According to our own Peter Lawler, McCain’s increasingly slim prospects depend not on going negative, as the Weekly Standard has suggested, but in making a strong case that he’s the most competent steward of our domestic agenda. He has real substantive advantages on central issues like health care, energy policy, abortion and judicial activism, and even the current economic crisis. If, as Lawler points out in characteristically astute fashion, McCain IS simply more competent on these issues then why has he clearly failed to communicate his superiority? Is the electoral tide, so hungry for frenetic, youthful, and therapeutically softened change, just too powerful for McCain to turn back? Or has Obama simply run a vastly superior political campaign?
Sunday, October 5, 2008, 5:12 PM
admin
October 6th, 2008 | 2:01 am
It’s both/and, not an either/or affair. Both positive and negative tactics should be deployed. Smartly conceived and executed, certainly and obviously, but it’s not an either/or affair.
Further, the Weekly Standard does not simply suggest a “negative” set of tactics. For example, William Kristol warns:
“Despair is what the Obama campaign is hoping and working for. If a campaign can convince supporters of the other candidate that the race is effectively over, the enthusiasm and volunteer efforts drop off–as does, ultimately, their turnout on Election Day.”
And:
“But what kind of offensive?
“The positive component is pretty straightforward: McCain and Palin are common sense conservatives and proven reformers. The record of reform can be emphasized and contrasted with Obama’s and Biden’s record of conventional, go-along, get-along liberalism. And implicitly: If McCain and Palin are reformers and outsiders, it’s not Bush’s third term.”
He then goes on to emphasize the negative aspects as they relate to both ideological and character oriented qualities, but within an overall set of tactics and strategy, that is perfectly viable is smartly conceived and executed. Further, Palin herself is largely perceived as a positively oriented force and she naturally embodies a positive vision when providing context for the negatives.
October 6th, 2008 | 2:14 am
And this at Power Line, an excerpt from another link reporting on a recent Palin stop in California (of all places):
“So what played to this audience? What caused genuine applause? Well, one line, in particular: near the end of her twenty-minute speech, Sarah Palin told the audience that out on the hustings one comment from supporters has dominated, in frequency, all others: tell people about the real Barack Obama. She said this quietly, without drama. But: thunder, hoots, an ovation. It was the one real firework in her stump speech; yet from the cadence of the speech one could tell that it was not intended thus.”
October 6th, 2008 | 8:23 am
Michael B, My point is that proven reformer or maverick isn’t enough. Real and detailed policy contrasts have to be drawn. Right now, the Republicans aren’t reallY “engaging” on the policy level. Thanks for your good comments.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact