In times of economic crises, Republicans are lousy communicators. My Democratic readers will agree, believing that Republicans don't have very many worthy ideas to communicate anyhow. And I suspect that many Republicans would agree, especially those who observe, as I have, that Republican talking points about the economy often sound as if they were written by professional conservatives for professional conservatives. As I've written before, I think the problem is simply that non-interventionist principles don't sound very comforting when the multitudes perceive a systematic problem and demand intervention, whether that information is healthy or not. John McCain is not a natural talker on domestic policy. He is beginning to get the hang of the traditional political communication tactic of giving an example and then working outward to a principle, but he's not going to master it. He can be profoundly empathetic, compellingly so, but there's a scattershot quality to his efforts here. The campaign's chief economics spokesman is a professional academic and government economist named Douglas Holtz-Eaken, who is very well regarded but is a rookie at public communications. All of which is to say that, as John McCain thinks about the political benefits to his choice of vice president, he might well consider the ability to be a persuasive economic spokesperson to be paramount. These folks won't be tasked with communicating to Republicans.... this isn't about finding the person who gives the best stump speech on the economy. it's about elevating a person who can communicate clearly, effectively and empathetically about the economy to the American people. Three names come to mind here: Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), Ex-Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), and eBay CEO Meg Whitman.
« Comments Are Back | Main | DNC Raising Money Off Of 50 State Strategy »
On The Economy, Republicans Are Lousy Communicators
10 Jun 2008 10:28 am
Comments (16)
Hey neat! Comments!
Methinks that picking a young (or young-looking, cough cough Romney) VP who can really get down in the nitty gritty on economic policy may backfire on McCain. The contrast between the (perceived) dottering, old know-nothing and the young sharp tack wouldn't be especially flattering.
A better strategy on the economy might be to vaguely say "yeah, it's not my strong suit, but I'll appoint really good people to handle that in the way that they do -- and hey! where's the flag pin on the inexperienced black guy who is black with a black wife and black children and no experience?"
his isn't about finding the person who gives the best stump speech on the economy. it's about elevating a person who can communicate clearly, effectively and empathetically about the economy to the American people. Three names come to mind here: Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), Ex-Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), and eBay CEO Meg Whitman.
You are joking right? Mitt Romney, the guy that will make up anything to please what ever audience he is speaking to today? The CfG tool named Pawlenty? Do you know what Bernanke is now hinting at raising interest rates? It's because oil is rising out of control. And if oil continues to rise, people are going to take it out on McCain and the Republicans. People aren't going to be comforted by guys like Romney(who are so rich they can blow some of Tagg's inheritance on a run for President).
Republicans do not have communication problem, they have problem with economic policies.
For every problem they have only one solution.. tax cuts. If you have housing crisis, give tax cuts. If gas prices are high, give tax cuts. If there is a natural disaster, give tax cuts.
It is like if you have diarrhea, McCain will say tax-cut will fix the problem.
Does McCain have any other policy than tax-cuts? This is the same old guy who opposed Bush tax-cuts but now flipflopped and wants more tax-cuts. Is he dumb or he thinks Americans are dumb?
A super rich millionaire like McCain or for that matter Romney will never understand the daily struggles of Americans.
One big problem for McCain is his agressive support of NAFTA.
Remember how McCain got screwed in Michigan primary because he supported NAFTA?
What Obama needs to do is run only one ad in Michigan and Ohio showing McCain defending NAFTA with full force. McCain will be doomed in OH and MI for sure.
It is very simple Barack Obama wants to make changes to NAFTA while McSame loves NAFTA which has destroyed economies of OH and MI.
have you applied for a position with the McCain campaign yet?
take the plunge, like your colleague Linda Douglass. Better than trying to trick your readers into thinking you are objective.
Reagan was a pretty good communicator when it came to economics. Remember the charts and the apples?
But Reagan also came at a time when Republicans had new ideas.
If anyone prove for me the existence of new Republican ideas today, I'll give you my tax rebate check.
You forget Fiorina. She is the most media savvy and the best communicator of the group. (I have not seen much of Pawlenty, but certainly the other two are limited communicators.)
Fiorina has appeared on economic round tables for years. She is a very effective debater and very good at explaining the benefits of conservative economic policies.
-Ben
You say "I think the problem is simply that non-interventionist principles don't sound very comforting when the multitudes perceive a systematic problem and demand intervention, whether that intervention is healthy or not."
The problem is that the most of these Republicans are not "non-intraventionist" as you allude, but are in reality "selective interventionists". This is true on too many levels (e.g. subsidies, tax code, regulatory policy, etc.) to go into here and is only obvious to those of us lucky to have high finance and/or business law degrees.
But now the current state of the country's affairs (ie. lending/mortgage crisis and energy costs hyper inflation) is highlighting several of these areas for everyone to see the hypocrisy of any non-intraventionist claims in plain terms. The Bear Stearns Fed intervention and the tariffs on alternative fuel like sugar cane ethanol are glaring examples as were the oil company tax subsidies.
So its not only that "non-intraventionist principles dont sound very comforting", its that people are starting to see that these politicians are not truly "non-intraventionist". Ill go out on a limb and guess that you probably dont earn much political support with a do as I say not as I otherwise legislate for special interests policy.
You forget, Dan, that a big part of McCain's stump speech is bringing in private sector minds to help fix government. A CEO leaving behind countless millions to enter public service can be spun in such a positive way.
Anyway, objectively, any CEO of a huge company (like Fiorina and Whitman) has had more executive responsibility than anyone but a governor or the president. Obama would be hard pressed to call a very accomplished woman "inexperienced", too. It would be very difficult to avoid being called sexist.
-Ben
McCain is going to have to deal with his ignorance of/indifference to economic issues, not pass off the questions to his running mate. Say he gets his Town Hall debates: "I'll check with Mitt and get back to you" won't cut it as an answer to econ questions.
Same goes for Obama on his inexperience/naivete on foreign affairs and national security.
This won't be a year for compensatory VP picks.
You mean ex-ceo Whitman, I'm sure.
The McCain economic policy has too many toxic sites to visit in his favorite format, town hall.
And as you say in your opening, I cannot think of what part of his views resonate with anyone but the greedy and/or rich.
Like Ben I am surprised that Carly Fiorina was left off this list - especially sinnce I have seen her on the tube as a McCain surrogate already. Given her tumultous and less than stellar tenure at HP, whether she is a good choice or not is another matter....
This blog site is a complete joke. You get good people like Mitt Romney and Meg Whitman trying to support what they believe to be a better choice for the country in supporting a good cause and you get clowns like Marc Ambinder bashing them for defending their cause. What is it that intimidates you people about Romney? A thorough study of his life and politics indicates him to be an honest, insightful, and strong charactered individual. You paint Romney as a puppet willing to do anything for a platform.
Hey Ambinder, please role out your resume and let's compare it to Romney's. I don't know but, I would venture to say that you pale in comparison. There are few people in politics as insightful and polished as Romney is decorated with a variety of experience. McCain is not my first pick but if he picks up Romney, I'll abandon my Obama vote in a heartbeat.
While one could easily agree that Romney has a pretty good fiscal track record and sense of judgement (I lived in Taxachusetts when he was governor and he did a great job), you would have to be wearing pro-Romney blinders to not see how he ran his general election campaign basically recasting himself as a die hard conservative (and anything else he thought would work) to get votes. Massachusetts just seems to harness flipflopping power.
Pedantic edit nitpick: Instead of "systematic problem" I think you mean "systemic problem."
| 
Marc,
Here's the box McCain has put himself into with the Veepstakes: he has made Obama's inexperience (particularly in regards to national security) a centerpiece of his campaign.
So how is he then going to pick any of these candidates who have no national security experience? Or a CEO with no public service experience?
Posted by Dan | June 10, 2008 11:05 AM