Episode 97 – Boehner Pledge Problems Opens Door for Dems

Comparing the Boehner Pledge to America to the 1994 Contract with America that helped secure the Republican takeover of Congress, Glenn and Jeff explain why this Pledge relates more favorably to the movie Animal House than it does a substantive document (lots of laughs, lots of pictures, short on substance). In fact, the Pledge contains 15 pages of written copy versus 33 pages of really pretty pictures and elegant headlines. But if you’re trying to punch someone in the political face, not a lot of substance is needed, so will The Pledge work as a political tool of it won’t work as a substantive road map to a Republican Future? What does this Pledge say about how the Republicans see themselves and their role in the future? What is the reaction among Republicans to the Pledge? Jeff explains how the Pledge can be used in state and local races to define the Republicans, while Glenn warns that the Democrats don’t know how to define their views in a way that resonates with voters, and continue to be reactive and operate from the defense.

We recommend that you also check out the following links that provide background to this episode.

Best Friends. Vast Experience. Engaging political discussion without the fighting…and with a few laughs. It’s PoliTalk, your weekly political podcast.

You can get the PoliTalk Podcast on  iTunes and Zune

Check out and join the following:

Our Facebook Page

Our Twitter Page



5 responses to “Episode 97 – Boehner Pledge Problems Opens Door for Dems

  1. Boehner and the Pledge are a complete joke, but you guys seem to really cross a line into immaterial partisan sniping by focusing on absurdity like the length of the introduction. There’s a lot more hypocrisy on Boehner that should be the real point of discussion (Medicare Part D).

    • Fair point and well taken. We should have spent more time talking substance. I let my emotions get the better of me. The premise of the show is dialogue and discussion, about bridging gaps in understanding various points of view, and I should have taken that role more seriously, but I found the premise of this document so offensive that it was hard to do. I appreciate the reality check, and thank you for listening. — Jeff K

    • Zack,

      Please share more about the Medicare Part D issue. Thanks!


  2. I think the pledge is going to be irrelevant in the debate. And it’s probably a good thing. Firstly – its lame – it really is – no boldness or decisiveness or actual ideas. Very disappointing in comparison to the contract with America. As Mr. Kimball might say – where are the Statesman who stand up and propose bold action?

    As lame as it is though – its just lame. It’s not damaging.

    Since it’s devoid of real ideas and plans, hanging it around the necks of Republican candidates brings no negative consequences. Since there are no real ideas, the Democrats can’t say –“and you support the pledge and its plan to do XXXXXX….”

    No one will even remember the pledge in 2 weeks. Republicans will realize that it was a nearly disastrous screw-up and stop talking about it.

    The best thing Republicans can do is sit on their hands and shut their mouths for the next month – the rest will take care of itself.

    And BTW – the reason the Democrats cant go on offense is because 70% of America, all those except for the most progressive of us, don’t support what the administration is doing. Its simple, this election is a referendum on the policies and direction that very few people support. Its been the litmus test on the progressive agenda, and its been rejected.

    Our biggest concern should be – what does total and complete gridlock look like for the next 2 years? NOTHING is going to get done to address any of our problems until after the 2012 elections.

    Sad but true.

  3. Michael Forrest

    What do you mean there were no bold new ideas in the Pledge. Didn’t they pledge to fund a shrine for compassionate conservatism with a big statue of W? Now THAT’S bold!

    (Really, I’ve always hated that moniker – as if conservatism is somehow inherently NOT compassionate. Sheesh.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s