Saturday, August 11, 2012

What Paul Ryan Must Overcome

K'hammer (with whom I sometimes disagree...)

There are two ways to run against Barack Obama: stewardship or ideology. You can run against his record, or you can run against his ideas.

The ideological case, on the other hand, is not just appealing to a center-right country with twice as many conservatives as liberals; it is also explanatory. It underpins the stewardship argument. Obama’s ideology — and the program that followed — explains the failure of these four years.

What program? Obama laid it out boldly early in his presidency. The roots of the nation’s crisis, he declared, were systemic. Fundamental change was required. He had come to deliver it.

No need to recite the specifics--but every one of them is a failure.

...given that there’s no good reason whatever for Obama to be leading, one can only presume that Romney’s strategy in July and now in August is not working.

Which is why the “we only talk about the economy” line, while superficially clever, was and is so foolish—stupid, even. Of course Romney wants to focus on that one issue. It’s the one that hurts Obama the most, and the one on which he seems to score the best. He and his team have an idea about the campaign. They need to win independents to win. Independents are less ideological. So don’t press the ideological buttons. Keep it simple. Keep it plain. Obama has hurt you. I’ll help you. Fine.

But that’s not the only reason they’re doing it this way.

Romney and his people prefer this strategy because it’s what is most comfortable to them. He is not, at root, an ideological person. Neither, at root, are they. And the data suggest this is not a time for a sharply ideological campaign. The data suggest Romney needs to run as Mr. Fix-It. That is how Romney prefers to view himself. So the two match perfectly.

Alas for him, that’s not how it works. If conservative ideology is a problem with some independents, it also has the virtue of providing those who use it to discuss the nation’s problems with a pulse. Romney has just learned over the past few weeks that he cannot limit the discussion to the topics he wishes to talk about, especially when his rival is spending $100 million trying to destroy him in the swing states and when the media are largely serving his purposes by acting as though an increase in the unemployment rate and utterly unimpressive jobs-creation numbers are somehow good news.

So here’s why he should be talking about other things, releasing plans, giving speeches on big topics—-because it’s the only way he can control the discussion. If he says the same thing about the economy every single day, he bores. He provides nothing new for anyone to fix on. He has to feed the beast. And it can’t just be that he puts his toe gingerly in the welfare-reform pool one day and then defend himself for three days after. It all has to keep moving.

IOW, Romney either does a "man up" to his campaign--talking about the ideology--or he slowly becomes another John McPain.

Well.

I quibble with K-hammer's worry about the election; Romney's behind because nobody's paying attention to the election now.  They never have.  The focus begins in early October.  Secondly, Obozo has inertia on his side--for the time being.  He IS the President, he seems to be a nice guy, and yes, the MFM has done their kneepad-best.

Nonetheless, Ryan has a lot to do here--and maybe Romney realizes that "the economy" ain't gonna make it; that there is a real, tangible, and very meaningful cultural/ideological divide which must be addressed.  Romney can win that battle, and Ryan will be his C-in-C in that effort.

HT:  ColdFury

4 comments:

Deekaman said...

This is the problem with "electability". Let's make it a referendum on their ideology vs. ours. Liberty and self-determination vs. soft slavery. I'd go so far as to call out Republicans who have been part of the problem and state clearly that I am not them and this is what I believe. "Electability" is nothing more than disguising who you really are and what you really believe. If we want to return to true Liberty and self-determination through a Capitalistic Representative Republic in which the states and the people control the Federal Government, we have to frame the debate in that manner. We can easily anticipate the arguments from the Left (they are incredibly transparent in that regard) and parry them. If the electorate likes our ideas better, we win. If not, well there ya go. At least put true conservatism to the test.

Anonymous said...

True conservatism, as defined by today's dead-enders, has been put to the test. Barely 4 in 10 like what they see, and the Ken Doll and Eddie Munster aren't going to change that.

Deekaman said...

I assure you they will like the slavery of socialism even less. Why should anyone bother to work, just to see it taken away in the name of "fairness" (any time the government decides what is fair, it is demonstrably not so).

The Marxist and "Walter" a far more stupid than the other Leftists want us to believe. Biden is a plagarist, liar and gaffe machine. Obama is a narcissist who named is dog not "Beau", but "BO". If he is not a Muslim, he is sympathetic and will not lift a finger against creeping Sharia. His administration is loaded with Marxists, tax cheats, domestic terrorists and Luddites. The administration's economic policy is far worse than anything the Bush administration dreamed up.

I'll take the Ken Doll and Eddie Munster any day.

Anonymous said...

So it's the Muslim vs. the Mormon, aye? A Muslim who supports gay marriage...sorta flies in the face of Sharia, no? How many Mormons will the Ken Doll bring in? Are you familiar with Mormon "theology"? It's an abomination of everything Christians believe. What should we make of Ryan, a practicing Catholic, working to elect a believer in a false god? If you were so concerned with Luddites and Marxists, it only figures you'd have at least SOME issue with supporting an apostate candidate for president.

Or is it just politics with you...?