I recently received an invitation from President Obama and the First Lady; for a small sum they would like to have dinner with myself—if I am chosen through a lottery system.
Their proposal was less than tempting, so I have a counter offer. Have dinner with me and I won’t charge you anything and I will give you free advice on how to win re-election. Hell, let’s skip dinner, I’ll just give you my free advice now.
We have created 50 State Strategy, a Federal Super Political Action Committee designed to recapture the many people your advisors have lost over the past four year because of their lousy advice. The exception, of course, is Michelle who according to the New York Times has correctly and often opposed the counsel you receive from your “staff”.
As a longtime political consultant, I have watched in horror as your “political braintrust” has failed you. Their “genius” strategy of “triage” in 2010 helped cause the loss of 60 seats in the House and Democrats narrowly escaped with a majority in the U.S. Senate.
Our messaging was weak, our tactics atrocious, and the strategy insane—notably that we reverted to our losing ways by engaging only in swing districts, cutting off our friends and failing to expand our base. Had we learned nothing from the past?
Mr. President, your policies saved this economy, provided national healthcare, provided a plan to reduce the deficit, ended one war and are ending the other. You saved the auto industry. Your administration inherited an economy that was losing 750,000 jobs a month, now we are adding jobs; the stock market was at 7,300 when you took office and it is now over 12,400.
It’s the greatest record of achievement by any President in the 21st century, though admittedly the bar is very low.
So, why are we apologizing? The Republicans have, through minority government, attempted to thwart every effort at progress. Your administration has been hampered by the inability to get people such as Elizabeth Warren through a confirmation process because the rightwing who put us here doesn’t want you or America to succeed.
The tea party was given credence because Democrats refused to engage them for who they are and who they represent—now the people have seen their true colors, which is why the Republican House has the lowest favorability ratings among Americans in history.
So, where is our offense? Where is the 50 State Strategy that put you in office?
We are doing it for you and we just released our first video called “Elephants Resign” to meet the challenge.
We must register, identify and get our people to the polls. We must engage in political education in every part of the union. Most consultants won’t be happy with this strategy, because the easy money is made on negative political ads and distasteful mailers which, while profitable, alienate most of the electorate.
Moreover, the “geniuses” you have put in charge of our political party apparatus are not competent to comprehend the benefits of this winning strategy, let alone implement it.
So we will be doing it for them. And the enclosed video is just the beginning.
Our dollars will be invested in local communities to spread our progressive message, enlist new voters, educate people and turn them out to the polls.
People in red states are not inherently ignorant. The Republican Party has lost its way, as we point out in our first ad, released today. They are no longer the party of small government and individual liberty; they support large government involvement in unfunded wars, they want to interfere in the most personal, private decisions Americans make, and their big pharmaceutical giveaway helped doubled the national debt.
This is the America we inherited from them.
Most Americans are inclusive, compassionate, support equal opportunity and individual liberty. We find this message resonates even and especially in the red states.
As Mark Twain once said, “We plan to give the people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It’s such a novel approach, they just may go for it.”
And this “free” advice didn’t cost you a dime or increase your waist line.
Mr. President, you and Michelle are welcome.
Hoo Boy!
Mr. President:
I think you should listen to Rich.
He’s a genius!
He can sell a High Speed Rail system to a state full of imbeciles! He’s a miracle worker!
He can sell you to an entire nation of lunkheads!
Whatever Rich says, DO IT!!!
RITCHIE-E-E-E! RITCHIE-E-E-E! RITCHIE-E-E-E!
I really like the new T-shirts going around.
OMG = Oh My God
Nope, really says Obama MUST GO
<We must register, identify, and get ‘our people’ to the polls>
Not sure I can help you with the registering and voting but here’s an idea to help you identify them:
Run a media campaign advertising that the Government is going to be giving away ‘free money’. Name a location and set a time. Then go there and wait. Anybody who is greedy enough, lazy enough, or dumb enough to show up- those are YOUR PEOPLE! Sign ‘em up!
Seniors choosing food over medicine, starving children, tax breaks for the rich,ruining the environment and on and on and on…..
Demo’s have been repeating this garbage for decades and the youth and disenfranchised finally bought it. What did we get? Obama had both houses of congress and proceded to drive the nation to near bankruptcy…
Thanks Rich! You continue to be the living proof that Liberalism is a mental illness.
Bush put us into BK, tanked the economy, got us into 2 wars, destroyed our prestige around the world and fundamentally undermined our republic, it will take our Presient longer than 4 years to fix. But at least the trend is going in the right direction.
Rich
Rich – you are wrong about Bush putting us into BK. The economic crises as we all know was brough on by the collapse of the sub prime mortgage stink bomb which was brought to a frenzied pitch by the Community Reinvestment Act Parts I&II; (carter/clinton) Bush warned about this and Barney lied watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
and then get back to us with a new spin oh and then see what we can go to get Barney some jail time.
On the two wars – look at it this way – Bush was ahead of the curve on the Arab Spring.
The debt that Bush ran up over nearly 8 years, Obama has tripled in 3.
Anything else Rich?
Revisionist history. The Bush administration bailed out the banks for $748 billion. The government could have bought all the homes in foreclosure for $250 billion. The people who could afford their homes under subprime loans when they were a ble to refinance every 3 years, the lost their homes when their mortgages escalated and the banks would not help them.
The only growth in t.he economy during the Bush years was due to growth in the housing market. Otherwise we were in an effective recession for his entire term.
Conservatives love to blame the victims of the unfair system. It was the banks who created the system, marketed the system and tanked the system. Home ownership should be part of the American dream. Listening to republicans only the top 2 % should own homes.
revisonist history indeed! “we were in an effective recession for his entire term” (your words) so if it was his entire term then it must have started before he took office – sometime around the DotCom bust maybe?
No one is blaming the victimes but we do live in a free market society. If some nincopoop thought he could buy a house w/ no money down, no credit, no verified employment with 20 co-signers – – doesnt’ that sound a little too good to be true? Likely anybody with a 5th grade education would be highly skeptical of tha.
Yes anyone should be able to buy a home, not given one – – something you get for free is worth exactly what you pay for it, thus abandoned homes all over.
And what started all of this? It was the Community Reinvestment Act. After Glass Steagall was repealed (and yes there should have been some firewalls put up between commercial and investment banks, but where was congress on that?) all bets were off. Did Fannie/Freddie but on the brakes? No with the likes of Barney at the wheel it was pedal to the metal.
So Rich – anybody has the chance to own a home,car,boat – they just have to work at it and succeed. That is the opportunity that this country offers and why so many from all over the world want to immigrate here – – not to get food stamps and a free house like the democrats give away for votes.
You have to be smart enough to know this so I have to conclude you have unsavory notions- – shame on you.
Rich, I knew you were forgetting some more recent updates to the “talking points!”
That’s some video Rich. Do you still have the receipt?
“It was the banks who created the system, marketed the system and tanked the system.”
Dear Rich,
You seem to have trouble with concepts like facts and truth. Let me help you out. Again.
It didn’t begin with Bush. or Republicans. or Banks.
It all began in the late 70’s with Jimmy Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act.
“Activist groups were encouraged to agitate by the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act, which enshrined in law a kind of lending protection racket. Banking regulators were given the power to make trouble for banks that failed to lend enough money to so-called underserved communities. Banks that paid enough—whatever that means—got left alone, but banks that didn’t, got their legs broken.
…
After CRA came into effect, Saul Alinsky-inspired “community organizer” groups such as Greenlining, ACORN, and National Council of La Raza got into the shakedown business.”
http://www.theamericanprowler.com/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13948
“The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups”
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
And guess who was one of Clinton’s enforcers in the 90’s? Why none other than Eric Holder!
“Eric Holder and the head of his Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez were both protégés of Janet Reno who launched a similar attack on banks in the early years of the Clinton Administration. That led to an expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act, CRA, and an explosion of forced lending to low-income, poor credit risk borrowers and the sub-prime mortgage industry that collapsed in 2008.”
http://bit.ly/nc0HT8
A few years go by and the subprime warning bells start to go off.
Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The 2 GSE’s at the heart of the sub-prime mortgage debacle that led to the meltdown?
Here’s Barney Frank and the congressional black caucaus shutting down any attempts to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
BTW, Barney Frank was literally in bed with an executive at Fannie Mae. [Write your own jokes here]
“One chapter in this story took place in July 2005, when the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by the Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation for the GSEs on a party-line vote—all Republicans in favor, all Democrats opposed. The bill would have established a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie and given it authority to ensure that they maintained adequate capital, properly managed their interest rate risk, had adequate liquidity and reserves, and controlled their asset and investment portfolio growth. “
“Why was there no action in the full Senate? As most Americans know today, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate, and the Republicans had only 55. … But in a 45 member Democratic caucus that included Barack Obama and the current Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), these votes could not be found. “
“As a senator, he [Obama] was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193910683111250.html
“James A. Johnson was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998. After Johnson left the company, regulators later discovered that Fannie Mae had engaged in fraudulent accounting practices in 1998 which manipulated its earnings so that executives could earn performance bonuses (up to $1.9 million in Johnson’s case) they would not otherwise have been entitled to.
In May 2008, Senator Obama tapped James Johnson to be one member of a three-person panel tasked with vetting potential vice-presidential running mates. Johnson resigned from that position shortly afterwards when news accounts reported that he had received more than $2 million in home loans at below average market rates from Countrywide Financial (a partner of Fannie Mae).”
And there you have it… No wait. There’s more. But you should probably sit down for this one.
“The 1990s may have brought us supercharged politicized lending, but Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is taking the game to an entirely new level, and then some. The weapon is a “fair lending” unit created in early 2010, led by special counsel Eric Halperin and overseen by Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez. “
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904199404576538283776006582.html
The net-net?
Liberal policies, beginning with the CRA shakedowns in conjunction with liberal darlings Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, achieved their goal of lowering lending standards to such an extent that lots and lots of low income minorities using subprime loans bought houses – that they couldn’t afford – and subsequently got wiped out in the housing bubble.
“Among Hispanics, about two-thirds of their household wealth in 2005 derived from their homes. When the housing bubble burst, their median level of home equity declined by about half – from $99,983 to $49,145 – taking much of their wealth with it. Home equity for blacks – which accounted for about 59 percent of their household net worth in 2005 – fell by 23 percent, from $76,910 then to $59,000 in 2009.”
I imagine that minorities would be a lot better off if Democrats quit ‘helping’ them so much. : )
It’s funny how self-described visionaries such as Rich can, when it suits their purposes, acknowledge the enormous power of the federal government to affect markets, such as when it provides subsidies to produce solar panels. In that case, they give the government all the credit when companies manufacture and sell a product that otherwise, in the free market, would not find many buyers and could not compete. These solar companies, who are only doing what they do because the Government has deliberately created market conditions that make it profitable to do so, are not subject to the scorn and blame of liberals such as Mr. Robinson. On the contrary, they are praised- even their executives who’ve gained access to the odious 1% club.
Why then, in the case of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, do these same people stubbornly fail to acknowledge that it was the Government that deliberately set up market conditions that encouraged banks to make bad loans? Fannie-Mae, an arm of the federal government, was buying every mortgage that lenders could bring to them- piece of crap or otherwise. How exactly did they think lenders would react? They reacted precisely the way any manufacturer would react if they were given a guarantee that all their products would be purchased-regardless of quality- they’d start cranking out faulty products like nobody’s business! Not only did Fannie-Mae reward irresponsible lending practices- it punished responsible ones. If you were an ethical lender who refused to loan to unqualified borrowers, the government’s policies would soon drive you out of business since those borrowers would simply take their business to some other less honorable lender that was being propped up by Fannie-Mae.
The epidemic of blindness among liberals on this particular subject is extremely troubling. It’s an ominous indication that they really have no clue about economics, supply and demand, and free markets. If they can screw something up this badly and even in hindsight still not see it, then what else might they be about to screw up?
When will the Reeps take responsibility for their actions?
The CRA didn’t cause the problem. The problem was caused by banks who wrote interest only loans to people promising them they could refinance in the future, as their house appreciated.
The poor got into houses and, for a long while, it worked. The interest only payment was very small and houses appreciated very fast. The American dream was real for these folks. Many in the Republican party hailed these “risk takers” who were living the American Dream.
The problem started when the Banks pulled the rug out from the borrower and refused new financing, having locked these folks into option ARMS which accelerated to a rate that people could not pay.
The CRA was and is a good idea. To help people buy homes is helpful to the economy. These folks could pay their mortgage as long as the product was affordabl. It was the banks that saw an opportunity to utilize these mortgages as leverage and improve return. So they bundled and traded them as credit default swaps, lumping in bad loans with good.
The key to this greedy acheme was that loans needed to be produced to keep the market going. So products, such as the Option Arm, were sold to people with the expectation that their house would appreciate and they would be able to refinance.
Only when the investors over-leveraged to a point that bad loans and good loans were indistinguishable, did the market fall apart. That and Ben Bernanke insisting that there was a “bubble” in the housing market that he intended to bust.
But you would blame the victims, who followed the rules, believed their bankers and brokers. You cast aspersions on real Americans who went for the American Dream, played by the rules—until the rules changed.
Now the poor, the victims, are to blame as you rewrite history to fit your own paradym. It is incredible, it is mean-spirited and it is erronious.
The simple fact is the Bush Administration could have bailed out every homeowner and the government could have refinanced every loan for $250 Billion. Instead, the gave the banks $748 billion (mostly to insurance companies who could pay banks mortgage insurance). Thus the banks foreclose on the property and collect the insurance.
Had we bailed out the homeowner and refinanced the loans, we would have lowered the national debt. The banks would have stayed in business, homeowners would not have gone through foreclore, home prices would have remained stable and the greedy bankers would still have gotten paid something—
But their credit default scheme would have taken a hit. Socialism would have been necessary to save the capitalist system.
You guys are unbelievable. Blame the victim—not the perpetrators of the crime. So much for conservative responsibility.
No one is blaming the victims. Nice try.
*Government* is to blame.
Whenever big government intervenes in private markets – pain is sure to follow.
Gov’t program: GSEs (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac)
Result: Housing bubble and collapse.
Hardest hit – poor people.
Gov’t program: Ethanol Subsidies
Result: Food riots around the world.
Hardest hit – poor people.
Gov’t program: Cash for clunkers
Result: Cost of used cars increases.
Hardest hit – poor people.
Gov’t program: Student loans / Education subsidies
Result: Cost of education goes through the roof
Hardest hit – poor people / students
See the pattern?
But back to the housing bubble and collapse.
No matter how hard you try and spin/slice/dodge it, CRA and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Government are at the heart of it.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html
PS. Be sure to preview the next Government fueled bubble that’s on deck. The education bubble.
“the size of the loan pool expands to enable students to pay ever higher fees to schools whose costs expand because money is coming their way.”
1 trillion dollars in student loan debt? On the backs of students who can’t find jobs. Thank you big Government.
http://www.economist.com/node/21534792
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/higher-ed-subsidies
“It’s the Bush Government we can blame.”
Blame for what?
– Subprime meltdown? Nope. That one’s squarely owned by Democrat Government. CRA. Fannie/Freddie. et al. See posts above.
– Too big to fail? Bush Government owns it.
But in each case – it’s Government.
“I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system,” Bush told CNN television.
But Bush was no conservative – just another big government guy.
The chips should have been allowed to fall. Instead we had the Government/Goldman Sachs cabal picking winners and losers.
It’s the Bush Government we can blame.
The free market is horse manure. Most businesses fail. If it had not been for government intervention capitalism would have died years ago.
That said, ideologues who believe the free market is an absolutist answer to all questions government or economic are just as misguided as those who believe goverment intervention is “always” the answer.
Thoughtful people should be able to distinguish between the theories and accept the fact that no philosophy is so pure and so correct as to be right in all circumstances.
And that’s the problem with Ron Paul, the Tea Party and the rest of the rightwing ilk. They have reduced debate to diatribes on philosophy. Not all socialism is bad and not all capitalism is good.
Bernie Madoff was not government.
Credit default swaps were not government.
Even Bush recognizes that without government intervention the economy would collapse.. I disagree with who he bailed out. But a bailout of somebody was necessary to sustain our economy. He chose the banks—
Had government acted sooner, it might not have occurred. He owns it.
If not for government you would not have roads. For all the problems with schools every person in our society gets the opportunity to become educated—because of government.
If not for government you would have no cop, courts or prisons. There would be no protection for the environment. You would have no health and safety requirements for food. no standards for construction, no law for personal protection.
You would have no social security, maybe you don’t remember the elderly starving during the depression. We would not have child labor laws or a minimum wage. We would have no middle class, no ability to regulate monopolies.
Unfettered capitalism, in it’s purist form, leads to fascism.
Had the banks gone down—so would we all.
Two wars, a pharma giveaway, a tanked economy, a devastated housing market, a bankrupt tax policy and an over- reliance on the almighty put us in a hole.
Obama is digging us out, it takes time—especially when the people who put us there overtly try to push us back in the hole, not wanting this President to claim credit.
RR writes: “Bernie Madoff was not government. Credit default swaps were not government.”
No but they occured due to Government regulatory agency incompetence. Keep trying Rich. : )
RR writes: “Had government acted sooner, it might not have occurred.
Nope. Democrats blocked Republican efforts to rein in Freddie/Fannie. See previous post.
RR writes: “He owns it.”
Not sure what “it” is but I think we’ve already settled that – see previous post.
RR writes: “If not for government…”
Nice try. No one is calling for elimination of government.
But thankfully you saved the best for last.
RR writes: “Obama is digging us out, it takes time”
I nominate this for the SJI’s “Howler of the Year” award. : )
Call me crazy but I don’t think a guy that admits he’s lazy, knocks off at 5, plays 30 rounds of golf a year, and gives speeches at Disneyworld is going to get the job done.
Most conservatives are well aware of the good intentions behind all the social programs you mentioned. But unlike many ‘progressives’ we believe it’s important to keep our eyes open, pay attention, and dispassionately review the results of the governmental involvement.
To a person not blinded by ideals it’s important to judge whether the positive, intended benefit of any given government program is outweighed by negative, unintended consequences. But the idealist progressive, his mind rigidly entrenched in his trendy philosophy, likes to close his eyes and pretend that there are no unintended consequence and that the only thing that matters are his good intentions. To the legions of liberals now occupying positions of power power, as long as the program was set up to accomplish ‘good’, then the actual results are irrelevant.
Rich, you seem to have got it into your head that all conservatives are against any government of any kind. That might make it convenient for you in formulating your arguments but I might ask you to challenge yourself a bit and think of ‘socialism’ and ‘individualism’ as the two ends of a continuum along which an individual’s political philosophy might lie. Just because somebody might be closer to the individualism end of the spectrum than you are does not mean that he is at the extreme end and completely rejects any notion that individuals bear some amount of social responsibility.
In the case which we were discussing, which was the ‘mortgage meltdown’, it is my opinion that the negative consequences of programs intended to help poor people own homes so blatantly and clearly overwhelmed any positive intended results that anyone unable to see it by now must be so blinded by their own idealism that they cannot be trusted on any other matter.
But hey. That’s just my opinion.