Short: Newt Gingrich rescues the GOP

OK, only in his own fantasies.

I was researching CPAC (particularly who controls the conference schedule), and I found this gem of incomplete thinking. Here is the short version:

• Karl Rove shouldn't try to pick the GOP candidates because he's on a losing streak. And he shouldn't soak up all the GOP money!
• Rich GOP donors shouldn't try to pick the winners just because they have wads of cash.
• Don't shoot all the consultants.
• Get wonky data types like the Dems had and start testing the GOP messages.

The first three recommendation are negatives--what NOT to do. Really, when you're short of ideas, this doesn't help because you need suggestions of what TO DO. The last suggestion is the most ironic, however. Really, all the GOP needed was a bunch of data-crunching nerd-whizz-geniuses, and they could have won?

Maybe he's right--after all, the Oakland A's management used nerd-genius ideas to build a winning team on the cheap. Still, I can't imagine what whizz-bang ideas would help the GOP sell their moldy old ideas that tax cuts equal a booming economy because we've lived the 2007-2009 cycle disproving that. Maybe they would use the nerd-geniuses to identify some sidelined GOP ideas that are winners, but that doesn't seem to be the plan since the general GOP declaration is that their ideas are good, goshdarnit!

Not even Gingrich can follow up on his ideas, like this one:

Latinos worry about getting health insurance and health care. A Republican candidate who had a better health idea could have had great appeal.

This observation dead ends with ... nothing. The GOP has policy problems that nerds or other magic potions won't cure. It's the policies, stupid. Work on them.

 Trying to dress up the GOP as winners

Image: news.cnet.com

Extra. Another post on the same site irritated me with different rhetorical fallacy.The author argues that you shouldn't worry about mass shootings because the numbers are too small--you really need to focus on shooting deaths in urban areas. Here's some truth there, except maybe we can work on improving both situations. So why not?

Poof! Most of his argument is shot down. Does he really want to rely on such a weak argument?