Campaign dilemmas

A NYT blogger sadly concludes that Obama got bum campaign advice from Bill Clinton.   Obama could have attacked Romney for squishiness, but Clinton advised that no one ever won an election by complaining that his opponent was too shifty, as his own stellar career attests.  So Obama tried to paint Romney as a right-winger, only to find to his horror that no one who gets a direct look at Romney will believe it for a second.
The bottom line here is that one can over-think this whole notion of framing your opponent.  Ninety-nine times out of 100, the line of attack that works best is the one that really rings true.  In the case of Mr. Romney, whatever his stated positions may be, the idea that he’s a far-right ideologue, a kind of Rush Limbaugh with better suits and frosty hair, just doesn’t feel especially persuasive.
It must be painful to find out that the more effective approach would have been to take more account of reality and honesty -- especially since the Obama administration has so little expertise in those directions.

8 comments:

Grim said...

It's sad commentary that the closest advice they get to "Speak the Truth!" is to say something that "rings true."

bthun said...

"It's sad commentary that the closest advice they get to "Speak the Truth!" is to say something that "rings true."

Sadder still is the collective mind of THE Ø Administration translates that advice into sending out Debbie W-S to speak in tongues while faxing the Journalistas the Ø-etta stone version for dissemination .

W.B. and I voted at the county Elections Office yesterday. There was quite a line and it took some time. Even though everyone had to fill out the form, show id, have id checked against mug and records, queue up for the electronic card, then a booth and finally cast the ballot, the line(s) flowed as quickly as folks could vote and free up booths...

BTW, that's the first time in several years of voting early, that I've seen a long line of folks waiting to do so.

I'll take that as a good omen.

P.S. No EU observer anywhere in sight. Fortunately, for them.

Gringo said...

It must be painful to find out that the more effective approach would have been to take more account of reality and honesty -- especially since the Obama administration has so little expertise in those directions.

The accuracy of this statement is a sad commentary on the current condition of our country.

Gringo said...

It wasn't so much that the Demos inaccurately painted Romney as a right winger, it was that they inaccurately painted him as an evil right winger. Romney didn't fit their caricature.

Miss Ladybug said...

We have the beginnings of an international incident over those "observers" here in Texas. AG Abbott says if any of them get closer than 100 feet of a polling place, they'll be arrested (Texas law says only poll workers and voters can be within that 100 - not even reporters are allowed that close). The "observers" have complained to Sec. Clinton. Our AG has responded, but hasn't yet recieved a reply from the Secretary. Abbott suspected those "observers" may be working with Dem groups who don't want verification of a voter's identity (keeping in mind our voter ID law isn't being enforced, pending a lawsuit...).

Texan99 said...

Certified poll "watchers" are allowed in the polling place. I get instructions every year on how to deal with them. They have to show their certification, and they can't talk to voters. They're entitled to stay and take notes. They may also choose to take up with me any problems they see developing. I had one once for a few hours.

But my polling place is never a scene of controversy. We follow the rules about not talking politics when voters are present. We make people fill out "Oaths of Assistance" when they're helping infirm voters vote. Almost everyone presents either a voter's certificate or a driver's license. I can think of only two or three times that someone has had to use a utility statement, because he left his license at home. Anyway, this is a small precinct where we know most of the voters. (Not that we're allowed to let voters vote by "personal recognition" any more, but it does reassure us to know that it would be hard to forge a utility bill in order to vote here.)

A lot of voter fraud can be nipped in the bud if citizens get involved in the election process. Poll watchers are a really good idea.

Gringo said...

Texan99

A lot of voter fraud can be nipped in the bud if citizens get involved in the election process. Poll watchers are a really good idea.


With the exception of Eurosneers who are in the country to aid and abet Democrat voter fraud, under cover of making sure that there is no "voter suppression."

E Hines said...

...making sure that there is no "voter suppression."

Just to drive this point a bit further, what the Progressives carefully ignore is that allowing ineligibles to vote is voter suppression--of legitimate voters.

Eric Hines