The Republicans can't figure out how to hate Obama yet
I think this is really telling,
They really, really want to hate Obama, but they just can't seem to figure out how.
(Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the latest charges, "flip flopper" or "self interested" are going to do that much damage.
The attackers seem to misunderstand the phenomena. It's not about Obama at all. It's about a desperate desire within a majority of Americans to feel good about America again. How do you dislocate people from that?)
President Bush’s re-election campaign had already settled on an effective argument against Mr. Kerry by late spring of 2004 — branding him daily as a flip-flopper and inauthentic. That months have passed without the McCain campaign similarly defining Mr. Obama somehow has frustrated Republicans more than, say, Mr. Obama’s strong fund-raising or Democratic Party unity.
They really, really want to hate Obama, but they just can't seem to figure out how.
(Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the latest charges, "flip flopper" or "self interested" are going to do that much damage.
The attackers seem to misunderstand the phenomena. It's not about Obama at all. It's about a desperate desire within a majority of Americans to feel good about America again. How do you dislocate people from that?)
posted by mikevotes at
7:09 AM
8 Comments:
I think they understand. A Rove type campaign would just be counter productive. Trouble is it's the only thing they know.
By
Anonymous, at 9:24 AM
Karl Rove and Fox News are much more of a contracted echo chamber than four years ago. I think the veil is off the pig and the traditional media outlets are not as willing to pick up and run with Fox News "scoops" or nor treating Rovian propaganda as legitimate news items. As I said, not as likely. Not that it doesn't happen at all.
I am probably the least qualified person to make the following observation, but has Fox News become a parody of itself? Do a majority of Americans view Fox News with the same jaundiced eye as they do the Inquirer or other such supermarket tabloid fare? I mean, is the percent of the population who think Fox News is actually an outlet for news shrinking?
By
-epm, at 9:59 AM
Yeah, it's a very different topology. He's not the "typical Dem" so the standards ddon't work as well.
I'm not fully convinced that there aren't effective attack angles, they just haven't been able to see beyond what's worked in the past.
EPM, I think you hit on a key point, the audience for this is smaller. Part of that is GOP brand, part of that is that there's no person or group passionately for McCain to carry water.
By
mikevotes, at 10:02 AM
I'm guessing the Republican sound machine will be a combination of two things:
being alert for slips and gaffes from the Dems to tsk-tsk about, and
being ever more strident about an imminent threat that really needs immediate military attention.
By
Anonymous, at 9:17 PM
Does the second one work this year? How credible (or how horrifying) would a threat have to be to make an impact?
We've heard "wolf" alot over the last seven years.
By
mikevotes, at 11:01 PM
With only 24% of the voters considering "national security" to be their number one issue, it doesn't seem to have a lot of potential for traction.
The whole "imminent threat" thing is a two-edged sword. All that the GOP is offering is a continuation of Bush's national security regime. If that can't keep us "safe", then what are they good for?
Any actual event would backfire on the "Iraq is making us safer" line, and the response would almost certainly be so ham-fisted as to make Katrina seem like a success.
Tin-foil hat warning: it would allow the elections to be postponed or even suspended.
The struggle over the message to use against Obama is indicative of a deeper problem for the McCain campaign. Specifically, this is that the campaign's talking points are tailored to appeal almost exclusively to Republicans.
Shameless plug
By
Todd Dugdale , at 5:31 PM
I'm really up in the air as to how a threat would break. I think the credibility of it would be key.
I know what you're saying about the current rank of terror/nat'l security being down the list, but a good number of people simply browse the news occasionally, and if something punched through, that could climb the priority list.
However, I'm still not sure I buy the "scare is good for McCain" line.
By
mikevotes, at 10:27 PM
I am new to this forum; I am likely more right (vs. left) than the posts I just read. A few of the things I just read are spurring me to action.
1. McCain is not delivering messages taht appeal to republicans - nor do I know any Republican who thinks that McCain is a Republican.
2. But he's so much more betterer than Obama. At least we know what to expect from McCain. Obama is a total unknown; can an unknown be a flip-flopper - I mean really - where did he start from :-)
3. I may be one of the 24% who IS concerned about national security. Even you are of the 76%, do you really think that sitting down with whomever will attack us next to discuss our differences will be an appropriate response to another 9/11 ???
4. I need a drink - I shall sit down now.
By
JohnnyO, at 7:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home