The Republican Marketing Machine

Have you ever wondered why the Democrats always seem to be in a muddle? Even when they are fighting for issues close to the hearts of many Americans, they seem to flub it up. The party best known for representing the working class has become almost useless to us, since everything they try to do seems to get turned around. Even with a majority, they can't bring home the bacon. What is wrong with them?

The primary problem, of course, is the Republican Party. Despite having a congressional majority for thirty years and the White House for eight, they are now managing to blame all the ill-considered and lame-brained decisions that came out of those years on the Democrats. And what are the Dems doing against this onslaught? Well, nothing. They're "negotiating". They're "conceding". The one thing they are not doing is standing up for themselves.

While "negative campaigning" always seems to irk the voting public, there is no doubt that it works. People will believe nearly everything you choose to tell them, as long as you say it often enough. Ridiculous assertions like "death panels" becoming part of Medicare and health reform become gospel truth to the minions incapable of thinking past the end of their noses. That is the strength of the Republican party: They know their audience, and they know how to market themselves. It doesn't hurt, either, that they don't mind being rude and obnoxious, and taking credit where it is not due.

Take the "Tea Party" example. They are using the Internet as a primary tool to get the word out (whatever that is) and organize. Who originally came up with this idea? The Democrats, of course. Howard Dean pioneered this concept and Barack Obama used it to much greater effect. The conservatives don't mind hijacking others' ideas, even if they profess to despise them. And how about that Scott Brown? The Republicans pulled off a real marketing coup with that one. Getting a Republican elected to Ted Kennedy's old seat is like having both sides of your Democratic face slapped. Where were the Democrats while all this maneuvering was going on?

If the Democrats want to regain what they have lost, they need to fight fire with fire. Voters who should know better are letting themselves be swayed by lies, and the party of the people should be stepping up to shout down these unscrupulous pols. The conservatives don't mind copying from the other side whatever strategy works; neither should the Dems. They'd better hurry, though, because they've got a lot of catching up to do.

Who is the "Tea Party" Coalition?

More than 200 years after the famous "tea party" revolt, the term is popping up everywhere: Newspapers, magazines and of course, the Internet. A somewhat loose, but evolving movement, the common thread holding it together appears to be voter anger. White, middle-class anger, but real and boisterous. Too many taxes, too much government and the erosion of individual rights seem to be the primary concerns of those who profess to be deeply involved in this coalition. These are not new complaints; what is new is that they are being loudly voiced so early into a new administration. Does anyone really believe that all these issues came about within the last year?

While it is apparent that this movement is gaining ground, it is unclear which party they will eventually align with. Both Democrats and Republicans have been trying to harness this "energy", with the GOP coming out on top. At the recent "Tea Party Convention" in Nashville, Sarah Palin was the featured speaker. So, this must mean that the Partyers are rallying around the Republicans, right?

Well, maybe. An AP article by Liz Sidoti notes that, although the Partyers don't consider themselves a "third party", it has been mostly Independents running for office who have attached themselves to this movement. Additionally, members themselves profess not to really know where this new coalition is going. The McClatchy News Service quotes Rebecca Wales, spokesperson for SmartgirlPolitics.org as saying that it has been difficult to boil down the coalition's message to any one issue, but that, "we're unified in the fact that we do get out. We mobilize quickly and it's powerful when we do." Well, that certainly clears things up.

It is understandable that many of us are upset by the way our tax dollars have been used: Unwinnable wars, bailouts for financial institutions who refuse to follow the rules and turn around and hand out tax money to their friends in the form of bonuses. But blaming a new administration is not going to solve the problem. Top-down changes in government need to occur, and big money and corporate influence need to butt out. Okay, "Tea Party" members--get to work. Any group that can manage that gargantuan task will certainly earn my vote.

Republicans Stonewall, Democrats Dither and Nothing Gets Done

The recent dust-up between Obama and the Republican party in Baltimore once again plays up the fact that our government representatives are not only at odds with the American public, but also with each other. Despite the fact that we have a two-party system of governance, there is a basic requirement that they must work together in order to get anything of importance done. More often than not, though, we wind up with a system stuck in first gear as our elected officials engage in ego-indulgence, greediness and downright unethical behavior in order to feather their own nests. This appears to be the state of affairs at present, and people are getting sick of it.

While the exchange between the President and GOP can certainly be considered healthy, no forward movement appears to have been achieved. Republicans keep repeating that they have the plan to save the day, all the while complaining about "deficits". Why the sudden concern over deficit spending? Republicans accused the Obama administration for getting us into this hole, but the facts don't uphold this view.

The two wars that were begun during a Republican administration have so far cost this country $1.05 trillion dollars, with little if any positive return. Combined, they cost approximately $150 billion each year. Certainly, Democrats voted in favor of these actions as well, but the fact is that the Republican party was in control at the time. And let's not forget who was at the helm during the lightning-fast creation and passage of the no-strings-attached financial industry bailout bill.

When it came to health care reform, the GOP actively obstructed any positive outcomes for taxpayers, while consistently handing health care and insurance industry lobbyists whatever they wanted. However, an AP article published late last year spotlighted how, in 2003, Republicans pushed through a Medicare expansion bill that was completely deficit-financed. This bill, which the Democrates opposed, has added tens of billions to the deficit, according to author Charles Babington. How does the GOP defend this? Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, was quoted as saying, "it was standard practice not to pay for anything," six years ago. Oympia Snowe, R-Maine, opined that "dredging up history is not the way to move forward." Well, history is our teacher, and if we can't learn from it, how exactly are we to "move forward"?

When people voted for Obama, they were voting for change. What they got was intransigence, sophomoric displays of ego and constant, tiresome sniping. Can Obama move the country past this stalemate? Time will tell.

Conservatives to Obama: Stay Away from Our Kids

The wailing and gnashing of teeth by conservatives in response to Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren seems to be another attempt to discredit the current administration.  Not content with spreading disinformation about his health care reform plan in order to incite pandemonium where understanding should prevail, they have now moved to the other end of the age spectrum to try to make school-aged children fear their President.  Or, more specifically, the parents of those children.

Once again, I am in awe of the maelstrom they have been able to foment on the flimsiest of ideas.  The notion that schools are no place for the "indoctrination" of young children is a  case in point.  Let's see...we take a large population of blank slates and fill them with knowledge and new ideas...well, I guess Republicans are using a different dictionary than I am.  I wonder:  How would conservatives characterize their preoccupation with re-instituting creationism and school prayer in public schools?  Another is the idea that Obama is trying to push a "socialist" agenda.  Don't these naysayers know that the "public" in public school means taxpayer-funded and therefore available to all?

Obama is not the first U.S. President to address schoolchildren in this manner.  Both Reagan and the elder Bush did, as well.  But for some reason, this time is different.  What, for heaven's sake, is wrong with exhorting kids to work hard and stay in school so that they can help both themselves and their country?

Not all Republicans have joined in this ridiculous campaign.  Laura Bush, a former schoolteacher (and First Lady!) lent her support.  Others, after reading the text, withdrew their opposition.  It still rankles, however, that this latter group had the egotism to screen Obama's speech at all.

When Obama first took office, there was much talk of the end of bipartisanship and touchy-feely speeches about everybody working together.  Well, the honeymoon is over.  There is a boisterous contingent that would love to see this administration fail, and will use any method they can to make it happen.  I guess that what happens when a politician has the nerve to try to change the status quo.