Why Vote Republican?

[Fishrrman]

Luis posted above:


Hmmm...

Are you suggestin' sumthin' called "Article V" ??

[Oceander]

The problem with that strategy is that Obama is more popular than Congress. When they have done these stunts before, they haven't worked.

I have noticed that Cruz has stepped down from the role of principal, which signals me he knows it is not fruitfull or gaining ground.

Voters across the board want things accomplished, not games. They don't want the GOP to orchestrate scenarios to get vetos. They want scenarios which get issues dealt with by Congress.

There is a difference between the electorate overall, and the entertainment oriented people on internet forums. They want high value entertainment, extreme scenes, etc. Showdowns are so exciting.

People that work full time, have other interests, want things dealt with, without all the theatrics.

There's nothing wrong with that strategy if the bills that get sent up are common-sense bills - as Aligncare put it - that attempt to address some of the issues with something less than rigid ideological purity.

The Keystone XL bill was a perfect example of that:  a sensible bill that had bipartisan, if not veto-proof, support; Obama's veto didn't win him many kudoes except from the rich white liberal wing of the DNC.  Keep sending up bills like that and each veto will alienate the nonaligned voters a little bit more.

Another perfect example is the 18-month transitional fix ala COBRA to be put in place in the event the Supreme Court rules that the subsidies cannot go to federal exchange purchasers.  If the GOP would just get that bill teed up and ready to go for a vote - let it go through the committee process now - and Obama will do serious damage to the democrats when - not if, when - he vetoes it.

The shame is that the Republicans aren't capitalizing on that fact.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis posted above:


Hmmm...

Are you suggestin' sumthin' called "Article V" ??

No.

[Oceander]

With all due respect, why do republicans/conservatives keep trying to come up with these desperate hail mary passes - the constitutional conventions, the anti-RINO attacks, and etc - when what's really called for is getting down into the trenches and explaining in plain English why republican/conservative policies are the cure for what ails this country?

Face it, republicans/conservatives have a much harder time of it because many of our policies are counter-intuitive.  Consider:  reducing entitlements will, ultimately, be good for everyone as it reduces the incentive to live off the dole rather than get a job and it reduces the taxes needed to fund those entitlements, freeing up producers to invest more in growing the very businesses that will be hiring those people who have been newly-incentivized to find a job.  However, at the level of the single individual and his/her immediate future, reducing entitlement spending basically looks like you're taking money - food, clothing and housing - away from poor people.

Which version of reality looks correct if one simply looks at the policies as stated, without getting a detailed explanation for why the first works, and, if done correctly, won't result in the second happening?

It's like Adam Smith's invisible hand:  it's not readily apparent (hence "invisible") and the effect needs patient explanation.

The GOP seems to have become singularly incapable of doing this.  Reagan was more than capable of doing this and that is in no small part why he trashed Carter so utterly in 1980:  because he could speak heart to heart to the little guy, the guy who was desperately afraid of the future because all seemed dark and gloomy and he and his family were but one measly little paycheck away from penury and homelessness.

It is that part of Reagan that the GOP needs to reclaim - the ability to explain in plain simple English why his vision of the future was correct and Carter's not - it doesn't need to resurrect some zombie apparition of Reagan's own policies.  Those policies were fit for the America of 35 years ago - and some of them turned out to not be quite up to snuff in any event - they aren't ipso facto fit for America in the 20' teens, even if they were the best policies at the time when Reagan pushed them.