The Stark Reality If Republicans Do Not Change

By Steve Parkhurst

Lloyd Green writes an interesting piece here for The Daily Beast.  While many are taking the opportunity to offer a vision for the Republican Party, and many of the opinions start to look the same or reach the same conclusions, this quote offers what I think is a good, specific result if the Republican Party does not change.

You would have to read the entire post to get this full context, so ignore the names:

If Gohmert, Bryant, and Erickson have their way, the Republican’s modernity deficit will further congeal and fester, with the GOP relegated, at best, to a congressional party, one that specializes in oversight hearings and impeachment trials but not one actually tasked by America to govern.

Advertisement

Gingrich Puts Consultants On Notice

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has a very good column today in which he takes the old model of political consultants to task, along with a few of those practitioners. The column is very lengthy and I didn’t want to post it in its entirety.

After the column open, Speaker Gingrich begins to hit his stride here:

It is appalling how little some Republican consultants have learned from the 2012 defeat.

It is even more disturbing how arrogant their plans for the future are.

Of course these consultants have made an amazing amount of money asserting an expertise they clearly don’t have.

They have existed in a system in which the candidate was supposed to focus on raising money and the smart consultant would design the strategy, spend the money and do the thinking.

This is a terrible system.

Watch the movie “Lincoln.” This was a politician who thought long and deeply.

Read Craig Shirley’s histories of the 1976 and 1980 campaigns (or watch the documentary Callista and I made, “Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny”). Reagan knew what he believed, why he was running, and what he wanted to accomplish.

Republicans need to drop the consultant-centric model and go back to a system in which candidates have to think and consultants are adviser and implementers but understand that the elected official is the one who has to represent the voters and make the key decisions.

This part of Gingrich’s column cannot be ignored (this is Gingrich’s writing, and the STEVENS quote is from a joint tv appearance with Romney consultant Stuart Stevens):

The depth of Republican obsolescence on communications technology was highlighted in this comment:

“STEVENS: Really made — if I had tweeted in this campaign this whole discussion we’ve been having about the second amendment would probably be replaced one about the first amendment and whether it should apply to tweeting.”

Cute but insulting. Republicans will not understand why we are losing younger Americans so badly until we realize how many of our consultants don’t have a clue and don’t intend to change.

Finally, Stevens said something profound but I don’t think he understood how profound it was:

“Listen, I don’t think — it would be a great mistake if we felt that technology in itself is going to save the Republican Party. Technology is something to a large degree you can go out and purchase and if we think there’s an off the shelf solution that you can go out and purchase for the Republican Party it’s wrong.

“You know, we’ve had a lot of chance now since the campaign to spend time with the Obama folks and sometimes they had better technology, some cases we have better technology. We don’t have 140 character problem in the Republican Party. We have a larger problem that we have to look at and be patient about it. And trying to think that there’s one solution like this, I just don’t think…”

I went on to agree with him but I don’t think he understood my agreement. In effect I was repudiating the entire structure, budget and culture of the campaign he dominated:

“GINGRICH: I think the way Stuart just said it is exactly right. The technology problem is a culture problem. I mean the Democrats had 54 data analysts and were hiring Ph.Ds in advanced math because they were using the most advanced decision processes in the country. They were bringing in behavioral scientists. They were trying to figure out how you talk to 311 million people and do so in a way that you can survive 8 percent unemployment and get re-elected and it worked.

“Now, I think it’s actually — he’s right in a sense it’s a cultural problem. None of our consultants would have imagined hiring 54 people in the decision area, none of them would have imagined having 24 people [who] did nothing full time except e-mails and then blind tested the best e-mails to see which ones worked. I mean, this — they are a Super Bowl team that we ought to respect deeply. And we are currently a midlevel college team floundering around and I agree. It’s not just — you can’t just go out and buy this, this is a fundamental rethinking of how you relate to the American people.”

As Reagan biographer Craig Shirley told me, “Commercial radio was a new technology in the early 1930′s and Reagan adapted to it. Talking movies were a new technology in the late 30′s and Reagan adapted to it. Network television was a new technology in the early 1950′s and Reagan adapted to it. If Reagan were alive today, he’d be tweeting.”

That final point about Ronald Reagan is exactly right. Reagan would be tweeting today. We have to get tech or die trying, this current approach is seriously hurting our cause.

As you can well imagine, this closing by Speaker Gingrich made my day:

The debate over Rove-Stevens versus the new 21st century model may be the most important intra-Republican debate since the emergence of Reagan and Kemp to challenge the old order in the 1970s.

Newt Gingrich has long advocated a different model of political consulting from the one that current exists. We at GPH Consulting have striven to be different, it probably doesn’t take much looking around to realize that we are indeed different. Engage us here on the blog, tweet with us or pin with us and discover for yourself.

Sweet Hypocrisy

By Joe Gruters

Here’s an inconvenient truth: If you were hungry

or needy in this nation and there was not the

thick welfare net to land on, you would pray that

your neighbors were conservatives. And that

would be particularly true if you were a minority.

 

Ben Cohen’s Amend-O-Matic Stamp Mobile in Sarasota last week.

 

The Hypocrisy Machine rolled into Sarasota last week in the form of the Amend-O-Matic StampMobile piloted by Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream. Cohen is a well-known liberal and big Democrat financial donor, but his contraption runs under the banner of “Stamp Money Out of Politics.” Run a greenback through it and it will deface it with the banner in red letters.

Cohen alone has donated more than a $155,000 of his own money to Democrats since 1988. Unions donate tens of millions to Democrats. Hollywood and coastal elites contributes tens of millions to Democrats. And then there are the boundless in-kind donations of the national media, which are not IRS reportable.

But that is not the money, Cohen wants to stamp out of politics. That money is OK. It’s corporate donations that he is after, and he is perfectly comfortable using his large amount of corporate-derived money to fund his own PR machine limiting it for others.

Specifically, he is after the Citizens United decision that reaffirmed that money equals political speech access. Cohen utilizes that concept, of course, he just doesn’t want those he disagrees with to have the same freedoms. All Cohen really wants is to stamp conservative money out of politics.

Cohen comes through a long line of hypocrisy on the left when dealing with money.

Consider charitable giving. Liberals proclaim themselves to care more about the poor and needy than conservatives — and that is the nice way of putting their rhetoric. But it turns out that only appears to be the case when they are using other people’s money, such as taxpayers that include corporations. And conservatives know instinctively that keeping the poor trapped in welfare nets is not compassionate.

Arthur C. Brooks, in his book, Who Really Cares – America’s Charity Divide, combed through mountains of data to find this reality:

“Liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, but conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich. Despite their lower earnings, conservative households in America donate 30 percent more money to charity each year than liberal households.”

A Google study found an even greater disproportion between conservatives’ giving and liberals’ giving, suggesting that conservatives give about twice as much.

Democrats know these stats and try to slough them off on church giving. But even when that is backed out, conservatives still give more. But, we are told, liberals care about those in need! Here’s a stat from Brooks: “A religious person is 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person. If liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45 percent.”

Hypocrites.

Brooks looked at other data and found people who give charitably express less prejudice than non-givers toward African Americans, Latinos, and Asians.

It should be noted that when Brooks began researching his book, he assumed he would find that liberals were more generous. That was, and is after all, the well-crafted Democrat and media stereotype. The facts ended up forcing him to change his mind and the conclusion of the book.

Idiot Joe Biden - GPH Consulting

Brooks looked at the macro level. On the micro level, Vice President Joe Biden is one example among many of the hypocrisy. While safely ensconced in his Senate seat, he typically ponied up about one-tenth of one percent to charity, sometimes less than one-hundredth of one percent. Essentially, nothing. The generous liberal in reality.

Once Biden was running for vice president, he managed to up his giving all the way to 1.5 percent. So even while doing it for crass political gain, he still came up with less than half of what a typical conservative gives — who makes only a fraction of Biden’s income.

Ditto for President and Michelle Obama, whose giving ranged from four-tenths of one percent to 1.2 percent until he ran for office and became president. This, from two stalwart liberals purporting to want to help the poor and needy.

Hypocrites.

Even with the Obamas and Bidens increased giving when running for office, Mitt Romney still gave more than both combined in raw dollars and as a percentage of income. In fact, he gave away 29.4 percent of his income in 2011, which is one big reason his effective tax rate appeared so low. He gave it away!

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is a big Democrat and Obama fan. Presumably he agrees with wringing more money out of American taxpayers to pay for big government. Yet Bloomberg reports that while Facebook is reporting $1.1 billion in pre-tax profits, the company will not only not pay a dime in income taxes but will get about $429 million in “refunds.”

Facebook - GPH Consulting

Hypocrites.

Here’s an inconvenient truth: If you were hungry or needy in this nation and there was not the thick welfare net to land on, you would pray that your neighbors were conservatives. And that would be particularly true if you were a minority.

What does this prove? Sanctimonious politics is not charity. Liberals accuse conservatives of being cold-hearted, but they are far less “compassionate” if it actually costs them something. Liberal bumper stickers and cheap slogans mean nothing because so many liberals are only generous when giving away other people’s money — not their own.

Hypocrites.

Thanks for being informed and engaged.

Kondracke: “Kempism” Beginning To Emerge

Occidental College - GPH Consulting

Morton Kondracke spoke last week in Los Angeles at Occidental College at the first Kemp Scholar lecture, a new program created at the college from which Jack Kemp graduated. We have posted the thoughts of Mr. Kondracke previously, as he has become a bit of an expert on Jack Kemp in his writing a much overdue biography.

Last week’s Kondracke visit is reported here. The best part of the report comes when Kondracke got into specifics about Jack Kemp Conservatism, which he dubbed “Kempism”:

“Jack was the first and chief advocate for a new idea called supply-side economics,” Kondracke said. “He’s the one who sold Reagan on what became Reaganomics.” His new biography will argue that Reagan and Kemp, acting in concert on both domestic and international policy, won the Cold War. The book’s working title, he said, is Jack Kemp: the Quarterback Who Changed the World.

While Kemp was a principled conservative, “he also was an idealist, passionately dedicated to the well-being of all Americans, regardless of race or gender or income,” Kondracke said. “He thought that ideas could change the world, and he fought his battles on that level, even though that cost him during his political campaigns.”

Were he alive today, Kemp would not write off 47 percent of the electorate, as Mitt Romney did during last year’s presidential election, he said. Kemp opposed Proposition 187, the 1994 California initiative aimed at undocumented workers, and believed supply-side incentives could have a powerful positive effect on communities of color.

“As Newt Gingrich once said, Jack has showered with more African-Americans than most Republicans have ever met,” Kondracke said. “Jack honestly believed that the GOP could once again be the party of Lincoln, that if the economy provided jobs that extended into the ghetto, African-Americans would vote Republican.”

In the wake of Romney’s defeat, Kondracke added, “We have seen the beginnings of the emergence of ‘Kempism’” from such figures as Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin (who counted Kemp as a mentor), Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. “What the Republican Party needs is what Jack provided—a conservative message that would appeal to average, ordinary citizens.”

It’s clear that Jack Kemp Conservatism is the definitive remedy for what ails the Republican party today; a solid message that appeals to and benefits every American.

Stay tuned to our efforts, whether here on the blog, via Twitter or via our Jack Kemp project email newsletter. We have some very interesting things in the works and the best way to hear about them will be via one of those three methods. We have made recent additions to the GPH Consulting team and together there will be new things you have not seen from a political consulting firm before.

Jack Kemp Project QR Code GPH Consulting

America Missed

By Steve Parkhurst

As the new year is now underway, the personal shock of the 2012 election has still not set in for me. In my mind I keep re-playing this brief speech excerpt from Paul Ryan just before the November election:

PAUL RYAN: “Our commitment is really clear. We’re saying here are the solutions; here are the principles we’re going to use; here’s our proven bipartisan track record of actually delivering results and getting things done; here’s what we’re going to do. And I’ve got to tell you, 2013 could be a renaissance in America, in the world and in America. 2013 can be the year we get our economy growing, we start creating 12 million new jobs, we put these pro-growth policies in place and we reaffirm the American idea by electing Mitt Romney the next President of the United States.” – Full kudos to Breitbart for the video and transcript.

Time will tell, but as of now, I feel like America missed as great opportunity with a Romney Presidency. Not only would Barack Obama not be a President with nothing to fear as he will never again appear on a ballot, but we still do not have a credible business, a CEO-type in the Oval Office. We have an excuse maker with no track record of accomplishments and no history of being held accountable for failure. Mitt Romney may not have turned out to be the next Ronald Reagan or Calvin Coolidge, but he would have been a tremendous improvement over the current President.

Now, we’ll never know. This video keeps reminding me of the great opportunity we had in 2012 and beyond.

America missed.

Kondracke: In Kemp, a Republican Role Model

This column appeared at Roll Call:

The GOP needs to build a party that can speak to the majority of Americans

By Morton M. Kondracke

If Republicans hope to save their party from long-term minority status, they should do what I’ve been doing for the past two years: study the career of Jack Kemp.

I’ve been doing it as an oral history and biography project. They should do it as a survival mechanism. Or, better, as a way to build a party that can speak to a majority of Americans.

As opposed to 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Kemp — the Buffalo Bills quarterback, New York congressman, original sponsor of supply-side economics, Housing secretary and 1996 GOP vice presidential candidate — believed that Republicans could and should go after every voter, regardless of race or income or even union membership.

Romney turns out to have been a total cynic. When he was caught in September saying privately to donors that Republicans had no chance of winning 47 percent of voters because they were “dependent on government” and thought of themselves as “victims,” he distanced himself from his own words, calling them “totally wrong.”

But then, in a post-election private talk to donors, he blamed his loss on “gifts” that President Barack Obama had given to various interest groups. He clearly meant what he said in September — that politics is just a bidding war.

Kemp was the opposite: a thoroughgoing idealist who exuded optimism and believed the GOP could win majorities by fostering hope, growth and opportunity for everyone.

He was so idealistic, in fact, that he genuinely believed that by producing sustained growth and prosperity, the GOP could once again become “the party of Lincoln,” the natural political home of African-Americans. That was unrealistic, but if anyone could have cut into Democratic dominance among blacks, it was Kemp. As a football player, one quip went, “Kemp showered with more African-Americans than most Republicans have ever met.”

A self-proclaimed “bleeding heart conservative,” Kemp sponsored enterprise zone legislation with Democrats to eliminate taxes in poverty-stricken neighborhoods, to attract investment and jobs.

He visited homeless shelters as a first order of business as Housing secretary, walked the streets of Los Angeles after the city’s 1992 riots and insisted on campaigning in ghettos and barrios during the 1996 campaign as Bob Dole’s vice presidential candidate.

In 1994, he denounced California’s Proposition 187, which would have denied government benefits to illegal aliens, and he advocated a comprehensive immigration overhaul to the end of his days. He died in 2009.

Even if there was no way for Romney to win more than 6 percent of black votes against Obama, a Kemp-like platform could have saved him from a 44-point loss among Latinos and a 47 percent loss among Asian-Americans.

As Republican pollster Whit Ayres wrote in his post-election analysis, “the handwriting is on the wall. Until Republican candidates figure out how to perform better among non-white voters, especially Hispanics and Asians, Republican presidential contenders will have an extraordinarily difficult time winning presidential elections from this point forward.”

Republicans are searching furiously for ways to get right with Hispanics after Romney’s “self-deportation” self-immolation. Kemp’s example offers a path. Some also are furiously denouncing Romney’s “gift” analysis.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s response sounds especially Kempian. “We need to get two messages out loudly and early,” he said. “One, we are fighting for 100 percent of the vote, and secondly, our policies benefit every American who wants to pursue the American dream. Period. No exceptions.”

That’s a good first step, but most Republicans have yet to find a way to sell conservative economics as an opportunity engine.

In his time, Kemp led his party away from an austerity politics focused on balanced budgets, lower spending and higher taxes toward growth politics based on permanent tax rate cuts.

He modeled his 1976 tax bill on President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 proposals and adopted Kennedy’s “a rising tide lifts all boats” slogan.

Kennedy’s measure, enacted after his assassination, lowered top tax rates from 91 percent to 70 percent. The Kemp-Roth bill, adopted and pushed through by President Ronald Reagan, lowered the rate from 70 percent to 50 percent. And, in 1986, a Reagan tax reform bill backed by Kemp lowered the rate to 28 percent and eliminated dozens of breaks and deductions.

America’s growth problems are different today than they were in Kemp’s era. “Stagflation” — simultaneous high inflation and unemployment — were the problem then. Now it’s high unemployment and staggering debt.

Today, Kemp surely would favor drastic tax changes to cut rates and eliminate the loopholes drilled into the tax code since 1986.

He was never much in favor of cutting entitlements, but I’d guess that, like his former intern, Rep. Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., he’d favor reining them in to preserve social safety nets without encouraging dependency.

Kemp was never a believer in deep domestic spending cuts, either. Some of that needs to happen, but growth also requires spending on education, infrastructure and research.

The GOP today has a demographic problem, a messaging problem and — most of all — an attitude problem. The Kemp model could solve them all. He really believed in creating an opportunity society for everyone.

 

Tweet: Romney, Data, and Conveying Meaning

I saw this tweet tonight and it punched me square in the face. Direct, to the point, and probably 100% accurate as we start to get final tallies across the country from last week’s election.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Why Romney Lost

By Maurice Atkinson

Romney was a unique candidate with a unique opportunity.  We all knew he was wealthy beyond the scope of average comprehension which drew some suspicion from both the right and left.

I’m not bashing on Romney, but there were deficiencies in his campaign that nuked him. From my perspective, he never painted the picture but used 5 point broad generalities.

One of the things we did successfully on the emergence of Cain’s candidacy was “paint a picture”.  Cain’s message was well honed in sound byte, as only he can do.  However, it was understandable (i.e.., scrap the tax code, start over; surround yourself with strong people, etc.)  Romney could have done himself INCREDIBLY well if he had pulled a Ross Perot and aired a 20 min. Town Hall Meeting that clearly defined the problem and roadmap to the solution.

Additionally, he NEVER presented an adequate rebuttal to Bain attacks.  They were introduced during the Gingrich campaign as Romney was trashing Gingrich.   Sure he created jobs and the Free Enterprise System can be messy.  That’s the nature of business.  However, he never articulated an adequate response.  Having a Town Hall Meeting in the middle of the rust belt would have changed the whole thing (define the national problem, provide a roadmap to the solution), IMO.

Romney’s communications were SCREWED UP.  Sending begging letters via U.S. Postal service multiple times a week and endless emails begging money may help raise funds, but it doesn’t communicate an ACTION PLAN or show appreciation for the vast field of volunteers   Romney would have been better served mailing a bumper sticker to everyone and asking them to put it on their car.

Anyhow, now we have to recognize the losses and retool our message for 2014.  Voter EDUCATION (we have an ignorant electorate), Voter Registration and Voter Stewardship (GET INVOLVED in the process), will correct the course.  Yes we lost the White House, but we gained in Governors’ races across the country.  Over 30 Governors are GOP.

My ramblings, for what it’s worth.

This post originally appeared here.

Romney Ad: Bigger, Better America

At this point, with less than 2 full days of campaign left, this could be Mitt Romney‘s final ad, or close to final ad. I feel the ad presents a positive, optimistic, upbeat message. Romney will be campaigning the rest of today, including in front of anticipated huge crowds in Pennsylvania and Virginia, so there could yet be ads featuring those crowds.