Legal Insurrection flags this unsettling piece from the National Journal:
On the campaign trail, Newt Gingrich is trying to make some new inroads on President Obama by reviving an old charge, suggesting that the president’s past as a community organizer ties him to a “radical” tradition.
“Obama believes in a Saul Alinsky radicalism which the press corps was never willing to look at,” Gingrich told a standing room-only crowd at Tommy’s Country Ham House here. “When he said he was a community organizer, it wasn’t Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. It was radicalism taught on the south side of Chicago by Saul Alinsky.” …
Nonetheless, Gingrich has begun to make an issue of Alinsky on the campaign, suggesting that he influenced Obama when the future president was working as a community organizer in Chicago. At a town hall in Newberry, S.C., on Tuesday, Gingrich tied Obama to “Saul Alinsky radicalism” four times.
Isn’t this the same attack conservatives tried to push in 2008 – and it failed to stick? Even if Gingrich is right, and the only reason the Obama campaign was never scathed by the “Alinsky radicalism” was because the press corps was too far in the tank for Obama to report on it, what makes Gingrich think this time would be any different? More importantly, if attacking Obama’s “radical roots” was a losing strategy in ’08 – before the public knew anything about the guy – how could it possibly catch on after four years of his presidency?
Gingrich has veered off in this direction before, with his musings on Obama’s “Kenyan, anticolonial behavior.” This may rile up certain elements of the GOP base, but it’s not an effective message for a general audience. In fact, it’s almost certain to backfire in a general election. Back in ’08, going after Obama’s community organizing background was understandable, because he was so new to politics that he’d barely developed a political record. Now the Republican Party actually has four years of his failed policies to run against. And the Democrats would love nothing more than to spend the next two years arguing over Obama’s radical Chicago ties – for them, any minute not spent talking about the economy and Obama’s track record in office is a victory.
I disagree. John McCain stayed away from attacking Obama and he basically got a free pass. When Sarah Palin went after Obama she was attacked mercifully by the press. n nThe bottom line, Obama wasnt vetted in any way like the Republican candidates have been and it is incumbent upon the Republican candidates to remind voters of this. In essence, this is what is driving the Republican base, a sense of unfairness about the process and why a fighter like Newt is gaining traction. n nThe punditry class is so out to touch, it is frightening. The Republican base is fearful of a candidate going up against Obama who will pull a Bob Dole and cry "Stop lying about my record". n nIf your response is why go after Obama for his past because it is nothing new then what are we to think about the scrutiny of Newt Gingrich? His baggage is a minor issue as compared to how he is walking through the minefield, which he is doing very well.
Mr. Black has a good point and I would take a bit further. We should remember that Mr. Gingrich is not the republican nominee, he's running for that nomination. So it makes sense to discuss Mr. Obama in any way Mr. Gingrich wants so as to secure the nomination. Whether that will work to win the nomination remains to be seen, but the race for Mr. Gingrich is not (now) against Mr. Obama. n nI don't see that discussing Mr. Obama's past will hurt his chances in that particular race. If anything, it shows Mr. Gingrich is not afraid of attacking and, more over, has a good memory of just what a free ride the press gave Mr. Obama four years ago. n
I agree with Mr. Black. Further, Gingrich then directly ties Obama's radicalism to what Obama has done since being elected, from the installation of unaccountable and often equally or more radical "czars" like Van Jones, to the nomination of a series of unqualified far left judges that even the liberal ABA cannot stomach. n nFurther, one has to be more than a one-note tune when running for President or any other high office. Yes, this election will largely be about the economy, but it also will be about the size and reach of the federal government, the need to reign in spending, entitlement reform, our position in the world, and other big issues. In no small part, Gingrich's critique of Obama's past helps tie everything together and draws clear distinctions between the two sides. Additionally, appealing to the base is what the primary campaign is about, anyway. n nOne small thing, though. I believe Mr. Black meant to say that Palin was attacked "mercilessly" or "without mercy" in 2008. The press certainly did not treat her with much mercy then or since.
Michael Black: n nWhich seems more like a winning strategy: n nRepublicans discussing Obama's ties to Saul Alinsky and Bernie Ayers and Khaled Meshal and Tony Rezko while Democrats talk about Gingrich's divorces and whether Gingrich was a baby or a statesman after Rabin's funeral and Gingrich was or wasn't a lobbyist and '90s ethics charges and he worked for Fannie and Freddie and oh god I don't even want to type this laundry list, much less hear about it on CNN and Fox News….. n nOr discussing 9% unemployment, 1% GDP growth, rising gas and food prices, skyrocketing debt and deficits under a President who put all his political chips into health care and paying off every Democratic constituency with a trillion dollar stimulus before basically giving up on governing? n nWhich of those conversations would Obama prefer?
The thing is we are not running in the general election right now. You are right, those are the issues that will ultimately make Obama lose the election, and there is plenty of opportunity to go after him on those issues when the nomination is settled. Until then, Romney and Gingrich are trying to build they're primary election coalitions. If Gingrich's message doesn't appeal to you, fine. But is does appeal to a large portion of the base in the early states. n nThe reason why Romney has never really taken off among base voters is simple. Most view him as a competent and viable candidate, but not transformative or inspirational. In football terms, he's a 12 yard out reception for a first down. A good play that advances the ball and keeps the offense on the field. However, the base feels like the conditions are right for a 40 yard touchdown pass and are looking for the open receiver before defaulting to the secondary 12 yard, first down option. Newt is running a go pattern and trying to beat the defensive back. I don't understand why Romney doesn't make the same read and head up field too.
Newt is talking about all of that. Saul Alinsky is not the basis of his campaign. HE was simply making a brief comment explaining where Obama comes from. n nHe's spent the entire campaign talking about the economy. I'm sure once he's the nominee he'll be very happy to contrast the 9% unemployment with the 4% it was at when he was Speaker, the 1% GDP growth, with the 4-5% it was at when he was Speaker, his detailed American energy plan, to contrast the deficits and spening under Obama with his achievement of balancing the budget and eliminating the deficitm and the contrasts of Obama creating abrand new trillion dollar entitlement with Newt reforming a major entitlement. He'll be very happy to do all of that. n nHe was just riffing on Alinsky. It's not the centerpiece of his strategy. And it's true. Obama is a disciple of Alinsky, he is tied in to the Chicago Way.
It's about battlespace preparation for the Alinsky strategy, which was used to such perfection against McCain and Palin. If more people are aware of the 'rules for radicals' that the Obama campaign with help from the media will use to win the election, the more they can tell the difference between what is real and what is part of the Alinsky strategy.
OK, I give up: Why is this "unsettling"? n nNO ONE, certainly not the lapdog MSM, called The One on his radical associations with Ayers and Wright. You send me the links if I'm wrong. n nA campaign plays an educational function. SOMEONE has to educate the electorate about the radical in chief they've elected, since "journalists" won't do it. n nAnd don't give me that crap about negative campaigning turning off "independents" — you know, those "sober centrists," those thoughtful "chin strokers," the people who put this clown over the top in 2008. If it turns THEM off so that they sit home this time, fine.
We don't want them to sit home. We want them to vote Republican so we can win. n nThey aren't thoughtful, balanced analysts of complex issues. They are likely to assume that in a complex issue, both sides are partly right partly wrong. We don't want that. n nIf we argue about Obama's murky past, the Democrats will counter with Newt's murky past. And the MSM will cheat like a boxing judge in the Democrats' favor. n nWe want to give them a simple, coherent theme. Obama made a bad economy worse. Since I started with a boxing analogy, our argument has to be a knockout. Unemployment is worse. Deficit is worse. Gas prices are way up. Food prices are up. Home values are still way down. Obama's policies didn't fix anything. n nNow, granted, Obama's past and record, or lack of record, SHOULD have been unsettling in 2008. But it's not 2008 anymore. We don't have to search Obama's background for clues and hints and guesses as to what he might do as President. He's been President for three years. Make the Democrats talk about that.
John, my bad; of course it's better to persuade someone to vote for your candidate rather than sit home and not vote at all. And of course it's important to project a positive and consistent message and focus on the economy, unemployment, and debt. nBut I don't believe Newt or Romney should shrink from pointing out to people just how radical this man has been in his policies, and that the radicalism didn't come out of nowhere; it's part of his bio, and it explains a lot about why he is governing the way he is. Sure, it could become a pissing contest, with competing claim and counter claim, but we already know this election is going to be the nastiest on record. Besides negativity is central to the Democrat's plan. So, Republicans should maintain message discipline on all of the above issues, but make sure they get in good shots on The One's background when Democrats take their shots. And Newt's background issues, the philandering, the influence peddling, all pale next to those of this Rorschach test of a president.
You're not in touch with the bulk of the Republican primary electorate; this is why the elites' choice, Mitt Romney is going nowhere; Republicans are mad and not just at Obama but also at the media's hagiography of him as both candidate and electorate. For better or worse, they want someone to drive a truck into this false reality. And besides, since pretty much everything Republicans were saying about candidate Obama ended up being true, they want some acknowledgement that their concerns about him were correct. Oh, and they probably know at least one person who has lost a job during his reign, and they're pissed about that, too.
Alana, n nIt failed to to stick in 2008 because the incumbent 8 yr GOP President was at 25% approval, the GOP-led and McCain-supported Iraq War was at 65% disapproval, and most importantly it failed to stick because the economy toally collapsed under the watch of a conservative GOP President. n nGoing afer Alinsky or Ayers had nothing to do with the result in 2008. In fact, after Gov Palin attacked his community organzing at the convention, McCain actually took the lead and held it for around 2 weeks until Lehman collapsed and the market tanked and McCain was finished for all intents and purposes. No Republican would have won in 2008 with what happened to the economy. No one. No democrat would have lost, either. n nLook at last year, the GOP and conservatives and the tea party attacked Obama big time. None of that seemed to hurt them in 2010. n nIt won't next year, either. And again, Newt has attacked his policies plenty and will during the campaign. He;s not going to focus on Alinsky. Remember, Newt is the one who is going to challenge Obama to a minimum of 7 90 minute substantive debates on all aspects of policy.
It might not have worked back in 2008, but then Obama wasn't a known quantity, and a big enough segment of the American electorate projected a (nonexistent) centrism on him to get him elected. Now that he's got a record that fits with the dogma of radicalism, there's no reason not to give it a whirl. The chances of it sticking now are far greater. n n2012 is going to be an ugly election, so the Republican candidate, whoever that may be, better be in it for real and do what it takes, even if that means a gutter brawl. n