how to attack the coalition
In my last post, I talked about the powerful coalition that Obama has built that may very well bring him victory next Tuesday.
As an aside, I would also add in that this coalition is entirely legitimate; Obama can also count on quite an effort from a "coalition" of illegitimate sources. But that's a post for another day.
But I also wrote that the game is not over yet. This coalition can be attacked.
How?
First, what not to do: don't rely strictly on a "socialism" argument. Don't get me wrong, the economy has GOT to be part of his pitch. But stop using a word that is easily slapped away. You attack this by pointing out the actual history of "sharing the wealth". I'd imagine that one of the attractions of that ideology is that, while "current" wealth--you know, the wealth that the recipients of the spreading aren't part of--feels a pinch, there is still a chance of creating "new" wealth, who learn to thrive under the new rules. Well, the problem is that--historically--there has not been a new class to rise up and thrive. And once that is set as the foundation, then you start talking about how wealth "spreading" ALWAYS ends up putting a damper on innovation and market mobility. But much time should not be spent on this--it's unlikely to pursuade any fence-sitters to McCain's side with this argument. Fortunately, it's also unlikely that Obama's economic plan is going to sway any fence-sitters to his side. So a quick throw to first to keep the runner close, and then we can rock back and bring some good stuff to home plate.
And what to bring to home plate? Easy: show that Obama's promises are just like any other politician's promises: empty.
Do I believe that Obama will attempt income redistribution? Of course--but that doesn't matter. Show these hopeful low-income earners--the ones that Obama has targeted with his "spread the wealth" policy-- that Obama has made promises in the past that he hasn't lived up to, and MAYBE their confidence can be shaken.
Exhibit #1: Englewood Gardens, Chicago.
Exhibit #2: the school in Kenya named after Obama, schooling the children from Obama's ancestral tribe.
Exhibit #3: Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi. Granted, they don't exactly attack his "politician" side--but they do raise questions about Obama's character. Highlighting the fact that he has been a man who will "say, associate with, and do anything" to get to the positions to which he aspires may make some wonder if he ever means anything that he says.
Ugly? Well, no. . .or at least it doesn't have to be. Heck, "attack" words don't even have to be used. Just show the press release (or whatever it was) where Obama talked about his vision of Englewood Gardens. . .and a picture of how it looks.
Then show the letter pledging "support" to the school in Kenya--also with a picture of how it looks today. If there's video of Obama's appearance at the school in 2006, that would be a nice lead-in, too.
The ad with Wright, Ayers, et al, needs not even feature any backdrop--just these men in their own words and actions--coupled with OBAMA'S words about their actions.
The implication would be clear--but how can the left argue about it?
Which doesn't mean they won't--of course they will. But they will be selling some awful thin gruel.
As an aside, I would also add in that this coalition is entirely legitimate; Obama can also count on quite an effort from a "coalition" of illegitimate sources. But that's a post for another day.
But I also wrote that the game is not over yet. This coalition can be attacked.
How?
First, what not to do: don't rely strictly on a "socialism" argument. Don't get me wrong, the economy has GOT to be part of his pitch. But stop using a word that is easily slapped away. You attack this by pointing out the actual history of "sharing the wealth". I'd imagine that one of the attractions of that ideology is that, while "current" wealth--you know, the wealth that the recipients of the spreading aren't part of--feels a pinch, there is still a chance of creating "new" wealth, who learn to thrive under the new rules. Well, the problem is that--historically--there has not been a new class to rise up and thrive. And once that is set as the foundation, then you start talking about how wealth "spreading" ALWAYS ends up putting a damper on innovation and market mobility. But much time should not be spent on this--it's unlikely to pursuade any fence-sitters to McCain's side with this argument. Fortunately, it's also unlikely that Obama's economic plan is going to sway any fence-sitters to his side. So a quick throw to first to keep the runner close, and then we can rock back and bring some good stuff to home plate.
And what to bring to home plate? Easy: show that Obama's promises are just like any other politician's promises: empty.
Do I believe that Obama will attempt income redistribution? Of course--but that doesn't matter. Show these hopeful low-income earners--the ones that Obama has targeted with his "spread the wealth" policy-- that Obama has made promises in the past that he hasn't lived up to, and MAYBE their confidence can be shaken.
Exhibit #1: Englewood Gardens, Chicago.
Exhibit #2: the school in Kenya named after Obama, schooling the children from Obama's ancestral tribe.
Exhibit #3: Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi. Granted, they don't exactly attack his "politician" side--but they do raise questions about Obama's character. Highlighting the fact that he has been a man who will "say, associate with, and do anything" to get to the positions to which he aspires may make some wonder if he ever means anything that he says.
Ugly? Well, no. . .or at least it doesn't have to be. Heck, "attack" words don't even have to be used. Just show the press release (or whatever it was) where Obama talked about his vision of Englewood Gardens. . .and a picture of how it looks.
Then show the letter pledging "support" to the school in Kenya--also with a picture of how it looks today. If there's video of Obama's appearance at the school in 2006, that would be a nice lead-in, too.
The ad with Wright, Ayers, et al, needs not even feature any backdrop--just these men in their own words and actions--coupled with OBAMA'S words about their actions.
The implication would be clear--but how can the left argue about it?
Which doesn't mean they won't--of course they will. But they will be selling some awful thin gruel.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home