The House GOP just needs a better new slogan. Given the problems with using the Wyeth trademarked "Change You Deserve," they should rethink it: "CHANGE THAT CAN BE MEDICATED!"

Suggested ad copy:

Have you lost your home to foreclosure? Yes, that's a change. But it can be medicated! (Effexor)

Does your wife lay dying waiting for surgery that your health insurance won't cover? Yes, that's a change in your life, but it can be medicated! (Effexor)

Is your son up for his 7th tour in Iraq, when he was promised but one? Yes, that's change, but it, too, can be medicated. (Effexor)

When the Republicans bring change, they suggest the Right medication to cope. Effexor XR. Trust the GOP. Trust Effexor -- For changes too depressing to endure.

According to the few, remaining self styled conservatives in the House of Representatives, then, the GOP should tax the hell out of anyone who is not in the middle class (whatever that is), exempt young people from welfare work requirements (along with the old and disabled...who's left, middle age?), and empower parent's to make education decisions, at least as long as they follow the federal government's programs. As for the moratorium on pork barrel spending...after the farm bill and this bad loan real estate bailout...right, I believe that the GOP will keep its word.

Sorry, but this sounds more like Clinton/Bush triangulation, and not a true conservative agenda. This policy explicitly endorses class warfare to benefit the incumbents and government, not equal justice.

Here is a related article everyone interested should enjoy!

I Knew Jack Kennedy and You�re No Brand!
Leslie Singer
President and CCO G2 Branding and Design NY
School of Visual Arts
Voters� ears are replete with news reports betraying the media�s desire to attach brand equity to our current slate of three presidential candidates. Well, I have some bad news for you�the current slate of candidates has yet to promulgate any distinctive branding, not in the way say a Jack Kennedy or a Ronald Reagan projects brand equity.

Brands are iconic; they are far more than ethereal fads or trends. Jack Kennedy was the scion of a family brand, and his surname was rich with iconography. Icons are about rituals, legacies, and a voice that keeps resonating long after they pass. Kennedy is about Hyannis Port, touch football games, hair blowing on a sailboat, PT-109, a rocking chair in the oval office, a handsome face that informs a sense of aesthetics to sensory branding. Though he was a well-known womanizer, even Kennedy�s dalliances were part of the brand fabric. Kennedy�s memorable Cold War �Ich bin ein Berliner� speech is legendary, not just for the fact that his snowclone was a misstatement and actually meant �I am a jelly doughnut.� Kennedy lives on as an icon in our cultural fabric�and he has been dead since 1963.

Reagan had brand equity through and through. A Hollywood B-movie star, he was a hero in the movies and would become a hero on the world stage. His lifelong nickname, The Gipper, came from his film role as George Gipp in Knute Rockne, All American. When Reagan stood up to the Soviet Union, he certainly won one for the Gipper. Without flinching, the Russians blinked, and the rest is history as the walls came tumbling down in the breakup that followed. The label �Reaganomics� has worked itself into our vernacular and the words �tear down that wall� will live in infamy.
And like Kennedy, Reagan had an aura of the virile American. He looked good on a horse and comfortable with a gun and, unlike, Kennedy even looked good on the big screen. He resonated a masculine power in his blue jeans and flannel shirt, with the love of his life on his arm. This is the stuff that icons are made of and create brands that are true.

Today�s slate of candidates has yet to develop a brand conscience in the minds of voters. McCain certainly owns his space representing the heroism of the Vietnam era, albeit he is not a brand. Hillary seems to permeate with a �More of the Same� message when compared with Obama. But neither of them are a brand. If anything, time will tell if there will be a �Brand Clinton.� If there is, it will be in tribute to Bill�Hillary will get the residue of the label. For his part, Obama may be closer to resonating with the voters as �Brand Hope.� His unflinching message of Change is idealistic in a way that is fresh and new. If he stays on target and goes head to head with McCain, the articulation of �Brand Hope� may galvanize the American voters to land him in the White House. But to call any of them a �brand� is mistaking the meaning of the word. They are �candidates��a mere moment in time on the radar screen of our political arm wrestling. They could become a brand when they accomplish things that resonate for the long term, when long past their tenure their names are used to drive home a point or used as a noun or stand for something that becomes culturally significant.

If Hillary doesn�t win, her relevance will be diminished; ergo she can�t be a brand. Same for Obama and McCain. They are all just players, like George McGovern, Ross Perot, John Kerry, John Edwards, Rudy Guliani, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, Chris Dodd and hundreds of others have been. Just because you are in the news, doesn�t make you a brand. When you start changing the news, you are on your way. When you fulfill a promise that changes lives and impacts our culture in a way that resonates in the history books, then you are a brand. Anything less, you are a just a moment in time.

Yeah, I imagine that Hensarling's memo will be the talk of the town and on everyone's lips all across America by this evening.

Forget gas and milk prices approaching four dollars a gallon. Forget the never-ending blunder in Iraq that is sucking 343 million taxpayer dollars out of our economy each and every day. Forget the spiraling national debt, much of it owed -- with interest -- to foreign countries. Forget the budget deficits. Forget the huge increase in the size of the Federal government since 2001. Etc., etc., etc.

Enough of those things because out here in the real world what we really want to hear about and discuss is Hensarling's memo.

DCambell.... exactly right. These presidential candidates are all out of touch with the problems the ordinary American faces. It is not a "party" issue... it is a "Power" issue. Hillary, Obama and McCain don't have any idea how to fix what is broken in this country. All they know how to do is repeat one line sound bytes that will sound good on t.v. Neither party candidate is right for America.

Nice strategy but can it really compete with the Democratic strategy: Bush=Satan, all evil in the world is Bush's personal fault, everything Bush ever said or did is evil and wrong? Plus add in Obama's "vote for me and all your dreams will come true" which is so effective even Hamas, Hezbollah, Hugo Chavez, and Iran believe Obama will make all their dreams come true too. It will be an uphill battle.

Why did Hensarling not mention the new Republican slogan, "The Change You Deserve?" Certainly not because it was plagiarized word for word from a registered advertising slogan for an anti-depressant produced by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.

I am not sure where I first saw it, but I think a much more appropriate slogan for the House Republicans would be "A Chickenhawk in Every Pot."

Two models seem to be building for the election. Either the people become dependent on the government for their social needs or they have a choice. The decision of choice is more difficult because it carrys with it a financial as well as moral responsibility for social requirements whereas the dependent plan transfers that responsibility to the government bureaucracy along with tax dollars to support it. Haven't seen the Democrat plan but based on speeches the GOP plan seems to offer more choice. We'll see when the Democrats decide on a candidate.

When are we going to see conservatives insist that every criminal on our soil illegally be permanently deported? When will they retroactively repeal the stupid law that allows the offspring of these criminals to receive American citizenship? This is the only issue anyone cares about.

(Full disclosure: I'm a Libertarian who picks and chooses candidates from both Parties).

The "Conservative" Party versus the "Repubican" Party. If there is a change in leadership in the Democratic Party away from Clinton/Kennedy/Pelosi Yellow Dog baby boomers, towards younger DLC type Blue Dog Democrats who don't habitually alienate the middle of the electorate, there will be much less Party over Country conflict in pretty much each of those "Conservative" principle areas mentioned. Without the VERY shallow appeal to the electorate as "the Party of lesser evil of the Beltway Establishment" what do the Republicans have to offer?

1. The Republicans had plenty of time in the Majority in both the House and Senate (and a sympathetic President) to VOTE TO CUT pork barrel spending AlREADY. If the Beltway GOP didn't do it when in the Majority, what basis is there to believe current promises of FUTURE fiscal restraint. (Hint: Cutting taxes isn't the same as reigning in Federal Entitlements and pork).

2. "Middle class families" cannot afford to bail out thirty years of procrastination over Social Security reform and a trillion dollars of surplus Soc. Sec. tax revenue that was squandered. Is Social Security a "social safety net"? Or is it welfare for baby boomer retirees who already have six figure retirement and pension incomes? "Middle Class families" need to plan for their children's and their OWN futures, and should not be expected to pay taxes into a system that few non-baby boomers think they'll ever collect.

3. What basis is there for the electorate to believe the "Conservative" republicans have the political will to reform the tax code BEFORE they extend the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire in two years??? As neither Blue Dogs nor Yellow Dogs at the helm of the Majority are likely to make the current tax cuts permanent, the GOP just seems like it's blowing smoke if it promises tax code changes prior to extending the Bush tax cuts.

4. The three gorillas of the Federal budget are: a) the military; b) Social Security; and c) Medicare/Medicade. HOW exactly does the GOP imagine it's going to reign in Federal spending without poking TWO of these three beasts with a VERY sharp stick??? Frankly, it's cynical and cowardly for the "Conservative" republican Establishment to roll out a "Democratic Nationalized Health System... BUT Conservative!" policy. What the GOP really means is that instead of diverting Federal health funds to Democratic machine State healthcare rackets, the "Conservative" republican Party intends to resume their practice whilst in the Majority of diverting as much Federal health funding to multi-National drug companies who showered the GOP with lobbying cash.

5. Energy "Independence". Less than 20% of U.S. petroleum comes from the Middle East. Yet again, "Conservative" small 'r' republicans promise to adopt a policy they COULD have adopted whilst in the Majority, but didn't. If they lacked the grit to get it done whilst controlling the House, Senate, and with a TEXAN President, why on earth should anyone believe them now?

Notice a pattern? The "Conservative" republicans, who fifteen years ago were "Conservative" Dixiecrats who left the Democratic Party when the Clinton's and Yellow Dogs wrestled control of pet Dixie areas from the old hands... now want the Grand Old Party to ignore keeping to the Reagan coalition hallmarks (you know... Keeping to the HIGH road, even when it's unpopular, and leading the Republic into the FUTURE, rather than endlessly repeating mistakes of the past...)

6. A legal framework that prevents "terrorist" attacks? Huhn? What planet has this "Conservative" Texan Congressman been living on for the last seven years? Are we fighting a "war against terrorism" or "a war on drugs" or a "war on crime"... OR do beltway Conservatives really just want MORE POWER for the Tide Water and Beltway? "Terrorism" is a tactic, not an ideology in and of itself. Rather than trying to cut and run from the younger generation of Americans commitment to rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan and whining about the need to suspend one after another Constitutional protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights, maybe the "Conservatives" should actually UNFUND their own civilian cronies who've left the U.S. military's tail exposed by wasting $9 billion a year in reconstruction funds year in and year out!

Is the "Conservative" republican Party honest enough to call for a modern "Truman Commission", knowing their own Beltway fixers and good ol' boys have collected billions to NOT rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, while the DoD sucks up the consequences and casualties? Not likely if Hensarling's bunch has anything to say about it.

7. A "moral" approach for municipal and State education? Huhn? Since when does Washington tell elected School Boards how to think? The "Conservatives" didn't block College and University Federal funds for Private Ivy League schools that barred military recruiters and the ROTC from their campuses. The "Conservatives" haven't reigned in predatory, usurious Federally guaranteed college loan providers, which, keeping to their "moral" cowardice over Social Security reform, is yet another form of taxing the young in order to feather the nests of selfish irresponsible baby boomers (Conservative AND Liberal alike). Now instead of addressing the unbelievable and obnoxious debt young Americans are burdened with well into their 30's, the Beltway Conservative establishment wants to TELL these SAME thirty-something college educated young parents how to RAISE THEIR OWN CHILDREN??? How is that different from the Hillary Democrats? Well, the Yellow Dogs want other peoples children to learn THEIR ideology, and the "Conservatives" want other peoples children to learn THEIR hypocrisy! (Hint: Christ didn't approve of usury!).

8. And of course... a "welfare safety net", Conservative-sytle! lol. Anything to give Gerrymandered Washingtonians, Tide Water Marylander and Virginians more authority to act exactly like obnoxious Yankee spinsters. Someone should tell the D.C. Conservatives that most Americans live WEST of the Atlantic Seaboardi, and don't particularly want to be ruled by a Tide Water gentry any more than by New England's self proclaimed caste of Bremen.

I notice he didn't suggest any way to reduce the cost of ammunition - because every time I see an autocannon go off in the Gulf, I see my 1040.

And what about jet fuel? That has to cost a bundle. And who's paying for all this safety, anyway?

Too little and too late, conservative and libertarians have heard this before. Newt really had the program and the creativity to do this. He had little support from the country club republicans who destroyed 30 years of work by the young republicans who beleived in Reagan's America. Until Newt or someone of his vision and passion runs for real, we will spend out time and money elsewhere. I.E. Dr. Ron Paul...
If McCain is the best the RNC can do best of luck to America. I learned my lesson watching the RNC and Ohio GOP destroy our state's economy and a lock on the GOP. Thrice burned and so I have learned.
Russ Ramey Lima, Ohio

RUSS RAMEY IS RIGHT ON THE MARK. THE GOP CAN REBUILD WHEN THE RNC

IS OUT OF THE PICTURE. RNC MEANS RINO'S NO LONGER IN CONTROL OF THE PARTY. I'LL SIT THIS ONE OUT AND RETURN TO THE GOP IN EIGHT YEARS AFTER OBAMA HAS SENT THE GOP A MESSAGE TO REMAIN TRUE TO YOUR BASE PRINCIPALS, ETHICS AND MORALS. AMEN MR. RAMEY. WHO NEEDS ENEMIES WHEN YOU HAVE FAIR WEATHER FRIENDS LIKE MCCAIN, ARNOLD OF CA AND THE REPUBLICAN CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ? NO WAY, JOSE.

ANDY SCHRAG

Neither party does anything for the American public. It is just rhetoric. Proof will be if or when they actually do things that benefit taxpayers and not themselves.

somewhere between feeble and muddled. it reminds me of "there must be a pony in there" as i suspect there are at least good intentions and maybe some good ideas presented. but can't the party even find someone who can speak/write with some degree of clarity!!
and lets forget this "middle class" stuff (right from the Democrat playbook) and talk about ALL AMERICANS!(USA CITIZENS!).

Why are we required to identify ourselves on this
blog. The Dems are not required to identify themselves on their blogs. You should see the
hundreds of Dem blogs. They can say anything
that they want to say because their names dont
show up on the screen.