Wednesday, August 27, 2008

When Democrats Attack

Paul Begala, an obnoxious Democratic party hack, has decided that the Democrats are missing a golden opportunity. He pens his criticism in this article.

Michelle Obama was spectacular Monday night. Poised, charming, beautiful, and most of all, authentic.


She may have been poised, she may have made few (if any) mistakes, but she was anything but spectacular or authentic. Here true feelings are well-known to us right now, and believe me, she is not Claire Huxtable in the least. Her speech was marginal, at best; nothing more than a stump speech.

As Karl Rove commented after the speech, she had an opportunity to connect and missed it.

Ted Kennedy was heroic. Rising out of a wheelchair to stride out on stage, he showed us all the meaning of courage.


I am no fan of the man, but I will not engage in the same mean-spirited attacks at a time when his health is failing. I wish him well, but the word heroic doesn't apply when talking about a speech.

But unless you're married to the nominee or fighting off brain cancer, each speaker has one job at the Democratic convention: make the case for change. That case begins with a resounding, ringing indictment of the failed Bush-McCain policies. In other words: attack.

Attack what?

Should they attack McCain's years of experience working with both sides of the aisle? Should they attack his service record? Should they attack the man that didn't always follow the Bush doctrine, to the letter? How about his plans to drill for oil? Or what about his stance on not raising taxes, when the economy is sputtering?

The big issue the Democrats could attack McCain on if they would, should be his immigration policies. But that (within itself) is hard to do, when those that should be attacking are close to being on the same side of the issue. You cannot make a credible case in this area, when you see illegals as gravy train votes.

But the only thing Begala knows is attack, for he is a political pit bull. It's the old "tear down the other side for political gain" approach. And so it goes, what he is not considering in this instance is the difference between a legitimate attack and a smear campaign. He doesn't recognize the difference. He wants to keep harping on the same old tired things that have lost the Democrats the last two presidential elections. He wants to play the same tired class warfare card, hoping enough people will believe that Democrats will redeem the oppressed and afflicted from the evil Republicans. That is the Democrats' right to do so if they wish, but it's not getting them anywhere.

By contrast, McCain's campaign is right to point out the countless flaws in the Obama candidacy, because there is much to criticize. No experience at the national and international level, no judgment, and no real record to evaluate how the man will govern. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Last weekend the Obama campaign clearly demonstrated this and yet, for some unknown reason, they took away the only thing they had going in their favor. The change factor, with Obama being the outsider, was their only hope. But now with Biden on the ticket, it's gone. It disappeared and vanished into the thin air of Denver.

If this isn't enough, there's another thing to consider. By appointing Biden to the #2 slot, Obama has made himself look much weaker than he already did. From now on throughout this entire campaign, whenever Biden tells us all of his many years of service in the Senate and his many accomplishments, he will be inferring that his running mate does not. And we already knew this, from day one. If I am advising McCain, this is what I keep hitting.

So Begala and Carville can call for all of the attacks they want, empty suits carry little credibility when making empty attacks. When an opponent such as McCain has a lifetime of experiences, there are bound to be mistakes along the way and those things are fair game. But it's more important to note, the person who never makes mistakes is the one who doesn't do anything. And when the opponent has no record of doing anything, the criticism must be directed at that lack of accomplishment and the resources the candidate used to rise to this level in the first place (SEE: William Ayers).

10 comments:

Greg said...

Attack what?

The 7 houses! Cindy's RICH! They have too much money! Rich people suck! Vote for Barack/Biden - they're not as rich!

L'Amerloque said...

Hi LAS !

The French press is squarely on Obama’s side, naturally, because of the political correctness involved (black, “diversity”, “immigrant who makes it”, Democrat, ant-GWB).

Nevertheless, the major argument against McC (at least seen from over here) is that McC will simply continue GWB’s policies.

This is, of course, a simplistic portrayal. Not all GWB’s policies were good, while some might be considered “great” … and others “catastrophic”. Mileages vary. (grin)

Amerloque feels that McCain and his advisers should not neglect the impact of this simplistic argument. It certainly seems logical that it might be a good idea to emphasize to the voting public (and the “undecideds”, if there are any left…) just how McCain differs from GWB, that McC is a maverick politician who doesn’t necessarily endorse all of GWB’s actions. A difficult task, perhaps, given some characteristics of the “loony” Right. Nevertheless, differentiation is crucial.

By the way, whatever happened to the “party platform”, and since when has a candidate become more important than the program ? (smile)

Best,
L’Amerloque

All_I_Can_Stands said...

"...most of all, authentic"

I had a little trouble not gagging when I read that line. Please. The obvious takeaway from such a ridiculous statement is that since we have seen a completely different Michelle Obama in the past, do we then believe that those appearances were disingenuous? Will the real Michelle Obama please stand up?

The commentary after her speech was also ridiculous. They always spoke in terms of a "projected image". It is always in terms of what image she needed to present and commentary on whether she did that or not. Never who is Michelle Obama and does the speech reflect who she is? The arrogant assumption is that people are stupid enough to fall for such false imagery. Sadly for some it is true.

I know you are not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I thought it was hilarious that he stated she had become a Stepford Wife for the speech. I wonder how many times she gagged when practicing the "I love my country" line?

Mustang said...

Noting that M.O. lauded her father's hard work and related it to the proper care of his family and the capstone of her own successes, Dennis Miller wondered how you get from that acknowledgement to replacing a strong patriarch with government. It would seem that if M.O. was at all credible, she'd be a Republican.

Rocket said...

"The French press is squarely on Obama’s side, naturally, because of the political correctness involved (black, “diversity”, “immigrant who makes it”, Democrat, ant-GWB)."

Exactly. Everything that is impossible in France on the political scene.

I smell a rat. But then I've been smelling them for over 30 years.

LASunsett said...

//Vote for Barack/Biden - they're not as rich!//

The funny thing is, many of the politicians adored by progressives have been quite wealthy. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, and who could forget 2004's nominee John Kerry (who had a rich wife).

Double standard? I think it is.

LASunsett said...

//Amerloque feels that McCain and his advisers should not neglect the impact of this simplistic argument. It certainly seems logical that it might be a good idea to emphasize to the voting public (and the “undecideds”, if there are any left…) just how McCain differs from GWB, that McC is a maverick politician who doesn’t necessarily endorse all of GWB’s actions.//

This is an excellent point and one the McCain camp must take into consideration as the campaign progresses.

//A difficult task, perhaps, given some characteristics of the “loony” Right. Nevertheless, differentiation is crucial.//

Many of the loony right are threatening to vote for Bob Barr or not vote at all, because McCain is not what THEY want in a president. McCain got the nomination in spite of their opposition, it only stands to reason that if he plays it right, he won't need them in the general election either.

LASunsett said...

//I know you are not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I thought it was hilarious that he stated she had become a Stepford Wife for the speech.//

Rush gets it right sometimes. In this case, he did.

LASunsett said...

//Dennis Miller wondered how you get from that acknowledgement to replacing a strong patriarch with government. It would seem that if M.O. was at all credible, she'd be a Republican.//

I saw that segment. Dennis is one observant cat, I listen to him everyday on the drive home.

LASunsett said...

//"The French press is squarely on Obama’s side, naturally, because of the political correctness involved (black, “diversity”, “immigrant who makes it”, Democrat, ant-GWB)."//

I'm shocked at this revelation.

/sarc