The Republican candidate should have no such trouble, and so here is how I believe his opponent should deconstruct Obama and strip him of his hopeful message.
The first issue is illegal immigration. I pointed out earlier that in words and deeds Obama has a steadfast record of open borders policy that shows more compassion for law breakers than for the rule of law. In last summer's illegal immigration debate, he voted against two amendments of note: one to outlaw criminals and terrorists from entering the country and the other to commit to following the laws already on the books. When Obama was in the Illinois legislature, he was one of the legislators leading the charge to grant driver's licenses to illegals in the state. Driver's licenses for illegals was rejected by seventy percent of liberal New York staters. That gives you an idea of how it would play in the rest of the country.
Here is what Obama said to the open borders group La Raza...
And I will never walk away from the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live, work, and contribute to our country every single day.
He has absolutely no plan for securing the borders. He skipped a vote to outlaw sanctuary cities like his hometown, Chicago, and voted to allow children of illegals amnesty through the DREAM Act. These maybe positions that are favored by the Democratic base but are totally untennable in any general election. The Republican candidates all have tough border enforcement credentials, yes even John McCain, and they can and better attack his open borders policy.
His social policy can be summed up this way...he stands to the left of Planned Parenthood on abortion. He once voted for a bill that actually allows doctors to still abort a baby even after it is out of the womb. The bill was called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and here is how Amanda Carpenter described his actions on this bill...
But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
Let's remember Obama is not merely pro abortion but he goes so far as to be pro partial birth abortion. The Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion became an issue in the Democratic Primary this past spring. Here is how Obama reacted...
I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women,
Now, any veterans of my work know that I have a serious problem with emotional rather than logical arguements. That said, his support of partial birth abortion presents a great opportunity for any Republican (Rudy included who is against partial birth abortion) to run an advertisement appealing to emotion. Most people have no idea how brutal the act of partial birth abortion is. Any add that describes its brutality and links Obama to it can easily appeal to folk's emotions. 
Here is how the process is described.
The entire infant is delivered except the head. A scissors isjammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out.
Now, that makes for a visual advertisement. The brutality and inhumanity of partial birth abortion is unspeakable and Obama is not only on record as supporting the process but condemning a Supreme Court decision as some sort of a slippery slope intrusion on reproductive rights. Clearly, Obama will look to appoint judges that see this practice as perfectly constitutional and that is something for his opponent to exploit. Again, while partial birth abortion may play in the Dem primary it won't in the general election.
On Iraq and the GWOT he also has issues to exploit. His position is on Iraq becomes less and less tennable each day. He will have to BS his way through the position. The surge continues to show more and more signs of progress and we are still eleven months from the election. Keep in mind that Obama favors a withdrawal of forces. That withdrawal would reverse every single gain the surge has produced and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. A vote for Obama means a victory in Iraq for Al Qaeda. It is as simple as that and the Rep opponent must hammer that home. On the GWOT in general, his position is convoluted and naive. He favors dialogue with sociopathic dictators like Ahmadinejad and Assad. He has even hinted at an opening of dialogue with Castro in Cuba. Obama foolishly believes that he can charm the despots and dictators of this world.
The key to countering his naive message and exposing it for what it is..is credibility. John McCain has the most credibility on the war in the Rep field. Most of the candidates have some credibility, however McCain would be in the best position to expose it. Keep in mind that Obama insinuates that his plan for dialogue is new. It isn't. The Clinton admin met many times with both Assad and Arafat. It didn't work, and dialogue with sociopaths never works. The only way dialogue would work is when those despots are in a clear position of weakness. Reagan first created an arms race the Soviets couldn't win and only after the Soviets knew it did he dialogue. Obama's dialogue is described by himself as unconditional and that position can be exposed for the naive and inexperienced that it is.
On the economy, attacking Obama is a lot more difficult. The economy will likely be in trouble and many of his domestic programs, like universal health care, poll well. That said, I would attack them two ways. The first is with my favorite Reagan quote
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Obama thinks our health care system is broken and he wants to help. He thinks our mortgage system is broken and he wants the government to help. He, like most traditional liberals, thinks the government must ultimately control the economy. I personally would merely like one of the Republicans to invoke the phrase in response to anyone of his numerous big government, ultimately more taxes, proposals, however the concept is there no matter how it is described.
Second, the Reps must make it known that this election comes down to those that believe the government knows best and th market knows best. I pointed out yesterday that embryonic stem cell research is one of many examples of liberals believing that the government is a better arbitor than the free market. Obama is like any other standard liberal who believes that on issue after issue: health care, global warming, mortgages, embryonic stem cell research, it is the job of the government to make decisions and not the free market. I disagree and I firmly believe that any candidate that wants to put all this control in the hands of the government is a candidate that will lose.
Finally, there is experience. The reason that this hasn't worked for Hillary isn't only because the Democratic electorate is looking for a message of hope and change, it is also because her so called experience is a fraud. The major Rep candidates have no such problem. Whether it is Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, all of these candidates have real, practical experience and a history of effectiveness and leadership. Obama has nothing. The biggest thing he has run is his Senate office. Obama has a standard response that involves saying that experience could be the wrong kind of experience. That is true with Hillary because she really had no experience. Rudy turned around a city deemed ungovernable, and lead them through crisis and turmoil. Is that the wrong kind of experience? Huckabee governed his state for ten plus years and left as one of the most popular and successful in his state. Is that the wrong kind of experience? Romney ran a successful business, olympics and then a state...is that the wrong kind? John McCain is a war hero, Senate leader and a main of unquestioned principle, toughness and moral being. Is that the wrong kind of experience? Barack Obama's inexperience only appears to be a non issue because he is matched up with folks who's experience is really no different than his. In the general election, that will no longer be the case.
4 comments:
I was just looking through the Redstate blog and I came across your interesting little vitriolic piece on Obama. I have a few questions: Why is it that Republicans seem to not be aware of the fact the EVERYONE predicted a short term drop in violence once the troop surge had begun? More troops equals less willingness on the part of the insurgency to take on unnecessary losses. Of course it seems that the surge is working, but it cannot last forever, and the insurgency will wait it out. There is no winning this war, and your fear of tax increases make it very difficult to continue to pay for such a thing. Furthermore, look into middle eastern history. You will find a wealth of information concerning how foreign aggressors have fared in middle east interventionist policy, and how the Shia vs Sunni conflicts crippled British Iraq policy a century ago. This kind of war was never going to be succesful, ever. Look, rather than react with such anger towards democrats, maybe concede the fact that Republicn policy got us in this mess in the first place, and give the democrats a shot. Or at least listen to what they have to say.
With all due respect, this piece is NOT vitriolic. This is a piece about how I would attack Obama in the general election. It isn't supposed to be even handed. This is supposed to point out his flaws and point ways to attack those flaws.
As to Iraq, the costs have a lot more to do with rhetoric than reality. Iraq costs us 100 million dollars per year. The Democrats want to institute universal health care which would cost ten to one hundred times as much. Our economy is about thirteen trillion dollars yearly, making Iraq about one third of one percent. Anyone that claims that we can't fight Iraq forever has no math skills.
As to the surge, your view is from a defeatist liberal point of view. The surge isn't working because we put thirty thousand more boots on the ground. The surge is working because the strategy puts all the troops closer to the folks. The surge is nothing more than military meeting grass roots politics. The surge is working because we flipped the sheiks and the sheiks are influential in Iraqi society. From the Anbar Awakening to all of the replications all over Iraq, the reason the surge is working is because local sheiks have sided with us against the insurgents. AQI is no less a foreigner than the Americans, however the Americans are now the ones working with the locals.
Well, I guess "vitriolic" is in the eye of the beholder (i.e., if I attack your candidate it's "hard hitting," if you're attacking my candidate it's "vitriolic").
An interesting point, tho': you claim to be pointing out Sen. Obama's "flaws," but can't they just be summed up by saying "he's a Democrat"? Aren't all of these policy positions simply the D.N.C.'s platform (more or less)? This post is more of a general attack on "liberals" in general.
Again, this piece is meant to analyze Obama's weaknesses and come up with ways those weaknesses could be exploited in the general elections. It is not meant to be even handed and I was open about that. If you are attacking this piece because you think I am being unfair, then I suggest improving your reading comprehension.
Post a Comment