Shining A Light On 'A Pretty Gauzy Agenda'

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024785.php

SHINING A LIGHT ON 'A PRETTY GAUZY AGENDA'.... "Meet the Press" aired an interesting discussion yesterday between the four campaign committee chairmen -- the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate campaign committees -- with host David Gregory raising an increasingly important question.

It's clear what the GOP will say "no" to -- everything Dems want -- but what will they say "yes" to? The responses were important.

Gregory started with NRCC Chair Pete Sessions (R) of Texas, asking what his party would do with a majority. Sessions danced around for a while, talking about the "need to live within our own means." Gregory said it sounded like "a pretty gauzy agenda," and tried again, asking for specifics, and wondering "what painful choices are Republicans prepared to make."

Sessions hemmed and hawed, saying something about entitlement spending and the need to "empower the free enterprise system." Gregory kept asking for some kind of details, and Sessions kept refusing.

The host eventually gave up, and asked NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (R) of Texas if he could offer any specifics. Cornyn said something about waiting for the debt commission to say something.

"But wait a minute," Gregory replied. "Conservatives need a Democratic president's debt commission to figure out what it is they need to cut?" Apparently so; Cornyn didn't have an answer.

This continues to be a problem for the Republican Party. They want power, but don't want to tell anyone why until after they have it. Given the spectacular failures of the last attempts at Republican governing, the GOP is effectively urging voters to take a leap of faith -- give power back to those who screwed up last time, and hope that their well hidden agenda doesn't prove to be too radical and dangerous.

—Steve Benen

[Old Codger]

1. No Need

They don't need to further articulate their plans, they have been doing a pretty good job of letting everyone know what they want, they simply want to repeal every gain that we have made....

[zipplewrath]

2. I saw that

It was hillarious. I was surprised that Gregory did it. But at some point even he musta been laughing. These guys were TOTALLY unprepared for the question. They didn't even have some boilerplate about "cutting welfare" or anything. And they are even backing away from the "repeal it all".

[babylonsister]

3. Do you know what else they're doing? Falling back on

how 'great' idiot son was; that's how desperate they are, or how lacking in their own ideas.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8771013
Cornyn: Americans are nostalgic for Bush

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/18/pete-sessions-nrcc-chair_n_650431.html
The GOP's Solution For Cutting The Deficit? Return To The Bush Years

[zipplewrath]

4. yeah, they're trying the "how great things were" line

I got no idea who they think is going to like that line. Politics is notorious for their short memories anyway. And it would seem that "yeah, I remember Katrina and WMD's" would be a quick way to end the discussion. Maybe a line about "privatizing social security" would work too.

[CTyankee]

5. According to Mark Halperin on Morning Joe today, refusing to answer

Gregory's questions were all part of their plan. So it was deliberate. This does make some sense, actually. They know that if the voters find out what repukes are REALLY going to do, they'll be freaked out and won't vote for them.

Of course, they run the risk of being called out for being obtuse and incoherent, but I guess they think that's better than being quoted as FOR something the voters DON'T WANT, e.g. privatization of SS.

[zipplewrath]

6. It's deliberate to offer no plan

I do understand that part. Their specific intention is not to offer anything concrete. But you'd think they would be more prepared to address the question with some sort of noncontroversial boilerplate.

[CTyankee]

9. Which is what they did. They said that we have to "live within our means."

Who disagrees with that general principle? We also have to "read the bills" before voting on them...yep, good idea, sure thing.

the clip is prolly still up on msnbc.com. Catch it if you have time. You'll see what I mean...

[zipplewrath]

10. I saw it live

I was amazed they didn't say something about tax cuts, or extending the Bush ones or something. Something about capital gains, and somthing about "welfare" is another standard.

[CTyankee]

11. Well, call me naturally suspicious when it comes to republicans.

I believe that Halperin was onto something. If they give up something specific...say, extending Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy, then the Dems could pounce on it, saying "This is what got us into this predicament in the first place" or pointing out that they won't give UI to folks out of a job but they'll give $$ to the very rich. Why hand the Dems their talking points?

[zipplewrath]

13. I suspect that is their strategy

Avoid giving the democrats something to campaign "against". Keep is just to the concept of "we're not them". I really wonder if such a thing can work. The candidates ultimately have to do interviews and it will get fairl obvious after a while. It doesn't even have to be these questions. Just simple ones about "will you support this project" or something has to be answered sooner or later. Sooner or later someone asks how existing votes or legislation would be/have been different. It's sure not Newt's Contract On America is it?

[CTyankee]

14. Well, they will probably come back with the "we have to pay for what we want"

whatever that is...a one size fits all kind of answer. And who can argue with that? Yes, I know Dems can come right back and ask them why they won't say the same thing when it comes to tax cuts for the rich and the pubs will say "Because the rich will invest in companies and make jobs." Of course, the Dems can point out that it didn't work out so well when Bush did those tax cuts, did it? Which is where I think this whole debate may boil down to. Dems should keep their charts handy, the ones that show that UI stimulates the economy far more than tax cuts for the wealthy and there we go.

I kinda doubt the debates coming up to the fall elections will be dispositive of anything. Barring a disastrously ill conceived statement by the pubs I think they will rely on subtle racism and the politics of resentment, as they have in the past. Absent enthusiastic Dems plus Independent voters, it could be a heavy lift for us in the fall...

[babylonsister]

7. So they deliberately wanted to look dumb and unprepared?

Works for me! :toast:

[CTyankee]

8. Rather than be quoted on something specific, yes.

They obviously feel that speaking in feel good generalities is enough for the voters since they know most voters are not paying that much attention. I fear that they may be right...

[jberryhill]

12. All their voters are in church Sunday morning

It doesn't matter how ridiculous they look on the Sunday morning talk shows.

They know their base is carefully kept away from television on Sunday morning.