We are totally screwing up the messaging. My proposal herein may not have all the numbers add up exactly on each of the two parts of it, and frankly, I don’t care. That wasn’t the point — and it is silly to get hung up on exact numbers anyway. The important thing is to make our side look and sound like something the public should like.
Here’s a key idea in the first:
[F]iscal conservatives should highlight specific cuts not begrudgingly, but as if the cuts themselves are gifts to their constituents.
Tactically, here’s an example of the sort of thing I describe:
The House, for instance, could pass two bills to ward off the (poorly named) fiscal cliff. The first would extend the Bush-era upper-income tax cuts along with perhaps the expanded per-child tax credit also at risk of expiring – but coupled with the closing of a some upper-income loopholes and deductions and with the easiest, most popular of spending cuts to make it revenue-neutral.
This is important. We always lose when we try to do too much at once.
Meanwhile, I agree with Ali and Patrick Ruffini, etcetera, about the long-term needs for tech geeks and all sorts of other improvements. But in the short run, we need to learn how to tie better legislative packaging with better PR packaging — so that BOTH sorts of packaging work together and give us strategic and tactical negotiating edges.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?