Since 2008, politicians have been preaching the same mantra: jobs, jobs, jobs. People are angry beyond belief because they’re frustrated as never before. Republicans in the state rode into power on the manifestation of national resentment against the powers that be. A “throw the bums out” wave, if you will.

Republicans succeeded on the message of “limited” government—whatever the hell that means—fewer regulations, and job creation. The electorate was desperate. Any high school senior could have run those campaigns as long as the candidate was a Republican.

Almost every candidate—democrats included—simply talked about job creation and how he or she’d make it happen. They told us they would lead or create the policies to do just that. Legislators and our Governor’s words are filled with such “jobs” jargon. Nationally, you hear R’s speak of government dependence being heresy—I bet most folks agree. Yet at the same time, they’re asking us to look to them to create those jobs. What gives? If you were such a proponent of getting out of the way, you’d be Libertarian or simply stay home.

You say you’ll get government out of our lives—ignore the logical fallacy of the obvious: you’re the government. “I’m with the government and I’m here to help.” If you really wanted to be out of our lives, you’d stop allowing some of your colleagues from making a mockery of our state. It adds insult to injury for the rest of us. Then, out of the other side of your mouth, you tell us the focus is creating jobs. You led us to believe you could create jobs. We knew you couldn’t really, but we weren’t making the promises. You made them, not us.

There can be no doubt that state R’s are winning the messaging battle. There’s honestly not much competition, which is sad because honest competition makes us better (btw, government-backed business is not competition in a “free” market). So, here we are almost 2 years later and there’s little change. Of course, you have spent an inordinate amount of time cramming your social views down our collective throats—no choice. In Nashville, it was a choice—the irony. You’ve also trampled and continue to trample on the rights of cities to make decisions for themselves. Yes, we know city governments are political subdivisions of the state. We just wish you’d serve locally if you want to make local public policy.

It must be you don’t trust them to make a decision unless you agree. Political disagreement must be sinful to you—”perfection is the enemy of the good” is an old Wilderism. You’ve shown us over the last year or so you weren’t capable of doing what you said you would do. We don’t trust you anymore. Admittedly, there wasn’t much rope to begin with. Your policies so far have achieved political retribution for the past, usurped local autonomy, made the minority party’s position your own on grocery taxes, sanctioned discrimination, readied base rallying constitutional amendments, and generally just let us down.

I predict your most radical elements in the freshman class will face certain defeat in spite of the benefits derived from redistricting. Maybe I’m wrong. I usually am about such things. Even if I am, leadership must get them under control. Unless of course, they’re the leadership. It’s almost too late to begin producing. Celebrating a fulfilled campaign promise to make data more accessible—and a dashboard to boot—is not the promise we wanted celebrated first. Delivering on a promise isn’t worthy of celebration anyway—unless it’s proof you’ve delivered the ultimate promise. And then, we wouldn’t need you to tell us. It would be obvious to everyone.

Getting “rid of red tape” didn’t bring jobs. Letting radicals dominate the media didn’t bring jobs. Usurping local power didn’t bring jobs. Getting constitutional amendments on the ballot in 2014 doesn’t bring jobs (discounting political campaign employment). People are understandably pissed. You haven’t delivered on your promises. You’re too easily distracted—like with protesters. Did I mention you’ve allowed us to become a national embarrassment, repeatedly? Mississippi’s personhood amendment got less attention. It failed by the way. Really, Mississippi?

This election, people will not be moved by the jobs mantra. In fact, they’re looking for some evidence of your accomplishments. Good luck trying to convince us with your current message. It’s stale. The rest of us are scratching for all we have. There’s nothing trickling down. Where are the jobs? You said you knew. You can’t take credit for giving taxpayer funded subsidies to corporations and call the same job creation. That’s the Robin Hood fallacy. At minimum, give the credit to us. I don’t recall the campaign statement “we’re going to use our tax collections to subsidize private enterprise.”

We all now realize the economy was worse off than most imagined. But now we know this state leadership is doing the same as the old leadership. Our collective memories are too short to remember this from history. We’re to blame for this A.D.D. Yet, when times are good at home, we mostly ignore what you’re doing. Most of us are in the political middle and only engage when you fail to act.

You have a credibility problem and the radicals aren’t helping the cause. Adding further insult to injury–for the party at least, you’re not going to get any help from any national tidal wave this year. The nominee-in-waiting as anointed by Republican “establishment” is Mitt Romney. I cannot recall the credibility of a presidential candidate more repeatedly called into question than that of Mitt Romney. In fact, it would be impossible to convince me he will not say whatever it is he needs to say to get elected. This comes from someone who believes a Romney v. Obama choice is either side of the same coin. See Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessig.

In the most concise demonstration of the utter lack of consistency in the national debate about the economy—delivered by Mitt Romney yet produced by a comedian— is a candidate for president asking us to elect him based upon his hyper-successful private sector career—“the country needs a president who’s created jobs in the private sector to create jobs in this economy.” Sounds good so far, right? Then surely he will tell us he will run the country just like he ran his business, which was successful in terms of wealth creation for him, his partners and many others, I’m sure. If you thought so too, you’d be wrong just like me. In fact, it’s just the opposite—contrary to the very experience he asks us to admire as the very reason we should elect him.

Please watch:

Don’t take cues from him.

Alternatively, we may still have amnesia and Republican seats are increased in the state legislature. I doubt it. However, it’s getting harder and harder to ignore the reality Romney will be the nominee and will impact the ballot further down. Simply amazing. The state and nation have come to realize in this political economy what you have known all along: no one is working for our collective best interests anymore. New faces, indeed albeit with the same result.

I hear the true believers, money simply allows campaigns to persuade voters. I believe this too. Here’s a recent report on one candidate’s (not coordinated, of course) SuperPAC expenditures. We will never see the (c)(4) donors. Doesn’t matter.

“All told, the group, Restore Our Future [pro-Romney SuperPAC], raised about $30 million from just 200 donors in the second half of 2011.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/us/politics/campaign-finance-reports-show-super-pac-donors.html?_r=1&hp

In the state, “re-election is what matters now” is the only credible campaign slogan. We’d appreciate the candor. After the election, please be better. Our expectations aren’t unreasonable. Just be better. You’d be surprised by the impact. I still believe you can put all the incessant bickering behind you.

One doesn’t become a leader because he or she got more votes in a campaign. One is a leader because he or she demonstrates leadership. We’re waiting for you to tell us the sober reality—even if it isn’t on message.