Skip to comments.To Create Boom, GOP Needs to Change Tune
Posted on 01/07/2013 11:16:24 AM PST by Kaslin
Obama comes out the victor in the messaging battle of the fiscal cliff negotiations. CNN contributor Ruben Navarrette Jr. said: He is so good at the business of politics that hes really outmaneuvered them.
How did he do this? According to John Judis in the New Republic, He campaigned publicly. He framed the issues. He put the Republicans on the defensive in a way that he failed to do during much of his first term.
Even the far-right Brietbart.com agrees. In a post titled: GOP drift losing cliff message battle, Mike Flynn argues: The GOP is doing nothing to educate the public about the stakes involved. President Obama, however, convincingly acts as if he is, and the public believes him. The GOP is tending to the weeds, while Obama tends to the forest. In other words, the GOP presents positions, not principle. Obama avoids positions and presents lofty visions. It is no wonder the GOP is getting clobbered.
Within these snippets about the message, is a lesson I intend to apply in the coming months. I invite you to join me.
There is a message about energy and the economy; a vision that needs to be cast: Energy can fuel the American recovery. Energy could have fueled a recovery early in Obamas first term. Obamas anti-energy policies, and wasted expenditures on green energy, have held down the American economy and created a culture of government dependence.
On November 29, I was at a meeting where the new mini-documentary TruthLand was being shown. As energy was the topic, someone brought up the recent International Energy Agency report that claims the US will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's top oil producer by 2017. It was a local group. They knew me. I was asked about the forecast. I scoffed: Not under this president. I continued: I believe the resource is there. But Obama will never let us access it.
One of the men at the meeting asked me if Id seen the Internet video suggesting an Obama third term. No, I hadnt. Id heard advertisements for it featuring an ominous-sounding male voice. Id paid it no attention. It sounded like some wacky conspiracy theory. He reported that hed watched the whole 90 minutes of it (hes retired, and, obviously, has more time than I do). He summarized it for me. In short, in his second term, Obama, freed from having to appease the environmentalists, will unleash American oil-and-gas resources. The economy will rebound with a vengeance. People will be dancing in the streets, singing praises to Obama for fixing the economy and turning the crisis around. Because of his newfound, savior-like status, the American people will be loath to let him leave office; theyll demand a third term.
I smiled and nodded, promising to check the video out. I couldnt imagine that this idea could possibly happen with the ideologically driven Obama. After all, Ive written repeatedly on his push for green energy and his appointees efforts to block fossil-fuel development.
Then I Googled Obama third term. Wow! Theres a lot out there on this. One I found the most interesting is an investment site: StockGumshoewhere Travis Johnson takes apart the pitch for Porter Stansberrys Investment Advisory. Written on November 6, Johnson says the gist of the video is: The US economy is going to boom so aggressively over the next few years that whoever will be president is going to get re-elected, even if it means amending the constitution to ensure we get to keep Obama in office. I read Johnsons comments and have to agree with the idea that abundant American energy has the potential to be a game changer. Ive written on that, too. But I still question that Obama will release the imprisoned resources.
Then, someone forwarded me a post from the Daily Beast titled: Obamas energy dilemma: back energy-fueled growth or please green lobby? in which Joel Kotkin takes a slightly different approach to the Obama-third-term theme. He posits: The energy revolution presents Obama with the clearest path to drive this critical boost to greater economic growth and suggests that, if Obama can embrace an energy-led growth strategy, he could assure Democratic political dominance for a decade or more. He concludes by saying: President Obama can improve middle-class prospects. In the coming months, he will need to choose between pleasing the green purists around him and generating a long boom that would elevate him to Mount Rushmore levels and assure his partys political dominion for a generation.
Daily Beast readers lambasted Kotkincalling his column fossil fuel industry propaganda. Hardly. But there is validity to the fact that an energy-led growth strategy would improve middle class prospects. And, that if Obama chose to back energy-fueled growth it could create a long boomthough the Mount-Rushmore level is a bit presumptuous.
Id discounted both of these premisesthough theyve been percolating in my brain. But then, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson resigned.
Investors Business Daily said the following about Jacksons resignation: Though we wish we were celebrating Jackson's departure as a step toward a more rational, reasonable EPA, we expect the next administrator will continue the administration's war not just on coal, but on all fossil fuels. Yes, Jackson has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks preventing maximization of Americas natural resources. She has repeatedly, though unsuccessfully, attempted to connect hydraulic fracturing with ground water contaminationwhich would give her the impetus she needed to ban the technology that has unleashed Americas abundant natural gas and increased oil production to decade-high levels. She has promulgated onerous regulations that have killed jobs, raised the cost of energy, and sent business overseas.
Watch for her replacement. My friends at Energy for America conclude a post about Jacksons replacement with these words addressing fracking: The next EPA Administrator should support American jobs and operate under the notion that you should not fix what isnt broken. I, too, would like to see a new EPA Administrator who understood the importance of American energy and jobs. I would like to see one who makes decisions based on sound science not ideology or politics. However, if the new EPA Administrator is more like what Energy for America is suggesting than what Investors Business Daily predicts, it could be that the White House is looking toward Mount Rushmore.
Nothing would please me more than to see the American economy in a long boom. I believe that energy-led growth can create a strong America. And, that a prosperous America is better equipped to deal with any mitigation that may be needed as a result of resource extraction and use. But this pending growth, should have happened sooner, rather than laterearly in Obamas first term, not late in his second (as the Stansberry video suggests).
Should Obama replace Jackson with someone who brings new direction to the agency resulting in energy-led growthand therefore proving what Newt Gingrich talked about, what Mitt Romney proposed, what Ive written on, and what many others have espoused, the response shouldnt be to praise the President and view him as the savior. With the right messaging, the response should be anger, played out through impeachment.
For the last four years, prosperity has been within reach. Instead, the Presidents policiescarried out by the likes of Lisa Jackson, Steven Chu, and Ken Salazarhave kept it at bay. As a result, jobs have been lost, homes repossessed, businesses closed, and cities bankrupt. That is the message. And if the American public understood the message, we wouldnt have the economic uncertainty the fiscal cliff created; we wouldnt be facing a fierce battle over the debt ceiling. Instead, wed have the aggressive economic boom the Stansberry video purports.
Unless this messaging frames the energy issue, unless we put him on the defensive, unless we present this vision, the truth will be clobbered, well be outmaneuvered once againand Obama will be heading for Mount Rushmore.
It is NOT that we disagree with how to get there, there is fundamental disagreement about the GOAL of vigorous growth.
How about in trying to sell their message, such as opposition to Obamacare - which was the key to the Republican/Tea Party victory in 2010 - they actually nominate a conservative spokesperson who has credibility on that issue? The one issue that could have sunk Obama and they nominated the one primary candidate who had zero credibility - Mr. Romneycare. Republicans didn’t need a different message, they needed a different messenger.
Enough looking back. Time to look forward.
“...None of the democrats and some fraction of the republicans do not want vigorous growth...”
The radical left does not want ANY growth. Their actions since even before Obama was elected the first time, prove that. Our disastrous economy proves that. How can there possibly be growth? Only the private sector practicing productive capitalism will produce growth.
The radical left does not want growth -— they want to rule over the ashes of our Constitional Republic and its dead greatness -— as a government-dependent socialist country ruled by a single party and its dictator.
Not rocket science — very obvious.
he runs 99% of the media, duh
A long boom empowers the private sector and disempowers government.
Barack Obama is going to be the man who allows that to happen?
He, and the Left, see reducing millions to poverty and dependency as the most straightforward path to enduring power. After all, a Democrat boom would eventually lead to a Democrat bust, and a loss of elections. Under an empowered state, however, the miserable would have nowhere else to turn.
The GOP acts as if it wasn’t obvious. They consistantly fram the issue as a debate on how do we get there.
The debate first has to be decided - do we want economic growth. I think Americans overwhelingly think yes.
The average public, EVEN THOSE MENTAL RETARDS that voted for his reelection are getting sick of him. A 2/3rds majority of BOTH HOUSES and the state legislatures is an impossibility. I would be less shocked if he didn't finish his second term.
Here's a quicky on Section 8 by Judge Napolitano.
The GOP needs to stop playing defense and go on the offense on multiple fronts with everything they’ve got. Multiple GOP held states need to push forward on things like RTW while congressional republicans should introduce bills that remove current restrictions on our second amendment rights.
but no one can compete against the 24/7 STATE CONTROLLED MEDIA which covers for this coward in chief constantly...
all the little creep has to say is one good sentence out of 20 incoherent and flippant sentences and that one good sentence is trumped across the country....
I said a long time ago the pubs should go on the public airwaves and get their msg out loud and clear......
Obama doesn’t care about the environmentalists, but the Democrats do. Several hundred people in Boulder, CO held a candlelight vigil for a dead elk. I’ll bet you the majority of them vote and they vote Democrat. If the Democrats think that this oil development will cost them an election, they’ll be after it with a vengeance. Obama is just a Shill, a figurehead.
It is important to define vigorous growth. What exactly does this mean. Enough income to buy more stuff from China that ends up in the 700 Mile Yard Sale. Rebuilding our aging and failing infrastructure that would require large amounts of money like President Eisenhower’s Interstate System, but would need government spending? More McMansions? Yes, there is fundamental disagreement about the GOAL.
Of course. Until they do they are part of the problem.
6-8% GDP growth. Simple.
Says a man with an agenda.
If we can't analyze the loss of a presidential race of historic proportions only 8 weeks ago, then it sounds like you guys just want to do it over and over, and change nothing.
Gosh, Obama will be president for 4 more years and your reaction is, 'that's so 8 weeks ago man, don't live in the past'. yikes!
It continues to amaze me that he’s propped up as a brilliant politician. Well, I guess winning is everything, and if your side carried the day it must have been because of your superior personal qualities. No. Can anyone seriously point to anything h did whatsoever to bring this about? Aside, I mean, from not caving before Republicans did? Which we all knew was going to happen anyway.
Now for the big test, what would they besaying about Obama were he a Republican? There are diminishing returns on this question, as we ask it all the time. But he’d be a radical extremist, a stonewaller, a hearty kid who always wants hus way and never gets along with others, and yadda, yadda, yadda.
Doesn’t matter. FDR is a political god because he was elected four times and fundamentally transformed our system of government. Nobody bothers about how smart or not he was, how many what would be scandals were he not he he created, how poorly his policies worked, how worse we were off for abandoning limited, constitutional government, etc. He won, get over it.
Much like Lincoln. Slavery was bad, get over it. He won the war, therefore he’s the greatest of all. Journalists, academics, pundits, writers, everyone, it seems, responsible for shaping opinion are base, groveling power worshippers.
Are you on about that again? Take a look at Helvering v Davis or Roberts’ Obamacare abomination. So far as anyone whose opinion matters goes the Constitution says that Congress can do whatever it wants according to what they consider provides for the general welfare.
Even if you somehow managed to get yourself appointed to SCOTUS you couldn’t put a dent in it.
That was true 20 years ago, but not anymore, the Reagan Revolution, and the Gingrich Revolution took place during that era, but today we have a lot of media, republicans just don't have anything to say that doesn't make people's eyes glaze over.
Romney had no message, no arguments, nothing that the general public could make sense of.
Reagan was special. Gingrich at least has a fire lit under him most of the time, though he’s just ae liable to blow himsepf up. That election was decided, I think, by the Clintons’ obvious overreaching. Onama overreached similarly, and the people voted to slap down Obamacare, but somehoe it passed anyway. I barely remember how, and history won’t even bother.
So it’s not impossible to overcome the MSM, but it is for a Boner.
None of the democrats want vigorous growth? I understand we all tend to hyperbolize but that seems a rather silly statement.
It is NOT that we disagree with how to get there, there is fundamental disagreement about the GOAL of vigorous growth.
This may be true. What do you think the goal of vigorous growth should be?
Newt’s “Contract with America” was genius because it clearly framed the issues and forced the Dems to declare themselves against issues that most Americans wanted. Today there is no clarity on GOP positions.
No. I stand by it. Find me a democrat willing to support any even non-controversial measures to encourage growth?
Which I define as 6% or higher GDP growth.
What measures do you consider non-controversial?
Why don’t you share with us why you are afraid of growth?
FDR - ginormous gov’t proponent
HST (D) - big gov’t proponent
DDE (R) - moderate gov’t proponent, created Health, Education, and Welfare Dept
JFK (D) - moderate gov’t proponent
LBJ (D) - enormous gov’t proponent, created Housing & Urban Development and Transportation Dept
RMN (R) - big gov’t proponent
GRF (R) - big gov’t proponent
JEC (D) - enormouse gov’t proponent, created Energy Dept and Education Dept
RWR (R) - small gov’t proponent
GHB (R) - big gov’t proponent, created Veterans Affairs Dept
WJC (D) - big gov’t proponent
GWB (R) - tolerant big gov’t proponent, created Homeland Security Dept
BHO (D) - ginormous gov’t proponent
80 years of history with successive increases in the debt limit by BOTH parties
Other than a bump in the road with Reagan, pretty much a hard tack left.
1929 is going to look like a picnic after this disaster
The ‘Rat party is a RICO entity and the GOP are unindicted co-conspirators
I never said I was afraid of growth. Economic growth is great. However economic growth that leaves the bottom 90% worse off than they were before, as we've experienced over the past 30 years or so especially since around 2000, isn't so hot.
Why are you afraid to give some examples of non-controversial growth promoting policies?
Here's a growth producing policy most Leftists would support: spending on providing better educational opportunities to those that can't otherwise afford it. The only hitch with that one though is that I'm pretty sure you wouldn't consider it non-controversial.
The empirical data shows that countries with more equitable, and please note I said more equitable and not completely equitable, distribution of income and opportunity grow faster than those that don't. And right now we are below countries like Turkey when it comes to economic equality.
Reagan had a clear message, and a sure identity, he offered the people a clear difference, it was almost scary, but it was bold, and a new path, and the people took it.
Gingrich did much the same in 1994, and he nationalized the election, it was a Reagan style for the legislative branch.
The media couldn’t overcome either of those revolutions, in fact, Reagan and Gingrich showed how to break through the media.
Today the media is much more diverse than that distant era, and yet the GOP is back to it’s normal incoherence and uninspiring blandness that makes them so unappealing to the public, and so easy for the left to characterize, since the GOP doesn’t have any personality, or vision, or coherent arguments.
There is no controversy among economists that real economic growth is achieved by low tax rates, minimal regulations, and policies that do not attempt to distort the economy for policiy goals other than growth.
Obviously this is controversial amongst folk who do not want growth (which includes all democrats and many republicans).
Real economic growth leaves EVERY on better off.
This is ridiculous. More analysis???? How about a Republican leader who can chew gum and walk at the same time?
An energy and agricultural economy without a large manufacturing base eventually settles into being a third-world economy in a third rate country. Without ridding our nation of anti-family, anti-production progressivism/romanticism and evil “males” at work in manufacturing, the contemporary political regulator class will lose. Can’t all sit and decay in offices. Have fun. Enjoy the slide.
To clarify, we need to abolish regulations that prevent small manufacturing shops from starting and abolish laws that discourage traditional family structure.
Vigorous growth, expansion of individual financial well being, accumulation of real personal property.....all of these things are a threat to socialist democratic power.
It is why Democrats seek to take away those things from people that already enjoy them and disperse them meaninglessly amongst the dumb masses with little effect.
Their goal is dependency through entitlement of government support which requires their continuing votes.
“..The debate first has to be decided - do we want economic growth. I think Americans overwhelingly think yes.”
I do not think so. The results of the last election show that selfish economic concerns are far more important than the fiscal health of the economy. I would venture to say that most Americans do not even understand the basics of our economy or even care...as long as they have their TV screen and six-pack at night. They were easily BOUGHT in this election.
The Congress is a disgrace on both sides.
I think you are 100% correct.
And the portion of Republicans who want vigorous growth, but NOT IN AMERICA is also very high.
There is a huge portion of America who are simply not represented by anyone on Washington anymore.