Re-Branding, But What's the Brand?
I haven’t done any research for this post; so, blast away if you will.
Back in the ‘90’s when the Republicans took over Congress, the Dems may have talked about the need to re-target their message, or something like that.
Following the GOP’s losses in the ’06 election, they hunkered down except at the margins. We have to be more of what we are. That resulted in McCain and Palin.
Recently, I’m hearing pundits talk about the need to re-brand, and other words, the GOP’s message.
It seems to me the problem is the GOP doesn’t know what it is. You’ve got your McCains – mostly centrist until they think they need to pander to what they think their base is. And then there’s the base, whatever that is. Is the base, the religious right? Is it those that applauded Bush’s attack on civil liberties? Is it those that thought Palin was a breath of fresh air? A combination?
All were roundly defeated last November. So what to do?
They are trying to nay say Obama’s moves, but it doesn’t seem to be working. Obama bowed to the Saudi King. Obama is spending us into something (not that they didn’t for a decade or so). Obama this and that. Oh, and if that doesn’t work, there’s Pelosi, Reid and Frank, you know they’re no good for the Country.
Yet, the polls seem to love Obama; and, they seem to accept the Dems in Congress.
So, Republicans seem to be doing what they’ve always done. We won’t change, we’ll figure out what people will buy and then sell it to them. Doesn’t matter what it is, this is a matter of marketing. But hell, what is it? We don’t have a clue as to what Obama and the Dems should be doing differently, but we know there’s something, we’ll pander. But what?
Stay tuned.
6 comments:
It is easier to be "against" something than to say what you are "for". Witness the republican "budget" proposal that didn't have any actual budget numbers or those rambling protests from last week.
am I wrog to say that Obama is acting more socalist then dem?
Red: I thought just the opposite, that he's acting more Republican than Democrat. On health care reform, for example, the only people he's met with are lobbyists from the insurance industry. That sounds like he's continuing to put corporate profits front and center.
Democrats were freakishly united the last election after 8 years of Bush, but I think by 2012 we'll see infighting from both parties. Our political system really only allows for two parties, so you pretty much have to pick one and then root for your faction.
Here's a link to a piece by Bob Barr at AJC.com that deals with an aspect of my post.
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2009/04/20/republicans-still-leaderless-in-congress/
The Republicans have bet the ranch on the failure of Obama's economic program, as decreed by their de facto leader Rush Limbaugh. They know that if Obama's policies are successful they will be out of power for a long time, hence the obstructionist tactics and even threats of secession. On the other hand, if Obama is not successful the same things that worked for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan will work for whoever the GOP nominates in 2012. They are in siege mode now - their strategy is to keep their base fired up, they aren't even trying to convince anybody outside the base of the soundness of their policies, such as they are. The game plan is to keep the True Believers together and hope that anger at Obama and the Democrats does the rest. It's worked before.
I loved your comment about Palin being "a breath of fresh air" but was really thankful you didn't go push that envelope a bit more and comment on how super intelligent she was/is as so many of my Republican friends STILL keep trying to tell me!
Gotta agree with Dr. Sardonicus take on what the Repubs are doing and why though.
Post a Comment