Republicans Strike Back In Online Sequester Ads

New NRCC ad shows why Republicans have a harder argument to make on the sequester than their Democratic opponents.

  • Share
  • Read Later

Last week, we posted the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s online effort to pressure Republicans to cave on the sequester. Above is the concurrent effort by the National Republican Congressional Committee’s effort to hit back, with a nifty Oscar theme.

It’s a good piece, but it is also a clear example of why Republicans have a somewhat harder argument to make in the coming days and weeks. The main idea in the spot, and in their messaging, is that America needs more spending cuts, and Democrats won’t give any. But Republicans are also, at the same time, asking people to “help fight the Obama sequester” which is a bunch of spending cuts they say the President created.

Obama’s main argument, by contrast, is simpler to digest: We need a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, and the Republicans want only spending cuts that hurt people like you, i.e. the sequester.

The difficulty of the Republican line is made clearer when you look at their double messaging on the sequester’s impacts. In releasing this ad, the NRCC points out that the sequester, if it goes into effect, will “gut approximately $9.4 million from West Virginia’s teachers and schools, it will result in approximately 2,000 defense workers being furloughed, and U.S. Army base operations West Virginia will be slashed by $1.4 million.” Sounds bad. But Republican leaders are elsewhere pushing the line that the the size of the sequester is relatively small, less than 3% of total spending.

Obama and the Democrats are arguing meanwhile a simpler line, though no less burdened by double messaging: That cuts are generally bad when the economy is hurting, but that Obama will still support some cuts and tax increases.

Rounding off the message complexity, the oppo dump that accompanies this spot announces accusingly that “Nick Rahall voted for sequestration,” as if this is a mark of shame. (Among the other votes for sequestration: John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and 171 other Republicans.) Of course, Rahall did not vote for the two Republican efforts to replace the sequester in the last Congress.

25 comments
sacredh
sacredh

The thought has occurred to me more than once that the democrats are trying to damage a weakened republican party whenever possible. Once the damage is apparent and the republicans get the blame, there will be movement.

sacredh
sacredh

"Republicans Strike Back In Online Sequester Ads"

They're still getting the lion's share of the blame.

ThirstyBarbarian
ThirstyBarbarian

Both sides may have a double-messaging problem, but they are not at all equivalent.

This is compromise:

"Cuts are generally bad when the economy is hurting, but that Obama will still support some cuts and tax increases."

This is hypocrisy:

"America needs more spending cuts, and Democrats won’t give any. But Republicans are also, at the same time, asking people to “help fight the Obama sequester” which is a bunch of spending cuts they say the President created."



TyPollard
TyPollard

Psst...congress could simply vote to overturn the sequester. Don't tell anyone.

MrObvious
MrObvious

Why even come back today? It's clear that 'messaging' is more important to GOPers than to actually legislate and govern. Just take the rest of the year off - it's not like there would be an actual difference if they did.

La_Randy
La_Randy

@sacredh Playing to the base didn't work last year, I doubt it has much effect this year.

anon76
anon76

@sacredh 

In this case, it's the elephant's share, and richly deserved!

grape_crush
grape_crush

What were we saying earlier about humor, creativity, and the ability of right-wingers to do either one well?

It's not a bad concept, but it's way too long to have to watch someone who can't dance make smug, odd faces while pantomiming various right-wing cliches.

This, on the other hand, is near-genius:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=cpfQSqfpuac

Paul,nnto
Paul,nnto

Almost as cringe inducing as the anchor baby's cheerleader video.

reallife
reallife

@ThirstyBarbarian"Cuts are generally bad when the economy is hurting"

the economy is hurting? where? certainly not in obamaville 

didnt we make an extraordinary turnaround? come on! house prices are rising! heck everything is rising!

even the gas prices

 

 

jmac
jmac

@ThirstyBarbarian Ben Bernanke is urging Congress to avoid sharp spending cuts.    If we had a Republican president instead of an old-time moderate Republican with a (D) behind his name,  even Cantor (and, of course Ryan) would be willing to agree that Bernanke is right.  They only look to the next mid-term as they play their treasonous game.  They're beyond horrid.   

Sue_N
Sue_N

@MrObvious Yeah, but they can't muck up the government if they're not there. And they don't dare give Obama a chance to govern through executive orders and recess appointments. He might actually get something accomplished, and we can't have that.

gysgt213
gysgt213

@Paul,nnto It would be funnier if she had some dance moves.  She can't even do the lawn sprinkler right.  Its just sad.

jmac
jmac

@reallife @ThirstyBarbarian The point, Rusty, is that we can slide back quite easily.  But since it's your party that did us under, of course their willing to participate - as long as they don't think they will be blamed.  And you don't blame them for the 2007/2008 disaster because they count on you being economically brain dead.  Why not use 'brain dead' next time your picking a name - it Trumps 'reallife'.  

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@reallife

There's a world of difference between "healthy" and "recovering".  When a doctor sets your leg and you begin rehabilitation, that's "recovering".  When we can actually take the cast off and you can start dancing again, that's "healthy".  The sequester is ripping off the cast a few months early.  Oh, your leg might recover anyways....or it might go back to zero.