Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
GOP Playing a Prevent Defense
Here’s a scenario that every football fan knows well. Your team has the lead and all signs point to victory. Your aggressive defense has stymied the opponent for three quarters. If they can keep this up for a few more minutes, it’s another game in the win column!
Uh oh. Instead of keeping the pressure on, your timid coach opts for a Prevent Defense. Noooo! He allows the opponent to gain four yards here, seven yards there. He will let them move down the field; he just wants to keep them from making that big play into the end zone.
Twelve “small plays” later, the other guys are celebrating under the goal post and your coach is wondering what went wrong.
As the GOP looks to the November midterms, the polls show a slight lead. Terrified of screwing something up, party leaders have decided on a prevent defense for the next nine months. Sure, let Dems waive the debt limit. Restore the sequester funding. Pass a pork-laden farm bill. As long as Republicans don’t do anything, say anything or stand for anything, victory is assured.
In theory, the prevent defense should work like a charm. But, as Coach John Madden famously warned, “all a prevent defense does is prevent you from winning.”
If Republican leaders wonder why the fans in the stands are screaming at them, it’s because we’ve seen how this game ends.
Published in General
They want the reins of power back and the perks that come with it. They appear to have little interest in disrupting the status quo in the aggregate. For us, what’s the purpose of winning if it isn’t going to get us anywhere?
What would have really changed domestically if Romney won? Move around some deck chairs? That seems to be the Republican goal at this time.
According to the Republicans on Ricochet and elsewhere you can sign up for those here.
ADDED: Or maybe a better analogy would be players that are fine with losing games as long as they don’t lose their starting job. ·2 hours ago
Edited 2 hours ago
This is perfect.
Problem with GOP leadership is an inability/unwillingness to sway public opinion.
Refusing to make your case, hoping that events will make it for you, is the political equivalent of a prevent defense.
As Billick noted in the video accompanying your link, there is a simple equation for PD: Does the other side have enough time to put together one or two – or whatever the time & score differential is – two 10-play drives together. There certainly is enough time, but in our case the score is only slightly in our favor; ergo, bad move.
Yes, we need to hammer O-care, but we need to also put forth, in simple, understandable terms, an alternative. Moreover, we need to select two, possibly three, major conservative themes that will get the country moving again and drive them home. No mercy. No allowing the other side to derail those themes. As many as possible throughout the country singing from the same page in the hymnbook. No matter what is thrown at us – and it will be – we need to stand firm. Offence. Offence. (For those who are a bit shaky, spine transplants will be made available. Call it rehab for wobblies, if you will.)
According to the Republicans on Ricochet and elsewhere you can sign up for those here. ·2 hours ago
The only ones I get ask for pots and pots of money.
Brent, reasonable question. I ran out of word space to fully make the exact point.
I am attempting to make the distinction between access to health care in the manner proposed by Avik Roy (also described as “universal coverage”)- which ultimately means a regulatory environment that enables an effective individual market, and Federally-defined and mandated health care a la ObamaCare.
If caregivers won’t accept patients for whatever reasons, and broad swaths of the country are not served (see much of non-urban America), or in any way affordably served (everywhere), there is an access problem. Harris Wofford was the first modern politician to win a race based primarily on this issue; our side has effectively ignored it for 25 years, wishing it would go away because we want to avoid creating more entitlements.
But the market is pretty clear about its desires. And that is neither the tops-down controlled ObamaCare approach nor the “do nothing, let the Blue states play if they want to” philosophy.
This is the USA. We don’t vote against anything. We vote in the affirmative. If Republicans refuse to give people a reason to vote for them they deserve to remain a minority big government party. ·17 hours ago
Actually, I pretty much voted against Humphrey, McGovern, Carter (the first time), Dukakis, Clinton (twice), Gore, Kerry, and Obama (twice); since the Republican in those races was not particularly inspirational. The only guy I think I actually voted FOR was Reagan. That pretty much describes my disenchantment with the Republican party; I continue to affiliate with them because the other guys are worse.
And from the way the Dems campaign, I am pretty sure they concentrate on getting their voters to vote AGAINST the Reps, rather than FOR the Dem — it is more effective. Dems are just better at it than Reps.