- ‹ previous
- 2562 of 2731
- next ›
The Republican Brand
THE REPUBLICAN BRAND....Barack Obama is spending an awful lot of time these days trying to associate John McCain with George Bush. And why not? McCain has pretty thoroughly embraced Bush's ideas and Bush's approval ratings are in the tank, so why shouldn't he?
But here's a thought. Why is it that Obama's ads don't try to play off the brand of the Republican Party instead? Claiming that McCain is just a shadow of Bush, whether it's true or not, is a tough sell. (All those years as a maverick, you know.) But claiming that McCain is a Republican is an easy sell. And the Republican brand is in the tank right now every bit as badly as George Bush's.
And yet, unless I'm mistaken, Obama's ads never mention "failed Republican policies" or suchlike. Why is that? Is there some legal hangup? Is it because he's trying to be post-partisan? Is he doing it and I just haven't noticed (always a possibility)? Or what?
While your suggestion would be a nice touch to add to the mix, Kevin, but I think that keeping the message simple and disciplined will be the key. At least, this is the first time I've seen the Dems successfully try to stay on message.
Also, Craigslist founder, Craig Newmark, recently wrote about this site on the Huffington Post. I thought it sounded like a great fusion of politics and technology - and worth passing along:
http://ObamaTravel.org ? real grassroots democracy
"Hey, this is a good example of genuine grassroots democracy:
http://ObamaTravel.org is a platform that connects volunteers who want to travel to a swing state with financial sponsors and swing state host families. It's sort of a political hybrid of craigslist and Team-in-Training - volunteers post profiles and solicit sponsorship from their family and friends. Sponsors can see their donations in action by following the activities of their volunteers.
... and let's remember that "community organizing" is pure grassroots democracy."
While your suggestion would be a nice touch to add to the mix, Kevin, but I think that keeping the message simple and disciplined will be the key. At least, this is the first time I've seen the Dems successfully try to stay on message.
Also, Craigslist founder, Craig Newmark, recently wrote about this site on the Huffington Post. I thought it sounded like a great fusion of politics and technology - and worth passing along:
http://ObamaTravel.org ? real grassroots democracy
"Hey, this is a good example of genuine grassroots democracy:
http://ObamaTravel.org is a platform that connects volunteers who want to travel to a swing state with financial sponsors and swing state host families. It's sort of a political hybrid of craigslist and Team-in-Training - volunteers post profiles and solicit sponsorship from their family and friends. Sponsors can see their donations in action by following the activities of their volunteers.
... and let's remember that "community organizing" is pure grassroots democracy."
Not only should that be done with McCain, but it also needs to be tied around Palin's neck as well. All things considered, they are both true red Republicans.
And on a completely different note, is it not amazing what KG did with Boston after the Wolves traded him away?
I've been wondering about that myself. It's not enough to tie the last eight years to Bush, Obama has to tie it to Republicans/Conservatism.
Here is what I wonder about. Where are the leading figures in the Democratic galaxy in terms of campaigning for Obama, appearing on the Sunday gabfests? Why aren't sitting officeholders cutting commercials calling McCain and Palin out on their lies? I saw Bill Richardson this morning. Some stature but a failed Prez candidate. I just don't see a tsunami of important Democrats out there every day pounding the pavement, scheduling press conferences and events, demanding air time on national newcasts and magazine shows. Why can't Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Boxer and a few others call up Tom Brokaw and demand a sit on MTP for a ten minute segment? Then, one by one profess they haven't been asked by Obama to appear, as amatter of fact Obama doesn't even know they are scheduled. Then, as a group look the camera in the eye and pronounce McCain and Palin baldface liars and air clips proving the matter. If MTP won't do it buy 10 minutes prime time simultaneously on all three major networks and pay to get out the message. You ever get the feeling Obama is in this fight alone? WTF is Hillary? Yeah, I see a clip here and there of her before some Rotary Club or something. She can command a damnd big audience if she chooses her spot. WTF is she? I want a cacaphony of Democratic voices shouting down the Republican ticket. WTF is $66 million for if it doesn't label the other ticket for the sleazy SOBs they are? Geez, a few people need to get off their goddamned asses and raise some goddamned hell about this bullshit. WTF are they?
Part of it has to do with Obama's professed desire to get past the partisan divide. He has never said that Democrats and Republicans are equal parts of the problem, but that's the vulgar (i.e., msm + Republican) gloss on what he is saying.
He has to find a way to say that turning the page doesn't merely mean triangulation or splitting the difference with Republicans. But it's hard to see how just attacking the GOP fits into his post-ideological frame.
He might have luck in pointing the finger at a subset of the GOP, e.g., saying that the Republican Party is being held hostage by fatcats and fundamentalists.
I think Obama is still trying to appeal as a post-partisan (or at least not as partisan) candidate. That means, preferably, framing the message without using the word "Republican" when castigating the opposition, much like the right uses, e.g., "angry left", "liberal", etc.
I've wondered about this too. What I've been thinking is that they might do something that would draw attention to the maverick idea, but then follow w/ a focus on the similarity of policies. For instance, showing images of Bush/Cheney followed by McCain/Palin with a statement such as, "They look different, don't they? And they say they're mavericks, reformers. But are they really different? Let's look at the facts."
I do think the "McBush" strategy is getting tired, especially now that there is the Palin "phenomenon".
I blogged about this recently. It may be a bad idea but it's a bit related to yours,Kevin. Here.. i'll reprint it.
--
The lies the McCain camp are telling are wrapped their cloak of the "I'm a reformer image" and they press that image so hard that i would suggest that it's too difficult to try to fight it. Instead, we should do a little political ju-jitsu and agree with the McCains. Yes, they ARE mavericks. Who else but mavericks would reuse the same discredited lies? They are such mavericks that they are loose cannons that will destroy this country in their wild stampede to power. If the O's get on that one message and beat it to death I think before long maverick would equal loose cannon.
---
I think your idea is a good one, also. Maybe a little a + b?
You're totally correct Kevin. At this point I'm ready to boil over. Everyone keeps talking about the editorials condemning McCain's campaign tackets. Well let me tell you this, people in Missouri could care less. As a matter of fact they like the guy the press denegrates.
Either Obama gets some balls and hits back HARD, or he's toast.
A few weeks ago, the government had to back the bailout of Bear Stearns.
More recently, the government had to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to prevent their failure.
Now the government is trying to manage the demise of Lehman Bros and possibly the sale of Merrill Lynch.
Not long ago George W Bush, John McCain, and the entire Republican Party wanted to hand your Social Security over to those guys.
Is that what you want?
That's an ad I would like to see.
While I do think Obama is a bit post-partisan (or at least post-rabid-partisan -- he seems to want there to be disagreement), the answer lies in pragmatics of average voter psychology. Quite simply, he is trying to bring the Independents and Reagan Republicans back into the Democratic column. These independents (ie my parents) do not take Bush to be representative of Republicanism; they think back to the old McCain, and take him to be a 'good' Republican. Convincing them he is just like Bush is the ticket to McCain losing the Independent voter he used to be able to align himself with.
We're in the era of post-partisanship now, Kevin. Those labels just don't matter so much any more.
boy, do I agree with Kevin's comment - particularly in view of the very serious Wall Street news -
Republican economic policies have FAILED, and I can't wait until Bill Clinton gets on the campaign trail to point out in his excellent way just how good the economy was under the Democrats and that once again the economy is CRATERING under the Republicans
Not to take anything from your points, and perhaps I'm naive, but I think this is as good as it gets for McCain. I think the support for Palin and the energizing of the evangelicals is the Bradley Effect in full glory. I don't think McCain can do much better if there's no Oct. surprize and if Obama and Biden just keep chipping away at the failed policies of the GOP and their disastrous effect on the economy.
I've been wondering for some time why Obama doesn't campaign against the "Republican party establishment." He could always add some phrase like "Most Republicans are fine, decent people who want what's best for America. But the Republican party establishment just wants what's best for themselves. They're just power-hungry." Or somesuch.
I think Drum answer himself already, but Obama shouldn't say "Republicans" because that implies the voters too, maybe he could say "congressional Republicans".
Remember Howard Dean said this about Republicans and then the voters, who are conservative, took offense to to the comment.
They could do with a little more inclusiveness and attack on the administration. Including Cheney and the very large target of what the failure executive branch has brought on. Just isolating the fault to singular Bush person is a mistake.
I submitted a message on the Lottery thread last night and it went to the moderator. Nothing happened after a day. That post had useful info in it and was relevant to that thread. Did the moderator not get to the message yet or was it censored? If censored, I have no clue why it was -- as I said, it had useful info in the form of a couple of hyperlinks.
[I didn't see a comment from you that was held. I'll go check that thread again, right now. --Mod]
rational,
I've run into this too. Yesterday it occurred to me that the easy workaround would be to register the link as the URL to the message, and direct users to it in a plain text message.
(For example ... I gave myself a bitter laugh this morning with a revision to the definition of "Perceive" on my toy blog. It's link under my "name" below.)
Obama's near-term stradegy should be to nail the Republican brand to John McCain, with a hammer, if need be. He shouldn't let McCain hide. "John McCain and Sera Palin are trying to hide that they are Republicans. After all, McCain is a card-carrying member of the GOP, recently celibrated by his fellows in St Paul, Mn. When the voter enters the voting booth he will see the truth-- There will be no column for John McCain, Maverick, just one for John McCain, Republican. That will be the real John McCain, a statement easily proved by comparing his and his party policies."
Agreed that Obama needs to use a word to describe Republicans actually involved in governing, as opposed to the folks who register R for voting purposes. I think neocon is a good word. Obama should brand McCain a neocon (and Palin too) and then hang the both of them on it, challenging them to show how they are NOT what they seem to be.
Here's a thought: Ultimately, Palin is the real heir to GWB's legacy. She's an unqualified idiot who got to be governor. In terms of action, look at her handling of the various crises in her administration:
1. Close ranks.
2. Rely on "team players."
3. Pledge cooperation with investigating committees, then refuse to cooperate.
4. Blame everything on the media.
Seriously, Obama needs to draw a straight line between Palin and Bush. Bush was the kind of guy you might expect to see picking up dog shit off his lawn with his bare hands. Palin is exactly the same -- just the female equivalent.
McCain and Palin are in trouble come November.
Agreed. Link McCain to the Republican brand. Tax cuts to the rich and deficit spending. Corruption. Lies.
But why not take a page or two from the Daily Show? Make ads that give facts and ridicule the GOP and McCain at the same time?
I just talked with someone who wants to learn and is turned off by the current ads from both candidates. The ads need to give a little more meat, which is tough in a short spot, but still, there are people who want to hear about issues.
I'd also love a series of ads that make clear how much McCain wants to attack the middle class:
McCain wants to reduce the taxes on the top 5% but keep pretty much the same the burden on the rest
McCain wants to tax your health benefits!
McCain's advisors facilitate outsourcing American jobs to other countries
An I am sure the list could go on. Why does John McCain hate the middle class, in other words, the average American?
Thanks Jape. I'll be careful with hyperlinks.
And yet, unless I'm mistaken, Obama's ads never mention "failed Republican policies" or suchlike. Why is that? Is there some legal hangup?
As others have mentioned above, I've been thinking the same thing myself. There are sooooooo many anti-GOP talking points one can use these days. Basically take any of the serious problems we now have and tie them using harsh, nasty ads to the Republican brand. I think the Obama campaign is leery of sounding too partisan, and scaring off Independents and persuadable Republicans. But it's one thing to be cautious and prudent. It's entirely another to be timid.
Obama needs to update Reagan's old line: "Are you better off than you were EIGHT years ago?" John McCain says the Republicans need a do-over. America's not buying it.
Another point Obama should make about Republicans. They hate the government and don't believe it can do anything right. So they shouldn't be given a chance because, as we have seen the last 8 years, they ruined the government from the inside. So many scandals, so little time.
There are plenty of (so called) third world countries where illiterate voters know much more about their governments and their record than what the average American. All the cable channels, all that internet access, and all those search engines are useless if the majority of voting public equiates "being informed" = "elite" = "not cool."
I just posted a letter to the Sacramento Bee editorial page stating how Bush and Cheney have, as a matter of policy, broken from their party on a consistent basis. I then quoted the definition of "maverick" from the Merrian-Webster dictionary and stated that they, too, are mavericks...
rational,
You've got a point. This is devolving into a student council election, and the student body doesn't want the nerd to win--even if he's what's best for them.
Obama needs to try the "narcissist" approach in describing his opponents. Look at Bush, Cheney, Boehner or what his name is. They all have those symptoms, Illusions of grandeur, Holier than thou, arrogance, vanity and never blink. Hello, Sarah Palin. She was chosen by a sunday bible thumper. Same symptoms.
I'd also love a series of ads that make clear how much McCain wants to attack the middle class:
* McCain wants to reduce the taxes on the top 5% but keep pretty much the same the burden on the rest
This is where Obama should take that McCain "Paris Hilton celebrity commercial" (not her comedic retort, which was pretty funny) and throw it back in his face: "While McCain attacks Paris Hilton in ads, his tax policies will actually benefit her superwealthy family."
The underlying issue is the total and profund failure of conservative ideology and philosophy in governing this country.It has been tested and failed miserably for all to see.Are liberal thinkers too inarticulate to drive that case home to the voter over and over again? I suppose that the arts of persuasion and rhetoric are below the intellectual dignity of modern liberal politicians.
Look, as much as you might hate Republican policies, there are plenty of people out there who still think "Republican: good" and who would consider "failed Republican policies" to be the same old political rhetoric.
That's not what we think, but we aren't the ones that need convincing.
Likewise with "bible thumper". There are plenty of reasons for religious people, even Christians to be opposed to McCain and Palin, but you aren't going to convince them by insulting terms such as "bible thumpers".
TIME OUT!
WTF?
Lehman goes bk. Merrill is forced to sell to BofA. Bear Stearns dead. Frannie. Freedie. AIG wants $40 billion bridge loan! Yes, Greenburg always played it close to the edge, but seriously?
We're going down, but how far down? Heckuva a job you're doing Bushie! [Better go clear some brush (and not come back).] Ditto Cheney! Likewise Hank!
So, Sen. McCain, what do we do? Oh yeah, cut taxes! Good one. Taxes on what douchebag!
Maybe I'm just too old, but I don't consider the borrow and spend modern Republicans to really represent Republican values, or American values for that matter. I think Obama should stick to comparing Bush and McClone and McClone's warmongering statements.
Luther,
You may be right, but take a look around. The elephant is in the room! The financial system is near collapse. Deck chairs, Titanic.
While your suggestion would be a nice touch to add to the mix, Kevin, but I think that keeping the message simple and disciplined will be the key. At least, this is the first time I've seen the Dems successfully try to stay on message.
Also, Craigslist founder, Craig Newmark, recently wrote about this site on the Huffington Post. I thought it sounded like a great fusion of politics and technology - and worth passing along:
http://ObamaTravel.org real grassroots democracy
"Hey, this is a good example of genuine grassroots democracy:
http://ObamaTravel.org is a platform that connects volunteers who want to travel to a swing state with financial sponsors and swing state host families. It's sort of a political hybrid of craigslist and Team-in-Training - volunteers post profiles and solicit sponsorship from their family and friends. Sponsors can see their donations in action by following the activities of their volunteers.
... and let's remember that "community organizing" is pure grassroots democracy."
spot on. i spent my entire brunch this morning wondering why obama doesn't directly ask republicans to change brands. the old brand doesn't work. time for something new. simple, right?
this is especially critical given the tribal relationship people have with their brand, or in this case, their party. as a democrat, i can honestly say that i don't expect to ever, in my entire life, vote for a republican president. that's not blind partisanship (okay, maybe it is), it's simply how i see the world. (as a philly native who lives in los angeles, i also have no plans to change allegiance from the phillies to the dodgers. i'm a philly fan for life. like it or not, i fear this is how many people view politics.) so knowing that, why should i expect a republican, even a dissatisfied one, to so smoothly transition to an obama vote?
sarah palin isn't a great candidate, but she's a great excuse for loyal, lifelong republicans to stick with their brand. obama's entire campaign message shouldn't be for generic change, it should be for specific party change. he should somehow make it okay -- and not disloyal -- to switch parties. he shouldn't waste time playing to the inscrutable independent vote (are they stubborn? are they ignorant? are they arrogant?), but instead focus on convincing actual republicans to try something new. actual registered republicans, as opposed to wishy-washy independents, have at least demonstrated the capacity to believe in something. obama's mission should be to convince those people to believe in something else... without them feeling weak or ashamed about abandoning their previous affiliation.
which is i guess my long way of saying... good point, kevin!
If you say, "Failed Republican policies", registered Republicans will be turned off. That's not a good September strategy.
Attacking the conservative/Republican brand within, say, 6 months of an election is problematic. But slamming "Washington" will always work anywhere outside of DC.
I think Obama should identify a failed brand of Republicanism.
I call it Talk Radio Republicanism (TRR). Somewhat jovially, but insert serious messages, identify this industry of divisiveness as the reason of the unseriuousness of the Republican party.
These blowhards have become the intellectuals of the Republican party, and its killing that party.
Go directly at them with a smile. Many thinking Republicans will acknowledge this as a problem.
I used to think that an Obama campaign would have long coattails - longer than HRC's anyway. But nationally, Dems are now doing better in the congressional races than the presidential candidate. Obama, through his successful ground work, may have coattails but a threadbare coat. Going after Republicans, especially in states with strong Dem congressional contenders, would get him some reverse coat-tails.
On the sunday shows yesterday it seemed to me that there was a regular McCain talking point about how McC had "bucked his party's policies" but that Obama had not similarly disagreed with Democratic policies. The response to this seems so easy [1) if McCain doesn't agree with the Republicans he should leave the party -- like Bob Barr!-- and 2) Obama doesn't have to disagree with good ideas...] but I didn't hear any good responses..
Great post and many profound comments. I predict that Democrats will increase their positions in the House and Senate. Nobody however mentions Obama's major obstical, the color of his skin.
Racism is alive and well in these United States.
I agree with Steve Duncan above. Where are all the Democrats? They should be just pounding away at the Republican brand. The economy is in free fall. There are so many areas of fertile attack for the Dems. I really don't get it. This should be all hands on deck time. Both Clintons, Gore, Biden, Richardson, Governors, Pelosi, Kerry, Reid, everyone. It's almost like they don't want it.
Kevin, I agree completely. The McCain = Bush meme is a bit of a hard sell, because they have different personalities. The description that I would like applied to McCain is 'standard issue Republican'. It is entirely accurate -- he agrees with the Republican stance on all important issues. Plus, it's kinda pithy.
Exactly what I've been wondering.
John McCain has said he doesn't understand how the American economy works. How could he manage economic disasters? Could we really say, "We'll be better off in four years."
John McCain isn't the person we need to be President in 2009.
The "McCain=Bush" meme is important because there have been other Republican presidents who were intelligent and non-disastrous, so "McCain=Republican" wouldn't be saying nearly as bad a thing about him. Besides, Bush is polling around 28%, much worse than Republicans in general, so bad that Republicans didn't want him to show up at their convention -- reason enough for us to attach him to McCain with duct tape, baling wire, and SuperGlue™.