like a complete buffoon, disrupt an informational forum and publicly castigate lawmakers if they happen to have the temerity to disagree with your point of view or, in this case, not address it.
The first thing that needs to be said is that this man did nothing to help convince anyone 0f the legitimacy of his cause. Bomb throwers very rarely win people over to their way of thinking. The second is that when anyone goes off like this guy did they really weaken the credibility of anything else they may say in the future.
And this isn't limited to the right wing, although they perfected it first. Those on the left also like to attack the messenger personally if they disagree with the message.
I only hope that this is a swing of the pendulum and, eventually, people will tire of the histrionics and demand a debate on ideas and not personalities.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Smart is as smart does
Republicans at the Statehouse often like to portray themselves as the party of principle and majority party Democrats as the tools of special interests. But the GOP can be every bit as disingenuous as Democrats. It is a political trait rather than a partisan one.
Case in point: last week Republicans tried to have it both ways during a hearing on a package of election-related bills. Follow along.
Rep. Susan Story, R-Barrington, testified on her bill to ban straight party levers. Her point was that people are too easily confused by the levers. They don't understand their options. For instance, that they can vote for a candidate in another party even if they pull the straight party lever. Although she would never say the words out loud, what she meant was that people are not smart enough to understand their options.
A few bills down the agenda there was the Voter Iniative bill, which would allow citizens to circulate a petition to put an issue on the ballot without General Assembly approval. One criticism of the idea is that special interests would be able to come in, spread around their money and unfairly influence the vote. Now Republicans, who have been the primary sponsors of the bill, took a different view of voters. Now, because it supported their position, voters were too smart to be swayed by special interests.
Can't have it both ways. If voters are not smart enough to understand how to cast their vote how can they be too smart to resist the pull of special interests in a referendum campaign.
I think voters are smart enough to both resist special interests propaganda (the casino question is a perfect example) and understand how to vote. There are legitimate arguments to buttress the case for either of those two ideas. Trying to portray the relative smarts of voters - some are, some aren't - is not.
Case in point: last week Republicans tried to have it both ways during a hearing on a package of election-related bills. Follow along.
Rep. Susan Story, R-Barrington, testified on her bill to ban straight party levers. Her point was that people are too easily confused by the levers. They don't understand their options. For instance, that they can vote for a candidate in another party even if they pull the straight party lever. Although she would never say the words out loud, what she meant was that people are not smart enough to understand their options.
A few bills down the agenda there was the Voter Iniative bill, which would allow citizens to circulate a petition to put an issue on the ballot without General Assembly approval. One criticism of the idea is that special interests would be able to come in, spread around their money and unfairly influence the vote. Now Republicans, who have been the primary sponsors of the bill, took a different view of voters. Now, because it supported their position, voters were too smart to be swayed by special interests.
Can't have it both ways. If voters are not smart enough to understand how to cast their vote how can they be too smart to resist the pull of special interests in a referendum campaign.
I think voters are smart enough to both resist special interests propaganda (the casino question is a perfect example) and understand how to vote. There are legitimate arguments to buttress the case for either of those two ideas. Trying to portray the relative smarts of voters - some are, some aren't - is not.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Party unity? What party unity?
Just got done watching Sens. Obama and Clinton interviews on CNN the morning after Clinton wins in Ohio and Texas blunt Obama's momentum. The difference in tone of the two interviews speaks volumes about the two campaigns.
Obama gave props to Clinton several times during the interview, saying she ran a good race, congratulating her on her wins, but, naturally, spun the results to put himself in the best light. The delegate count remained pretty much the same, he pointed out, and he had fought back from a pretty steep hole to make the races a lot closer than they were several weeks ago.
Obviously happy with the results Clinton portrayed her night as the first step towards overtaking Obama. But what should be unsettling for Democrats is that Clinton obviously believes that she has to go negative to overtake Obama.
She not only touted herself as being the superior candidate - what else would she say? - but at least twice touted Republican nominee John McCain as being a superior candidate to Obama. Not exactly putting party above self there.
So what does Clinton do if Obama should go on to win the nomination? Does she send signals to her supporters that they should desert the party and support McCain? You can be assured that McCain's camp will use Clinton's own words against Obama.
Even those who feel Obama does not have the credentials Clinton does have to admit that his message has attracted a slew of new voters to the party. And those not-yet-cynical voters may not take kindly to Clinton's tactics and decide sit the November election out if she becomes the nominee. That would not only hurt Democrats this year, but blunt the inroads Obama was able to make in building a new, younger Democratic base.
Yesterday I wrote that Democrats should not fear a prolonged primary with a caveat - as long as it remained civil. Clinton signaled this morning that she's out to win at all costs. And that cost may be steep for Democrats who hunger to put one of their own in the White House
Obama gave props to Clinton several times during the interview, saying she ran a good race, congratulating her on her wins, but, naturally, spun the results to put himself in the best light. The delegate count remained pretty much the same, he pointed out, and he had fought back from a pretty steep hole to make the races a lot closer than they were several weeks ago.
Obviously happy with the results Clinton portrayed her night as the first step towards overtaking Obama. But what should be unsettling for Democrats is that Clinton obviously believes that she has to go negative to overtake Obama.
She not only touted herself as being the superior candidate - what else would she say? - but at least twice touted Republican nominee John McCain as being a superior candidate to Obama. Not exactly putting party above self there.
So what does Clinton do if Obama should go on to win the nomination? Does she send signals to her supporters that they should desert the party and support McCain? You can be assured that McCain's camp will use Clinton's own words against Obama.
Even those who feel Obama does not have the credentials Clinton does have to admit that his message has attracted a slew of new voters to the party. And those not-yet-cynical voters may not take kindly to Clinton's tactics and decide sit the November election out if she becomes the nominee. That would not only hurt Democrats this year, but blunt the inroads Obama was able to make in building a new, younger Democratic base.
Yesterday I wrote that Democrats should not fear a prolonged primary with a caveat - as long as it remained civil. Clinton signaled this morning that she's out to win at all costs. And that cost may be steep for Democrats who hunger to put one of their own in the White House
Monday, March 3, 2008
Don't worry, be happy
It’s crunch time in the Democratic presidential nomination race. And the two campaigns are putting pedal to the metal in their efforts to generate any kind of news that might influence the outcome here in Little Rhody. Over the weekend I got eight emails from the Clinton campaign and four from the Obama campaign.
So what’s going to happen? A month ago you would have had to look pretty hard to find anyone that believed Obama had a legitimate chance to beat Clinton here. But doubts are creeping in. Obama continues to draw in much larger crowds than Clinton. He continues to outspend her on the airwaves. All the movement in this race is going his way. If there was another week before the primary I think he could actually sweep the four primaries scheduled for Tuesday. (For those not paying attention that would be Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island.)
My gut tells me that his momentum is not enough to overcome Clinton's huge initial lead in our fair state, but it shouldn't be a blowout.
There's no way of gauging the political temperature in the other states, but reading news stories leads me to believe Obama has a better than even chance of taking Texas, but will fall just short in Ohio. Vermont is anybody's guess.
If that plays out, Clinton will have stopped Obama's 11 state winning streak, but not very convincingly. Although she will try to spin an Ohio victory as another New Hampshire comeback, the truth is that she will need something a bit more convincing to turn around the Obama momentum.
And Democrats who fret about Republicans having an advantage because McCain has the nomination sewed up really have nothing to worry about. As long as the Democratic nomination goes on - and remains civil - the party is inundated with positive publicity. McCain will have to scrap to get any attention as long as Clinton and Obama are center stage. Once the Democratic nomination is settled, the national race will probably go into hibernation until the conventions, so enjoy all the attention now.
So what’s going to happen? A month ago you would have had to look pretty hard to find anyone that believed Obama had a legitimate chance to beat Clinton here. But doubts are creeping in. Obama continues to draw in much larger crowds than Clinton. He continues to outspend her on the airwaves. All the movement in this race is going his way. If there was another week before the primary I think he could actually sweep the four primaries scheduled for Tuesday. (For those not paying attention that would be Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island.)
My gut tells me that his momentum is not enough to overcome Clinton's huge initial lead in our fair state, but it shouldn't be a blowout.
There's no way of gauging the political temperature in the other states, but reading news stories leads me to believe Obama has a better than even chance of taking Texas, but will fall just short in Ohio. Vermont is anybody's guess.
If that plays out, Clinton will have stopped Obama's 11 state winning streak, but not very convincingly. Although she will try to spin an Ohio victory as another New Hampshire comeback, the truth is that she will need something a bit more convincing to turn around the Obama momentum.
And Democrats who fret about Republicans having an advantage because McCain has the nomination sewed up really have nothing to worry about. As long as the Democratic nomination goes on - and remains civil - the party is inundated with positive publicity. McCain will have to scrap to get any attention as long as Clinton and Obama are center stage. Once the Democratic nomination is settled, the national race will probably go into hibernation until the conventions, so enjoy all the attention now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
