Showing posts with label Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reagan. Show all posts

Thursday, 2 February 2012

Newt and the Imperiling of the Good Ship SS Reagan


 The case against Mitt is altogether clear and need not be repeated here except to say that he is the conservative of convenience, whose moderate to liberal views are explicit in any number of interviews and campaign ads from the recent past, and who continues to embrace a government-run healthcare program and individual mandate.

The case against Newt is much more complex, but equally damning. He, more than any other candidate, sells himself as the Reagan conservative. In nearly every debate, he touts himself as Reagan’s longtime fellow soldier and the heir to carry the Reagan torch. This song appeals to conservatives, and every time Newt sings it, he picks up a few more supporters. Clearly, the Reagan song sells.

It is precisely Newt’s claim to wear the Reagan mantle that imperils the good ship SS Reagan and our conservative movement. There are three issues which puts our ship in peril if we put Newt at the helm.

All Over the Place
First, although Newt has done much to advance the conservative agenda, his conservatism is more characteristically erratic. He has been wrong on the four key issues of conservatism during the Obama administration: 1) global warming/cap and trade; 2) illegal immigration; 3) the bailouts and the porkulus; and 4) government mandates for healthcare. The more time that passes from the era of Reagan, the further that Newt drifts from Reagan conservatism, and the more Newt seems to affirm that the era of Reagan is over. This is why Newt and Mitt debate over minuscule issues which hardly differentiate themselves from each other—they are so much alike, and in these squabbles, Newt reinforces the notion that he is more of a Rockefeller Republican than a Reagan Republican.

The Future is the Past
Secondly, Newt is prone to self-implosion. Part of this is a matter of him not being a principled leader, and all that is entailed therein. Nowhere is this better seen than in Newt’s time as Speaker of the House. Within two years of his coming to the Speakership, it was conservatives in his own party that led a coup against him. This cannot be explained as a reaction to Newt shaking up the establishment. Those were our own conservatives who weighed Newt’s leadership and found him seriously wanting, and they did so even before the ethics charges were made.

Under this rubric of Newt’s failure in principled leadership is that he drew lines in the sand, making tough stands on conservative issues, and exposing us to considerable liability. This could have been good, but when the moment of victory was at hand, Newt would blink. This hurt our movement time and again by saddling us with all the liability of taking a tough stance without achieving any of the benefits of victory. Whenever Newt stood toe to toe with Clinton on high stakes issues, Newt blinked, whether it was the impeachment trial or shutting down the government. After the shutting down of the government, Newt was more or less a whipped pup whenever he needed to make a stand against Clinton. Within two years, Newt’s favorability ratings tanked at 13%, which probably is still the record low for any congressman—and this plagues his polling to this day.

Newt took the Republican caucus down with him. Newt likes to spin his record as one that retained a Republican majority. This is a faux claim of victory. The reality is that, due to the House Bank Scandal and Clinton’s overplaying of his hand in implementing his leftward agenda, a huge Republican majority was swept into office in 1994. This majority was expected to increase significantly in 1998’s “six year itch” of the election cycle in which the incumbent president’s party usually loses seats in Congress in his sixth year in office. This expectation was especially high for Republicans since it came near the height of the Lewinsky scandal. Instead, Republicans lost a large number of seats and just barely held on to their majority. We suffered in the Senate as well, trading long time Republicans Al D’Amato and Lauch Faircloth for liberals Chuck Shumer and John Edwards. Freshmen and sophomore Republicans who had the potential of becoming longterm incumbents and preventing the Pelosi takeover in 2008 were sent home in defeat. Newt’s poor leadership in 1998 set up not only the Pelosi victory in 2008, but Obamacare in 2009.

Seeing that he lost the confidence of his own caucus, not to mention the ethics charges, Newt resigned, and it was clearly a resignation of disgrace from which one could recover only by a combination of forgetting and rewriting history.

As Speaker, Newt gained a well-deserved reputation of being unfocused, undisciplined, erratic, volatile, unaccountable, unresponsive, and incapable of nurturing important initiatives to fruition. These flaws have all been seen at one point or another in his current campaign, including this week’s promise to have a permanent moon base by the end of his second term, and his failure to congratulate Romney in his concession speech. One can hardly repress the expectation that Newt will self-destruct even prior to the convention, let alone under the pressure of a protracted campaign against Obama, or under the pressure of his own presidency. The problem with self-destruction is that it also causes massive collateral damage—the lifeblood of the conservative movement would be sucked out by our own nominee who did the same thing back in the mid 90s.

Much more could be said about Newt’s failed leadership during his brief tenure as Speaker, but there is a third issue which puts our ship in peril if Newt is at the helm.

Withering on the Vine under Fire
Let us assume that Newt manages to secure the Republican nomination. This will put him toe to toe to Obama. One wonders how Newt might stand in high stakes situations with Obama when he did not fare well in similar situations with Bill Clinton. Moreover, of the Republican candidates, Newt is the most vulnerable to attack from the Democrats. If Newt can so easily be beaten by Mitt’s negative ads, how much easier will it be for Democrats to do the same. Democrats will have enough money to air nationwide commercials daily, and Newt will give them a new topic for attack every day.

Thus, if Newt becomes the nominee, all our energy will be diverted from advocating and defending our conservative agenda, and allocated instead for an all out attempt to protect Newt. In an election when Obama should be the issue, Newt will become the issue. Frankly, there are enough bags in Newt’s entourage of baggage to dominate the daily news cycle for the rest of the year. Anything from check kiting in the House Banking Scandal, to his serial adultery and 3 marriages, to hypocrisy in pressing the Clinton impeachment “over sex,” to lobbying, and to his attacks on capitalism, we will be so busy this fall circling the wagons to protect Newt that we will not be able to mount an effective offensive against Obama.

Neither Newt nor Mitt: Both are Equally Flawed
These three problems with Newt nomination make it impossible for Santorum supporters to vote for Newt in the remaining primaries. If Santorum were suddenly whisked away by aliens so that his supporters could not vote for him, they would be left in a lurch. In this year of the conservative when, of all elections, we need to elect a conservative, we simply cannot stomach voting for Mitt the moderate. But at the same time, even if we assume that Newt is more committed to conservative core values than Mitt (which is an altogether uncertain assumption), we hesitate to hand over the helm to him, for his persona is likely to hit critical mass as to implode like a black hole, taking the whole conservative movement and the SS Reagan with it.

The Uncompromised Candidate
However, I fear that if Newt is the nominee, his negatives will be so high that there won’t be much of a contest in the general election, and the good ship SS Reagan will languish at sea while this American land is ravished by Hurricane Barack. Remember, as Rush said this week, “I have to remind you, again, that Gingrich debated John Kerry on Global Warming at one point and they agreed on practically every point. Nobody is innocent. Everybody is guilty of some transgression somewhere against Conservatism (suspenseful pause) except Santorum.”

Monday, 26 December 2011

Why "We Pick Rick" Speech Suggestions for Iowa Caucuses

Why "We Pick Rick" Speech Suggestions for Iowa Caucuses

Here are my talking points for those who will be speaking in favor of Sen. Santorum during the caucuses. It is important to note that these have not been approved by the campaign, and that they reflect only my own personal suggestions. Any suggestions from the campaign should take priority over mine. I should also note that I have never been to an Iowa caucus, and that I've only been to Iowa twice; thus, your own gut instinct should take precedent over any of my ideas.

PUBLIC SPEAKING BASICS

Consider a personal narrative: "this is my story of how I came to support Sen. Santorum" might work better than "these are the reasons why you should vote for Sen. Santorum." For an example, see my narrative on my blog theo-politico.blogspot.com (although it is too long for the caucus speeches): http://theo-politico.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-justification-for-endorsing-rick.html.

Speeches usually have an introduction, an attention-getter. Some Santorum supporters have already made the good suggestion of starting with the Rush Limbaugh quote where he says he'd never have to wonder if Santorum would do the right thing as president (or some such). (You don't need to waste words by indicating that Rush is a talk show host, since every one knows this already.)

Reduce your speech down to the time limit not by eliminating content, but by saying things more concisely. Ultimately, you may have to cut out content, but look for ways of restructuring syntax to eliminate unecessary words, etc.

Don't rush your speech. Vary your tempo with fast and slow moments. Vary your dynamics: saying something almost in a whisper can be as effective as shouting it. Practice your speech, timing it, over and over again. If you must read it, do so while maintaining eye contact with your audience. Be passionate.

Consider producing a handout. Make sure it is pleasant to the eyes. Proof it carefully and have someone else proof it too: typos and bad English can produce a negative reaction in some people. Pass them out quickly and efficiently so that you don't waste speech time.

Conclude with an appeal. "Because of all of these urgencies (etc.), I'm asking you, would you please vote for Sen. Santorum" (or some other similarly worded appeal).


TALKING POINTS

Spell out Reagan's three legged stool of conservatism: free markets (less intrusive government), national security, and social issues. Invoking Reagan's name is always good, especially if you show how Santorum leads on these three issues and scores the highest points on all three:

free markets (less intrusive government): Rick has led on balanced budget amendment and line item veto, fought against TARP and the second stimulus, etc. He authored and managed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which was the first time ever a federal entitlement has been eliminated. Etc.

national security: Rick is the acknowledged expert on the MIddle East; he served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and is the author of 217 articles dealing with Islamic extremism in the series The Gathering Storm.

social issues: Sen. Santorum has authored every pro-life legislation that has passed the Senate in the last 20 years (you could list all his pro-life legislation specifically).


Explain why Santorum can win:

Primary strategy: 1) score big in Iowa and establish himself as a top tier candidate; 2) do respectably well in New Hampshire (where he has a strong organization and key endorsements); and 3) win in South Carolina (where he has a strong organization, key endorsements, and won the most important SC caucus of the year).

General Election strategy: any Republican who can keep the red states (including Florida) and swing both Ohio and Pennsylvania will win the election. Santorum's Made in America plan to revitalize manufacturing will appeal to the rustbelt states of the Midwest better than any of the other candidates' economic plan. Santorum is more likely to pick up Ohio and Pennsylvania moreso than any other candidate, and will be viable in the blue states of Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Since she has never ran in a state-wide election, Bachmann may not win her own state, let alone Ohio and Pennsylvania. Romney won't deliver Massachusetts. And although Perry and Gingrich could carry Texas and Georgia, any Republican could do so.


ONE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE:
Emphasize that conservatives must get behind one single conservative candidate, otherwise the conservative of convenience, Mitt Romney, will be the de facto winner. You might want to cite Bob Vander Plaats as having made this argument.

Before criticizing any of the other candidates, emphasize that the goal is to defeat Obama and that you will support the nominee whoever it is. Also, emphasize that each of the candidates has his or her own strengths, and that they would all make reasonably good presidents (I have my own reservations about Paul). For an analysis of each candidate's weaknesses, see my forthcoming blog artice (it will probably be posted tomorrow, Tuesday). It might be a good strategy to mention a candidate's weakness in passing while discussing Rick's strengths, rather than giving a list of negatives for each candidate.

MADE IN AMERICA
Be sure to point out Rick's unique emphasis on the revitalization of manufacturing in the US. Repeatedly use the phrase "Made in America plan." Talk about how this will impact specific towns near your precinct--towns which have closed down due to the loss of manufacturing. Be passionate about bringing back manufacturing jobs for the sake of small Iowa towns such as (???).

Please leave any further suggestions in the comment section.