The Perfect Republican Stump Speech (sl538)
November 23, 2015 10:48 AM Subscribe
We asked former Republican speechwriter [for Mark Sanford, an experience he describes in The Speechwriter] Barton Swaim to write a totally pandering stump speech for an imaginary GOP presidential candidate — one who espouses only positions that a majority of Republicans agree with. Here’s the speech he wrote, including notes to explain his phrasing, behind-the-scenes pro tips on appealing to Republican voters and the data he used to decide which positions to take.
Trump Platform 2016
posted by Nanukthedog at 10:56 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Nanukthedog at 10:56 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
It does completely neglect any mention of climate change, which is probably the only safe way for a GOP candidate to handle that issue.
posted by evilangela at 10:58 AM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by evilangela at 10:58 AM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
What does Swain do now? Using his powers for good and not evil, I hope?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:04 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:04 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Among the many things wrong with the Republican party is the ongoing need they feel to attack courts and judges, the key to the rule of law. Good grief, what could be a more central political principle?
posted by bearwife at 11:04 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 11:04 AM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
67 percent of Republicans say that to get “families who fall on hard times back on their feet again” it's better for them to rely on family, friends and charitable organizations rather than government programs.
This entire thing just reads like one extended "I got mine, fuck you."
And maybe that is in fact the organizing principle of the modern Republican party? So, good job?
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:11 AM on November 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
This entire thing just reads like one extended "I got mine, fuck you."
And maybe that is in fact the organizing principle of the modern Republican party? So, good job?
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:11 AM on November 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
Swain
Swaim. I didn’t notice for a while either.
What does Swain do now? Using his powers for good and not evil, I hope?
Doing promos like this for his book, I assume.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:18 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Swaim. I didn’t notice for a while either.
What does Swain do now? Using his powers for good and not evil, I hope?
Doing promos like this for his book, I assume.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:18 AM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
hey, completely unrelated.. but does anyone know what this pop up as you scroll down technology is called?
posted by INFJ at 11:18 AM on November 23, 2015
posted by INFJ at 11:18 AM on November 23, 2015
Barton Swaim or Barton Fink?
posted by jim in austin at 11:19 AM on November 23, 2015
posted by jim in austin at 11:19 AM on November 23, 2015
As expected, he dives pretty deeply into the sea of anti-intellectualism right off the bat.
posted by zarq at 11:42 AM on November 23, 2015
posted by zarq at 11:42 AM on November 23, 2015
Again, real politics isn't bad enough, that you need to invent some imaginary politics?
posted by Segundus at 11:42 AM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Segundus at 11:42 AM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball; but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!
posted by entropicamericana at 11:44 AM on November 23, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 11:44 AM on November 23, 2015 [19 favorites]
Again, real politics isn't bad enough, that you need to invent some imaginary politics?
The speech is missing two GOP fearmongering touchstones: Muslims and Guns. Other than that, it's a concise analysis of the issues that matter to Republican voters.
posted by zarq at 11:51 AM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
The speech is missing two GOP fearmongering touchstones: Muslims and Guns. Other than that, it's a concise analysis of the issues that matter to Republican voters.
posted by zarq at 11:51 AM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ugh. Notable for being almost entirely devoid of actual policy positions, aside from vague promises to defund Planned Parenthood and dismantle Obamacare.
posted by Wretch729 at 11:53 AM on November 23, 2015
posted by Wretch729 at 11:53 AM on November 23, 2015
It's good, but he mis-spelled "Democrat Party."
posted by 1adam12 at 11:56 AM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by 1adam12 at 11:56 AM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
I felt gross reading this. I see/hear it every day on what's replaced the news, I don't want it distilled in its purest form. You know how they say you eat a certain amount of spiders in a given year? This is like a decade's worth in one mouthful.
posted by univac at 11:59 AM on November 23, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by univac at 11:59 AM on November 23, 2015 [19 favorites]
Ugh. Notable for being almost entirely devoid of actual policy positions, aside from vague promises to defund Planned Parenthood and dismantle Obamacare.
I question the notion that most democratic party stump speeches would have much in the way of substantive policy positions either…
posted by Going To Maine at 12:05 PM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
I question the notion that most democratic party stump speeches would have much in the way of substantive policy positions either…
posted by Going To Maine at 12:05 PM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
Utterly depressing. I know the assignment entailed pandering to GOP voters, but it's horrible to think that a) even minor amounts of serious engagement with the issues are deemed "too wonkish" for popular consumption; b) there's no effort to start from a fact base, only to imply agreement to get their stupid heads nodding, and; c) the recommended use of weasel words to carefully preserve the ability to do unpopular things, like raise taxes, without being willing to discuss their necessity. I despair. How cynical.
posted by carmicha at 12:07 PM on November 23, 2015
posted by carmicha at 12:07 PM on November 23, 2015
Other than that, it's a concise analysis of the issues that matter to Republican voters.
Well, sorry, but it's not what my imaginary Republicans are saying.
posted by Segundus at 12:17 PM on November 23, 2015
Well, sorry, but it's not what my imaginary Republicans are saying.
posted by Segundus at 12:17 PM on November 23, 2015
Telling the truth is so ingrained into how I was brought up that I have a hard time thinking of this sort of thing as OK. Allowing different views and ideas is a basic human value, but deliberately misleading people I think of as at best unethical and at worst just straight-up evil. I guess this falls more towards the former, but if you are in a career where you are thinking "This is bullshit, but it'll work" as you write something, you should feel bad about yourself, and you are a bad person.
posted by freecellwizard at 12:20 PM on November 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by freecellwizard at 12:20 PM on November 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
President Obama, we still have a Congress in this country, and we fought a war to get rid of a king. Illegal executive orders are no substitute for leadership.
Ignoring Bush/Cheney's edicts, eh?
posted by Monochrome at 12:23 PM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ignoring Bush/Cheney's edicts, eh?
posted by Monochrome at 12:23 PM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Going to Maine - There's probably a lot of truth to that; people love glittering generalities after all. I took a look at the transcript of Hilary's campaign announcement and while it certainly had a lot of vague aspirational bits it did at least have 2 specific policy commitments: creating an infrastructure bank which would issue bonds to fund infrastructure projects and universal preschool. Not exactly the New Deal, at least 2 positive things to match the two negatives in this generic speech.
If I had more time on my lunch break I'd be interested to compare the actual party platforms from the last election.
posted by Wretch729 at 12:28 PM on November 23, 2015
If I had more time on my lunch break I'd be interested to compare the actual party platforms from the last election.
posted by Wretch729 at 12:28 PM on November 23, 2015
I guess this falls more towards the former, but if you are in a career where you are thinking "This is bullshit, but it'll work" as you write something, you should feel bad about yourself, and you are a bad person.
You fail to subscribe to the "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" ethos of politics?
posted by DigDoug at 12:29 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
You fail to subscribe to the "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" ethos of politics?
posted by DigDoug at 12:29 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Every time I hear somebody lie about reality for political gain, my fingers curl involuntarily into a fist.
Right now I'm having my fingernails surgically extracted from my palm.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:42 PM on November 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
Right now I'm having my fingernails surgically extracted from my palm.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:42 PM on November 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
Clearly the United States can’t sit by and do nothing while families flee the savage violence of ISIS and the Assad regime. Many of our ancestors fled violence when they came to these shores — think of persecuted religious minorities in the 1600s or Jews seeking refuge from Western Europe in the 1920s and ’30s
History and tolerance of the Other in a Republican stump speech? This is thin on veiled racism and xenophobia.
posted by benzenedream at 12:46 PM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
History and tolerance of the Other in a Republican stump speech? This is thin on veiled racism and xenophobia.
posted by benzenedream at 12:46 PM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Am I mistaken to suggest that Obama said this and that while stumping but once in office a lot of stuff got done not up front and in public but rather behind the scenes, ie, spying on our citizens, drone killings with many civilians being killed, planting special forces in African nations, etc.?
posted by Postroad at 12:47 PM on November 23, 2015
posted by Postroad at 12:47 PM on November 23, 2015
hey, completely unrelated.. but does anyone know what this pop up as you scroll down technology is called?
I'd call them something like dynamic sidenotes implemented in javascript, but I don't think they're common enough to have a catchy name. That said, I hope they continue to be obscure. I dislike them because they mandate a fixed focus point for reading scrolled text until you reach the bottom of the screen, at which point the scroll events stop working and you have to start clicking again.
posted by zamboni at 12:47 PM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'd call them something like dynamic sidenotes implemented in javascript, but I don't think they're common enough to have a catchy name. That said, I hope they continue to be obscure. I dislike them because they mandate a fixed focus point for reading scrolled text until you reach the bottom of the screen, at which point the scroll events stop working and you have to start clicking again.
posted by zamboni at 12:47 PM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Do stump speeches change people's political opinions at all significantly, outside of the primary audience?
posted by OmieWise at 12:51 PM on November 23, 2015
posted by OmieWise at 12:51 PM on November 23, 2015
Do stump speeches change people's political opinions at all significantly, outside of the primary audience?
Stump speeches primarily preach to primary voters and the not-really undecideds, so their purpose isn't necessarily to change opinions but rather reinforce the already converted. Their primary goal is to get people more involved in the political process. To inspire them to vote, donate their time (volunteer) or donate their money.
posted by zarq at 1:04 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Stump speeches primarily preach to primary voters and the not-really undecideds, so their purpose isn't necessarily to change opinions but rather reinforce the already converted. Their primary goal is to get people more involved in the political process. To inspire them to vote, donate their time (volunteer) or donate their money.
posted by zarq at 1:04 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
In some respects that pro-life movement has been revivified by the exposure of Planned Parenthood’s ghoulish practices.
Methinks someone needs to tell ol' Barton Fink to stop getting high on his own supply.
posted by SassHat at 1:11 PM on November 23, 2015
Methinks someone needs to tell ol' Barton Fink to stop getting high on his own supply.
posted by SassHat at 1:11 PM on November 23, 2015
Unbelievable that he considered the one simplistic paragraph about minimum wage possibly "too wonkish" for a crowd. Anybody who finds that argument complicated probably still struggles with object permanence.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:24 PM on November 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 1:24 PM on November 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm probably revealing my own politics here, but I thought the "exposure of Planned Parenthood's ghoulish practices" had been discredited? And I don't know how to google that without finding a lot of things that are for-sure propaganda lies.
"We’ve got to address this problem at its source — Syria. Does that mean sending troops into Syria? I don’t think we know the answer to that yet, but I’ll tell you what it doesn’t mean: It doesn’t mean we should declare an intention to stay out of Syria." -- the one bit that's easy for an imaginary opposing pundit to parody. It sounds as ridiculous as "known unknowns and unknown unknowns".
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 1:31 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
"We’ve got to address this problem at its source — Syria. Does that mean sending troops into Syria? I don’t think we know the answer to that yet, but I’ll tell you what it doesn’t mean: It doesn’t mean we should declare an intention to stay out of Syria." -- the one bit that's easy for an imaginary opposing pundit to parody. It sounds as ridiculous as "known unknowns and unknown unknowns".
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 1:31 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
....... and yeah the immigration section is way more moderate than I expected.
Actually, it doesn't conform to Swaim's notes either. 63% of Republicans believe “immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care.” vs "let's keep those who work hard and contribute to our economy". Isn't that contradictory? I mean, if someone takes a job, they are by definition working hard ... if they rent housing, they are contributing to the economy. Buying food, clothing, toiletries, etc., contributes to the economy, and some of the things they buy get sales tax, like beer or movies. Or deodorant.
I feel like I'm missing something.
(Fun fact: Some immigrants get paid not in cash, but in a regular payroll check - they're on the payroll under someone else's name. Which means that certain taxes get withheld automatically (and they can't fill out a tax return) and they have to cash the check at a check-cashing business.)
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 1:43 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Actually, it doesn't conform to Swaim's notes either. 63% of Republicans believe “immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care.” vs "let's keep those who work hard and contribute to our economy". Isn't that contradictory? I mean, if someone takes a job, they are by definition working hard ... if they rent housing, they are contributing to the economy. Buying food, clothing, toiletries, etc., contributes to the economy, and some of the things they buy get sales tax, like beer or movies. Or deodorant.
I feel like I'm missing something.
(Fun fact: Some immigrants get paid not in cash, but in a regular payroll check - they're on the payroll under someone else's name. Which means that certain taxes get withheld automatically (and they can't fill out a tax return) and they have to cash the check at a check-cashing business.)
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 1:43 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Unbelievable that he considered the one simplistic paragraph about minimum wage possibly "too wonkish" for a crowd. Anybody who finds that argument complicated probably still struggles with object permanence.
We're talking about Republican voters, ya?
That isn't intended as a put-down. A lot of people in this country don't know a lot about the issues, don't want to know a lot about the issues, and consider anything more complex than can be communicated on an episode of 24 to be trickery. Issues should be simple, just like we were taught they were in history!
Perhaps my pro-538 bias is showing here, but I loved this, and I love how focused they are on statistically analyzing the way Americans think and feel. If this makes you feel sick... I mean, probably it should. But I'd rather feel sick about reality than feel good about a dream.
posted by rorgy at 1:44 PM on November 23, 2015
We're talking about Republican voters, ya?
That isn't intended as a put-down. A lot of people in this country don't know a lot about the issues, don't want to know a lot about the issues, and consider anything more complex than can be communicated on an episode of 24 to be trickery. Issues should be simple, just like we were taught they were in history!
Perhaps my pro-538 bias is showing here, but I loved this, and I love how focused they are on statistically analyzing the way Americans think and feel. If this makes you feel sick... I mean, probably it should. But I'd rather feel sick about reality than feel good about a dream.
posted by rorgy at 1:44 PM on November 23, 2015
Oh man, this is a work of genius, and he's not even explaining a lot of it. As someone who generally votes Republican these days, but is sometimes frustrated with the stances on social issues, this speech would both convert me /and/ the evangelicals that drive me nuts.
The vagueness around social issues like gay marriage and abortion would read to me as not strong enough to fear it will actually be a priority or that anything will get done about it - i.e., Planned Parenthood may or may not get defunded, but abortion isn't being made illegal. And its actually really easy to oppose activist judges while still liking the idea of the judiciary, on either side of the aisle, because whoever you are, you're going to think your interpretation is right and everyone else's interpretation is the activist one.
It's strong on defense, low on racism, which is important for me - but also is hitting the key anti-communist parts. The point of condemning China isn't just about actual
posted by corb at 1:48 PM on November 23, 2015
The vagueness around social issues like gay marriage and abortion would read to me as not strong enough to fear it will actually be a priority or that anything will get done about it - i.e., Planned Parenthood may or may not get defunded, but abortion isn't being made illegal. And its actually really easy to oppose activist judges while still liking the idea of the judiciary, on either side of the aisle, because whoever you are, you're going to think your interpretation is right and everyone else's interpretation is the activist one.
It's strong on defense, low on racism, which is important for me - but also is hitting the key anti-communist parts. The point of condemning China isn't just about actual
posted by corb at 1:48 PM on November 23, 2015
After I posted my comment, I felt bad,* because what I wrote sounded like a vaguely classist jibe. But it's his level of rhetoric I was lamenting, not the education level of his audience. No one needs higher education to grasp that basic argument he made. And honest to God, that extra few words wouldn't kill the moment, would they? ... What would I know, I couldn't get myself elected class secretary in seventh grade.
-----
* You can tell I'm a liberal because I feel bad for people who don't give a damn about me, and I don't mind it, either.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:49 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
-----
* You can tell I'm a liberal because I feel bad for people who don't give a damn about me, and I don't mind it, either.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:49 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ugh, stupid phone, but I don't want to abuse the edit window. It's not about actual China, but what China Stands For - i.e., Red China. It's a delicate touch rather than talking about actual policy. "Hey guys, I'm with you!"
posted by corb at 1:49 PM on November 23, 2015
posted by corb at 1:49 PM on November 23, 2015
China isn't communist any more. China is what the business wing of the Republican party wishes we could be.
posted by stevis23 at 2:49 PM on November 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by stevis23 at 2:49 PM on November 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
Countess Elena: There are a few interactions he has with Mark Sanford in The Speechwriter that boil down to Sanford not believing the people he's talking to are very bright (Mark Sanford also comes off as kind of a doofus). Sanford always wanted him to speak in the absolute plainest language he could, and this might be a reflection of that. It might also be that he doesn't think much of the public, I don't know.
posted by repute at 2:58 PM on November 23, 2015
posted by repute at 2:58 PM on November 23, 2015
I really want to see the Democratic version of this.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:07 PM on November 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by sparklemotion at 3:07 PM on November 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
This guy is fooling himself. This is the "best Republican stump speech that my non-insane friends will think is reasonable".
posted by cell divide at 3:16 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cell divide at 3:16 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
My first thought when I was reading it was that if I were a Republican I would be insulted by the beginning portion that insinuates that either a.) I don't realize that managing all of the social and economic problems of a huge country (+ foreign policy!) is actually complicated or b.) I'm too dumb to understand complicated things.
posted by tofu_crouton at 3:16 PM on November 23, 2015
posted by tofu_crouton at 3:16 PM on November 23, 2015
This is clearly not the perfect Republican stump speech, as it contains no mention of prison. Or Momma. Or trains. Or getting drunk.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:24 PM on November 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:24 PM on November 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
This is clearly not the perfect Republican stump speech, as it contains no mention of...
Ctl-F Reagan. Nope!
posted by carmicha at 3:28 PM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ctl-F Reagan. Nope!
posted by carmicha at 3:28 PM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Do Republican stump speeches frequently mention getting drunk? Can you point to some examples of that? I can't say it's something I've noticed when I've heard Republican candidates give speeches.
Actually, their speeches are about Momma.
posted by univac at 3:48 PM on November 23, 2015
Actually, their speeches are about Momma.
posted by univac at 3:48 PM on November 23, 2015
Well I was drunk
The night my candidate
Got out of prison
And I went to pick him up
In the rain
But before I could get to the Cap'tol
In my pickup truck
He got runned over by a damned old train
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:55 PM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
The night my candidate
Got out of prison
And I went to pick him up
In the rain
But before I could get to the Cap'tol
In my pickup truck
He got runned over by a damned old train
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:55 PM on November 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm seeing a lot of complaints that this doesn't conform to an image of Republicans as virulently racist, classist jerks, but I think that view is just based on the candidates we keep seeing. Ridiculous people like Trump, who are totally killing the party. There's actually a lot of frustration within the Republican party with the candidates they have - I mean, if a Republican isn't a Trump supporter, they probably really hate him - and I think this is supposed to be a speech that could actually be successful.
And I mean, that's what makes it more interesting and alarming. It's allowing for subtlety while at the same time still completely and totally pandering. It's a pre-2008 McCain speech. It still hits the right notes, but it does it without making an obvious gesture out of it. It's not a middle finger to liberals, it's a gentle pull towards fighting "thugs" and "lawbreakers."
It's one thing to read this knowing ahead of time that you'll disagree; I mean, it's not intended for someone like me, so it's not too hard to see through. I'd really like to see what this speech looks like for a Democratic candidate.
posted by teponaztli at 4:50 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
And I mean, that's what makes it more interesting and alarming. It's allowing for subtlety while at the same time still completely and totally pandering. It's a pre-2008 McCain speech. It still hits the right notes, but it does it without making an obvious gesture out of it. It's not a middle finger to liberals, it's a gentle pull towards fighting "thugs" and "lawbreakers."
It's one thing to read this knowing ahead of time that you'll disagree; I mean, it's not intended for someone like me, so it's not too hard to see through. I'd really like to see what this speech looks like for a Democratic candidate.
posted by teponaztli at 4:50 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
One of them will be the nominee.
“Them” here means... Trump? Carson? Cruz? Any others? Because I’d still bet on Rubio over them…
posted by Going To Maine at 5:16 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
“Them” here means... Trump? Carson? Cruz? Any others? Because I’d still bet on Rubio over them…
posted by Going To Maine at 5:16 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
So actually, something is standing in the way of the reasonable Republicans - party control. Doing away with that is one of the good ideas of the Tea Party that gets a bad rap. Currently, the RNC controls the "establishment" candidates - if you are a person who can control yourself and follow rules, you're not going to run without the backing of the party. Trump and his ilk are only up there because they are willing to, like party crashers, ignore what the party says and go for it anyway. And the party has a lot wrong with it - they don't nominate people they feel they can't control, they don't nominate people who don't play the game, etc. Thats why the only candidates there are either establishment or populist candidates running on a "fuck those guys" ticket.
People willing to get in bed with the RNC in order to get elected are by definition not upstanding enough to be worth a damn.
posted by corb at 5:29 PM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
People willing to get in bed with the RNC in order to get elected are by definition not upstanding enough to be worth a damn.
posted by corb at 5:29 PM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
And the party has a lot wrong with it - they don't nominate people they feel they can't control, they don't nominate people who don't play the game, etc.
I would argue that the ability of any party to make its candidates stick to a core platform is, in fact, one of its key virtues. It gives the party a brand, and helps people know what it stands for. If the party is just a bunch of yahoos nominating a different kind of wildcard every four years, it would seem to have lost its thread. (Unless this is Planescape and we’re talking about the Xaositects.)
posted by Going To Maine at 5:40 PM on November 23, 2015
I would argue that the ability of any party to make its candidates stick to a core platform is, in fact, one of its key virtues. It gives the party a brand, and helps people know what it stands for. If the party is just a bunch of yahoos nominating a different kind of wildcard every four years, it would seem to have lost its thread. (Unless this is Planescape and we’re talking about the Xaositects.)
posted by Going To Maine at 5:40 PM on November 23, 2015
I'm never really too keen on assuming groups of people are monolithic. I don't agree with the Republican platform, but I find it hard to believe that only Democrats are capable of complaining about their current crop of candidates (remember the Democratic primary in 2004?), or that only Democrats can ever get frustrated with the direction their party is going in.
posted by teponaztli at 5:45 PM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 5:45 PM on November 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Bland, milquetoast, watered down version of what the Republican leading candidate actually says on the stump.
Cell divide is right: this is what a Democrat pretending to be a republican thinks he would say.
Ridiculous people like Trump, who are totally killing the party.
The GOP is the party of endless wars, corporate welfare, and slight cuts to marginal tax rates that don't help most people. That the party dared to coalesce behind Bush the Third for even a minute is further evidence of their total moral and political depravity. Trump is killing the party alright - and it deserves to die.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 6:14 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Cell divide is right: this is what a Democrat pretending to be a republican thinks he would say.
Ridiculous people like Trump, who are totally killing the party.
The GOP is the party of endless wars, corporate welfare, and slight cuts to marginal tax rates that don't help most people. That the party dared to coalesce behind Bush the Third for even a minute is further evidence of their total moral and political depravity. Trump is killing the party alright - and it deserves to die.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 6:14 PM on November 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Man, this may have been perfect 12 years ago, but we're looking at a republican party where the ones using speeches like this one are losing to a racist fascist and a guy whose talking points are that the pyramids were used to store grain.
It's pretty clear that the perfect republican speech is fucking bonkers nonsense.
posted by shmegegge at 6:21 PM on November 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
It's pretty clear that the perfect republican speech is fucking bonkers nonsense.
posted by shmegegge at 6:21 PM on November 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
and slight cuts to marginal tax rates that don't help most people.
In contrast with the democrats and their support for slight increases to marginal tax rates?
posted by Going To Maine at 6:26 PM on November 23, 2015
In contrast with the democrats and their support for slight increases to marginal tax rates?
posted by Going To Maine at 6:26 PM on November 23, 2015
Huh? Who cares? This discussion and my comment and the comment I replied to are about Republicans. also I am not a democrat and don't care about the democrats so save the tu quoque for somebody else
posted by mrbigmuscles at 6:49 PM on November 23, 2015
posted by mrbigmuscles at 6:49 PM on November 23, 2015
Huh? Who cares? This discussion and my comment and the comment I replied to are about Republicans.
If we’re going to refer the GOP as the party of something, it’s helpful if the other major party isn’t for something markedly similar. But that said, I’m not sure why I was spoiling for a squabble. My apologies.
Why do you think the party’s coalescing around Jeb! was a sign of moral depravity? I mean, certainly, another Bush, yes, but another Bush who happened to have been a reasonably successful governor of Florida to boot.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:14 PM on November 23, 2015
If we’re going to refer the GOP as the party of something, it’s helpful if the other major party isn’t for something markedly similar. But that said, I’m not sure why I was spoiling for a squabble. My apologies.
Why do you think the party’s coalescing around Jeb! was a sign of moral depravity? I mean, certainly, another Bush, yes, but another Bush who happened to have been a reasonably successful governor of Florida to boot.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:14 PM on November 23, 2015
> I mean, certainly, another Bush, yes..
As a man once said: "Fool me.. can't get fooled again."
posted by Nerd of the North at 7:27 PM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
As a man once said: "Fool me.. can't get fooled again."
posted by Nerd of the North at 7:27 PM on November 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
> reasonably successful governor of Florida
His timing was impeccable, at least. Won office in 1999, ready to provide the assist to get his brother the Presidency that year.
Left in 2007, before the Florida housing bubble https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2F39 collapsed.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:45 AM on November 24, 2015
His timing was impeccable, at least. Won office in 1999, ready to provide the assist to get his brother the Presidency that year.
Left in 2007, before the Florida housing bubble https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2F39 collapsed.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:45 AM on November 24, 2015
Speaking of the 2000 election, check out all the recognizable names just in a couple paragraphs on this expose on how shady the process was and how it has defined the voter suppression of the last 15 years:
posted by zombieflanders at 6:59 AM on November 24, 2015 [9 favorites]
On election night in Florida, Bush led Gore by 1,784 votes. Because of the closeness of the election, an automatic recount began two days later in every county. Hundreds of lawyers flocked to Florida. Ben Ginsberg, national counsel for the Bush campaign, called it “Woodstock for constitutional lawyers.”This is where the GOP' mostly-successful crusade in making most of the Constitution not applicable to people who aren't white Christian dudes really got going.
Ted Cruz, a 29-year-old domestic-policy adviser on the Bush campaign at the time and a former law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, put together Bush’s legal team. One of his first calls was to John Roberts, whom Cruz knew from the close-knit network of former Rehnquist clerks, nicknamed the Cabal.
“We started to assemble a team of the best lawyers and in particular the best Supreme Court lawyers in the country, and John’s name naturally came near the top of the list,” Cruz told The New York Times in 2005. Roberts, who had clerked for Rehnquist in 1980 and was now in private practice, caught the next flight to Tallahassee.
Ted Cruz, then 29, put together George W. Bush’s legal team in the 2000 election fight.
Roberts had a long history of opposition to voting rights. As a young lawyer in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department, Roberts led the charge against the 1982 reauthorization of the VRA, writing more than two dozen memos criticizing the landmark civil-rights law. Voting-rights violations “should not be made too easy to prove,” he wrote, and would lead to “a quota system in electoral politics.” Now he was helping the Bush team prevent eligible votes from being counted.
Roberts edited legal briefs, including the Bush campaign’s 50-page submission to the Supreme Court, and prepared Theodore Olson, a former assistant attorney general under Reagan, for oral arguments. He also advised Florida’s governor, Jeb Bush, on how the state legislature could assign its presidential electors to George W. Bush before the recount was finished. “I really appreciate your input on my role in this unique and historic situation,” Bush wrote to Roberts.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:59 AM on November 24, 2015 [9 favorites]
Ted Cruz clerked for Rehnquist! He clerked in the Supreme Court! Suddenly he makes me much angrier.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:35 AM on November 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 7:35 AM on November 24, 2015 [1 favorite]
There was an interesting NPR interview with Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone, on the rise of the "Freedom Caucus" , recently. Part of his thesis is that the GOP establishment no longer has much control over candidates, since they ditched earmarks, and since Citizens United allowed so much outside $$:
"DICKINSON: There has been a real sea-change in Washington. It used to be that backbenchers fell in line because they were dependent on the party. They were - the parties were strong. They controlled fundraising. They controlled messaging. They came to your rescue if you were in trouble. They had earmarks to bring to your district. If you were, you know, out of step with your district on something, well, at least you'd be able to come home and say, look, we got this park or this bridge built. But out of the scandals of the Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff era, one of the good government reforms that John Boehner brought in was that he got rid of earmarks. And he lamented himself that that gave him no grease. So at the same time that the carrots go away, the sticks are less effective also because of the success, ironically, of the Citizens United decision. And so this - this brought in a flood of outside money, much of it ideologically motivated, that diminished the power of the centralized party. And so, if - the threat, traditionally was, get in line or we're going to withhold party funding from you. Well, now, a politician can go out and say, you know what? I'm going to start my own super PAC, and I'm going to say, John Boehner is standing against our shared interests. And money will come in."
This is about congress, but I think there may be a similar loss of control over presidential candidates. The GOP is losing control, and the results are pretty shocking.
posted by jetsetsc at 8:41 AM on November 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
"DICKINSON: There has been a real sea-change in Washington. It used to be that backbenchers fell in line because they were dependent on the party. They were - the parties were strong. They controlled fundraising. They controlled messaging. They came to your rescue if you were in trouble. They had earmarks to bring to your district. If you were, you know, out of step with your district on something, well, at least you'd be able to come home and say, look, we got this park or this bridge built. But out of the scandals of the Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff era, one of the good government reforms that John Boehner brought in was that he got rid of earmarks. And he lamented himself that that gave him no grease. So at the same time that the carrots go away, the sticks are less effective also because of the success, ironically, of the Citizens United decision. And so this - this brought in a flood of outside money, much of it ideologically motivated, that diminished the power of the centralized party. And so, if - the threat, traditionally was, get in line or we're going to withhold party funding from you. Well, now, a politician can go out and say, you know what? I'm going to start my own super PAC, and I'm going to say, John Boehner is standing against our shared interests. And money will come in."
This is about congress, but I think there may be a similar loss of control over presidential candidates. The GOP is losing control, and the results are pretty shocking.
posted by jetsetsc at 8:41 AM on November 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
> Ted Cruz clerked for Rehnquist! He clerked in the Supreme Court! Suddenly he makes me much angrier.
Yeah, that paragraph above is incestuous bordering on parody.
Presidential candidate George W. just happens to have his brother be the governor of the one critical state, and Ted Cruz recruits John Roberts because they'd both clerked for Rehnquist? Then W. goes on to install Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Cruz, just one mustache short of being a mustache-twirling villain, becomes a senator and potential presidential nominee.
This would be implausible in a Carl Hiassen novel, even though the setting of Florida is spot-on.
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:13 AM on November 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah, that paragraph above is incestuous bordering on parody.
Presidential candidate George W. just happens to have his brother be the governor of the one critical state, and Ted Cruz recruits John Roberts because they'd both clerked for Rehnquist? Then W. goes on to install Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Cruz, just one mustache short of being a mustache-twirling villain, becomes a senator and potential presidential nominee.
This would be implausible in a Carl Hiassen novel, even though the setting of Florida is spot-on.
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:13 AM on November 24, 2015 [4 favorites]
I’m more angry because it makes it makes me feel like Cruz is pulling a con & not expressing his sincere beliefs rather than because I feel like the relationships are incestuous.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:19 AM on November 24, 2015
posted by Going To Maine at 9:19 AM on November 24, 2015
This would be implausible in a Carl Hiassen novel
Hiassen is all about South Florida. This political shittery is all North stuff, which is a whole other flavor of batshit that is equally nutty but less amusing and more toxic.
posted by phearlez at 10:24 AM on November 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hiassen is all about South Florida. This political shittery is all North stuff, which is a whole other flavor of batshit that is equally nutty but less amusing and more toxic.
posted by phearlez at 10:24 AM on November 24, 2015 [2 favorites]
But that said, I’m not sure why I was spoiling for a squabble. My apologies.
Apology accepted!
Why do you think the party’s coalescing around Jeb! was a sign of moral depravity? I mean, certainly, another Bush, yes,
I mean, that's basically it. He hasn't backed off anything his brother did, he's weaselly and snottyand entitled, and just doesn't have his heart in it and it's obvious he's just going to be another puppet of the donor class. They know it, the base knows it, and they know the base know it and they push him anyway. Aristocratic with no charm or style or sense of noblesse oblige. Blech
posted by mrbigmuscles at 11:42 AM on November 24, 2015
Apology accepted!
Why do you think the party’s coalescing around Jeb! was a sign of moral depravity? I mean, certainly, another Bush, yes,
I mean, that's basically it. He hasn't backed off anything his brother did, he's weaselly and snottyand entitled, and just doesn't have his heart in it and it's obvious he's just going to be another puppet of the donor class. They know it, the base knows it, and they know the base know it and they push him anyway. Aristocratic with no charm or style or sense of noblesse oblige. Blech
posted by mrbigmuscles at 11:42 AM on November 24, 2015
The difficulty here is that, although there’s evidence that minimum-wage increases slow job growth and thus hurt the people they’re intended to help — low-end job seekers....
So he still resides in ideological rather than fact-based space?
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:57 AM on November 24, 2015
So he still resides in ideological rather than fact-based space?
posted by Mental Wimp at 11:57 AM on November 24, 2015
I thought the "exposure of Planned Parenthood's ghoulish practices" had been discredited?
No, Planned Parenthood Isn’t Selling ‘Aborted Baby Parts’
posted by homunculus at 12:31 PM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, Planned Parenthood Isn’t Selling ‘Aborted Baby Parts’
posted by homunculus at 12:31 PM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older “...[F]ull of conversations, ready to launch into... | "Does Floyd always have to die?? You're heartless... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Apocryphon at 10:52 AM on November 23, 2015 [9 favorites]