bitterlyclingin
Silver Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 3,122
- 425
- 98
[James Carville, back somewhere in early March suggested that Obama withdraw, considering his re election problematic then, predicting the country would be ungovernable should he gain re election. If he brings out the brass knuckles as powerline implies he will, how then will the Secret Service manage to house 150 million people in preventive detention afterwards? Civil War II, here we come]
"Fearing (as he should) that he is danger of losing in November, President Obama reportedly plans a no-holds-barred campaign designed to vilify Mitt Romney. According to one report, Team Obama will maul [Romney] for being a combination of Jerry Falwell, Joe Arpaio, and John Galt on a range of issues
If Obama follows through on this strategy, then, as Peter Wehner notes, he will have breached his promise of 2008 to turn the page on the old politics of division and anger, and to end a politics that breeds conflict and cynicism. His inaugural proclamation of an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics will have been just words.
In itself, this may not be much of a problem for Obama. Sure, the electorate yearns for a new politics. Sure, Obama promised it. But deep down, voters understand that a new politics is much easier to promise than to deliver. In 2000, George W. Bush promised to be a uniter rather than a divider. By 2004, it was clear that he hadnt delivered. But the electorate didnt punish him.
On the other hand, Bush didnt run the kind of unrelentingly-nasty re-election campaign that Team Obama reportedly contemplates. And therein resides the first of two major risks of such a campaign.
Obama biggest asset is the fact that people like him. They like him because he came across initially as likeable; because Americans want to like their president; and because they especially want to like the first Black president. Thus, they like Obama even though they dont believe he has delivered on his promises and even though they dont trust him much on the economy the most important issue in the campaign.
The nastier the campaign Obama runs, the less voters will be inclined to keep liking him. To some extent, Obama can minimize this danger by having others do the dirty work for him. As I wrote here, though, this wont be easy for Obama because his arrogance works against him. This is the man who famously proclaimed himself a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, a better political director than his political director, etc. Presumably, he also considers himself a better attack dog than his attack dogs
But even Obama out-sources the worst of the nastiness, a scorched earth policy of over-the-top attacks on Romney faces another danger Romney may not conform to Team Obamas caricature. It is hubris for Obama to think he can define Romney in any way he pleases. In a race this important, voters arent going to take one sides definition of its opponent as the gospel.
Any lawyer who has tried a case knows that the picture you paint in your opening statement better be one you can make stick during the trial. It wont do to portray the opposing party as a pantomime villain, unless he or she is suitable for the part. The risk of a backlash is too great.
JOHN adds: I think there is another risk, too. Obamas basic problem is that he cant run on his record. Vilifying Romney isnt the Obama campaigns first choice; if they could run on a platform of prosperity, economic growth, full employment and declining debt, they would. Unfortunately, they dont have that option, so they have to resort to personal attacks on Romney. One risk they run is that this is likely to become obvious to voters. Every time they launch another personal attack, Romney will say that Obama is resorting to vilification because he cant talk about his record."
The risks of Obama’s contemplated brass knuckles campaign | Power Line
"Fearing (as he should) that he is danger of losing in November, President Obama reportedly plans a no-holds-barred campaign designed to vilify Mitt Romney. According to one report, Team Obama will maul [Romney] for being a combination of Jerry Falwell, Joe Arpaio, and John Galt on a range of issues
If Obama follows through on this strategy, then, as Peter Wehner notes, he will have breached his promise of 2008 to turn the page on the old politics of division and anger, and to end a politics that breeds conflict and cynicism. His inaugural proclamation of an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics will have been just words.
In itself, this may not be much of a problem for Obama. Sure, the electorate yearns for a new politics. Sure, Obama promised it. But deep down, voters understand that a new politics is much easier to promise than to deliver. In 2000, George W. Bush promised to be a uniter rather than a divider. By 2004, it was clear that he hadnt delivered. But the electorate didnt punish him.
On the other hand, Bush didnt run the kind of unrelentingly-nasty re-election campaign that Team Obama reportedly contemplates. And therein resides the first of two major risks of such a campaign.
Obama biggest asset is the fact that people like him. They like him because he came across initially as likeable; because Americans want to like their president; and because they especially want to like the first Black president. Thus, they like Obama even though they dont believe he has delivered on his promises and even though they dont trust him much on the economy the most important issue in the campaign.
The nastier the campaign Obama runs, the less voters will be inclined to keep liking him. To some extent, Obama can minimize this danger by having others do the dirty work for him. As I wrote here, though, this wont be easy for Obama because his arrogance works against him. This is the man who famously proclaimed himself a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, a better political director than his political director, etc. Presumably, he also considers himself a better attack dog than his attack dogs
But even Obama out-sources the worst of the nastiness, a scorched earth policy of over-the-top attacks on Romney faces another danger Romney may not conform to Team Obamas caricature. It is hubris for Obama to think he can define Romney in any way he pleases. In a race this important, voters arent going to take one sides definition of its opponent as the gospel.
Any lawyer who has tried a case knows that the picture you paint in your opening statement better be one you can make stick during the trial. It wont do to portray the opposing party as a pantomime villain, unless he or she is suitable for the part. The risk of a backlash is too great.
JOHN adds: I think there is another risk, too. Obamas basic problem is that he cant run on his record. Vilifying Romney isnt the Obama campaigns first choice; if they could run on a platform of prosperity, economic growth, full employment and declining debt, they would. Unfortunately, they dont have that option, so they have to resort to personal attacks on Romney. One risk they run is that this is likely to become obvious to voters. Every time they launch another personal attack, Romney will say that Obama is resorting to vilification because he cant talk about his record."
The risks of Obama’s contemplated brass knuckles campaign | Power Line