If this strategy evolves into the Romney team's central attack on Obama, we'll obviously see Axelrod and Co. bring up the Bin Laden killing a lot in response. What says strong executive better than killing one of the greatest villains in American history
The GOP counter-argument is pretty clear too. Something like "Any President would have OK'd the Bin Laden raid. You didn't kill Bin Laden, our brave men and women did. You're bashing the military, aren't you?"
That would be a fine rebuttal, except for reality:
John McCain and Hillary Clinton explicitly and repeatedly denounced Obama for his commitment to an aggressive, extra-territorial campaign against terrorist leadership. In fact, it was a central point of foreign policy contention in the 2008 Presidential election. That's John McCain, the hawks' hawk; he was, like, the Republican nominee recently, or something.
The GOP doesn't really employ a unified anti-Obama messaging strategy. They simply attack every perceived Obama weakness all the time. This approach isn't necessarily stupid, but it risks creating a garbled critique. It risks undermining any coherent narrative about why Obama is a failure.
Obama, for instance, is simultaneously (A) a dreamy headed buffoon who can barely run his own White House, and (B) a megalomaniacal genius who has masterminded a massive campaign of deception from the White House. He is both (A) an incompetent legislative leader who cannot marshal enough consensus to pass anything, and (B) a conniving snake who crammed Obamacare down the throats of the American people through pervasive legislative manipulation.
He is both (A) a weak-kneed internationalist who apologizes for America, and (B) a naively aggressive youngster committed to an aggressive anti-terror campaign that will destroy our relationship with key allies.
Of course, these contradictions might not matter. I know what Karl Rove would say.
No comments:
Post a Comment