Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus mocked President Barack Obama’s 2008 election slogan Sunday, arguing it won’t pass the smell test with voters in 2012.
“It sounds like the new slogan is no longer ‘hope and change’,” Priebus said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “It’s, ‘Hey, it could’ve been worse’. Great bumper sticker, Debbie. I hope it works for you.”
Priebus was speaking to his counterpart at the Democratic National Committee, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was with him in the joint interview.
An aggressive Priebus also said that Wasserman Schultz’s talking points had already been proven false, referencing the recent GOP victory in New York’s special House election.
“This has already been tested in a Democratic district. These talking points have been tested, and they’re losing. They’re imploding,” he said during their animated exchange.
The exchange begins at about 4:15 in the following clip, but the whole thing is worth watching.
Notice how the Democrat plan of attack seems to have fallen back to blame Bush, then blame Bush some more. With a disastrous three years of Democrats running the federal government, this is all they have–there is no positive record to speak of, a fact that Priebus is willing to point out.
Keep in mind, Mrs. Shultz also said this earlier this year, which Republicans should be repeating over and over.
Moreover, its good to see some in the Republican party finally have the guts strike back at Democrats and their lame talking points, and go on the offensive.
We’re still too far out from 2012 to put credence into any poll, but this McClatchy-Marist survey is not good for Obama. It’s so bad in fact, that Mitt Romney would win in a potential matchup:
President Barack Obama’s approval ratings have sunk to the lowest level of his presidency, so low that he’d lose the White House to Republican Mitt Romney if the election were held today, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.
The biggest reason for Obama’s fall: a sharp drop in approval among Democrats and liberals, apparently unhappy with his moves toward the center since he led the party to landslide losses in November’s midterm elections. At the same time, he’s gained nothing among independents.
“He’s having the worst of both worlds right now,” said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York, which conducted the national survey.
“As he moves to the center, he’s not picking up support among independents and he’s having some fall-off among his base. If his strategy is to gain independents and keep the Democrats in tow, it isn’t working so far.”
Once again, Republicans have a chance to win by default. Not because their candidate is so much better, but because the Democrat just sucks that much more.
Plus, there’s this bit:
[President Obama] easily defeat Republican former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, however. He’d get 52 percent of registered voters and she’d get 40 percent, if the election were held today.
The key in each matchup is independents.
Romney had the best advantage over the president among independents, preferred by 47-39 percent. Independents break for Obama over Huckabee by 42-40 percent. Palin fares much worse among independents. They favor the president over her by 52-35 percent.
For the record, I’m of the belief that the President is doing irreperable harm by
punching the hippies sticking it to his core base of supporters–the progressive/liberal left that mobilized en masse during the 2007-2008, along with various others who were duped by the Greek columns.
That being said, pissing off these people means that Obama is moving towards the center, which is more in tune to where the majority of Americans stand. Nobody really knows how that will affect his bid for reelection.
As for Sarah Palin, I’m pretty much convinced that the best role for her would be as head of the RNC. My
web surfing casual observance of various polls over the past few months show little if any positive news for her if she ran in a national campaign. Her favorables are typically below where they should be, and she rarely fares well in head-to-head matchups with the President. But again, 2012 is a long way off.
RNC Chairman Michael Steele has been touring the country stumping for GOP candidates in the “Fire Pelosi” tour bus. The latest stop was in Concord, New Hampshire.
A Republican voter had an interesting take on what Republicans are doing in 2010:
Steele closed his remarks with a request that audience members take time to write down a headline they hope to see the morning after the election and put it somewhere they can see it every day.
“Ask yourselves: What have I done today to make that headline come true?” Steele said.
Sue Companion, a 46-year-old from Northwood, attended Steele’s speech with her 3-year-old son Austin. A Republican since she began voting during the Reagan administration, she had been following the bus tour online and saw that it was coming to New Hampshire.
“I want to see something different happen in Washington,” she said. Instead of “more politics and more business as usual,” Companion said she wants “more of what the American people want to see happening.”
Republicans who get elected in the coming tsunami on November 2nd, better take note. This is a call for real change in Washington. People are disgusted by what they’re seeing in Washington. Poll after poll shows that we hold Washington pols in complete and utter contempt. Republicans are no exception to this–they are just as unpopular as Democrats.
We can expect to see a lot of new faces in the Republican caucus in the 112th Congress. Those who were real Tea Partiers, I expect to do what they were elected to do–for the most part. The other Republicans who just rode the coattails of the anti-Democrat party sentiments of the electorate, had better step up to the plate and listen to the message that voters are sending.
Former Nevada state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle (R) raised an eye-popping $14 million between July 1 and Sept. 30 for her challenge to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), a stunning number that far eclipses the cash-collection totals of other prominent candidates seeking Senate seats next month.
“Sharron Angle produced one of the most successful single quarters of fundraising in the nation’s history for a U.S. Senate campaign,” said Angle communications director Jarrod Agen. “This is a testament to the hatred of Harry Reid, the nation’s disapproval of President Obama, and the unprecedented grassroots support for Sharron Angle.”
Ninety four percent of the money raised in the third quarter by Angle came in the form of donation of $100 or less. Ninety six percent of the contributions were $200 or less.
Small individual donors, grassroots support and getting around the Republican establishment in DC. That’s what it’s all about for Republican candidates in this cycle. The left, of course, calls it pandering to the “crazies”.
But when half-term Senator Barack Obama raises money from small donors and gets grassroots support from the moonbats, it’s called unprecedented “hope and change.”
It’s very simple. If you want our money, you have to espouse our beliefs. I’m not going to part with my dollars so you can direct them to Dede Scozzafava’s campaign in New York. Instead, I’ll drop $20 to a candidate I know needs the money and shares my values.
The establishment Republicans are in trouble and have to change. Until they get that message and make some adjustments, the money is just not going to be there.
This is spot on. Clearly Lester is following the lead of other intelligent, but not so sophisticated, conservative bloggers out there.
In all seriousness, though. Be sure to read Lester’s entire post.
It serves as a reminder that, in this very important mid-term election year, it would serve conservatives well to note how inept and incompetent the RNC really is. Imagine if they really had their act together? Sure the rot began to set in before Michael Steele became chairman, but he hasn’t exactly been a guiding light for conservatives or the party.
The Republican party should not be about the RNC anymore. It should be about the grassroots. We each have the ability to make it so. Observe the field in your local and state elections. Pick the conservative candidate and support them. Plain and simple.
The poll shows that the 2012 contest is going to begin right where the 2008 Iowa Caucuses left off, with Mike Huckabee leading Mitt Romney. Huckabee comes out on top of the poll garnering 22 percent, Romney finishes second with 18 percent, and Newt Gingrich finishes surprisingly well with 14 percent in third place. Sarah Palin finishes a disappointing fourth with 11 percent. Texas Congressman Ron Paul garnered 5 percent, while Pawlenty, and South Dakota Senator John Thune each received 1 percent.
Yes it’s still very early. But I have no faith in any of these candidates–not Palin, not Romney, certainly not Huckabee–to be able to win a national election against Barack Obama.
Despite Republican momentum in 2010, which was to be expected, 2012 is light-years away politically speaking. The grassroots activism is certainly a plus, but the RNC is still a rotten apple. It’s virtually a headless operation (thank you Chairman Steele).
And as if things weren’t murky enough, this also stuck out from the Iowa Republican piece:
If there is a surprise in the poll, it’s the strength of Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has been a frequent visitor to Iowa over the past decade. He has headlined events for the Republican Party of Iowa, various political candidates, and held activist workshops across the state. His affection for and understanding of Iowa will definitely be an asset should he seek the Republican nomination.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Gingrich is running. But we have been warned. Gingrich winning the nomination would be a disaster for the Republican party and would ensure four more years of an Obama presidency.
I noticed that PPP has added Newt in their polling for the 2012 GOP nomination:
For our look ahead to the 2012 Presidential race in Arizona this week we added Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul to go along with our usual choices of Mitt Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney. And although we’ll certainly need to see polling from more states to confirm a trend, the numbers suggest a Gingrich candidacy could hurt Palin’s prospects.
Palin and Gingrich both have a unique appeal to the most partisan of Republican voters, but it may be that they see Gingrich as a more substantive and ‘Presidential’ candidate. They could end up competing for the same pool of GOP partisans, and if they both run it may prove to be a good thing for Romney.
Prospects for the 2010 are certainly high, but I’m not too confident about the race for the White House in 2012.
I’m increasingly becoming of the opinion that as conservatives, we are better off if Governor Palin wouldn’t run for President in 2012, not so much because I’m not 100% sure that she could win, but her contributions to the cause are better suited for other uses–like at the RNC, for example. Building up the base, lining up donors, etc.
And about Newt. I’m under no misconception that Newt will not make a run for the nomination in 2012. By all means he will. If the climate for Democrats continues as toxic as it is right now, if all of the momentum that we’re seeing from grassroots conservatives keeps up into the end of the year, then you can take it to the bank—Newt will be throwing his hat into the ring.
That won’t be a good thing neither for the Republican party or conservatism.
Americans are not stupid. We’ve seen this movie before. Newt would be bad news. The Republican party needs to move forward and cultivate younger talent, some new faces. Newt is not the way to do that and the Republican party deserves what it gets if it nominates the former Speaker for 2012.
Heckuva job Mike, heckuva job:
[...]Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council last week broke with RNC Chairman Michael Steele by publicly urging conservatives to stop supporting the Republican National Committee.
Now, as Steele and Perkins both prepare to address the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Perkins has a new message for the RNC: Shape up, or risk seeing your supporters ship out and support Tea Party candidates instead.
“I think the Republicans have to realize they’re not operating in a vacuum. Now, while Democrats may be in trouble coming into November’s election, the Republicans are not the only game in town,” Perkins told us on ABC’s “Top Line” today.
“As we see the Tea Party movement taking on a life of its own, the Republicans have some competition, which I think is actually good for the conservative vote. And they’re going to have to be responsible with how they spend their money, they’re going to have to be I think very measured in their message, and that they are embracing a conservative message …. ”
“And they have to I think convince voters that they’re back on the right track,” Perkins said. “And I don’t think what we see coming out of the RNC at present is doing that.”
I’ve never been fond of how Perkins and the FRC have led the GOP around by the nose.These third party threats from various factions of the party are nothing new. I recall Perkins threatening to back a third party in the run-up to the 2008 primaries, when Giuliani seemed to be the apparent nominee. These threats are never good for Republicans, never good for any political party. Those who make them are never the half-loaf types.
That being said, can you blame Perkins at this point? It’s getting to the point now where even asking Steele to step down would be an embarrassing side-show unto itself as the GOP needs to gear up for the midterms, something the GOP definitely does not need.
And I repeat my assertion that I’m still not convinced that November will be as easy a cakewalk as everyone seems to think.
Then again, when it comes to Steele’s tenure as RNC Chairman, maybe it’s best to rip the band-aid off now and get it over with. With any luck, it would be a one week (two week tops) story at most.
It’s all to attract the “big” donors, I’m sure:
A February RNC trip to California, for example, included a $9,099 stop at the Beverly Hills Hotel, $6,596 dropped at the nearby Four Seasons, and $1,620.71 spent [update: the amount is actually $1,946.25] at Voyeur West Hollywood, a bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex.
RNC trips to other cities produced bills from a long list of chic and costly hotels such as the Venetian and the M Resort in Las Vegas, and the W (for a total of $19,443) in Washington. A midwinter trip to Hawaii cost the RNC $43,828, not including airfare.
My only question is this: at what point does the RNC realize that Michael Steele is more of a negative than a positive for the party? Hell, for that matter what are the positives? Have there ever been any?
I’m not a big poll geek, but here is an interesting question from a WSJ/NBC News poll out yesterday:
(ASKED OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAD HEARD OF THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, Q10:1-5)
Q13 From what you know about the so-called Tea Party Movement, would it be a third party that you would be interested in voting for this year for Congress?
Yes …………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
No ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 50
Depends (VOL) ……………………………………………………………………….. 5
Not sure …………………………………………………………………………………… 7
Unaware of Tea Party (10:6) ……………………………………………….. 18
+ Results shown reflect responses among registered voters.
Got that? 50% say that they won’t consider voting for a third-party candidate. So can we stop with the third-party nonsense already? You want conservatives in Washington? Then it’s the GOP or bust.
Instead of trashing the GOP, move to reform it. That’s part of what grassroots organizations are supposed to be doing–keeping the party in check.
If you’re not happy with the direction of the party establishment, then don’t feed the beast. Hit them where it hurts the most–in the wallet. Support conservative candidates directly instead of donating to the GOP.
Don’t waste your resources on third parties as you’ll only be helping to elect Democrats.