The last post I wrote on this site took us through the backdoor sliders that Rove and Atwater plunked on Democrats in the Republicans’ last successful bids. At first, I was going to examine how some of the previous backdoor sliders were being used today(The Dean Scream morphing into The Hillary Cackle, for example), but recent events have pushed that one to the far burner.
While it looks like the Rezko situation, which I first believed was going to be the Backdoor Slider that makes Obama freeze at the plate for Strike Three, and would give McCain the White House at that point, I’ve come to realize that Rezko will be the frontal assault – or the High-Inside Fastball that Rove and company will throw at him. McCain, thanks to the story in the NYTimes (and there was a specific reason why the Times had to be the ‘first’ to break the story – more on that in another post) about the “scandal” which seems to have disappeared off of the radar, gets his inoculation shot concerning the kid gloves treatment he’ll receive after the Democratic National Convention.
The Backdoor Slider will be Obama’s lack of any experience in a fight.
The best thing that happened for McCain last week was when he threw out the bait for Obama about Iraq and al-Queda. John McCain Fired the First Salvo, which Barack Obama, unfortunately answered in the worst possible way. From a progressive standpoint, Barack’s comments would seem like the appropriate response, but from a political standpoint, McCain threw a left jab and Obama responded by throwing an overhand right that missed everything. Here’s why:
First, even though the response attempted to throw the issue back by blaming McCain and tying the issue back to George Bush, John McCain still has full control of the issue, its context, and the narrative. Obama also made the mistake of saying this:
…while he is committed to withdrawing U.S. troops, he would “reserve the right” to act “if al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq.”
Which now gives McCain the flip-flip-flop on Obama for the next 4 commercials. Unfortunately, McCain has made clear a view – one that even Obama tacitly accepted with his response – in that al-Qaeda is in Iraq right now. Which means that it must be a situation that must be dealt with. And Obama chooses to deal with it…by pulling the troops out – and thus giving Iraq (and all of its resources) to “the enemy,” as well as a strategic base by which Iran will ally itself with, and threaten the rest of the Middle East. This, by extension, threatens the American economy even more than the currently precarious position it is in now.
Second, since it also clear that he never held a single hearing on the very committee that would (and could) have that kind of information (to have an effective counter-punch, so to speak), this gives McCain a second line of attack – Obama is all talk and no action. And since he gave another politically suicidal answer regarding why he never held any hearings (and, in fact, skipped a few from the Senate FRC) regarding the very issue he is running on, Obama’s anti-war credibility is now seriously in question in the eyes of those who are not part of Obama’s core supporters.
With the fear card now in play, Obama’s “pressing the wrong button” story, which got a little bit of play the first time around, is going to pushed as a sub-narrative in two ways: First, that Obama is a flip-flopper who can’t make up his mind and wants to have things two ways; and Second, the “Wrong Button” mess becomes a “Do You Want This Guy With His Hands on the Nuclear Button?” commercial.
Obama as a flip-flopper, a serial liar, and a man you do not want to trust with the nuclear button. And, make no mistake about the next words I say: This will mark the first time that the Republicans will have the advantage of running a War Veteran (and Torture Survivor) as a Hero of the American People. Obama’s personal history, which has not been examined in detail by the press, will probably include some “anti-Muslim” rhetoric in connection to the War on (Some) Terror; Obama’s relatively pampered upbringing compared to McCain’s valor in the face of the enemy; and Barack Obama’s flip-flops on the war and moral cowardice (I can guarantee that this meme will be pushed – hard) as opposed to McCain’s steadfastness and experience. Rove and Mehlman will push on these angles the day after Obama is announced the nominee.
As I state in my previous post, it doesn’t matter whether any of these items are the absolute truth; Republicans nor the SCLM
will not quibble over the small details if they get in the way of the narrative that is being pushed (like the Clintons “playing the race card” in SC when they did not). And, also understand that any responses to these charges using a “Progressive” or “Liberal” answer – or with snark that only answers the original charge and fails to change the discourse to one that is not controlled by Republicans – means the answer fails the first challenge, and is rejected by the media.
The GOP is not concerned with a blowout. They only need to keep the electoral college vote close enough that a state or two that they control is now in play for an Ohio/Florida fiasco. Since we have a GOP-controlled SCOTUS, any and all problems will end up there, and we get a repeat of Bush vs. Gore.
McCain becomes POTUS, and lots of omelets on Democratic plates to go around.
I hope I am absolutely wrong on all counts regarding this.
Front page
Who Is Saying That Obama Is a Serial Liar and a Flipflopper?
It’s unclear in your text if you mean to suggest that such will be the thrust, as ever, of the Republican attack on Obama, or that you are making that claim against Obama yourself.
I really do hope that we can steer clear of such attacks, unless backed up by real analysis of real data. I’m aware that Hillary is taking such unfair hits right and left, but do the same to Obama isn’t the answer, although I’m not positing that this is what your were saying, only asking for clarification.
I think you are exaggerating McCain’s strengths; he has plenty of vulnerabilities, not least his own difficulty in fighting the notion that a vot efor him represents voting for a third term for Bush, i.e., that he is McSame. Granted, he will point to his intermittent critiques of the Bush/Rumsfeld execution of the war, but that puts him in a defensive stance.
I would also say that your analysis might play into the hands of the Hillary haters, because it suggest, whether or not you meant it to, that any attempt she makes to suggest that she is stronger against McCain than Obama in confronting McCain’s own national security credentials, can prove to be mighty damaging to Obama, should he end up the Democratic nominee - and that she is indeed, as charged, embarked on a scorched earth policy that is damaging not only to Democrats but to liberals and progressives, too.
That any Republican anywhere has any credibility on national security issues at this point is primarily an indictment of our awful mainstream press core, which has to be figured into any analysis of how Democrats win in November, but I’m not at all sure that Obama is in a weaker position to handle that particular kind of shit storm than is Hillary.
"McSame"...
Heh. I like that.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Maybe I Need to Make This a Little More Clear
I am not making the argument that Obama is stronger or weaker than Hillary - nor am I suggesting that much of what I am saying about Obama or McCain is actually true or not. This post, as a matter of course, had nothing to do with Hillary or any campaign strategy connected to her.
What I AM trying to say is that based on the Atwater/Rove/Mehlman playbook, which has been in the running for more than 20 years now, will steer the narrative in this direction. What makes it tougher for Democrats this time around is that the most likely candidate (and the one the SCLM
seems to be actively rooting for) is someone who is a virtual unknown with no military background and a campaign that has handed the GOP commercial-grade material that plays into its core messages by the droves (Terror, Iraq, National Security, and so on).
When analyzing possible attacks from the GOP, the worst thing you can do is look for truth where none exists. Lack of truth did not stop the GOP from crushing Dukakis with the “Tank Video”; Gore with “Inventing the Internet”; and Kerry with “Self-Inflicted Wounds for Political Gains 25 Years Later.”
Most of here already know that the GOP is going to go under-channels with his Middle Name, the African-Garb picture, picture skin darkening, while attacking him mainstream with Rezko - and whatever fallout comes from that trial, as well as calling him a “tax and spend liberal,” and the usual Democratic memes.
My Goal with this post is as I titled it: The Upcoming GOP Narrative on Obama. Based on what McCain threw out as a jab - and how Obama responded, is where I’m looking. As I stated in my post, Obama’s response, while somewhat technically sound from a progressive/liberal perspective, was a tactical disaster. In reading the links that I used for this piece, I thought of several different ways the GOP could (and probably will) use his words against him in commercials, other jabs, and debates.
And if you don’t think as your opponent does (or at least have people who can), then the battle is already lost.
All I’m providing are possible avenues of GOP attacks. Regardless of whether you or I believe them is irrelevant. It comes down to whether or not enough voters believe or disbelieve them. And, given the events of the last 2 “elections,” are we willing to take the chance that enough Americans will not believe the GOP spin if nothing is said in rebuttal that returns the narrative from something other than GOP Spin and Fear-mongering?
That is my point.
- - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.
Another area of concern...
And I might as well be the first to go public with it, is Obama’s tendency to talk “black” when speaking to black voters. I just heard a national radio show (non-political) play BO saying “bamboozled” , “hoodwinked”, and “playing the old okie doke” to describe HRC’s assault on him.
They continually played it and pointed out how he was “talkin’ black to his people.”
A quick Google check found 46,000 results for it. Like it or not old prejudices are going to rise up when the Repugs start pumping out some of BO’s more colorful phrasing.
There will also be attacks we can't even imagine now--
We in the Democratic Party and especially the left blogosphere do not think the same way the more ruthless ReThugs do. We try to anticipate, but we most often get some awful surprises in terms of attacks.
Who would have believed the Swift Boaters would have achieved what they did? I truly did not. I figured they would attack Kerry working against the Viet Nam War, but they went right for his military cred. And won that skirmish.
I don’t think Dems even know enough of Obama to anticpate what the ReThugs can use to go after him. We do know a lot about Hillary, but, even there, there will new and ugly suprises should she get the nomination. What she has that Obama does not is a pretty firm image in the public’s mind, for good or ill. He is still mostly unknown, except for being exciting as a speaker (which I never felt bcz I mostly saw him speak extemporaneously, not in the beautifully crafted and rehearsed formal speaking venue—I mostly was disappointed that he spoke so slowly, haltingly, in brief short pauses, and took forever to get to his points. He is getting better speaking on his feet, I must say) and being for change and hope. He is so ready for definition by the ReThugs, alas.
We will try, but it will be very difficult to anticipate that slider.