Originally Posted by midwinter
Of course you did.
Yes. It does.
Right, because I'm always wrong. Liberal AI Forums Talking Point #1.
And that is where you go off the rails and don't seem to see what the rest of us do about this election. "Nailing" Obama is the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove strategy of the utter destruction of the opponent by any means necessary. Obama's campaign hinged on the repudiation of those tactics. Why do you think he ran a campaign about "hope," for God's sake?
Uh, pardon me but you're kidding, right? Obama was supposed to run that kind of campaign. He most certainly did not. He practiced the "old politics" to a tee, all while denouncing them. And McCain? McCain repudiated any slight towards Obama, even the using of his actual given middle name. He didn't take advantage of Obama's radical associations until the last debate. Those were legitimate issues.
No. It would have completely destroyed his campaign. Think about what you're saying: threatening to not debate looked bad, but REALLY not debating would have worked? Aree you serious? It made him look erratic and inconsistent. It made him look like he panics.
Yes, quite serious. By saying he may not debate and then going through with it, it looked like he folded. If he said "I'm staying to work on the bailout" and then did so, it likely would have been better.
We had weeks and months of ALL THREE of those and none of them stuck. They didn't stick for the following reasons:
1) It's more of the "destroy the opposition," which, as I said before, is a strategy that has worked for the GOP for 40 years and that, I hope, has just been resoundingly repudiated.
Right, because the Obama's campaign and the media (one and the same, I suppose) didn't attack McCain and Palin relentlessly.
2) No one cares about Ayers except the core of the GOP.
I agree, but the question is...why? First, the media at large barely touched the issue. They ignored the fact that Ayers and Obama had much more than a passing knowledge of each other. And McCain didn't use the Wright issue until the very end. This was another perfectly legit issue...a longstanding close relationship between Wright and Obama.
3) You can't make an argument for inexperience and not make an argument for "more of the same." It also doesn't help that at the same time people were making the tortured argument that Palin was super-experienced that it was abundantly clear that she was stunningly ill equipped.
1. Why? Obama is inexperienced and McCain does not equal George Bush.
2. Palin has more experience than Obama. The media was desperate to portray her as a bimbo from day 1. Meanwhile, Obama could say pretty much anything and still be considered intelligent.
This is the problem, SDW, that adda and I pointed out earlier when we were laughing at Redstate. The GOP doesn't need to rethink strategy. It needs to rethink itself, its coalition, and how it campaigns.
Some advice (since y'all do it every time the Dems lose)
Step one: tell the evangelicals to fuck off.
Step two: elevate the libertarian wing of the party.
Step three: cut out the wedge issues.
Oh, and clearly, move to the left.
I suppose I can't disagree with those steps. None of them means "we" have to become more liberal.
Republicans really just need to get back to fiscal conservatism, limited government, energy independence, etc.