Inept Campaign

The Republicans saved all of their viable presidential candidates and ran their idiots this election because it was widely believed that they could not defeat an incumbent, and especially not an incumbent with the charisma and popularity of Barack Obama. In spite of that, their least bad idiot is making a very close race out of it because Obama and the Democrats are conducting the most idiotic campaign in the history of politics.

For his first campaign Obama and his team provided soaring rhetoric that, while short on details, was filled with promises of what he was going to do if elected; a campaign based on the theme of “hope and change.” This year he is blaming Bush for handing him a difficult task, telling us that he has not done much but that he has done a little bit, and warning us of utter disaster if we elect a Republican to replace him.

I want to grab him by the shoulders, shake him until his teeth rattle, and tell him, “Quit whining about the raw deal you got, quit telling me how little you’ve accomplished, and tell me what the hell you’re going to do. And don’t let me hear the words ‘Republican’ or ‘Romney’ come out of your mouth.”

Republicans know how to campaign. They have their little sound bites, which actually mean nothing but which sound good, and they wind those into the answer of every question they are asked. “We believe in small government.” They don’t even know what small government is and, since they want to regulate what people can do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, they certainly don’t believe in it, but it sounds good to voters.

“What are you going to do about the high price of milk?”

“Milk producers are currently saddled with too many regulations, which drives up the price of milk. We believe in small government and reducing regulation will reduce the price that mothers will have to pay for the milk that the need to nourish their children.”

It’s nonsense, and in the answer they did not actually promise to reduce any regulation, or say what they will do about the price of milk, but they got votes because the message the answer conveys is, “we’re on your side.”

Democrats claim that their political beliefs are too complex and intellectually deep to lend themselves to sound bites, and so asked what they are going to do about the price of milk they launch into a ten minute lecture about the economics of milk production which puts the audience to sleep, or they simply counter with a statement that Republicans will cause the price of milk to increase, which no one believes.

Democrats also make statements like, "Republicans want Americans to starve to death if they become unemployed." That is a ridiculous statement, because no one has ever heard a Republican say that, and no Democrat can reasonably claim to have mind reading ability to prove the validity of that claim. Is anyone, other than a radical Democrat, going to actually believe that Republicans want the people of this country to starve?

What Republicans actually say on that subject is that their policies will reduce unemployment to the point that churches and other charities will be able to provide the help needed by the unemployed. That's almost certainly not feasible in practice, but it's not unreasonable, and it's a long way from "wanting Americans to starve." Democrats wind up just making themselves sound like idiots with this sort of wild rhetoric.

If Democrats would come up with something like, “Just as the government protects you from terrorists, we believe that the government should protect you from the predatory practices of big business,” and weave that into their answers they could attract many more votes.

“What are you going to do about the high price of milk?”

“Dairy farmers have to sell their milk to giant corporations. We believe that just as the government protects you from terrorist attacks, government should protect you from the greed of giant corporations who are driving up the price of milk.”

It’s nonsense, of course, and it did not answer the question, but it delivered the only message needed in a political campaign; “We’re on your side.”

Does Obama think that “we haven’t done very much, but we’ve done a little bit” is really a winning message? Further, by attacking Republicans he is subliminally delivering a counter message because Republicans are saying “we’re on the side of voters” and he’s saying he’s against Republicans, so where does that put him with respect with voters?

If Obama wins in November it will be in spite of, not because of, himself and his campaign staff.