Republican Branding

Someone from the National Council of Mayors or Cities or some such group called me wanting to meet.  I asked him what he wanted.  Blah blah blah.  I asked him after a bunch of doublespeak about learning about how my great business operates what he really wanted.  He said he wanted to share with me Federal and State and City programs to help my business.  The conversation then went approximately this way:

Me:  I don't want any of that stuff.  I don't want other people to be forced to pay for my business

Caller:  So you are a Republican?

I would love it if Republican's narrowly branded themselves as folks who don't take money by force from others.  I would call myself one.  But unfortunately Republicans and Chamber of Commerce type CEO's who nominally call themselves Republicans wallow all the time in such corporate cronyism.

Further, Republicans spend a lot of time on social crusades that drive me crazy.  The other day at a party, I was talking to a number of entrepreneurs who all should have found a natural home in the Republican party given their economic views.  But they were all Democrats, most of them for the simple reason that they did not want to be associated with Republican social crusades.  I talked to a guy for hours who despised Obamacare but voted for Obama twice because he did not want to be associated, for example, with Republican's anti-gay position (e.g. Rick Perry).

Of course, this is a double edged sword.  There are likely many Republican voters who are fiscally liberal but vote Republican for its commitment to opposing gay marriage and abortion and the like.

PS-  The call actually went on for a while.  He asked me what he could help me with.  What is my number one problem?  I told him, honestly, we have put everything else on hold, all our growth plans have been frozen, until we figure out how to minimize the costs of the PPACA on us.   This was not something he seemed to want to discuss.

  • bigmaq1980

    And therein sits the problem.

    Far too many people, put off by the Todd Aikens of the world, throw their vote to Obama.

    Our collective biggest threat at the moment is the deficit spending (and subsequent financing by the Fed). I'm no expert on what will come of it all, but it looks perilously close to 1930s economic conditions, before the calamity. If there is such an economic crisis, all concerns about "social issues" will become irrelevant, given the upheaval that would ensue.

    One red flag is a Bernanke statement that we are in "experimental territory" (to paraphrase). The other red flag should have been the lack of foresight in our leaders in the lead up to the 2008 meltdown. The media did not ask any questions either.

    Entrepreneurs are like everyone else, too busy with their lives to pay much attention or to think about these things much. Main stream media is where we get most of our "world information" from. Unfortunately, that is proving inadequate for the magnitude of issues we face today, where we risk getting blindsided again.

  • Roy

    Hmmm. When one does not wish to have gov't power used by homosexuals as a means of enforcing their agenda, one becomes anti-gay. Don't know Rick Perry's position, so not defending him. But have zero doubt that some claim opposition to forced homosexuality = social agenda. Certain also (by reasoning alone, if didn't have explicit statements saying as much) that opposition to use of gov't spending to kill kids claimed as legislating morality aka social agenda.

  • Che is dead

    "Republicans spend a lot of time on social crusades that drive me crazy."

    What complete bullshit. It's not Republicans that have turned the public schools into a system of secular/socialist madrasas in order to inculcate grade schoolers with their social values. How do you think that we as a society arrive at "social consensus" with regard to things like the promotion of gay sex and marriage?

    Are you aware of the hook-up culture? The rates of out-of-wedlock births? The dropout rates of inner city kids? The filth that Hollywood spews forth without end in order to reinforce this cultural dissolution?

    There are no more aggressive social crusaders than the self-righteous douche bags on the left and their libertarian sympathizers and enablers. Your living the Democrats social crusade. You're just too stupid to realize it.

    At some future point in time, while standing in a soup line or slaving in a re-education/concentration camp, these morons can take solace in the fact that the apparatchiks running the tyrannical government that they've helped to usher in will be tolerant of their desire to have anal sex with the guy next to them. Pathetic.

  • marque2

    I agree, I am also not aware of any anti_Gay stance the GOP currently has. It seems anything the left supports, even with little evidence, is something anti on the GOP side. The leftist Global warming myth is GOP anti-Science. Not liking our current President, for policy issues is GOP anti-black. Wanting orderly control of our borders (a reasonable goal) is GOP anti-Hispanic, etc. Warren is falling for the leftist's game in the name of his libertarianism.

  • marque2

    Your are right GOP is anti-child. And by not supporting gross subsidies for the poor anti-family, and by insisting everyone get a job on merit anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-minority, and about everything else.

    And supporting fewer regulations on business - anti-worker.

    That evil GOP and their social agenda. Who would want a child to have two parents anyway. Lock the kids in government daycare and throw away the key!

  • marque2

    GOP had two senate candidates say weird things. One was nuts, Todd Aikens, the other was being thoughtful and taken out of proportion.

    Problem is that the media in this country looks for slights in the GOP and broadcasts them viciously, while ignoring the slights of liberal candidates. It is pretty sad - but the GOP candidates should have known better.

    As for Todd Aikens what most folk don't know is that his opponent and her supporters spent tons of money to get Aikens nominated because they figured he was the only candidate she could beat.

  • Che is dead

    Sorry, I should have written, "You're living the Democrats social crusade...", not "Your" living ...".

  • bigmaq1980

    Truth is many candidates say weird things...including the POTUS and especially the VP. The MSM is biased and unfair.

    The problem is we need people and an organization that can deal with that, as we will not change that in the short term.

    Yep, heard shortly after he sunk himself that the Dems did fund Aiken's run for GOP candidate.

  • bigmaq1980

    For one who is exclaiming disdain for the "self-righteousness" of others, you are sounding rather self-righteous yourself.

    This tone of discussion is precisely the problem. Anyone, who could be convinced of any principles we hold, would just see the name calling and dismiss the comment as irrelevant.

    The MSM is bias for sure, but are particularly quick to highlight this kind of commentary as "proof" that the "right" are "extreme". Notice, they rarely highlight any rational, civil discussion as maybe illogical.

    Naw, they want to demonize with these examples and scare away anybody who might find affinity with our principles.

  • fotini901

    You might try reading the GOP platform for the 2012 election. For starters.

  • http://devilish-details.blogspot.com/ mesaeconoguy

    Say what you will about the Repugs “social crusades,” the extreme damage being done to the country by Democrats will not be known for decades, when it will be too late to reverse (it is too late now).

    Voting in favor of more of this is literally cutting off your nose (or legs) to spite your face (or rest of body).

    Repugs are largely useless and ineffective, but Dumbasscrats destroyed the country.

  • Eris Guy

    Odd that people would throw their vote to Obama because Aikens—who wasn’t elected and wasn’t running against Obama—says something stupid. Has anyone declared they will vote Republican for the next 10 years because of yet another corrupt, pedophile Democrat (Menendez)?

    Given the retention rate in every Congressional election, the idea that voters are appalled by elected officials’ corruption, and will vote for the other party, is false.

  • LarryGross

    re: " Of course, this is a double edged sword. There are likely many Republican voters who are fiscally liberal but vote Republican for its commitment to opposing gay marriage and abortion and the like"

    yep - they're called RINOs. Now tell me what has happened to them.... and who got rid of them? And calling them "social issues" is a funny way to describe overt racism, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-Hispanic, anti-Black, language that emanates from major National GOP players.

  • Eris Guy

    "Republicans spend a lot of time on social crusades that drive me crazy.”

    Really? Seems like all talk to me, a bunch of words to deceive people into voting.

    You seem like a smart, resourceful guy. Start your own party: “I want the government to leave my money alone, but I want it to enforce my morality.” I look forward to your position papers on how you resolve the conflicts between our nobility and their serfs, and those in which you explain why your morality is coherent and should be law.

  • Kevin R

    These people are stupid. Granted, it's not like the Rs are any good economically either when you get down to it, but voting based on "social issues" is ridiculous. That's just a bunch of BS politicians use to distract people from the real issues. The Ds have been very good at it recently, and we can see where that's getting us.

  • norse

    If sufficiently large groups of folks had the balls to split off from both the Ds and the Rs, there'd be ample room in the middle for a sensible, results-oriented political party with broad appeal. Alternatively, if any of the parties ever clued into this sufficiently, they could occupy the whole middle ground exclusively. Man can dream... but I guess the wine from yesterday night hasn't worn off fully ;)

  • bigmaq1980

    You discount the MSM bias. Who says they cover this stuff "fairly"?

    Two wrongs don't make a right. If someone says something idiotic from the "right", no matter how many idiotic things said on the "left", the "right" will get a brighter light shone on it. Wish it were different.

  • LarryGross

    virtually all schools in the US are controlled locally ...

  • LarryGross

    it's not what you say the GOP is saying - it's how it is heard by people it's aimed at... and that's the issue.

  • LarryGross

    blue-dog Dems + GOP RINOs = new party that is fiscally conservative and social moderate (live and let live).

  • LarryGross

    the "media" INCLUDES FOX, Drudge, Red State and a panoply of "right" media. And it's not "just" Aiken and the other fool.. it's a continuing narrative that comes from within the GOP - like the birthers... the anti-muslims, the anti-"illegals", the anti-abortion, anti-gays, anti-unions, to name just a few.

    all of the "messages" coming from various parts of the GOP are actually "heard" by those they are levied at.... they hear them - and they vote.

    don't blame the media unless you want to blame outlets like FOX for repeating over and over the "anti" message of the GOP. People do hear it.

  • LarryGross

    why do we say "MSM" when we have FOX - clearly the top rated broadcast media, The WSj, the Daily Caller, NewsMax, RedState, Limbaugh, Hannity, AEI, CATO, and dozens of others?

  • NRG

    I got my first political call last week. Never before have I been so desired by their minions. The call's topic was fundraising for some unspecified "pro-life" initiatives. The caller asked me "what are your thoughts regarding abortion?"

    My response was "as a male I don't think I have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies". Sadly, the caller simply hung up on me. Is their skin so thin they cannot conceive of someone not sharing their opinion? Or, most likely an efficient use of time. Caller knew they were getting nowhere with me, move on.

    Works for me!

  • http://profiles.google.com/maruadventurer john mcginnis

    Dream on. http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa.html

    Educational content of schools have not been in control of local school boards since the 1980's. Most local boards are at best these days bean counters.

  • http://profiles.google.com/maruadventurer john mcginnis

    No such thing as a blue dog Dim.

  • http://profiles.google.com/maruadventurer john mcginnis

    Funny Larry.

    * No women in the WH cabinet.
    * We have a Dim senator doing jaunts, banging PR whores.
    * We have another Dim HR that owes back taxes.

    Yet --
    * There are more Hispanics in position in the GOP than tier opposite number.
    * The first Black Woman SoS was a GOPer.
    * Go take a look at the make up of the governors, if there is a minority holding the seat of power he/she is probably a GOPer.

  • LarryGross

    for core academic they have to meet standards they cannot teach religion. but other than that they have substantial latitude - for the time that is not required for core academic.

    this is a bunch of right wing hooey... with no real evidence... just more "conspiracy theory.

  • LarryGross

    you can point out all these "gotcha" things but it's the message that comes from the GOP aimed on these groups that hear that message - and vote.

    Hispanics as a culture know that even in their own ranks there may be corrupt senators. It's the message from the GOP about Hispanics as a group - they pay much more attention to.

    this is the reality. You can try to spin it all you want - but Hispanics know what the GOP is saying and there is no mistaking it. Same goes for the other groups. They hear the messages coming from the GOP and they know if the GOP doesn't like one minority and they are making equally ugly sounds about others - that there's a bigger issue to be concerned about.

    no amount of "talking" is going to fix this.

  • http://profiles.google.com/maruadventurer john mcginnis

    Vs say ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN on the broadcast side. Some 200 print outlets principally controlled by NYT who is the SOLE print syndicator of merit in the US. Then there is Media Matters, HuffPo, FireDogLake, Slate, Nation, et. al on the 'Net. The contest is far from even, not even close.

  • bigmaq1980

    There is a difference.

    Fox News is not available on the basic cable package in most areas it seems.

    The internet is not as fully embraced for a news source by a significant part of the public.

    However, most people have easier access to their news through the local papers, tv and radio (for which - including local Fox - mostly AP, Reuters and other central news providers are the source), or broadcast network television news (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) - which are "free", only requiring "rabbit ears", or basic cable package to receive. This group comprises the MSM.

    They almost universally subscribe to the notion that they are providing "objective" news.

    Fox News, the DC, etc are not "as easily accessible", and also, clearly follow a different narrative, branding themselves as such.

    Over time, with growing market share for alternative sources of news, greater familiarity with technology to access those sources, and growing dissatisfaction with MSM only sourced messaging, the term MSM may lose meaning.

    I predict that MSM, perhaps to stave off losing market share, will lose the "objective" label and be honest about their own bias (it is impossible not to be, so why pretend).

  • http://profiles.google.com/maruadventurer john mcginnis

    In a system that has 6 sessions a day, 4 are core Larry. Leaving only 2 that are elective. 1 of which typically ends up as a PE requirement.

    So your `core academic` dictates what is the near total time spent in the institution. That core is coming from DoEd.

  • LarryGross

    what a bunch of hooey. FOX claims every night to have more viewers than all the other put together! WSJ, New York Post, Daily Caller, NewsMax, RedState, Drudge, Breitbart, Colter, Beck dozens, hundreds of more.

    the problem is that the right trades in hate messages.. and that's why they lose no matter how many of them exist.... you just cannot spout what Hannity does and expect people to buy it.

    People do hear it and they do make up their minds about it. Just accept the reality that a lot of people just simply do not like the messages the right broadcasts.

  • LarryGross

    ha ha ha. You "think" Hannity and Beck will then be perceived as "objective"? you gotta be kidding! re: "easier access" when most nights O"Reilly makes a point that FOX has more views than all the others combined? How do you bet "less access" out of that?

  • Jim in Tulsa

    Washington is very clever. They may not "control" your local school, but they pass out a lot of $$$$ with "do it our way or you don't get the cash"

  • Che is dead

    "My response was "as a male I don't think I have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies".
    Their bodies? Is it their bodies that wind up in the dumpster behind the state funded abortion mill? As a male, I think that if I am forced to subsidize their abortions, women have absolutely no right to expect that I should keep quite about the choices that they are making. I'm pro-choice. You can choose to use contraceptives or, excercise a little self-control. But those choices come before the act and require a sense of personal responsibility. Killing children in order to compensate for your stupidity and recklessness is neither rational or moral. No wonder she hung up, no one wants to waste time with a fool.

  • bigmaq1980

    Don't misrepresent my point.

    Just because MSM is easier access does not obviate Fox News from garnering a sizable market share. Yes, MSM is losing share. But, add up the share of ALL the media that falls under MSM. Add the veneer of "objectivity" they claim. Now you should be able to identify who we are referring to as MSM.

    Naw, you'd rather just try to ridicule, play semantics, and strawman the argument vs prove a point.

  • LarryGross

    nope. out of the 10K or so that schools spend per child, only about 1K comes from Washington and most of it is directed to at-risk kids who have trouble in the early grades. There is no dictation of "content" other than core academic standards. It's a myth. it's yet another right wing myth.

    States, on the other hand, DO control some content. For instance, they may require that kids be taught - in addition to core academic subjects, a history of their state or some basics about the economy, etc.

    Schools cannot teach religion nor can they teach particular moral beliefs associated with some religions but not all religions.

    people are basically ignorant of the truth and more than willing to swallow propaganda that suits their biases.

  • nehemiah

    Social issues like abortion are important. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. How can one enjoy liberty without a guarantee of life?

    Turn around is fair play, since we've killed over 55 million babies in the womb those who survived planned parenthood may seek revenge through Obamacare. Can you say "death panel". Parents killing their unwanted children becomes children killing their unwanted parents. Its coming. You can't keep devaluing life and expect people to act morally. Why would a person walk into a school and kill children? Why not, they're just a few years older than those "fetuses" found in back of the abortion mills.

    Our world grows increasingly dark and we will reap what we've been sowing.

  • marque2

    Just a few weeks ago, a doctor in Belgium decided to kill two babies because they were blind and had other conditions which would make them wheelchair bound for life. In England doctors take away food and water from infants that are "deformed" allowing them to die. The post natal abortion is already here. But Heck, we shouldn't discuss these social issues it offends people when they really just want a few tax breaks.

  • marque2

    It is mostly how the Democrat party controlled press likes to spin it. You control the press and get them to say the same thing 100 times and all of a sudden the low information voter believes it.

  • LarryGross

    actually I think the views of FOX are low information and highly susceptible to sound bite propaganda - like " Social Security is broke" and the like. The lazy exist on all sides but the difference is so folks know they don't really know and others are more than willing to swallow propaganda that caters to their own biases.

  • marque2

    Unfortunately Fox is the only news cast in the US that presents a moderate point of view, the leftist hate it for that, and make it out as extreme right.

    Look as long as the media with the possible exception of Fox, keep spouting out facts and figures on your leftist terms, the GOP is going to have trouble with image. If they ever decide to report fair and balanced, or at least give credence to both sides, the leftists will be in trouble. It is nice that you have the education system and the press on your side.

  • nehemiah

    Live and let live! Good, your are pro-life. Are social moderates pro-life?

  • marque2

    On the note of press bias - have you heard an Armed Detroit school teacher successfully defended himself and two female students from armed attackers on campus, while he was escorting them to the parking lot. One of the attackers is now dead.

    What you haven't heard this? Like the NRA could be right? - I wonder why, the news is so unbiased you would think it would be referenced as a counterpoint to Sandy Hook.

  • marque2

    Enlighten me.

  • nehemiah

    As a baby in the womb, boy or girl, would you have had an opinion on this point? Did you know that a baby in the womb will struggle against the abortion? Will react out of pain when pierced?

    There is a moral blind spot in libertarian thinking on this issue. You ignore the existence of the unborn who already has a unique DNA/genetic code that will determine most of his/her physical characteristics. .

  • LarryGross

    ALL of them are biased and selective in what they present. That's why you should always look for confirming sources. The NRA is a bunch of wackos... to start with.... we cannot own automatic weapons or RPGs or stinger missiles so where is the 2nd amendment "outrage"?

    Would you have been okay if these mass murders also had access to auto weapons, RPGs and stingers?

  • marque2

    Guns are used for personal defense and can be targeted at one person/item. The weapons you mention are not personal defense devices, and can not be targeted at one person - and they generate significant collateral damage. That is the difference.

    Probably lost on you,

    And of course you ignored the real issue. A teacher defended himself and two girls in Liberal Detroit with his concealed weapon against two thugs with guns.

  • LarryGross

    you are correct about the gun stats. But how does a high capacity magazine with a semi-auto not have similar destructive potential as an auto or an RPG? All can and do kills dozens of people in a short period of time.

    re: teacher defense - I have not heard this on FOX but give me a link and show me where it got reported on the "right" sites.

  • Rick C

    "I talked to a guy for hours who despised Obamacare but voted for Obama twice because he did not want to be associated, for example, with Republican's anti-gay position (e.g. Rick Perry)."

    What a dumb f*ck. I mean, seriously, what else can you say? Rick Perry was not going to usher in a new theocracy and brand Teh Geys so we all know who they are. SO because this guy doesn't want the Democrats to dislike him, he votes for the guy who's big thing was something he hates.