Rush Limbaugh didn’t like Chris Christy’s speech. Didn’t think there was enough direct
criticism of Obama. Of course everyone
will have an opinion which they are entitled to, but I strongly disagree.
In his criticism of the speech, Rush said “This is about
Obama,” and what I say to that is, it shouldn’t be. Because if it’s about Obama, then that
problem is easily remedied by simply electing a different democrat, isn’t
it? Hillary Clinton is not Obama, right? In fact, every other democrat is not Obama.
What Christy did was very wise. He made this a contrast between Left and
Right, between liberal ideology and conservative ideology. When you do that, and if you successfully
make that case, you make every democrat an unacceptable
choice, and that includes Obama. And
that’s the message we want to convey or at least it’s the message we should
want to convey.
There will always be another Obama waiting in the
wings. Yeah we need to remind people of
everything Obama’s done wrong. But republicans
also need to seize every opportunity to change minds for the long term, not
just for this election. That’s what
Christy did last night. He tried to sell
the bigger picture. And I loved his
speech.
I can't comment to Christy's speech as I didn't watch it. But the one thing I disagree with you on is that there's NOT always "another Democrat" waiting in the wings. THIS election is about one Democrat only, the only one who's going to be running for President, and that's Obama, not anyone else.
ReplyDeleteSo you don’t think there’ll ever be another democrat running for president or other offices? All I can think to say to that is – okie doke.
DeleteI don’t think it’s smart to re-fight the exact same battle in every election when we have a golden opportunity to taint all future democrats by making this a referendum not just on Obama, but on ALL leftists and liberals. But hey, that’s just me.
No, what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. THIS election is about Bat Ears, and not anyone else.
DeleteBy making it about Bat Ears, it automatically becomes about his ideology and governing philosophy, which is the same one shared by the rest of them. It's personal and identifiable, not some amorphous and intangible "them". Not some abstract. HE personifies the problem. HE'S the symbol.
Then, after he's out of office, any future lefty can be tarred with the "Obama!" brush.
This may have to be one of those times we agree to disagree, Brian. I know a lot of folks see it your way. In any case, I appreciate your comments and always enjoy the spirited discussion.
DeleteActually, I don't think we are in disagreement as to strategy.
DeleteIt's not an either/or situation. There are plenty of people involved in this campaign, enough that ALL the bases can be covered.
I could not agree more CW. I heard a lot of conservatives complaining that Chrisie did not mention Romney until 18 minutes into his speech. But Christie was one of the first governors to endorse Romney when the primary was still up for grabs. Christie has campaigned loyally for Romney. For those who follow the campaign know that Christie supports Romney. So his job was to show the stark contrast between Cons and Libs and he did that (like you point out). And what is wrong with him showing how enforcing those differences is making a difference in NJ? Nothing!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Patrick. I think you make some great points.
DeleteRush is one of many who anticipated the Christie would go negative, given Chistie's blunt manner, but ended up disappointed. Christie doesn't need to go negative, because that's what Rush does. ( I have not listened to him in years; if I remember correctly, that is ALL he does.)
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Christie's contrast of the respective ideologies of the Republicans and the Social Democrats is best. I suspect that a negative campaign might turn some undecided voters away from Obama so that they sit at home in disgust on election day. We need something to get people away from home and IN to the voting booths in support of the Republican cause.
For the longterm, Republicans need to push their theme of the new generation of Republican leaders: Ryan,Thompson,Christie, Halley, Cruz, etc.
Talking about Obama's failed policies can hardly be considered "going negative". That's the whole point of this election.
Delete"Going negative" is doing what the Left does: lying about a fictional "war on women", babbling about Romney's tax returns, stuff like that.
If we're NOT going to discuss the failures of Bat Ears's policies, the economic disaster, Obamacare, and all of that, what, exactly, ARE we going to talk about? His golf scores?
Hellow Brian--
DeleteI wasn't suggesting that Republicans eschew all negative campaigning. After all, as you write, how else can we talk about a failed administration? In my second paragraph, I merely suggested that we must contrast the failures of the Social Democrats with the postive plan the the Republicans offer. (I should have phrased it "exclusively negative campaign." Or Maybe I should assert the Obama Doctrine--my remarks have been misconstrued!)Christie did a good job of making the contrast. Ryan last night did an even better job--adding more specificity.
Yep, RD, that's the way to go. I agree. I think Bat Ears is the perfect symbol of rampant socialism, the epitome and culmination of the policies of the Left in this country and the direction they've taken since about 1968. As such, he's the perfect target to have in our sights at this time.
DeleteThis actually is exactly the fight we've been moving toward since '68. It's been unavoidable, and if we win it has the potential to absolutely cripple socialism in this country for at least a couple of decades.
Thanks, V.L. Appreciate your comments. The Obama presidency, IMO, offered a nearly textbook example of liberalism gone wild. I think it presents us with a prime teaching opportunity about that whole ideology. We should always be thinking about the future, not just trying to make it past one more election.
DeleteIf I try to talk core principals and ideology with some close to me, they tune out. They don't know unalienable rights from right turns. If I say that individual human beings come sovereign, their eyes glaze over. If I try to contrast conservatism with progressivism, they say we should compromise and work it out, which is, of course, like suggesting that a rapist and his rapee should compromise and just work it out, which is what, agreeing on heavy petting.
ReplyDeleteFor many, then, the issue is whether the past four years has been better or worse, whether a continuation would be good or bad. So more than anything, this election is a referendum on Obama and what he does and has done.
I thought that Paul Ryan did that masterfully and Condi Rice ditto, and with class.
Exactly! This election is a referendum on Obama, just like 1980 was a referendum on Carter, and 1992 was one on Bush.
DeleteIf they try to make it anything else, they're being foolish.
Hi drpete. Where you been?
DeleteI certainly understand the difficulties of trying to speak to people about broader principles, as opposed to only what affects them at the moment. But our failure to do that is why we have Obama as a president right now, so it behooves us to make the effort and grab those opportunities whenever we can.
IMO, the Obama experiment has opened the door to a rare opportunity to help people see through the façade of liberalism. It’s not that big of a leap to go from making a case that Obama failed to helping people understand why. Obama had a very leftwing agenda, he managed to get a lot of it passed, and here’s where we are.
Glad to "see" you again!