Letters to the Editor
FredrickBernanke
Published Letters: 170 Editor's Choice: 8
-
A One-Two Punch to Use vs. McCain
[Read the article: McCain apes Bush on Iraq, as Dems stand passively by]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Back in 1980, Reagan had a powerful one-two combination to throw at the hapless Carter: The economy was in a shambles, and the Iran hostage situation--getting daily coverage in the media--brought into question America's standing in the world as the mightiest of the then-two Superpowers.
Reagan hit Carter with relentless Iran-jabs, and then delivered the coup de grace right cross on Jimmy's chin with the state of the economy. It was a clean, knockout...no contest really.
This election, it's the dems who are armed with the double barreled rifle. As today's news exemplifies, the economy, not merely the housing market, is heading into the abyss. McCain himself has admitted to his lack of understanding of economics. To win, the dems need to make the economy the subject of relentless jabbing. One after another, quick, snappy shots on Bush's management of the economy will take their toll on Johnny Mac.
Then, the knockout blow becomes Iraq and the mis-(or non-)strategy of the War on Terror. But McCain is not as doctrinaire a supporter of the Bush Strategy as most think.
Like it or not, McCain was one of the first to go public with the opinion that the Iraq adventure was launched with too few troops to accomplish the mission. He was one of the first to publicly call for Rumfeld's resignation. Unlike Vietnam, the anti-war movement today has not demonized the military. In fact, the military, especially once they retire, have been among the strongest critics of the tactics and strategy of the Bush Administration. In some sense, McCain was the channel for currently serving military leaders to get their views into the public discourse. Underestimating McCain, even with his loose lipped remarks like the "100 years in Iraq", would be a tragic blunder by the dems.
The task of the dems is to make McCain the modern Carter by putting him in the position of defending the indefensible: the Bush Administration's utter incompetence in both Foreign and Domestic policy. Outflank him, cut down his wiggle-room. And, most import, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE HIM..he's no Jimmy Carter.
-
McCain Takes on the Political Muhammad Ali (Obama)
[Read the article: McCain targets Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So McCain's people think the best way to attack Obama is through an ad hominem attack based on the fact that he doesn't possess a long, vulnerable resume of previous noteworthy deeds.
And therefore is unqualified to be the President of the United States.
That essentially is the strategy Hillary tried. And we've seen the results.
Obama has succeeded in convincing voters that he sort of comes from the future, not the past. Candidates with long, complex and controversial public backgrounds--like McCain and Hillary--are forced by that fact to talk primarily about the past. A candidate without a long past, as cynical as this may sound, has the liberty to talk almost exclusively about the future.
No Obama opponent is going to be able to paint him as being a dummy, a pessimist, uneducated, unsophisticated or inelegant in his use of the "bloody pulpit." Even with his paucity of a political resume, Obama cannot be portrayed as an under achiever. My lord, he's defeated Dodd, Biden (a formidable intellect), and even the inevitable nominee, the superstar, Hillary Clinton.
McCain, on the other hand, can easily be put on the defensive. Not so much because his own record is terribly vulnerable. Because he can be pinned in a corner and forced to defend, not himself, but the record of the Bush Administration. And now that record includes the most complicated are perhaps disastrous economic issues facing the country since the Great Depression.
I know John McCain is a sports fan. I wonder how he feels about taking on Muhammad Ali in his prime, namely, a 46-year-old Barack?
Obama's guys should go after the Bush record, not attack John McCain as-a-man. McCain's a good man, and the voters know that.
So McCain's people think the best way to attack Obama is through an ad hominem attack based on the fact that he doesn't possess a long, vulnerable resume of previous noteworthy deeds.
And therefore is unqualified to be the President of the United States.
That essentially is the strategy Hillary tried. And we've seen the results.
Obama has succeeded in convincing voters that he sort of comes from the future, not the past. Candidates with long, complex and controversial public backgrounds--like McCain and Hillary--are forced by that fact to talk primarily about the past. A candidate without a long past, as cynical as this may sound, has the liberty to talk almost exclusively about the future.
No Obama opponent is going to be able to paint him as being a dummy, a pessimist, uneducated, unsophisticated or inelegant in his use of the "bloody pulpit." Even with his paucity of a political resume, Obama cannot be portrayed as an under achiever. My lord, he's defeated Dodd, Biden (a formidable intellect), and even the inevitable nominee, the superstar, Hillary Clinton.
McCain, on the other hand, can easily be put on the defensive. Not so much because his own record is terribly vulnerable. Because he can be pinned in a corner and forced to defend, not himself, but the record of the Bush Administration. And now that record includes the most complicated are perhaps disastrous economic issues facing the country since the Great Depression.
I know John McCain is a sports fan. I wonder how he feels about taking on Muhammad Ali in his prime, namely, a 46-year-old Barack?
Obama's guys should go after the Bush record, not attack John McCain as-a-man. McCain's a good man, and the voters know that.
URL (fill in this field if you want your signature to link to another Web site) http://