[besson3c]

Is anybody here a fan of Michael Steele and his strategies to revitalize the Republican party? I just read this little article, and was pretty flabbergasted. Is he helping, or doing more harm than good?

[subego]

He could revitalize Republicans' duds.

Him and Tony Blankley.

[Dork.]

He has at least one fan...

[besson3c]

My opinion....

The Republican party needs some intellectual heavyweights in its ring that are able to make compelling arguments for its own ideas in an articulate fashion. It has to start downplaying some of the old school social conservative garbage that simply invokes emotions and knee jerk reactions - these issues are not the issues of the day right now and shouldn't try to monopolize the discussion. It has to rely on more than just tearing down the Democrats, riling up its base, and getting knees to jerk. It has to come across as being reasonable. It also needs a charismatic leader and face for all of this.

This last election turned out many new voters. Obama won, in part, because he came across as cool, collected, reasonable, practical, and fairly moderate. He was able to articulate his ideas well and of course gave people hope.

I'm not saying that the Republicans don't have compelling ideas or intellectuals in their ranks, I think they just need to start combining everything into one neat package.

[besson3c]

Heh... Sarah Palin.

When I listen to people like her and her Republican counterparts talk these days, it honestly seems to me like they would ultimately like to destroy government, that they want to drown that baby in the bathtub.

It's always struck me as funny that their message is "don't trust government with control, we suck at it... Vote for me!" I understanding wanting to *push* the government in the direction they are describing, but we need a healthy government. Maybe they need to strike a better balance between the Democrats and run the government into the ground until it destroys itself?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My opinion....

The Republican party needs some intellectual heavyweights in its ring that are able to make compelling arguments for its own ideas in an articulate fashion.

William F. Buckley is dead, and so is his movement. What we have left is a bunch of folks who are actively hostile to Intellectualism (since Universities are where Liberals hang out), and are just barely literate enough to read the Cliffs Notes to "Atlas Shrugged".

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

it honestly seems to me like they would ultimately like to destroy government, that they want to drown that baby in the bathtub.

I see what you did there. Mr. Norquist....

Grover Norquist: 'Field Marshal' of the Bush Plan

[besson3c]

Nice work, Dork.! I honestly couldn't remember who crafted the drowning the baby in the bathtub quote originally though

[besson3c]

No strong opinions for Michael Steele I guess?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

William F. Buckley is dead, and so is his movement. What we have left is a bunch of folks who are actively hostile to Intellectualism (since Universities are where Liberals hang out), and are just barely literate enough to read the Cliffs Notes to "Atlas Shrugged".

The interesting thing is that they preach that they're the savior of the common man, while their aim is really to take more from the common man, so a few old rich white guys can get richer. Of course, the more they preach to the dumb, the more people fall for their hooey, and thus convince themselves that these guys are really looking out for them.

[ebuddy]

I am glad to hear Steele speak against the erroneous ways of this Administration. There was nothing kneejerk about it. There was nothing hostile about it. There was nothing shameful about it or anything to be flabbergasted by. It was a calm, sober, honest, well-delivered message to a party concerned about its leadership, its recent past, its image, its ideals, and most importantly the direction of the country.

This was a chairman's meeting and not generally the venue for riley speeches. While in fact the tone lacked the type of zeal representative of the degree of passion he's requesting of his party, the tone was one from which the Republican party should build. Seizing opportunities. It is not enough to let the Democrat party implode upon its own failures and upon one another as the media is deadly silent. It is not enough to see the daily, rampant corruption that enshrouds this Administration, the manifestation of failed ideology from centuries past; a massive give-away to cigar chomping bureaucrats acting as sole arbiter of all that is good for them, bad for the country. There is a good and a bad, a right and a wrong. The current direction of the country is wrong. This cult of personality and his cronies under the mesmerizing guise of "change" are usurping the collective resources of a citizenry and using it to compete against us. There are precious few questioning our direction and even less paying attention. There is a party tasked with paying attention. There is a party of no, of no thanks, and of no you won't. That's the Republican party and that's Michael Steele. As many terrorists as are being created and driven into Pakistan by this Administration's folly are Republicans being created by Obama's inept domestic policy.

We need at least fifty men of Steele in every city. With Obama's help and Steele's guidance, we'll get them. Trust me.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The interesting thing is that they preach that they're the savior of the common man, while their aim is really to take more from the common man, so a few old rich white guys can get richer. Of course, the more they preach to the dumb, the more people fall for their hooey, and thus convince themselves that these guys are really looking out for them.

Wait, which party are we talking about?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This was a chairman's meeting and not generally the venue for riley speeches.

Are we reading the same article? This was on a radio show.

[Big Mac]

The Republican Party needs to start grooming a Reagan for the 21st Century who will pick the country up after Obama's inevitable, Carteresque failure.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

since Universities are where Liberals hang out

Patently false.

Conservative University Founded by Jerry Falwell Bans College Democrats Club.

[Kerrigan]

We just need someone who can forcefully articulate economic ideas, first and foremost.

[ironknee]

[besson3c]

Hehehe... I love that comparison between Steele and that pissed off muppet that Grover always messes around with. It doesn't make much sense, but it's as funny as hell! Did Jon Stewart start that or just carry the torch?

[Big Mac]

And you say Republicans lack intellectuals?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by subego 

Patently false.

Conservative University Founded by Jerry Falwell Bans College Democrats Club.

That's the place that Jerry Falwell founded because Universities were filled with Liberals, and he wanted to start his own University without Godless Liberal concepts like dancing and tenured professors. I think it's existence reinforces my point nicely.

[subego]

j/k

[Dork.]

I know. But I can't let an opportunity to write "Godless Liberal concepts like dancing" pass.

[Kerrigan]

If I had a dollar for every time I had to learn about why all the world's problems were the result of white males, I could have cut my tuition in half.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are we reading the same article? This was on a radio show.

My bad, I was referring to the "aggressive new approach" which I thought was the theme for his address at the GOP leadership mentioned at the end of the article; the Chairman's meeting.

Regarding the vetting process over Obama, I'm in agreement. He was not vetted well enough. He's tried to stand his own ground, but ends up on Bush's time and again.

[besson3c]

So, how about this Michael Steele guy? Should the Republican party just turn up their volume and their aggressiveness? Should they listen to Limbaugh/Rove or Powell/Meghan McCain in identifying its base? Do they attack individuals or ideas?

[besson3c]

One thing I find amusing is when Republicans go on about how this current administration is the furthest left we've ever been and the furthest thing from being moderate that we have ever seen, yet want to take their own party further to the right away from where the most votes are (moderates!!)

[Laminar]

When you're that far left, even the middle seems to be the extreme right.

[besson3c]

Yes, and vice versa.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

One thing I find amusing is when Republicans go on about how this current administration is the furthest left we've ever been and the furthest thing from being moderate that we have ever seen, yet want to take their own party further to the right away from where the most votes are (moderates!!)

What I find amusing is that when the Dems do finally get into office, they immediately move too far to the left, away from where the votes are (moderates!!). They'll lose the seats they just got in the next election.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, how about this Michael Steele guy? Should the Republican party just turn up their volume and their aggressiveness? Should they listen to Limbaugh/Rove or Powell/Meghan McCain in identifying its base? Do they attack individuals or ideas?

They don't have to attack individuals or ideas, they need only to unashamedly communicate their own and live the principles while in office. By the time 2010 rolls around, this Administration will have created more Republicans than the Republicans could ever hope for. The Republicans are no more in need of identifying their base than the Democrats. Is it the Pelosi/Reid base or the Shuler/Nelson base?

Colin Powell campaigned against a moderate Republican. It would be unwise to have a Democrat define the base of the Republican Party. Meghan McCain? Who's that?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The Republican party needs some intellectual heavyweights in its ring that are able to make compelling arguments for its own ideas in an articulate fashion.

I disagree. I think that they already have the compelling arguments and do a pretty good job explaining them. They are closer to the political center than those currently in office. That's why Obama is personally popular, but the policies he wants to implement aren't very popular at all.. Republicans have been hurt over the past couple of elections by corrupt members and the all-out assault Democrats put on George Bush due to the war, and typically every few years it's seemed that the electorate wants new blood since the people that where there before aren't doing a good enough job.

It wasn't that many years ago that the Democrats were completely out of power and they were that way for years. No one really suggested that they needed to move to the "center" and abandon their demands for things like extremist positions on abortion or to have "more compelling" arguments. The claim was always that they had to fight against the imaginary "republican attack machine" and explain why Republicans where so "extreme".

Fast forward a couple of years and the Democrats have taken advantage of lots of Republican scandals, elected just enough faux conservatives in Republican districts hampered by dishonest politicians (which is hurting Obama's ability to go as far left as he wants, because those guys want to get elected again), and they've put forth a very charismatic liar who pretended to be moderate and just like his opponent in most every way.

That's good enough for one or two elections, but what's important is what happens once that strategy works, and Obama and Pelosi seem to be the ones needing advice on how to KEEP control, since it appears that they are the ones in damage control mode now, just as ebuddy said. The Republicans just need to sit back and sweep up the mess next year.

The Republicans win biggest when they display those "old fashioned" conservative values. When they try to be more like Democrats or don't adhere to those values, they lose big. The Republicans had their most moderate candidate in decades run for President and lost. It came down to a debate about personality, not issues, and Obama had the winning personality.

If they wished to do what Democrats did in order to win, I'd say they need more demonizing, hope for Democrat scandals, and lie about what they really want to do. Though, I think the last part wouldn't work because the majority of Americans would be fine with most all the average Republican would like to do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What I find amusing is that when the Dems do finally get into office, they immediately move too far to the left, away from where the votes are (moderates!!). They'll lose the seats they just got in the next election.

*Sigh* you're just deflecting what I wrote ebuddy because you feel like it put you on the defensive. That politicians appeal to moderates during election season is not only true, but you can set your watch to it - this is political science 101. I'm pretty sure you know this.

This doesn't make what I wrote any less unusual given that there is no major election underway at the moment, and that the object (one would think) would be winning elections. Step outside of your political ideology if this is invoking knee jerk reactions and think about this from a political strategic perspective.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They don't have to attack individuals or ideas, they need only to unashamedly communicate their own and live the principles while in office. By the time 2010 rolls around, this Administration will have created more Republicans than the Republicans could ever hope for. The Republicans are no more in need of identifying their base than the Democrats. Is it the Pelosi/Reid base or the Shuler/Nelson base?

Going for the "not Obama" vote seems like a losing strategy for me. This is what the Democrats did in 2004 against an incumbent no less - didn't work.

Colin Powell campaigned against a moderate Republican. It would be unwise to have a Democrat define the base of the Republican Party. Meghan McCain? Who's that?

This was in reference to the things that Powell, McCain, and Limbaugh are saying now in proposing directions for the Republican party. Have you been following this?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This was in reference to the things that Powell, McCain, and Limbaugh are saying now in proposing directions for the Republican party. Have you been following this?

Powell? He's the guy who voted for the liberal Democrat over the moderate Republican, right? As it's been said, it's pretty clear he's not the guy to listen to for advise on what Republicans need, given that he really doesn't seem to support any of them unless he thinks maybe they can get him a job.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, and vice versa.

It's the phrase an old roommate of mine used to counter the idea that Fox News is biased.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Powell? He's the guy who voted for the liberal Democrat over the moderate Republican, right? As it's been said, it's pretty clear he's not the guy to listen to for advise on what Republicans need, given that he really doesn't seem to support any of them unless he thinks maybe they can get him a job.

The classic attack the person (or put the person under the microscope) rather than his ideas, huh?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Powell? He's the guy who voted for the liberal Democrat over the moderate Republican, right?

No, he's the guy who voted for the liberal Democrat over the liberal Republican.

[besson3c]

The more we debate these labels and struggle to agree, the more I realize that they are pointless. Moderate Republican, Liberal Republican, I don't even know the difference as far as your classifacations. Does it matter? We probably wouldn't agree on them anyway.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*Sigh* you're just deflecting what I wrote ebuddy because you feel like it put you on the defensive. That politicians appeal to moderates during election season is not only true, but you can set your watch to it - this is political science 101. I'm pretty sure you know this.

I'm only trying to establish some rapport with you besson. How to begin if not to match your stylings?

This doesn't make what I wrote any less unusual given that there is no major election underway at the moment, and that the object (one would think) would be winning elections. Step outside of your political ideology if this is invoking knee jerk reactions and think about this from a political strategic perspective.

Your analysis was invalid. You claimed that the Republicans were taking things "further to the right" without offering why it's "further right" or how it's "away from the people".

People don't want the government owning more banks, Auto manufacturers, Firing CEOs of US Corporations, and using our resources to compete against us in the free market. They know that with unprecedented spending, government growth, and debt comes inflation, higher taxes, and hampered prosperity. These are not "further right" ideals. Clinton ran on a platform of "the era of big government is over". Obama ran on "pay as you go", "lower taxation", "transparency", and "bipartisanship". Why? Because as you succinctly put it, this is where the people are.

Because you've offered absolutely nothing to substantiate your partisan accusation, I'm left with the impression that the only reason you're calling the "aggressive new approach" further right is because it is a call to hold Obama to account for his policies without shame of the ideals or fear of his popularity. The truth is this is not "further right", it is countering "further left".

The real problem here is that this "aggressive new approach" deigns to challenge the subject of your well-documented, utmost affections. You'd have to step away from this defensive posture to see why Obama is setting up the perfect storm of Republican win-back of seats in 2010. I think the Republicans are very wise in "seizing opportunities" politically and strategically as these policies will have manifest in such a way that their success or failures will be more measurable by 2010. I believe they know where the American people are.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The classic attack the person (or put the person under the microscope) rather than his ideas, huh?

When his "ideas" don't jive with his actions, it's fair game to question his motives. He had the perfect Republican candidate that supported the ideas he claims to support, yet abandoned him for a Democrat who supports little to nothing that can be seen as a Republican standard.

Action talks, BS walks. Powell is full of it. Had he not supported a liberal Democrat for President, his words would have a great deal more validity. If Obama is the kind of candidate he can get behind, that's not the sort or reasoning or rationality that the Republican party needs, IMO. It's frankly insane.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The more we debate these labels and struggle to agree, the more I realize that they are pointless. Moderate Republican, Liberal Republican, I don't even know the difference as far as your classifacations. Does it matter? We probably wouldn't agree on them anyway.

Ideas matter. We use labels to classify these ideas into categories so that they can be more easily compared. Obama's ideas about how to govern can be fairly labeled "liberal" as they support a redistribution of wealth and increased government control. That has little to nothing to do what the Republican party has stood for since it's creation, and for a Republican to support a candidate who is so liberal and out of touch with not only traditional Republicans, but also mainstream America (as far as his policies go) it goes to show that he doesn't really believe in the values and ideas that the Republican party have supported for years. You can't support a candidate that is the perfect example of what a base Democrat voter wants and then say you have anything in common with the average Republican and have a solution for their problems. It's just not a logically sound argument.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can't support a candidate that is the perfect example of what a base Democrat voter wants and then say you have anything in common with the average Republican and have a solution for their problems.

Yes We Can!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can't support a candidate that is the perfect example of what a base Democrat voter wants and then say you have anything in common with the average Republican and have a solution for their problems. It's just not a logically sound argument.

Wow.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Wow.

Jeesh.

[SpaceMonkey]

So I take it you endorse the practice of never taking seriously the opinions of those who disagree with you? Sounds like the Republican Party is well on its way back to relevance!

[besson3c]

ebuddy: this thread is about marketing and not about your opinions of Obama's economic policies, but I'll indulge you.

The problem with these economic debates is that they are so easy to make as a big wash based on partisanship. If Obama's stimulus plan works in rebounding the failing economy (as some say it already is), you could easily say that his plan had no impact and the economy rebounded on its own, or it wasn't worth the extra debt, or whatever. You could make the argument that a failing economy would make our collective debt even worse, or the opposite: that the stimulus plan has made it worse. If we look at the stimulus plans of other countries during this same or past crisis you could make a point about how circumstances were different.

Really, there are many different tactics that can be utilized here, but the outcome is all the same. There is nothing Obama could have done that would have garnered your support, because you disliked him going into all of this. The same can be said for a partisan Democrat and a Republican administration. Anything that smells remotely like a success is a wash, and failures are squarely the result of the disliked administration's policies.

It's gotten to the point where I just don't have the energy to fight spin with spin of my own. In part because I don't understand enough about economics to really have a go at this, but also because time and time again this boils down to philosophy rather than what actual objectively works and doesn't work. We all think that we have it all figured out and that any countering philosophy is completely invalid, and it turns into trying to make this case to protect our self-righteousness. There is simply no way a stimulus plan could work, right?

Don't bother with a lengthy response. Like I said, my energy on this particular issue is rapidly waning.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

So I take it you endorse the practice of never taking seriously the opinions of those who disagree with you?

When the disagreement is on a fundamental issue, and the the person in question makes contradictory statements or acts in a way that suggest that they themselves don't believe in the underlying issue in the first place, I can pretty much not take them seriously.

Put another way, why would I take seriously a man who has sex with other men, who tells me that he's heterosexual, and that for me to be a better heterosexual I need to have sex with more men? Is that really a position I should take seriously? Forget the fact that we may disagree. The more important thing is that the matter we disagree on is something that the other guy has little credibility on given the fact that he has made it clear that he does not wish to practice the thing he is giving advise on.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: this thread is about marketing and not about your opinions of Obama's economic policies, but I'll indulge you.

I'll keep it short besson. The thread is about marketing??? Next you'll be telling me that MacNN is a forum for turtle enthusiasts. I guess if your thread topics are going to be this irrelevant to the intended discussion and your subsequent posts, you'll have to be more clear. I was actually staying quite relevant to "Michael Steele", his "aggressive new approach", and the linked article.

The problem with these economic debates is that they are so easy to make as a big wash based on partisanship. If Obama's stimulus plan works in rebounding the failing economy (as some say it already is), you could easily say that his plan had no impact and the economy rebounded on its own, or it wasn't worth the extra debt, or whatever. You could make the argument that a failing economy would make our collective debt even worse, or the opposite: that the stimulus plan has made it worse. If we look at the stimulus plans of other countries during this same or past crisis you could make a point about how circumstances were different.

The stimulus plan worked. I concede. Can we stop the remaining 3/4ths of it from going out now?

Really, there are many different tactics that can be utilized here, but the outcome is all the same. There is nothing Obama could have done that would have garnered your support, because you disliked him going into all of this. The same can be said for a partisan Democrat and a Republican administration. Anything that smells remotely like a success is a wash, and failures are squarely the result of the disliked administration's policies.

You know how this goes besson. When one does well the opposition will remain silenced. When he does poorly they will be noisy. Obama did well with the pirates and in blocking the CIA photos of detainees' treatment.

It's gotten to the point where I just don't have the energy to fight spin with spin of my own. In part because I don't understand enough about economics to really have a go at this, but also because time and time again this boils down to philosophy rather than what actual objectively works and doesn't work. We all think that we have it all figured out and that any countering philosophy is completely invalid, and it turns into trying to make this case to protect our self-righteousness. There is simply no way a stimulus plan could work, right?

It worked. I'd like the remaining 3/4ths of it to be held back.

Don't bother with a lengthy response. Like I said, my energy on this particular issue is rapidly waning.

It usually does when you accuse others of partisanship and are quickly shown how partisan you were in so doing. Facts are pesky. If you don't want a substantive discussion on anything other than your partisan terms, please make that more clear at the outset. It'll save us all a lot of time. Thanks.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When the disagreement is on a fundamental issue, and the the person in question makes contradictory statements or acts in a way that suggest that they themselves don't believe in the underlying issue in the first place, I can pretty much not take them seriously.

Put another way, why would I take seriously a man who has sex with other men, who tells me that he's heterosexual, and that for me to be a better heterosexual I need to have sex with more men? Is that really a position I should take seriously? Forget the fact that we may disagree. The more important thing is that the matter we disagree on is something that the other guy has little credibility on given the fact that he has made it clear that he does not wish to practice the thing he is giving advise on.

Okay what are you actually talking about? I thought you were talking about taking issue with Powell endorsing Obama because Obama is what a "base Democrat voter wants." You say that should give Powell no credibility with a Republican audience because he can't then claim to have "anything in common with the average Republican and have a solution for their problems."

The problem with your thinking is that the problems that Republican and Democrats claim to solve are not partisan. When Powell endorsed Obama I do not recall him saying that it made him a better Republican. Unemployment is not a Republican or a Democratic problem. National security is not a Republican or Democratic problem. The proposed solutions often have a certain partisan consistency, but your claim that to endorse a Democrat means that Powell can't point to solutions for Republican voters is absurd. Whatever practical solutions come out of the Obama administration, they do not affect only Democrats or only Republicans. You are the epitome of mindless partisanship.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Okay what are you actually talking about? I thought you were talking about taking issue with Powell endorsing Obama because Obama is what a "base Democrat voter wants." You say that should give Powell no credibility with a Republican audience because he can't then claim to have "anything in common with the average Republican and have a solution for their problems."

The problem with your thinking is that the problems that Republican and Democrats claim to solve are not partisan. When Powell endorsed Obama I do not recall him saying that it made him a better Republican. Unemployment is not a Republican or a Democratic problem. National security is not a Republican or Democratic problem.

The problems are not. The solutions are. Leaders have ideas on how to solve problems based on the values they have. Obama has hardcore liberal values. Ones that support the traditional Democrat "solutions" that usually always fail. Powell had a chance to support a moderate Republican to find those solutions. A guy who had a HUGE reputation for acting in a bi-partisan manner in order to find a way to solve problems from the center. Instead of picking the guy who is supposed to be in his party, who Powell should share values with, he chose to pick someone outside his party who shares virtually ZERO values with those in the Republican party and a guy who has ZERO reputation for finding bipartisan solutions.

At some point, you simply have to call "BS" on Powell, and I think we are at that point. If he's stuck somewhere between traditional Republican values and current Democrat values, then John McCain should be much closer to the values he espouses than a hardcore liberal like Obama. McCain is much closer to the political center than Obama, yet Powell chose the liberal Democrat. That speaks VOLUMES in regards to his credibility when it comes to discussing Republican values.

The proposed solutions often have a certain partisan consistency, but your claim that to endorse a Democrat means that Powell can't point to solutions for Republican voters is absurd. Whatever practical solutions come out of the Obama administration, they do not affect only Democrats or only Republicans. You are the epitome of mindless partisanship.

Powell can pick whoever he likes to be President. I support his right to do so 100%. He did nothing wrong in going with his heart and picking the guy he felt most closely represented his values. The entire point of political parties though is to align with those whose values you share. What I call BS on is the notion that a person who can claim to more closely relate to someone who shares virtually NONE of the values that make a Republican a Republican, somehow has answers for what can help Republicans. My gay man/straight man comparison was completely apropos,

[SpaceMonkey]

We're back to where we started. Your position is essentially that someone who has a different opinion is not worth listening to because they have a different opinion, regardless of the substance. Powell's opinion on Republicans is invalidated because of his vote for Obama. That's appalling, and if the "purification" route is the way that the Republican Party chooses to reinvent itself, it doesn't have much of a future.