Not quite. We had Newt, who could have given a speech just like Clinton's which dissected the failings of the Obama regime. But the RNC muzzled him. We also have Palin, who gave a tremendous speech last time but was now shut out. Christie certainly could've done a tougher speech...so why didn't the RNC ask him to? And we even have Donald Trump, if you want a real attack dog.
The RNC's strategy has been not to attack Obama "too hard or too much." I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why that's a good strategy. The "he's a nice guy, but" campaign didn't work too well for McCain. They seem to be operating on some bizarre assumption that independent voters are "moderates" who really like Obama, and will be "turned off" if we attack him. But if anything, moderate voters are so easily manipulated that if you tell them Obama is the devil incarnate, they're likely to believe you and thus vote against him. The Dems know this, which is why their campaigns are built on telling everyone Republicans are the devil incarnate. Of course, this is why they forced Romney on us in the first place.
You know, I want to agree with you on this. I really do. Most times I would since I have no problem with negative campaigns or a constant attack strategy. But you know what, I personally know so many people that just zone out if you come down too hard on Hussein. The problem seems to be that huge numbers of people STILL have some emotionally attachment to the guy. They WANT to like him. That is a huge advantage Obummer has. In general, the segment of voters we want to reach want to like Obama and they don't want to hear they were wrong about him. It's like some sort of battered spouse syndrome. Maybe no one you know or associate with has fallen under this spell, but I know quite a few people who have and it's made me realize how hard it is for R/R to win this.
I am not saying we shouldn't attack Hussein, we should. I am saying we do have to be careful about how we do it. When people have an emotional attachment to someone, they do not like to be told they were wrong. You have to kinda encourage them to come to their own conclusion. I'm guessing pretty much every focus group is showing this same thing, which is the reason the ads from R/R and the big superPAC's are offering lines like "it's okay to vote for the other guy this time, it really is".
I like Newt a lot and agree he could have given a great speech. I also agree Christie should have been much more of an attack dog. They held him back so much his speech was simply boring. On Palin, I like her but don't agree that she is much of an orator. Charismatic in her own way, yes - but not an orator the way Mooshell, Clinton or Obama are.
I think we agree that the RNC convention sucked though. Spending all that time trying to "humanize" Romney was a waste of time in my opinion. Simple a giant missed opportunity, and part of the reason the floor was so subdued. I mean, that stuff was just boring.
According to several pundits, Bambi's likeability numbers exceed Romneys. The theory was to give the independents, who voted for Bambi first time around, no remorse for the error of being duped. It's okay -- he's a nice guy and many were hung up on his message of Hope and Change but we now can clearly see that the 'nice guy' is not qualified to be President and his policies haven't worked.