Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Lakoff on the Santorum Strategy
I think I finally understand what the Republicans are up to, thanks to George Lakoff. I was having a conversation with a politically minded friend recently and we agreed that, as a strategy for getting elected president, attacking contraception is not a winning strategy. But along comes Lakoff to explain that Republicans are probably not worried about this battle, they are focused on a long-term war. Think about how much free media Rush Limbaugh has had in the last two weeks. Now imagine that all that free media HELPS CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES AT EVERY LEVEL EXCEPT THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE. And suppose that Mitt Romney's response is the one that conservatives generally had--right argument but he used the wrong language. It's a sobering thought. And think about all the coverage that other conservative "leaders" such as Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann etc. have received in the Republican primary. And how many Republican debates have been not on Fox but on CNN, where independents and conservative Democrats are more likely to tune in. It's why we'd better think about what Lakoff has to say and come up with some ways to respond. The first response would be to stop wishing for Rick Santorum to hang in the race into June to "weaken" Mitt Romney. Maybe a loss in Pennsylvania could help usher Rick Santorum off the stage--for good.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Super Tuesday and Beyond--some stuff to consider
The CSCC Blog has been pretty quiet lately in spite of all that's been going on, so here's some stuff to consider on Super Tuesday 2012.
If you are wondering about details and deadlines for the Pennsylvania primary (APRIL 24), a good local resource is the League of Women Voters:
http://palwv.org/lewisburg/
A couple big issues that deserve even more attention than they've been getting:
1. Development of the Marcellus Shale and the natural gas industry. The "Impact Fee" recently passed falls far short of what CSCC called for in its petition last year, especially in the very limited nature of the fee.
2. Campaign Finance, Citizens United, etc. It's clear that we will see unregulated money flooding onto the airwaves this election cycle through SuperPACs. Stephen Colbert has done a nice job of showing how absurd the systems is, but that's not going to change anything in the short term. One reason Mitt Romney continues to be seen as the strongest candidate for the Republicans in spite of his weaknesses as a candidate is the strength of the SuperPAC money supporting him.
Some suggested reading:
Walter Russell Mead argues that we need a new liberalism--the earlier versions having "died of their own success." (I think that's a nice way of saying that they were not ultimately sustainable.)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1183
Mead also wrote a more accessible discussion of the same ideas--a blog version called "Can the L-word be saved?":
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/12/15/can-the-l-word-be-saved/
In a nutshell, Mead is arguing that we're at a moment when a new paradigm is looking like a possibility, since neither conservatism nor liberalism is able to deliver what Americans seem to want.
In Congressional news, political newcomer Phil Scollo has put together several members of the Chris Carney team to take on Tom Marino. Of course, he will be very much an underdog (assuming he wins the D primary) in a heavily R district, no name recognition, little money, and running against an incumbent, BUT . . . it is good to see the Dems contesting the election, it is possible that more momentum could swing toward the Democrats as election day approaches, and you never know what might happen. It will be interesting to see what positions Scollo takes--if he will be a Blue Dog centrist like Carney or something else.
If you are wondering about details and deadlines for the Pennsylvania primary (APRIL 24), a good local resource is the League of Women Voters:
http://palwv.org/lewisburg/
A couple big issues that deserve even more attention than they've been getting:
1. Development of the Marcellus Shale and the natural gas industry. The "Impact Fee" recently passed falls far short of what CSCC called for in its petition last year, especially in the very limited nature of the fee.
2. Campaign Finance, Citizens United, etc. It's clear that we will see unregulated money flooding onto the airwaves this election cycle through SuperPACs. Stephen Colbert has done a nice job of showing how absurd the systems is, but that's not going to change anything in the short term. One reason Mitt Romney continues to be seen as the strongest candidate for the Republicans in spite of his weaknesses as a candidate is the strength of the SuperPAC money supporting him.
Some suggested reading:
Walter Russell Mead argues that we need a new liberalism--the earlier versions having "died of their own success." (I think that's a nice way of saying that they were not ultimately sustainable.)
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1183
Mead also wrote a more accessible discussion of the same ideas--a blog version called "Can the L-word be saved?":
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/12/15/can-the-l-word-be-saved/
In a nutshell, Mead is arguing that we're at a moment when a new paradigm is looking like a possibility, since neither conservatism nor liberalism is able to deliver what Americans seem to want.
In Congressional news, political newcomer Phil Scollo has put together several members of the Chris Carney team to take on Tom Marino. Of course, he will be very much an underdog (assuming he wins the D primary) in a heavily R district, no name recognition, little money, and running against an incumbent, BUT . . . it is good to see the Dems contesting the election, it is possible that more momentum could swing toward the Democrats as election day approaches, and you never know what might happen. It will be interesting to see what positions Scollo takes--if he will be a Blue Dog centrist like Carney or something else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
