Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

The Republican plan to take on Obama
Posted by: McQ on Monday, February 18, 2008

Yes, Republicans have developed a five point strategy they think will help them defeat Obama should he be the nominee:
The first called for pointing out what the GOP views as a seeming incongruity between Obama and the mantle of commander in chief.
The greatest point here is his lack of experience, of course, and the fact he has no military background. If Iraq is going well, McCain has to make that a center-piece of his contrast, since Obama didn't support the war and McCain was a supporter of not only the war but the surge.
The second point harkened back to Obama’s days in the Illinois state Senate, noting how his “pattern of voting ‘present’ offers many openings to question his candidacy.”
I think this will be lost on most voters, although, it seemed to make some impact when he was questioned by both Edwards and Clinton during a debate. The reasons are as arcane as the rules, but there is actually a fairly palatable reason for voting that way in Illinois as I understand it.

But if that explanation is made and it seems reasonable, that line of questioning needs to be dropped like a hot rock. What Republicans don't want is a repeat of the McCain/Romney kerfuffle where McCain falsely accused Romney of desiring withdrawal and wanting a timetable. McCain stubbornly stayed with the rhetoric even when it had been proven to almost everyone's satisfaction Romney hadn't wanted or demanded either. It made McCain look like a spiteful old man.
The third offered hope to the GOP faithful that “we can be confident in a campaign about issues.”
Well, yes and no. How do you campaign against "change" and "hope" without using a rhetorical bucket of cold water to douse his ideas with "reality". Or said another way, does the electorate really want to deal with reality or are they into the fantasy of "hope and change" to far to be deterred?
A fourth bullet point relayed how “undisciplined messaging carries great risk,”
Yeah, like saying "we could be in Iraq for 50 or 100 years?" Or, "I really don't know economics that well?"

UPDATE: The RNC issues a clarification on the 2nd point:
"It''s a reminder to Republicans that running against historic firsts (Obama OR Hillary) presents great risk," this source said. "We have a lower margin for error in talking about the first African-American or woman major party nominee."
OK. That too.
[T]he fifth and final attack point stressed, “His greatest weakness is inexperience. He is not ready to be commander in chief. He is not ready to be president.”
To me this is the only real thing the Reps can play up and play up hard. Even his supporters can't pretend that his experience level is anywhere commensurate with the demands of the job. They're just willing to take the chance. What the Reps have to do is frame the argument in such a way that it isn't worth the chance (while leaving open the possiblity that a more seasoned Obama, say in 8 years, might be perfect for the job - without really meaning it, of course).

Republicans have to convince voters to make a gut check before voting and if they've been successful in pushing their argument, that gut check will voters them pulling the lever for McCain.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Those are good points, especially experience, but there is a real hard-left, weirdo edge to Obama that needs to be brought out: his black identity church, the Dustbowl Depression vision of America he paints, the wild cultish rhetoric that his wife uses when campaigning for Obama, and of course the seig-heilish "Yes we can, yes we can, yes we can" chant at the end of the "Yes we can" video.

I just finished Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism and Michelle Obama’s speech was bang-on exactly what Goldberg was talking about: politics as a secular religion in which individualism is submerged.

At best, Obama is inexperienced; at worst, he is opening the door to god-knows-what in the White House.
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
The commander-in-chief angle might be the the most useful weapon available to the GOP. Given Obama’s previous statement about taking the nuclear option off the table, his adamant belief that Iraq is a lost cause despite evidence to the contrary and his platform plank promising to create a world-wide ban on intermediate-range missiles Obama has left himself open to strong criticism of his qualifications for military matters.

Attacking his economic policies might be useful, but I wouldn’t bet on a positive outcome considering the current hatred of big business and foreign competition.

Besides, if nothing else works they can always needle him on gun rights.
Written By: InebriatedArsonist
URL: http://
The Republicans would be better served by letting Obama and Hillary dirty each other up. Tarnish Obama’s halo in some people’s eyes. Then procede with going after his record.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
After Michelle Obama’s announced to a rally that, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country," for the first time I am looking forward to Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate.

If Obama is serious about his candidacy, someone is going to have to sit on that woman. She gives away far too much of the game on how radical the Obamas are.
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
What exactly is the GOP plan for overcoming the fact that they are running a go-cart against a Viper?
Written By: Paden Cash
URL: http://
They are probably planing to paint Obama as an inexperienced, hard-left radical, which is petty accurate.

Nixon was a troll compared to McGovern; he still buried McGovern in the 1972 election. Americans didn’t like Nixon much—he was a shrewd but unlikeable politician, but they like McGovern’s radical politics even less.
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Let’s try that again...

They are probably planing to paint Obama as an inexperienced, hard-left radical, which is pretty accurate.

Nixon was a troll compared to McGovern; he still buried McGovern in the 1972 election. Americans didn’t like Nixon much—-he was a shrewd but unlikeable politician—but they liked McGovern’s radical politics even less.
Written By: huxley
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks