Why to Ignore Republicans - In 83 Words, 32 Words or 3 Words

by: David Sirota

Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 14:00


Though polls show America doesn't need a lesson in why Republican policies should be rejected, there remain many ways to continue telling the country why policy proposals from congressional GOP should be shunned right now. Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, for instance, gives us an 83 word version on CNN (h/t MyDD):

"The Republican answer to everything is tax cuts, we've tried it for eight years it hasn't worked for the economy, that's what they always say...Their answer is always tax cuts no matter what the question is and it simply hasn't worked. We've had eight years of deregulation, privatization and tax cuts for the rich and look where it's gotten us. It's not a surprise that this economy's in such bad shape because of those policies, we don't want to do more of them."
- Sherrod Brown

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D) gives us a 32 word version:

"I am hard put to take the advice or counsel of people who have followed policies that have put us deeply into debt and led to the weakest economy since the 1930s."
- Steny Hoyer

Here's my 3 word version, noting that rejecting Republican policies was what a recent event was all about:

"The 2008 Election."
- David Sirota (and 67 million other Americans who voted in November to reject Republican policies)

Now, Democrats can pick any of these versions of the message. But my message suggestion for the final stages of the stimulus negotiation is simple: They should resist the urge to voice yet more fawning odes to bipartisanship, and simply pick one of these messages, then take a deep breath, and repeat.

David Sirota :: Why to Ignore Republicans - In 83 Words, 32 Words or 3 Words

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I like Sherrod Brown's (4.00 / 1)
answer.  People understand it.  No matter what, the Rs just want tax cuts.  Their world is over.  Your answer shows that.

I heard that segment on my drive in (4.00 / 1)
I love my Sirius CNN radio and love Sherrod Brown and Dave for this post

wasn't it more like (4.00 / 1)
70 million voters?

$8.7 trillion bailout versus $1 trillion stimulus (0.00 / 0)
Congress and the Federal Reserve have handed $8.7 trillion to the perpetrators of the sub-prime mortgage crisis who sold worthless mortgage-backed securities to unsuspecting investors and piggy-backed on top of them equally worthless schemes like credit default swaps to make billions more in fees.

So far, all the reports show that these bankrupt financial institutions that should have been allowed to fail are either hoarding the money or spending it on self-serving activities that run counter to the intent of the legislation.

Why should $8.7 trillion go into the pockets of these miscreants but the U.S. government should not spend $1 trillion to stimulate the rebirth of a "real economy"?

As Robert Reich pointed out in a recent issue of the American Prospect, now that Wall Street has imploded and U.S. taxpayers will be paying the price for its financial schemes for generations to come, government can and must play a stimulus role in preserving and expanding the "commons" that belongs to all of us and provides the supportive scaffolding of all our lives.

Government has a unique role to play that no other sector can play in protecting the commons and paying for the work that must be done to provide us clean water and air, renewable energy sources, high quality public schools and public parks, state-of the art telecommunications and transportation systems, scientific research that benefits society, etc.

The sphere of government-funded activity to preserve the commons is where the action is going to be for the next decade at least, ideally via public/private partnerships, or by itself, if necessary.

The stimulus bill should get the ball rolling in this sphere. Tax cuts that decrease government revenues to support this work have no place in the stimulus bill. Nor do compromises with GOP losers and free marketeers.

What I hope is that Obama listens to the Larry Summers of the world in order to get a first hand glimpse of their losing schemes so that he will know what not to do.  


I don't know what it means (0.00 / 0)
but more and more my thoughts and those of Mr. Sirota's are in sync. I don't know who should be more nervous...him or me? Just kidding.

The only thing I would add is that Sherod Brown is too kind.  We have been trying this crap since Reagan.  It has failed......


2 words (0.00 / 0)
President Obama summed it up in 2 words. "I won."

I like Reid's, but I don't like yours, sorry... (0.00 / 0)
"The 2008 election" is equivalent to the Republicans' "The 2004 election".  The point is that ~45% of the voters voted for the other guy for president, and as Obama has said, he's their president, too.  Reid's answer should form the basis for your answer, that their crappy policies should cause them to lose elections, but the reason why those policies shouldn't be enacted is because they're crappy, not because the Republicans aren't in power.

Am I making sense?


The '04 election was close (0.00 / 0)
Bush won by a record thin margin for an incumbent, and Repubs made many of their gains through dishonest redistricting and the retirement of the last of the old southern Dems.

'08 was a blowout, any way you look at it, especially considering that it was the second one in a row.

'00 was stolen. '02 was about 9/11. '04 was a fluke and very thin. '06 & '08 were about Repubs massively screwing up and Dems finally learning how to win elections again.

I.e. '00-'04 were aberrations, a battle of the bulge kind of last-gasp resurgence of an already dying movement and party (or else do you really think they would have picked a non-entity like Bush and been forced to steal and manipulate successive elections), while '06-'08 were a sea change towards Democratic dominance and the realization of underlying forces that had been at work for some time and finally came to the surface.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
My 2 word version: We won (0.00 / 0)
Or, to elaborate in somewhat more detail:

They suck. We won. Bite me.


"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox