 |
|||
|
Have you ever wanted to know what girls say during fashion week? In need of a good laugh? Check out the video: [Fashionista] Your complete New York Fashion Week and Grammy’s Red Carpet recap! [FABSUGAR] Check out the $5000 gold nail polish that has everyone freaking out: [Refinery29] Tanning banned for UK models. The cast of Jersey Shore does not approve this message. [Fashionista]
Click here to listen LIVE from anywhere in the world. Click here to learn more about “No Budget, No Pay.” Click here to take action — with easy links to your Congressmen  Happy Presidents’ Day! I thought a good way to celebrate our forty-four presidents and fifty-six presidential elections would be to send a quick update to satisfy your political appetites. Appetizer: So much of what we do is finding the right words for the right time. Last e-mail, I talked about how Romney should promote “economic freedom” rather than “capitalism” — he’s getting better, but Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan does it best. Here’s a few more tricks of the tongue…Ask people if they think Washington bureaucrats should “tax” millionaires more than they already do, and the response is overwhelmingly positive. But if you change just one word and ask if Washington should “take” any more money from millionaires, nearly 75% say no. The best way to use this language: “We shouldn’t let Washington take one extra dime from hardworking taxpayers until they hold themselves accountable for all of the waste, fraud, and abuse.” Likewise, a politician who “fights for hardworking taxpayers” will win significantly more support than one who talks about “protecting the middle class.”
Main Course: Romney or Santorum, Santorum or Romney…The Michigan primary is February 28th, and Santorum leads Michigander Mitt by a few points. Santorum does have a legitimate chance to win Michigan. The state’s more socially conservative than people realize, and Romney’s been as bad at building momentum as Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the hill. Romney is still the odds-on favorite to win the GOP nomination. He has outspent Santorum 12 to 1 on television advertising, has raised considerably more money, and has a much larger ground operation both in numbers and scale. Here’s what’s holding Romney back…1) Santorum isn’t Gingrich – Romney and his SuperPAC “Restore Our Future” are kings of the negative ad, as we saw in Florida with the full-scale war waged on Gingrich. But, on what is Romney going to hit Santorum? That he is too socially conservative? Santorum has plenty of negatives that would make him absolutely unelectable in a general election, but Romney can’t do anything about it now because he’s trying to prove to Republican primary voters that he is just as conservative as the former senator from Pennsylvania. 2) Philosophy Matters – Agree or vehemently disagree, at least you know what Santorum believes in. And, at an even more fundamental level, you know Santorum believes in something. I wouldn’t go so far as to call Romney a technocrat, but I wouldn’t hesitate to say that he treats everything like a Harvard Business School case study. Accordingly, when the focus shifts from the economy to social issues, as we’ve seen the last few weeks with gay marriage matters in CA and NJ, and birth control provision mandates from DC, Romney gets flustered. That leads him say things like he is “severely conservative,” contributing to his image as the phony, stiff politician for which he is rightfully criticized. 3) Every Person Gets One Vote – Santorum treats all of his potential voters like they’re important to him. He doesn’t do it like Bill Clinton could — nobody can — but you talk to him and feel like he is listening to what you say. At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Santorum stationed himself in one of the hotel ballrooms and let anybody get in line to shake his hand and take a picture with him. Romney’s approach was a microcosm of his entire persona. Romney instead invited only the highest donors and conservative movers and shakers up to a presidential suite to talk about fundraising. That’s a bad visual, and frankly, a bad strategy.
Read the rest of…
[Artur Davis’ Provocation, Robert Kahne’s Rebuttal #1, Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; The People’s Rebuttal #3] I begin by offering a full-throated “amen” to Ron Granieri’s remarks regarding Jerry Ford’s presidency. While many Republicans seem to view Reagan as the progenitor of today’s Republican Party, Ford may be the reason why the Republican Party still existed in 1980. Despite its brevity, Ford’s tenure offers more than its share of food for thought regarding the character of effective presidential leadership. As Ron points out, Ford indeed represented the quintessential “manager;” a moderate who was ultimately guided by what he perceived as the demands of the time. Far from the accommodationist caricature painted by his critics on the right, Ford did not hesitate to strike out on his own when necessary. While the Nixon pardon offers the ultimate measure of this characteristic (the fact that he received the 2001 John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award demonstrates long-overdue liberal respect for this decision), Ford’s economic record also demonstrated a unique mix of toughness and pragmatism.
Taking office in the midst of the Arab oil shocks of 1973-74, Ford identified inflation as the chief focus of his economic policy. Widely-derided at the time – and largely forgotten since – Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now” moniker reflected Ford’s deeply ingrained sense that inflation constituted the chief threat to long-term economic growth. Initially proposing a mixture of tax increases and budget cuts, Ford later embraced a program of modest tax cuts paired with spending restraint (the latter generating a series of vetoes which strained his relationship with the large Democrat majorities in Congress). These policies worked: inflation in 1976 was 5.75%, as compared to 11.03% in 1974. GDP grew at a rate of 5.4% in 1976 (after contracting -0.6% and 0.2% in 1974 and 1975, respectively), while unemployment fell from a high of 9% in May 1975 to 7.8% in December 1976. The subsequent unraveling of the economy began with Jimmy Carter’s early 1977 “stimulus package” that failed to recognize the brisk growth Ford had bequeathed to him. Matters grew worse, of course, with the second series of oil shocks in 1979.
Read the rest of…
We Americans like our holidays–and like ’em big. We talk a lot about humility and gratitude, but when it comes down to it…we really want to have a good time. In a big way. We need holidays worthy of our time and effort. February is national holiday rich but festivities poor. Valentine’s Day is nice and sweet– but limited. There are no great Valentine’s Day books or movies or songs. No theme parks named Valentine’s Land. Not even a theme park ride. No special poem to say the night before Valentine’s Day. No event to dress up for….and no special meal around Valentine’s Day. And if more proof were needed, there’s no work day (and school day) off for Valentine’s Day. As national holidays go, Valentine’s Day is an “under performer” In marketing terms, Valentine’s Day is neither a “cash cow” nor “rising star.” It’s not quite yet a “dog.” It’s just there. Every Feb 14th. With a card and box of candy. And disappointment for not offering more. Of the two other February national holidays, President’s Day is the only one that offers a work day (and school day) off. That typically says “Something big is about to happen.” But not with Presidents’ Day. It’s an honorable holiday and good patriotic pause….but talk about bait and switch. Sure, there’s the big day off but–think of it– Do you have a relative, friend who has a favorite story about something crazy that happened to them on Presidents’ Day? I don’t. I’ve experienced 47 Presidents’ Days and can’t say I’ve ever done anything interesting enough on Presidents’ Day to want to retell to others. Whoever was in charge of marketing and planning for Presidents’ Day, let us down. Presidents’ Day needs a new marketing gimmick or we may soon find ourselves at work and school that day. Maybe we can come up with a Leprechaun, a Bunny, or fat old man in a red suit to help re-brand Presidents’ Day to make it relevant again. And then there’s the third, and final, national holiday in February. Groundhog Day. No day off, no presents, no sweetheart candy. Just a morning spent waiting for Punxsutawney Phil to emerge from his burrowed hole to find out of he sees his shadow. You read that right. I’m not even commenting on this one. In business, where there are three lame business lines they can sometimes be consolidated into one strong business line. And that can apply to national holidays too. I think. There’s got to be a way to mix in a groundhog, cupid and romance, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and candy to create one off-the-hook holiday. It’s just a gut feeling I have. But I see theme parks. Just need to work out the details. [Artur Davis’ Provocation, Robert Kahne’s Rebuttal #1, Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2] As our RPs debate the greatness of our most recent presidents, we offer the results of a recent Gallup poll:
[Artur Davis’ Provocation, Robert Kahne’s Rebuttal #1] These days, when people speak abstractly about the kind of President the country needs, they usually say that it should be someone with legislative experience, who can reach across the aisle to compromise with the other party, who can make difficult decisions, and who enjoys the respect, even friendship of other world leaders, thus improving the international standing of the United States. In my lifetime, we had just such a President, and no one appreciated him much. He still receives only occasional credit from history and policy geeks, and makes little impression on the public memory, never showing up on anyone’s list of the greatest Presidents. And yet, the closer you look at the actual record, the more of a gem he appears to have been. I am talking of course about Gerald R. Ford. I can hear the gasps now. Wait, you say, you mean the guy who fell down the stairs of Air Force One and helped launch the career of Chevy Chase and “Saturday Night Live?” The guy whose name graces the title of one of John Updike’s lamer late novels? The guy who pardoned Richard Nixon? That Gerald Ford? Read the rest of… Robert Kahne: Rebuttal #1 [Artur Davis’ Provocation] I think it’s time to throw a bit of kerosene into this debate and see what catches on fire. I’ve only been alive for a quarter century–a long enough time to see a mere five presidencies. All five of the men who have held the highest office in the United States since my birth have their detractors, but I believe there exists one President who will be held in the highest esteem by future generations; as well as the man I believe to have held the office with the most courage, created the most positive change, and wielded greatest political acumen. That man is the current President: Barack Obama. With a political science major, you can pick apart nuanced political issues. It is extremely difficult to abstract from the present when it comes to judging Presidents. Consider the cases of men like James K. Polk and Harry S Truman: it took our country decades in order to give these men the accolades they deserved. However, as a student of policy and of political science, I believe President Obama will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents regardless of the outcome of the election in November. Read the rest of… ESPN fired one of its reporters this morning for using an ethnic slur about Knicks player Jeremy Lin in a headline posted on the website. They also suspended an anchor for using the same offensive phrase. [CNN] Over the past month, we’ve launched a new tradition at The Recovering Politician: a great virtual debate on the issues of the day among our recovering politicians; with provocations, rebuttals, responses, and defenses. Our first discussion focused on presidential leadership; our second on legalizing marijuana; our third, Tim Tebow; our fourth, expanded gambling, and our fifth, the GOP primary mudfest. On this Presidents’ Day, Artur Davis leads off a discussion on presidential greatness. What makes a president stand out among others? Who are the greatest chief executives of our lifetime? Join in the fun: Let’s assume that there are two presidents whose greatness is not is dispute: Lincoln and FDR, both won defining wars that might have gone the other way absent superior leadership; both defined their political times by in Lincoln’s case, creating a new party, and in FDR’s case, re-conceiving a stagnant, fading party into a modern progressive one. I would venture there are three others who weren’t tested quite as severely but who dramatically strengthened the country and the office of president: Washington (who affirmed that the country was governable as a republic) Thomas Jefferson (who affirmed that the country’s future was westward, and expansionist) and Teddy Roosevelt (who enshrined the ideal of restraining corporate power and size, and who did so in an era when both parties were dominated by economic conservatives). Then for good measure, throw in Andrew Jackson and Harry Truman at the bottom of the top tier, for all their petty prejudices and their small-mindedness toward their enemies, both had their transcendent moments: Jackson democratizing a country that was veering toward becoming an oligarchy, and Truman shoring up vulnerable democracies from Greece to Israel, and as a result, denying the Soviet Union ownership of the second half of the 20th Century. Is there a modern president who makes a claim for membership on that list? I’m spending a lot of my time now at an institution that venerates John Kennedy. The argument for Kennedy is that he revitalized the ideal of civic commitment at a time when McCarthyism and fifties materialism had gutted it; that his decision-making skills in the Cuban Missile Crisis averted a nuclear war; and that he gave the cause of civil rights a moral boost at a time when it desperately needed it. The case against Kennedy is that his thousand or so days was too brief, too devoid of serious legislative accomplishments; that he laid the foundation for a disaster in Vietnam,; and that he was too late to the cause of civil rights to deserve much credit for it. Read the rest of… |
| ||
| Copyright © 2024 The Recovering Politician - All Rights Reserved | |||
