Republicans continue post-election outreach programs

Following their losses in the 2012 elections, Republican officials across America have stepped up their outreach efforts to improve their standing with black voters, voters over age 65, college students, disaster victims, voters with disabilities and women voters.

• Ron Weiser, finance chairman of the Republican National Committee, continues his party’s outreach to black voters.

• Sen. Tom Coburn explores new strategy for Republican outreach to voters over age 65.

• Florida Republican leaders explain outreach effort to appeal to younger voters.

• Rep. Scott Garrett continues Republican outreach to victims of natural disasters.

• Rick Santorum spearheads Republican outreach to voters with disabilities and those who love them.

• House Republicans outline plan to demonstrate commitment to women and minorities.

• Glenn Reynolds also offers his plan for Republican outreach to women voters.

• Rep. Steve King continues Republican outreach to Latino voters.

 

  • Carstonio

    You’re confusing values with rhetoric. 

    “Strong families” is code for male headship and homophobia. 

    “Personal responsibility” means the old racist myth about black laziness, as Invisible Neutrino noted.

    “Fiscal restraint” again means opposition to welfare, and opposition to any government program that would make society more just. That includes everything from Social Security to tougher regulation of Wall Street. A party truly interested in restraint wouldn’t have fought two wars on the national credit card.

    “Individual liberty” means business owners operate as they please, even if it means discrimination in employment, unsafe products, and unsafe working conditions. A par truly interested in liberty would oppose DOMA as infringing on an individual’s marriage decisions.

    Whatever the GOP might have advocated originally, now it’s about protecting the economic and social power of rich straight white Christian men. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/tomstone Thomas Stone

    I like the idea that the GOP apologist position is ‘look we know what’s best for black people but for some reason they just won’t admit it and keep voting against us, sheesh’

  • http://www.facebook.com/tomstone Thomas Stone

    90% of black people voting against us? Must be because people lie on blogs. If only we Republicans weren’t so galldarned honest!

  • P J Evans

     Actually, Social Security isn’t a budget item. It’s medical-care costs (lots of which is insurance) that’s increasing  and a budget item.

  • Daughter

     TANF is not only a piddly fraction of the US budget, it’s a piddly fraction for anyone to live on. In my state, people get an average of $423 a month – and I know many states are far less. Even if they’re lucky enough to have Section 8 housing vouchers, they’re still paying $200-$300 a month in rent out of pocket. Most don’t have cars, and the cheapest way to get around on public transportation is a monthly bus pass, which costs $72. And then if they’re lucky, they might have $200 worth of food stamps – for a family of three, four, or five. Still, that leaves them with $50 to $150 of disposable income, with which to pay for clothing, toiletries, household supplies, furniture, school supplies, or anything else they might need. (So for example, what happens when your toddler outgrows their toddler bed, and needs a twin? The cheapest twin beds around are about $300 – I know, because I shopped around for this not that long ago).

     That’s what makes this “they vote Democratic for a check” meme so ugly – as if people want to live on so little.  Although if it’s a choice between one party that will at least give you some help, and another that will let you starve, it’s not a choice.

    And then if you want to do better, there are obstacles. Like getting your state-funded child care voucher pulled just as you get a job or go back to school.

  • Carstonio

    Also, every accusation I’ve heard of Democratic pandering implies that the party is giving voters “free stuff” to buy their allegiance. Not only racist, but also infuriatingly ignorant of how government spending works. 

  • Gotchaye

    I have a hard time judging Jeff too harshly for the stance he takes on Republican outreach to non-white voters because, after all, that’s basically my position with respect to people with Jeff’s stated views.  I think that common liberal values – strong families, personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, individual liberties, etc – are congruent with Jeff’s, and I’m always a little mystified that people who talk like he does, and who don’t appear to be particularly bigoted or particularly rich, vote Republican.  I’m sometimes tempted to think that the problem is messaging.  Liberals have to figure out how to overcome the manufactured narrative, which the media are generally complicit in, that the Republicans are actually anything like as good as the Democrats at achieving all of those values.  But many like Jeff don’t want to hear it, packaged in history and economics and other familiar trappings.  So how should it be presented?

  • Pat

    These people still scare me.  While Republican’s candidates filthy mouths did a lot to hand the election to the Democrats in 2012, I’m worried that it won’t affect future elections.  Obama had an awesomely coordinated campaign and get-out-the-vote effort in 2008 and 2012, but that did approximately jack in the state-level elections between those years.  In 2010, the face of the Republican Party wasn’t the relatively genial and sane Mitt Romney, but Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.  Still the same amount of racism, religious bigotry, and misogyny, and they won in landslides because their state-level organizations were much better than the Democrats’, and back then they didn’t have gerrymandering and incumbency to give them a boost.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    They may not have had gerrymandering in 2010, but state-level legislatures, IIRC, can set boundaries for federal districts, so Republican-controlled state legislatures helped even during the period of 2006-2010 when the Dems held both Houses of Congress.

  • Darkrose

    For example, the African American community votes overwhelmingly Democratic (95%, I think?), yet for African American Christians, certain Democratic positions (e.g. abortion) are problematic.  So for that subset of African American voters who vote Democratic in spite of their beliefs, (a) why do they do that, and (b) how can Republicans connect with those individuals and persuade them to vote Republican?

    While I do not speak for the entire African American Community ™, I think it’s fair to say that it’s pretty simple:Republicans can connect with black folks when the Republican Party stops being a haven for racists.Before you tell me that not all Republicans are racist, I’ll point out that I never said that. What I am saying is that when you see people emailing pictures of the President with a bone through his nose, or watermelons all over the White House lawn, or people calling the First Lady “Moochelle”, when the President’s intelligence, competence, and Americanness have been questioned since day one, when he had to have Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate in modern history–and when the supposed leaders of the Republican Party, instead of denouncing this blatant racism, tolerate it, ignore it, and even accuse those who point it out of being “the real racists”….we notice that. I notice that. I see Republicans engaging in the worst kind of disrespect for a woman who grew up on the South Side of Chicago, like me, who went to the same high school as my best friend, whose daughters look a lot like me at that age, married to a guy who’s a big dork with brown skin, short nappy hair and ears that stick out, kind of like my dad.

    I see Republicans questioning whether the President has the right to be where he is, and I remember all of the times my own intelligence and competence were questioned because of the color of my skin. I watch as Condoleeza Rice is held up as proof Republicans aren’t racist while Susan Rice is called “not very bright” by the man who wanted Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, a man who graduated almost dead last in his Naval Academy class, and I note that the most notable difference between those two black female Stanford scholars (again, like me) named Rice is their party affiliation. I watch as Colin Powell is essentially drummed out of the Republican Party for openly supporting the first black President, and for daring to call the party out–however belatedly–on their racism. And I notice, as do people older than me who remember the Civil Rights Movement and the people who died so that I could have the right to vote and exercise that right, as Republican governors do everything in their power to keep black people from voting like nothing has changed since the 1960′s. 

    And none of this takes into account that I’m female and gay, and therefore, according to your own party platform, am not to be trusted to make my own medical decisions and don’t deserve to legally marry the person I love.

    Quite honestly, the fact that you’re even asking the question after the most recent election highlights the problem. You’re asking, “What’s the problem with black people, that they won’t vote Republican?” when you should be asking, “What’s the problem with Republicans, that 95-98% of black people will work hard to vote against us?”

  • Jeff

    “Implicit in this statement is the idea that the default member of the party is a white male, otherwise there’d be no “out” in the reaching.”

    No, it’s not at all, but thanks for calling me a racist.  Rather, the statement reflects the belief on the part of Republicans that the party’s values have universal appeal, and don’t need to be packaged and presented differently to different constituencies.  

  • Jeff

    Lori, are you aware of economists who argue that running a $1T annual budget deficit, and the continued growth of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are sustainable into the future without a fiscal catastrophe?

    Maybe you actually do.  But even so, my point was simply that the allegation that Republicans wish to cut entitlement spending because they’re racists is as ridiculous as ridiculous can be.  Republicans want to cut entitlement spending because they don’t believe it’s sustainable.  And they’re right.  But if you have an information source that is not severely limited who can explain how spending $1T more than we take in can work out, by all means, please explain it to poorly-sourced me.  Do you run your own household with 33% more spending than income, and how does that work out for you? 

  • Carstonio

    If you want to be taken seriously, don’t compare national economies to household budgets. And don’t engage in pearl-clutching over accusations of racism. I’m not particularly interested in whether Republican lawmakers are motivated by racism or sexism. What matters is how the treat minorities and women, in their rhetoric and in their policies. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2011/05/11/9625/exxon-mobil-dodges-the-tax-man/
    If we ended a whole bunch of federal subsidies to business entities that don’t need subsidies (I don’t have the data to tell you which categories of entities I mean, but ‘highly profitable oil companies’ is at the top of the list), and if we taxed capital gains at the same rates as labor income (or, preferably, at higher rates than labor income), and if we put a fuck of a lot more effort into making sure everyone able and willing to be employed is employed at a living-wage job and can thus pay more in federal tax withholdings than they get in the annual federal tax refund, the deficit problem would quietly go away. It’d go away faster if we cut the military budget to the size the Pentagon wants, and faster yet if we cut the military budget so that we are outspending the second-highest-military-budget country by a little instead of by a lot.
    But that would take money away from rich people and it would take penis size away from powerful people and it would provide concrete benefits to not-rich people, so Republicans won’t ever support it.

  • Lori

     

    Republicans want to cut entitlement spending because they don’t believe it’s sustainable.    

    Jeff, you are aware of the size of the US military budget are you not? If the issue is unsustainable spending why isn’t the GOP taking an axe to the Pentagon’s budget?

     

    Do you run your own household with 33% more spending than income, and how does that work out for you?    

    I can only assume that you are unaware of the difference between macro & micro economics. If you were aware you would know that this tired old “Bev & Jim at the kitchen table, going over the bills” bit is inaccurate and irrelevant. It makes the ill-informed feel clever and that makes it easier for those who actually know what’s what to manipulate them, but it bears no actual relationship to the way the budget of a sovereign nation operates.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     

    Do you run your own household with 33% more spending than income, and how does that work out for you?

    Unlike the federal government, I can’t print my own money.

    But if it takes spending 33% more than I make, you bet your fucking life I will do it because the alternative is “Which of the kids do we stop feeding?”

  • Lori

    the belief on the part of Republicans that the party’s values have
    universal appeal, and don’t need to be packaged and presented
    differently to different constituencies.   

    Even assuming that this is true, the GOP so strongly favors one constituency (aging white men*) over all the other constituencies that it’s main packaging and presentation is racist, misogynist and homophobic. Here’s a tip for you and the rest of the GOP from those of us who are not old, white men—we can hear you.

    *ETA: Aging white men living in the South

  • EllieMurasaki

    No, there’s some resemblance. Households with more expenses than income can and (at least sometimes) do solve that by increasing their income. Case in point: hi. In the first half of December, I worked 88.25 hours. Full time with no overtime at this job is 75. Shockingly, my paycheck yesterday (after all the taxes and things came out) was more’n twenty percent higher than my paycheck from any pay period where I worked no overtime.

    But suggest that the federal government increase its revenues and Republicans stick their fingers in their ears and go LA LA LA.

  • Lori

    Good point.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    BC, I regret that I have but one like to give to your comment.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    If the growth of GDP (national production) outpaces the growth of government spending, the deficit automatically shrinks over time as a concern.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Incidentally, for all the “RAAAAR WE WILL BITE TEH BULLET” from the Republicans about military spending cuts as part of their “Grand Bargain”, guess what they did NOT do the first chance they got at structuring a budget under those conditions.

    Thaaaaaaat’s riiiiiiight!

    They did NOT cut military spending.

    So much for being committed to anything except covering their own asses and those of the aforementioned old white guys.

  • Lori

    They’re perfectly happy to cut military spending—as long as it’s the money spent on actual humans. They’re perfectly happy to cut numbers at a point when their wars still have the military over-stretched and sending people on far too many deployments. They’re fine with cutting the VA. They’re fine with cutting research into treatments for PTSD. They’re fine with denying disability claims on highly dubious grounds in the name of fighting wastefraudandabuse.

    The toys are sacred though. The military-industrial complex must be continuously feed.

    The out-sourcing budget for executives is also sacred, although the money for the folks who actually do the work is much less so.

  • Tricksterson

    The conditions your talking about ceased to be several centuries ago.  The Catholic Church ceased being a temporal power a long time ago (although Lord and Lady, it does keep trying every now and then, don’t it) .  Get thine head out of both the Middle ages and thine arse.

  • Tricksterson

    Okay, as someone who used to vote Republican, than said to hell with both parties and now reluctantly iuews the Democrats as the lesser of the two dominant evils, what do Republicans really stand for?  Give concrete examples please, not platitudes

  • Tricksterson

    Me, but this guy showed up instead.  Satan would never be that crude.  He is after all a man of wealth and taste.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Also, given how rudely we’ve been behaving to this guy, if he were Satan, by now our souls would surely be laid to waste.

    (note: not advocating being less rude to this guy, he’s asking for it)

  • P J Evans

     They’re still gerrymandering. That’s why the House has a Republican majority, even though the Republicans are a minority of voters in many states where they have most of the seats.

  • P J Evans

     Social Security is not a budget item and IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT.
    It’s paid for by payroll deductions invested in T-bills. IT IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT.
    Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes. IT IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT.
     And if the Republicans in Congress weren’t owned by corporations, we could have had a health-care program that works a lot better and is less expensive. But no, everything that was proposed that would have done that was ‘socialism’ and ‘wouldn’t work in the US’, even when there are programs that work exactly the same way already in existence, successfully, in the US.

    The Republicans lie a lot.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Jeff lost me when he said that Republicans stand for strong families and fiscal restraint.

    One of these days I’m going to launch the Puppies and Chocolate Party. We won’t actually do anything to increase the supply of puppies or chocolate, but by gum we’ll stand for them, and who could disagree with that?

  • Darkrose

    Make it the Puppies, Kittens and Chocolate Party, and I’ll totally campaign for you.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I dunno, isn’t responding to the expressed needs of citizens pandering?

  • Turcano

    Moreover, Brad Hicks has pointed out that when conservatives compare a government budget to a family budget, they usually ignore a distinction in the type of family budget, a distinction that turns out to be very important.

  • Gotchaye

    I think Stephanie Kelton and others who accept something like Modern Monetary Theory would affirm something like “we can run a $1T annual budget deficit and do better than we would running a smaller deficit for the foreseeable future”.  Although maybe they don’t count on the technicality that they’d want to create a lot of that additional money each year in a way that doesn’t pay interest (printing) rather than creating all of it in a way that provides rents to the financial sector (borrowing).

    Regardless, very few people on the left are actually advocating $1T deficits and unconstrained growth of entitlements.  Most expect the deficit to come down substantially as the economy picks up, and only want a very large deficit now because it saves money in the long run compared to austerity (which many European countries have been forced into, to terrible results).  Virtually all are also happy to endorse proven cost-saving reforms to our health care spending problem, such as the French or German model, which is much more than I can say for everyone on the right without the intellectual honesty to just admit that their plan is to let the poor go without.

    It’s also a little strange to talk about a “Medicare problem” when Medicare is absolutely wonderful compared to private sector health care. Put everyone on Medicare, raise taxes by the difference between what we spend on private health care and what we’d be spending if everyone were on Medicare, and watch as we start running surplus after surplus for longer than we can reasonably hope to predict. Although, really, there’s no reason to raise taxes quite that high. We waste a /ton/ of money on private health care.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Jeff, since you like reducing macroeconomics to microeconomics, let me give you an example.

    I am disabled. I cannot work. I have a condition that will be immensely helped, if not cured, by immensely expensive surgery. I cannot get Medicaid without being on disability or having a child. I was not willing to have a child merely to get Medicaid — personal responsibility. I have been refused disability because I’m only in my 30s and have worked from home in the past. The fact that I am either in too much pain or too high on painkillers to do any work whatsoever means nothing to the right-wing, completely mucked-up state government.

    So, I’m in a situation where I don’t pay taxes. I am on food stamps. My parents have to support me rather than pay toward their retirements, and they can’t consume the fun stuff they would otherwise. I am a pure drain on the economy. I could not get insurance to cover the surgery because: pre-existing condition.

    Then Obamacare. And now I have insurance.

    I have an appointment with a surgeon in a couple weeks. It is probable that I will stop being a drain on the economy soon, and instead start putting money into the economy. You see how that works?

    When something breaks in your home, do you waggle your finger at it and tell it to start working again, or do you fix it? When someone in your family stumbles on hard times, do you lecture them or offer to help them with stuff? 

    The government is not a separate entity from the people. It is of the people, by the people, for the people. It is the way in which we organize ourselves in order to help ourselves. When government is not doing that, it is broken

  • hidden_urchin

    Just sticking my head in to say that I’m glad to hear you’ve got insurance now and that I hope your health problems get taken care of.  Best wishes and good thoughts!

  • Ross Thompson

    Do you run your own household with 33% more spending than income, and how does that work out for you?

    In that situation, one might almost think about going to one’s boss and asking for a raise. And yet, for some reason, the Republican answer is to slash the government’s income still further. Why do you think that is?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

      Rather, the statement reflects the belief on the part of Republicans
    that the party’s values have universal appeal, and don’t need to be
    packaged and presented differently to different constituencies. 

    I think I speak for every Liberal and Democrat in America when I say “Please just keep on thinking that.”

    As various people have already pointed out, what the Republicans SAY their values are, and what they actually seem to value are two very different things, and it’s not FREEDOM(tm) that the Republicans in Congress are currently threatening to crater the economy over, AGAIN, it’s trying to keep taxes on the rich from going BACK up to where they were when Clinton was President.  ([sarcasm]The horror![/sarcasm]

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     for some reason, the Republican answer is to slash the government’s income still further. Why do you think that is?

    The phrase ‘small enough to drown in a bathtub’  springs to mind for some reason.

  • Jeff

    “ Social Security is not a budget item and IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT. It’s paid for by payroll deductions invested in T-bills. IT IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes. IT IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT.”

    PJ, you should bring this to the President’s attention immediately.  According to his FY13 budget submission, he is under the apparently mistaken impression that the $820B we are projected to spend on Social Security, and $628B we are projected to spend on Medicare, ARE part of the $3,656B in total outlays that the government will make in FY13, and he, apparently erroneously, subtracts that from the $2,902B in projected receipts to show a $901B deficit.  See for yourself:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

    You need to let your President know that he is lying, or clueless, about how the federal budget works!

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    A little something for Jeff:  Kung-Fu Monkey:  I miss Republicans

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    When looking at the Social Security books on their own, the SS budget runs a surplus. So Congress takes that surplus and spends it on other stuff.

    The accounting necessary to do this artificially increases the size of the US federal debt, although for all practical purposes it’s just shuffling money around in coat pockets.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Disqus is still philosophically opposed to killfiles, right? So how come it looks like Jeff has killfiled me?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Because you scare him, I suppose.

  • Lori

    I suspect it’s because he can’t think of a (faux) clever response to you. It apparently isn’t your female user name because he answered me.

    So, congratulations! You’ve apparently won this round of “stump the winger”. I think that means you get a year’s supply of car wax.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Woot. I’d rather a set of tires, because I need tires and don’t know what to do with car wax except that it is probably external application only, but woot.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Wait, the prize is CAR wax?  I thought you said EAR wax.

    …I need to empty a barrel.  Be back in a bit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    You are allowed to ignore someone without the use of a killfile, though I’ll admit one would be great in this case.

    (Not because of you, of course, but for that one asshole who keeps posting 30 Youtube videos one-by-one and taking over entire threads.)

  • EllieMurasaki

    I emailed Fred about him. He hasn’t said anything yet today, has he? Maybe Fred actually banned him.

  • Jeff

    Good points Gotchaye, and I think we’re all hoping for the economic recovery to kick in to get the “receipts” column of the budget up; that would certainly mitigate many of the concerns about how to accommodate increasing levels of entitlement spending.  But even the president’s budget projects $600-700B out to FY22 at least, and that’s under the (dubious) assumption that Obamacare will be deficit-neutral or will actually reduce the deficit.  And again, my point with the deficit/entitlements was simply that wanting to restrain entitlement spending growth isn’t reflective of racism on the part of Republicans.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X