Skip to comments.How to Beat Obama
Posted on 03/22/2012 5:49:11 AM PDT by Kaslin
With President Obama's approval rating hovering at 49 percent according to the latest Rasmussen tracking poll, it is becoming increasingly clear that he is a formidable threat for re-election. Gas prices are through the roof; the economy remains in shambles; the situation in the Middle East has never been so tenuous. And yet nearly half of all Americans think Obama's doing a decent job. Which shows that nearly half of Americans are either dependent on the government or devoid of common sense or both.
It gets worse for conservatives. Obama's lead in Virginia has been growing, not shrinking. The latest Quinnipiac poll has Obama beating Romney 50 to 42 percent. In Ohio, it's no better -- the most recent polls have Obama up by 12 points. In Florida, Obama leads Romney by a 46-43 margin.
It's still early. But Republicans had better figure out some new strategies or they will be left in the dust by the highly-organized, beautifully-tuned Obama campaign.
Conventional conservative wisdom says that the Republican nominee will be fine come November. The economy is bad, say the pundits, and therefore Obama will lose as a matter of course. There's only one problem: That's never happened before. Bad economies help Democrats. That's because the unemployed typically want more government care, and the currently-employed tend not to think the economy's all that bad.
Triangulation is also troublesome. Seizing the middle in this election cycle will be difficult, since Obama has staked out a record of not raising taxes, leaving Guantanamo Bay open, and "cracking down" on Wall Street. Even if we recognize that Obama's record is deeply leftist -- his spending, his appeasement-oriented foreign policy, his dislike for traditional American values -- we will have to convince the American public that he is radical. That's an uphill battle in the face of a heavy media assault.
The biggest problem of all is that Americans seem to like President Obama personally. He can be charming; his family is certainly beautiful. He is also vain, rude, arrogant and nasty, of course -- but the media has covered up those characteristics. Despite his political approval ratings varying widely over the last several years, Obama's personal approval rating has never dropped -- it has remained high throughout.
Therein lies the problem.
It's a problem that can be laid at the feet of John McCain, who refused to define for the American public just who Barack Obama was, preferring instead to attack his arguments. That's a mistake in a presidential election, where you have to define the personality of your opponent before attacking him on policy.
Conservatives cannot make the same mistake in this election cycle. They must define for the American public just who Barack Obama is. Who is he? He's a man who never met a radical he didn't like. He's a fellow who thinks that American society is irreparably racist, irrationally bigoted and immoral beyond measure. He believes that fundamental change is necessary because America is a fundamentally nasty place.
When we seek to vet this president, we must look at all of him: not just the pretty pictures and not just the obvious policy failures. We must figure out what makes Barack Obama tick. It's only once we do that that the American people will know their commander-in-chief fully enough to lose faith in him. And he richly deserves that loss of faith.
Republican's; we should not imagine we have an honest choice in this Election. Our choice is to realize/know. . .we must vote against Obama.
The strategy is clear. We need to provoke him into public meltdowns, as frequently as possible. I have no doubt it can be done.
Because McCain has no leadership skills. He surrounded himself with idiots during the election with the exception of one individual and I truly believe finding Sarah was like a hog finding an acorn. Good things happen once in a while.
Your fecklessness must be making Andrew soooo proud !
I stopped reading after the 4th paragraph. C’mon Ben, were you around in 1980 or were you still in diapers back then? A bad economy doesn’t always help the Democrats.
It’s all due to the captive media. ITv and newspapers describe the background, the context, for everything to the reading and listening public. It’s just one form of mind control, but the most widespread.
HW Bush, Bob Dole, W Bush, McCain and now Romney.
The Republicans deserve to lose if we can’t get our principles, our conservatism, our patriotism, and our economics (being balanced budgets, lower taxes, and reduced deficits) out in front.
Milk toast RINO neo-con candidates who support state run health care, gun control, higher taxes, more government control, global warming, fascistic crony capitalism and other liberal principles WILL lose the election.
Obama is a Marxist for Christ sake. How hard should it be to run against that?
There are SOME leaders in the Republican Party, but they are not campaigners. IMNSVHO, The basic Republican Party has been in entropy since the Emancipation Proclamation.
It seems to have now completely dengenerated into "The Nice Peoples' Party" that is apparently content to hold onto safe, gerrymandered seats and only wants enough power (without the annoying responsibility for running things) to guarantee a good seat at the poker tables of Congress at which the swag is divided. That swag is passed along as protection to the better healed Republican contributors. In 2012, the GOP has shown me with crystal clarity by selecting Bob Dole and then John McCAin, and finally Mitt Romney, that it does not particularly want the WH. What it wants now is control of the House and Senate for at least two years in an attempt to rearrange the deck chairs on our Titanic economy, and to get their major contributors to a safe place in the lifeboats. Romney is the perfect candidate to accomplish this. He can lose with some semblance of a campaign, and assure good strength, "downticket."
The Republican Party is the corpse at a party. And while I wallow in pessimism, why is that no Americans seem to notice that politicians arrive in DC (or the state capitol) dead broke and in debt, only to emerge within a decade or less as multi-millionaires? The prime example: The Clintons, from worse than broke to BILLIONAIRES in 15 years. Of course, the examples are legion, including Obama. (His income from just sales of "his" book to government entities is well into 8 figures!) This is why Republican elected officials are fine with going with the flow. It is making them and those they represent among the wealthiest on Earth. To do that, they have made the Democrats the wealthiest AND most powerful on Earth. A perfect Devil's Bargain.
Romney making silly statements like “If you want free stuff, vote for Obama” doesn’t help.
Even when you know what Mittens is trying to say, he does it in a way that hurts him. The above statement is a campaign slogan for Obama. It is likely to get a lot of knitwits who want free stuff to go vote again for Obama.
We need a conservative and politically savvy candidate. sigh..
A second term of Hussein might as well be titled, “Obama unleashed!”
I can’t imagine the damage he will do. I had no clue of the damage he would do this term. Good grief, look at the two unqualified hard lefties he put on the Supreme Court!!!! There are going to be 2 or 3 going in the next 4 years.
I don’t like Willard, but another term of Obama is unthinkable.
BTW, you know he only backed off on having the EPA close 20% of our coal power generation because of this coming election? If he wins, he will likely not only force the closing of those plants but many more. Rolling blackouts for the nation. (sarcasm) That will really help the economy. (/sarcasm)
They are scary pictures to me.
If we can get these images before the American voters, maybe, it will have some impact. Maybe, combine these images with pictures of the red phone or nuclear button and nuclear explosions.
Maybe, print flyers that can be posted on fences at soccer fields, baseball fields and other places where "soccer moms" hang out.
Better hope that Donald or Ron Paul doesn’t decide to do a 3rd party deal.