Sunday, September 27, 2009

Nailed to the Wall

Now that the forces of law and order have drawn a resignation, confession (including the factual admission of an affair) and guilty plea out of the former President of St. John the Baptist Parish for Federal bribery charges, let us examine his campaign promises and find out what kind of man he marketed himself as. (Any of you with the ability to take screen shots, you may want to. I wouldn't expect the website to exist for much longer.)

Responsive, Responsible Government. Oh, look, he "will apply a businessman’s approach to governing" and "treat the citizens like customers" to "make the Parish more business and resident friendly." He brought big ideas to ease traffic congestion, making it easier for residents to "drive to the grocery store, pick up their children, and to get home before dinner."

His "Plan" is pretty big on ethics. He pledges that he "will take the “politics” out of crucial government decisions, true and factual priorities will be set based on need and will demand an honest government that puts the residents of our parish first and the special interests last." "Open bid laws will be fully carried out."

Heh. The best? "Transparency will be apparent in all aspects of my administration and will be key to building back public trust."

Way to go on that last one.

Luckily, he didn't engage in a lot of family values type hackery (at least not on the campaign website). Unfortunately, the rest of his plan looks like things St. John the Baptist Parish needs to develop effectively. So it is a shame to see such a plan go down with a flawed individual.

Though that plan may not have had much of an effect anyway, as Politics 1 had him listed as a potential candidate for US House District 3 from Louisiana.

On the GOP ticket. You know, the family values, small government/big contracts, run government like a business, deregulation party.



Dante said...

Yeah, instead they should elect someone from the part of the people... who store cash in their freezer. Look, I'm not defending the guy but I'd calm down on that "GOP ticket" nonsense. There are plenty of crooked politicians on both sides of the isle to go around twice.

Dante said...

sp above: "part of the people" should be "party of the people"

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Gotta call it like I see it. I didn't excuse any of the "D"s for their bad behavior and cheered their convictions. I get to do the same with the crooked "R"s.

Especially when the "R"s around this way tend to paint all the "D"s as causing all the problems.

Dante said...

You are correct that you called out D's for their crookedness, but somehow your overall indictment of the Party based on those crooked individuals' actions is absent when you mention the Democrats. Wonder why that is?

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Democrats have a myriad of their own problems, which I call out often.

But what they don't have an all encompassing marketing theme coopted by the pundit class and popular culture as a reflection of true political differences.

The whole narrative of GOP politics usually centers on the equation "small government + private contracts > big government liberalism." I was able to effectively describe their brand in 14 words, and that is why.

This narrative spreads into the national consciousness as a marketing force and encourages people to entertain a false choice (big vs small govt) rather than examining what does and doesn't work in their government.

When someone elected mainly because of his adherence to the GOP's narrative gets convicted of directly subverting what that narrative calls for, I like to point that out. The less we listen to narrative, the more we look at the individual's own behavior.

Dante said...

"But what they don't have an all encompassing marketing theme coopted by the pundit class and popular culture as a reflection of true political differences."

Uh... Change? 1 word. Your move.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

"Change" is really an Obama-specific theme, something only he can really pull off (and even that's getting harder).

We've had this discussion for years on this blog - the political marketing of the parties is wildly different. The GOP has some very specific items they associate with their brand (if not their actual style of governing), and they stick to the script far better than the Dems. When scandal hits the GOP, it undermines the credibility of the message and affects the message movers nationwide. The upside is that, with a monolithic and well defined message, it is difficult for the opposition to articulate differences (sans scandal) without sounding like boneheads.

Dems are far more nebulous in their marketing, and do not have singluar unifying themes. Because of this, when scandal hits the Dems, it is usually localized to the office holder and their close associates. The disadvantage to this is that opposing politicos are able to find the wackiest Dem position and paint the whole party with it, which is why Dems are constantly called out for not comdemning other Dems' positions.

Dante said...

"The disadvantage to this is that opposing politicos are able to find the wackiest Dem position and paint the whole party with it,"

So is that the proper thing to do? Because from previous posts, I take it you're not that big a fan of such practices. Why then is it ok for you to do what in your estimation is roughly the same thing to the opposing side by holding the entire Party to task over a single member who does not fit the overreaching message? You call the above quoted practice wrong yet have no problem propagating the other side's equivalent yourself.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Pointing these things out is not "wrong," it is examining the ways politics happen in this country. Yes, I am calling out the now-convicted official, but I am also calling out the hollow message and oversimple marketing strategy.