Advice for GOP candidates on a winning closing argument for midterm campaign speeches...Food Stamps have become a volatile weapon these days. On Sept. 29, efforts to pass crucial child nutrition legislation in the House ended when critics framed funding issues as the First Lady vs. Food Stamps, and Dems fled in terror. Today, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich plans to send a memo to GOP candidates across the country, suggesting a “closing argument” for the final month of the midterm election campaign that posits Dems as the Party of Food Stamps. It comes as President Obama is spending loads of time on the campaign trail for Dem candidates, and as the White House gets set to deploy First Lady Michelle Obama into the fray, too (Update: Her campaign schedule is here).
Dems as the party of Food Stamps--and especially with President Obama in charge--is not a new argument. The image, above, of Obama on a faux Food Stamp coupon was all over the Internet during the 2008 campaign, in various forms (some were racist, and featured illustrations of watermelons and fried chicken). But Gingrich's suggested closing salvo is far more than just symbolic.
Now chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future, Gingrich is urging GOP candidates to make the argument that the Dems have driven a record number of citizens into using Food Stamps, while Republicans will, if elected, provide jobs and paychecks--as well as lower taxes and smaller government.
"This year, the House Republican’s Pledge to America has set the stage for a powerful, symbolic closing argument for candidates seeking to unseat the left-wing, big spending, job killing Democrats: paychecks versus food stamps," Gingrich writes in his memo.
"It is also an unassailable fact that in January 2007, when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress, unemployment was 4.6% and food stamp usage was around 26.5 million Americans. Today, the unemployment rate is 9.6% and over forty million Americans are on food stamps," Gingrich continues. "You can use this vivid contrast between the record of the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress and the last time the Republican Party took control of Congress to powerfully illustrate the difference for every American between the Democratic Party of food stamps and the Republican Party of paychecks."
Hammer it home, Gingrich advises, as he suggests tax increases for working class families of four, single mothers, and senior citizens--all of whom are struggling in the current economy, and likely Dem voters. --And all of whom are open to being wooed by Mama Grizzly Republican candidates. Even if they used to be witches, wink wink.
"With less than thirty days left, it’s time to present your closing argument to the voters that you will aggressively repeat over and over until Election Day," Gingrich writes. "Which future do I want? More food stamps? Or more paychecks? This is the choice we want to drive home again and again for voters from now until Election Day."
Politico posted the full text of the memo, below.
Gingrich's memo:
“A Memo for Republican Candidates on the Winning Closing Argument for the Last Four Weeks"
Dear Candidate,
We are in the home stretch of the campaign. In less than thirty days, voters will head to the polls to voice their choice for the future of their family, their community, their state, and their country.
With less than thirty days left, it’s time to present your closing argument to the voters that you will aggressively repeat over and over until Election Day.
A closing argument is the central choice you want voters to have in mind as they head to the voting booths. It should be very simple and resonate at a personal, emotional level with the American people.
In 1980, Reagan’s closing argument was “morning in America” versus the malaise of Jimmy Carter.
In 1994, our closing argument was the Republican’s “Contract with America” versus decades of broken promises from the Democrats.
This year, the House Republican’s Pledge to America has set the stage for a powerful, symbolic closing argument for candidates seeking to unseat the left-wing, big spending, job killing Democrats: paychecks versus food stamps.
It is an unassailable fact that in June, more food stamps were distributed by the government than ever before in American history [http://bit.ly/bTKw79]. (It turns out that Barack Obama’s idea of spreading the wealth around was spreading more food stamps around.)
It is also an unassailable fact that in January 2007, when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress, unemployment was 4.6% and food stamp usage was around 26.5 million Americans. Today, the unemployment rate is 9.6% and over forty million Americans are on food stamps.
Compare this to our record after we took control of Congress in 1994.
In four years, unemployment fell from 5.6% to 4.2% and food stamp usage dropped by 8 million American thanks to record job creation. Furthermore, we turned a $107 billion deficit into a $125 billion surplus in four years, paying off more than $400 billion in federal debt. And we did it with a liberal Democrat in the White House.
You can use this vivid contrast between the record of the Pelosi-Reid Democratic Congress and the last time the Republican Party took control of Congress to powerfully illustrate the difference for every American between the Democratic Party of food stamps and the Republican Party of paychecks.
You can also present this clear choice to voters by hammering Democrats on their decision to adjourn Congress without fixing the tax code. In January 2011, taxes are scheduled to rise on virtually every American. Considering the perilous state of the U.S. economy, this decision by the Democrats to raise taxes is the very definition of irresponsibility.
This tax increase can be specified for every income group with vivid personal impact on most families. As the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee [http://bit.ly/brUYQz] have documented:
• A family of four earning $50,000 per year could pay more than $2,100 in higher taxes.
• A single mom earning $36,000 per year could pay over $1,100 more in taxes.
• Married senior citizens earning $40,000 per year could pay more than $1,400 in higher taxes.
For families struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table, the idea of having to pay even more in taxes will be devastating.
Furthermore, small business owners who may be considering hiring new employees must now operate under the assumption that their taxes will rise in January. That means a smart businessman will decline to hire anyone new since there will soon be less money to pay their employees. In other words, more food stamps, fewer paychecks.
Republicans have made it clear they intend to prevent these tax increases on working Americans.
You should use this vivid contrast between the tax raising, job killing agenda of the Democrats and the low tax, job creating agenda of the Republicans as a way to reinforce the choice for voters this fall.
Which future do I want? More food stamps? Or more paychecks?
This is the choice we want to drive home again and again for voters from now until Election Day.
Your friend,
Newt
