I took some grief on the recent NR cruise by telling the group that I thought Mitt Romney would lose to Barack Obama rather handily. That for some mysterious reason Obama continues to have relatively strong personal-approval numbers and a substantial, reliable base, which Romney doesn’t. As a typical standard-issue Republican, Romney wouldn’t have the heart or the courage to take the fight to the president, but instead would debate around the edges, and lose.
If this is to be believed, that’s the actual strategy:
Republicans on a private Republican National Committee conference call with allies warned Tuesday that party surrogates should refrain from personal attacks against President Barack Obama, because such a strategy is too hazardous for the GOP.
“We’re hesitant to jump on board with heavy attacks” personally against President Obama, Nicholas Thompson, the vice president of Tarrance Group, a Republican polling firm, said on the call. “There’s a lot of people who feel sorry for him.”
Recent polling data indicates that while the president still suffers significantly low job approval ratings, voters still give “high approval” to Obama personally, Thompson said.
Voters “don’t think he’s an evil man who’s out to change the United States” for the worse — even though many of the same survey respondents agree that his policies have harmed the country, Thompson said. The upshot, Thompson stressed, is that Republicans should “exercise some caution” when talking about the president personally.
Gee, if Obama’s personal-approval numbers are still high, why would you want to take them down? Let them stay there, lest the Democrat-Media Complex accuse you of being a blue meanie.
Remember, GOP: principles, not policies. Principles, not policies. Principles, not policies.
It’s not Obama’s policies that are the problem, it’s Obama and everything he represents and stands for. Engage the president on the deepest, most potent level, or join John McCain and Bob Dole on the ash heap of history.
Really, this party is too dumb to live.
What a strategy. Dumb and stupid don't come close to describing the message this sends to Conservatives and Republicans. Why don't we just cancel all the primaries and not field a candidate. I can tell you one thing for sure---not one single dime to the Republican National Committee. This is beyond irresponsible. The country is in the dumper because of Obama and his policies and the plan is to surrender. Great, just great.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRIGHT ON!!!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney can't debate Obama on principles or policies. His agenda and principles are the same as Obama's.
Both have the same Prime Directive: SERVE WALL STREET. All else is detail.
You already ran McCain "against" Obama with the same agenda; now you're going to run Romney "against" Obama with the same agenda.
This country needs a SECOND party, not a THIRD party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd this is why people started to back Newt. Yes, there are some doubts about how Conservative he'll be if elected, but people want to see him demolish Obama in a debate. Not the snooze that would be Obama vs. Romney (Or LSU vs. Alabama)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt must be nice, as Walsh apparently does, to live in a world where things are simply as he declares them to be. He thinks there are gains to be had by attacking Obama so he declares that to be fact.
There is no need - any despite Walsh's claims to the contrary, any benefit - of attacking Obama personally. Voters - and in particular, the mushy middle whose votes are necessary to win - don't care about Obama on the 'most deepest, potent level'. If they don't believe Obama is evil, then it is a waste of scarce time and resources to try and convince them that they are wrong, that Obama really is evil. Marketers know to focus their marketing efforts on what the audience is more likely to respond to.
The public cares about what Obama is doing, and in particular, the impact those policies have on their livelihoods. His motivations for doing so are relatively irrelevant. Focus the message on the fact that Obama's policies are wrong and have hurt the country and they'll vote for the challenger... even if they do think higher of Obama personally than they do of his policies.
The key for GOP victory is to portray Obama as a nice guy who is in way over his head and whose instincts are just wrong for rebuilding America.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis - in a nutshell - is everything I dislike about modern Conservatism:
>> "It’s not Obama’s policies that are the problem, it’s Obama and everything he represents and stands for."
Baloney. Although you'll never, ever admit it, Obama is a left-of-center establishment politician who is so mainstream he's angered half his liberal base. Everything he 'represents and stands for' is really not that different from everything the last 5 GOP Presidents represented and stood for. Also, I'd guess that a pretty good majority of Americans think that the guy stands for being a relatively honest, intelligent, likeable family man with a good sense of humor. Are you against that too?
You oppose some of his policies for comprehensible, coherent reasons. Make that case, and maybe you'll stop scaring the independents away. Not this other case that sounds like something my daughter's 14-year old friends say about each other when they fight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRIGHT ON!!!!! STUPID AND GUTLESS.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, I'll go ahead and take a contrarian view, even thought it will surely enrage those who want to chew on raw red meat.
I look at that quote, and the longer quote contained in the Politico's quote of the Yahoo!News story, and what I read is exactly what Walsh is saying.
They're saying make the battle on substance, not personality. Much as Walsh is screaming principle, not policies.
Principle not policies doesn't even make sense.
Policies are what you do to implement a principle.
A policy isn't an alternative to a principle, it's the upshot of a principle -- it's how you apply a principle.
So criticizing a policy is criticizing the tangible manifestation of a principle.
Though let me make clear, I am fully aboard the idea that the election should be about principles.
My point is simply that criticizing policies doesn't mean you're not talking principles -- it's just nonsense to say that.
And if you guys think that it's a good idea to make this election personal, you need to be drug tested.
It is never a good idea for your President to be making personal attacks. How do we feel about Carter and Clinton taking potshots at Republican presidents? Well, that's how you're going to make independents feel if you make this election all about personality.
Plus, as much as the bloom is off the rose since 2008, don't forget that in 2008 Obama simply charmed the heck out of the nation.
You really want to make this about personality, rather than substance?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've often thought the old cliche had it backwards -- the Republicans are the stupid party (hearts in the right places but always too naive to succeed) and the Democrats are the evil party (claiming the noblest of motives but really just selfish liars.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWas it John Stuart Mill who said that over a hundred years ago?
I prefer this quote...
"The evil party: claiming the noblest of motives but really just selfish liars" ~ kinggeorge2
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone who believes they're going to be successful running on the lie that everything was just wonderful on the day before Obama was sworn in and will become instantly wonderful again on the day he's voted out is in for a rude awakening next year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny thing. I have never heard anyone say either of those things?
Did you have fun building that strawman?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It’s not Obama’s policies that are the problem, it’s Obama and everything he represents and stands for. Engage the president on the deepest, most potent level, or join John McCain and Bob Dole on the ash heap of history. "
Problem: the GOP has already been doing this for the last 3 years. You can't name a leader of the GOP, either elected or in the media, who hasn't referred to him as a 'socialist' or claimed that he 'hangs out with terrorists' and is trying to destroy our country. Newt has claimed Obama has a 'neo-colonial mindset.'
And it has failed - spectacularly - in convincing people that he actually is any of those things. That is the point of contrasting the prez' approval ratings with his Job approval ratings - people are much more open to the idea that his policies are bad for the country, than they are the idea that he is fundamentally a bad person.
But, you advocate that the nominee engage in more of what has failed? Because this time, hey, it'll work?
And it's supposed to be everyone else who is stupid?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood grief. The Republican National Committee just had a conference call flushing what you wrote down the toilet. I want to feel embarrassed for you but I can't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm, the RNC conference call AGREED with my position. I don't know how you reconcile that with what you wrote here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUm, you wrote this, genius: "You can't name a leader of the GOP, either elected or in the media, who hasn't referred to him as a 'socialist' or claimed that he 'hangs out with terrorists' and is trying to destroy our country."
Did the RNC just do what you said everyone in the GOP does?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm quite sure that the vast majority of public figures on that call have in fact done exactly that over the years, Travis. And the chairman of that group (Prebius) does that all the time.
So, yeah. You're completely wrong. The fact that the call in question focused on a different strategy than the one that you and others seem to think will work this time - though it has no record of working in the past - doesn't change the truth about what I wrote: namely, that the GOP has spent years doing what Walsh is advocating, with very little to show for it; and that those who advocate doing MORE of the same are fools.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm convinced that that one of the false memes the democrats have worked so tirelessly to promote since Obama took over - the idea that any Republican who disagrees with Obama does so for racist reasons- has gained some traction with a segment of the public. It's not that they buy into the idea that Republicans are racist, it's that they fear they themselves will be considered racist if they disagree, so they split the difference ": I disagree with him, but hey, I like the guy personally!" This is akin to being against the war, but supporting the troops, a half-way measure designed to protect whoever says it from having to come down on one side. And even if is true that they like him, but not his policies, why can't they take that into the voting booth, and just keep on liking him as they vote for the other guy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAhh...so insightful.
I suppose you don't realize that Obama will run as a moderate...almost conservative. He will describe his policies in conservative terms...he will talk about helping people...and the media will interpret everything for the Jill and John Doe so that independents will think he's conservative...but that the real conservatives are heartless shills for the rich. The point about attacking Obama's ideology is that if it is done and done correctly the media's veil will be lifted and independents can understand what Obama really is (an Alinsky disciple...which means a radical revolutionary working from within the System).
Before you mock Newt and the neo-colonial mindset critique...you might want to figure out what they mean by that statement. I'm not entirely certain myself...but I think most who use it in the manner in which you do in your post...don't actually understand what those saying it are trying communicate.
Also, Obama is absolutely a socialist...but more than that he's a revolutionary radical working to over turn the Haves and the Have Nots. He is also a pragmatist. He and his fellow travelers aren't going to announce that they want to completely turn our country upside down and completely change it. Nor are they going to advocated for socialism. What they will do (what they do) is speak in conservative/American terms...but mean something different. So they will talk about investment...when they mean government spending. They will talk about being proponents of the private sector...but mean proponents of the private sector doing what the government tells it to/wants it to do (e.g. government control). They will never advocate for socialism...just fairness. You should really do some research yourself on Obama and his background and his beliefs (his beliefs as revealed by his associations and the organizations and causes he aligned himself with).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it's all about balance.
Democrats made the mistake of thinking the entire country hated George W. Bush as much as they did and decided that would the centerpiece of their strategy, and their attacks ultimately backfired, imo. Bush's approval only went down the crapper when he looked incompetent and in over his head, not from attacks that he was Hitler or a war profiteer for Halliburton. The same will happen with Obama.
Jimmy Carter was also personally liked, but Americans turned on him because of a combination of lack of leadership, incompetence, and bad policy making. I see a similar pattern with Obama. Also, these polls of "Do you personally like Obama" are simply not going to be accurate because the implication is, you must be a racist if you don't like Obama. I truly believe that there is a reverse Bradley effect with his polling.
The GOP is not going to win this election on "Obama is a Kenyan socialist". I do agree that the eventual nominee is going to have to get in the mud (ie Solyndra and Fast and Furious) and that McCain let Obama off way too easy, but it's definitely a fine balance that Republicans have to be mindful of.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse