As we all know, Republicans have for some time now been engaged in a War on Women. According to Al Sharpton, they’ve also declared a War on Blacks. And in the coming days and weeks, in the wake of Obama’s decision to support gay marriage following years of poll soul-searching, we can expect the White House and compliant media to start putting it about that the GOP is waging a War on Gays; Chris Matthews was on the case within minutes of the President’s interview being broadcast, followed today by the Washington Post, with a hit piece on Mitt Romney that may already be unravelling.
Three wars! This is getting ridiculous – even the entire US military is only expected to be capable of fighting two wars at a time. The Republican troops are certainly going to be spread thin in the coming months; it’s a good job the Romney-led War on Dogs fizzled out before it really got going.
The social issue ‘wars’ are, of course, inventions of the Democrats, but I think a better analogy for these manufactured controversies from the Republican point of view is forest fires. Obama is scuttling around the forest, starting social issue fires left, right and center – the Sandra Fluke phone call, the Trayvon Martin speech, and now the gay marriage ‘evolution’. As each one takes hold, the Obama-friendly media arrives on the scene shouting “Fire!” at the top of their lungs (or, in the case of Matthews, shrieking like a girl). Republicans rush to try to put the fire out, or at least stop it spreading, but just as they get one blaze under control, another one erupts.
The idea is to keep the Republicans chasing around, tamping down social issue flare-ups, until November so that they’re not able to focus on the real problems, which are jobs and the economy (I won’t try to take the analogy any further). It’s a deeply cynical strategy on the part of Obama and his team, but the fact that they’re resorting to it this early on suggests a degree of desperation that I find encouraging.
As the campaign takes shape, each time the Democrats attempt to bring up social issues Romney should politely explain that he would rather not waste time talking about matters that Americans will inevitably disagree on, and which cannot be quickly or easily resolved by the President or Congress; and that he would prefer to focus on the subjects that are of pressing concern to every American – the economy and jobs, and Obama’s utter failure on both counts.
Also read:
Spot on!!! Don’t take the bait.
Correct, let the Left wing media nuts continue to tell US Citizens we are DUMB racists, hate women, wont help the poor bla bla bla, the good part is the liberal left media like NYT’s are feeling the poor ratings in the wallet – let them spout as people are turning the channel
By remarking “There he goes again,” Reagan devastated Carter.
Would that Romney be more like Reagan.
– realizes it can’t put Obama on its cover every week as it did back in 2008 so instead the current issue has America sucking teat.
The “forest fire”, whatever. We are in the age of the 24/7 news cycle that has brought us an ADD president running an ADD campaign. When in doubt, come up with stuff to make libbies scream and shout. You are absolutely right: the answer is simply to stay on message. Romney even got caught a little too much on this prep school nonsense. Unless he was going to turn it into a “open up or shut up” comment to the Obamazoids, he needed only to say “ancient history, nothing to see here, move along.”
They are doing this too soon. Most folks are not even paying attention, yet. It is going to wear itself out and become a joke, like ‘racist’ did.
Fine by me, though.
This should be no surprise from a “man” (and his “wife”) who think that America is an awful country in need of radical change — as they rise through the ranks, stuff their pockets, use taxpayer money recklessly as if it were water, and prepare to go on permanent welfare with free healthcare for life.
Hey, Barry, about that Library . . . .
You forgot Paul “pushing granny off a cliff” Ryan and his “War on the Elderly.” I mean, the GOP just killed Dick Lugar for heaven sakes! They’re cannibals!!!!
Here’s what I would like Romney to say:
“Throughout his political career, Mr Obama has oscillated between agreeing with me on the subject of gay marriage and agreeing with former Vice President Cheney. At the moment, political pressures have forced him to side with Mr. Cheney. I’m sure that one day, the pressures will shift slightly and he’ll be back on the other side. But rather than discuss the endless vacillations of a soon-to-be-out-of-office politician, let’s focus on the issue important to all Americans: the economy.”
Excellent. Now just tighten it up enough to fit on a bumper sticker and you’ll have crafted a fine soundbite.
This is all well and good, but the problem will come during the presidential debates. The MSM will pack these things with social-issue-landmine questions designed to make Obama look wise and tolerant, and Romney either bigoted or clueless or both. If Romney can mimic Newt’s debate style he at least has a chance of throwing them off. If not, the debate moderators will bury him with the “have you stopped beating your wife” lunacy.
I think a lot of Republican elected officials don’t mind this occurring. Many of them are happy to run around fighting futile efforts (e.g. trying to ban gay marriage at the federal level which is a non-starter; suggesting constitutional amendments for a balanced budget. It’s all just tasty mental junk food for the base.
it’s a great strategy. the so-cons and the politicians and talk radio hosts that want to please them will be distracted like kittens with a ball of string.
Team Romney should start every statement, speech, and answer with this -
This election is not about Obama eating dogs or [current flare-up issue]. It’s about the economy and [anything else Obama has given the kiss of death to]……
Romney is learning and sounding more presidential by the day. I would still love to see him drive a stake into the vampire’s heart.
I have occasionally cautioned about this at the blog where I comment regularly, but you put it much better than I did. It’s important to get this message out.
Maybe Obama will try to rally the country behind him by doing something ruinous abroad, with or without the military. We can’t react to that unless it happens, but hopefully contingency plans are being made.
The War on the Bullied just took a hit when if was discovered that Billy Ayers admitted that Obama succumbed to peer pressure and shoved a lonely, overweight black girl. Or was she just a composite for all the kids Barry bullied in school?
A composite.
As for Bill Ayers, nothing says “I bully you” like planting a bomb. (Ask his wife.)
I keep hearing and reading about jobs and the economy, but the only thing that the government can ever do about problems in those two areas is to back out of the concerns of private individuals, other than to enforce laws prohibiting force and fraud. Actually, the only way for the government to improve any aspect of the economy is to dis-involve itself from it. What I yearn for is a president to announce that he or she will begin a policy of gradual dis-interference. We need to get rid of entitlements and regulations. Period.
If we’re lucky, President Gilligan will set fire to his pants.
I agree Romney should not take the bait, and should remain on his economic message, and remain presidential. His apology for a youthful indescresion was enough to blunt the bullying story, with no need for Romney to try and refute the ddetails. But we do not need to totally ignore these flareups, just answer them with surrogates. Let the conservative blogger community find the facts to shoot holes in the stories, like they did with the anti zimmerman stories, and are now doing with the prep school story, or find an equavalent Obama defect, like they did with the dog story, the war on women story (with the Rosen anti mother comment) and are also doing with the Obama bullying story. As long as these things are countered swiftly and effectively enough, they will start to get farcical, and will eventually become as hollow as the grossly overused race card.
I have been impressed with Romney so far. He is already doing much beter than McCain, and is steadily improving. Of course it helps that now Obama has a definite, and pretty bad, record to run against, instead of the vague hope and change BS.
One more advantage we have now. I think many americans realize they were played as rubes by the Obama friendly press last time, and are much more skeptical of the press now. I think they will be much more skeptical of anti romney stories from the MSM, and more receptive to anti Obama stories from non-MSM sources.
As for the debate moderators, I agree Romney should not let them distract him with BS social questions. that was what did in Santorum, he let the reporters take him down socon tangents and got painted as an extremest. He can take the Newt approach and attack the questioner in extreme circumstances, but that can end up looking mean spirited if used too often, or not in a circumstance where it is obvious the questioner was biased. An equally good approach is to just say it is irelevant, as Romney did in past debates with the Stephenapolis contraception ban question, or just ignore it and go back to the subject he wants to raise as in “you can give the question you want, while I will give the answer I want”. Most people remember Newt as the king of the debates, but Romney did pretty well too, and actually bested Newt in the Fla debates.
The reason this stuff is sticking is because no one has any illusions about what will happen to this country socially if Romney is elected and Cantor and his radical crew get control of the federal government.