During my appearance earlier this week on a national talk radio talk show, a caller – in the context of how formidable Mitt Romney is as a candidate – argued that the test will be whether Romney criticizes Barack Obama for his pre-presidential associations and voting record. In the last few weeks, I’ve also heard from a friend who thought the president’s critics should focus attention on Obama’s association with the radical New Party (for more, see Stanley Kurtz’s fine piece here). And still others have argued with me that Obama’s failure to produce his transcripts from college ought to be a focal point of the election.
My answer in each case is this: Among the challenges in politics is to remind oneself that issues we think are of major importance aren’t always what much of the public thinks are issues of major importance. In other words, you could believe that Obama’s association with the New Party is relevant in terms of his past and current policies – but much of the public might simply disagree. A campaign has to pursue strategies that are effective — and no campaign manager worth his salt will spend valuable time fighting to convince the public they should care about an issue they don’t much care about.
There’s an argument to be made that there’s much in Obama’s past that is not only legitimate to discuss but foreshadowed his presidency. Still, that doesn’t make it a wise tactic to use in an election in which (a) the public is already quite familiar with the incumbent (the result being that revelations about his distant past won’t move the needle in terms of their views toward him) and (b) the incumbent has amassed an indefensible record on the economy, which is far and away the issue most on the minds of the voters. Independents in particular would probably be turned off by all this, judging it to be a petty distraction from the issues that are most on their minds.
To reiterate: this doesn’t make Obama’s past off-limits or irrelevant. And those who spend their life commenting on politics have every right to delve into these matters. It simply means that if Republicans running for office hope to win, they’ll align their campaign with the issues the voters consider predominant.
It's a key lesson of effective advertising and marketing communication: what's important to you isn't necessarily important to your audience, and in the marketplaces of products and of ideas alike, you stress the former over the latter at your peril.
well, yes and no. I agree that people aren't that interested in every little detail of every questionable Obama association. but taken all together, Obama's sketchy past history is very germane. what kind of person is he? what kind of character does he have? how is it that ALL of his friends are radicals? does he not know ANY Republicans? n nwhat are they trying to hide by sealing Obama's college transcripts? what could possibly be in there? if I were Romney, I'd make my own transcripts public immediately, and ask Obama to do the same. that would get maximum political mileage out of it.
Mitt Romney would be a fool to jump on this bandwagon. I have also been warning people the general public does not particularly care about the fact Obama was a member of a socialist organization. Most people are incredibly ignorant about these matters. It is far better that Romney's surrogates deal with the matter.
The problem with making an issue of any Obama secret or unknown is that, say, his transcripts might be ordinary, no issuie (and the all the comics can make fun of Republicans like they do on Obama's birth certificate). It doesn't matter how much Obama lies about the paperwork of his birth — unless something really bad is revealed (and would he reveal anything that bad when he would be better off detroying all copies?) it's a losing issue for Republicans. The transcripts might be the same (like no one cared how he praised that radical at Harvard). n nTo me, Romney needs to show how Obama's economic policies are bad so that people understand Obama's policies ARE bad (and not just politics as usual) — but I assume he's got experts and polls and runs tests with speech topics or maybe even questionaires and knows better than me. I hope he does!
Yes, I quite agree with this. I think it is a problem that all political junkies face. We care about things, or details of things, and they might even be very important. n nBut for those mushy middle people, who are the ones who really do decide elections, they seem – as Perry Mason used to say – irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. n nI remember getting VERY annoyed at some tea party meetings I attended where every mention of the 10th amendment would bring about a discussion of the Civil War. n nNow, of course that is very interesting. And, full disclosure, on first blush I think the Southern States did have the right to leave the Union. But tell me, what's the point of discussing it now? n nI think the mere fact that Barack Obama didn't shun Bill Ayers altogether and worshiped in that racist "church" disqualified him for the Presidency. And maybe, just maybe, had he been vetted by the media like a Republican would have been in 2008 we could have had 4 years under Hillary! for better or for worse. n nBut, that didn't happen and we'll all be better off focusing on why and how Obama has been a bad president, not on why he should never have been president in the first place.
Very well said. All Republicans should keep a copy of this in their back pockets. It took me a good year after the election of post-modern prez to come to terms with the realities of our current population – in which a frightening number of voters either a) don't recognize or b) don't care about 75% of the ideas and issues important to conservatives. They couldn't connect two dots to save their souls. Pete Wehner is right, sad to say, we cannot waste time trying to convince people what they should care about. All we can do is seize on the 3 or 4 big issues that most people do care about and are paying attention to. The other work can only be done in homes and churches I'm afraid.
I am compelled to agree with Peter Wehner. A very large percentage of the voters are grossly ignorant about the importance of Obama's membership in a socialist political party less than two decades ago. Mitt Romney cannot afford to get off message. He must remain focused on the economy. His surrogates are the only ones who should deal with this matter.
Insightful points. Only thing I would add is if there is a way for Romney's surrogates to successfully make a big deal out of the New Party thing, it will likely be in context of the campaign's strong denial and cover-up. Average citizens don't care whether Obama was a socialist in the 90's, but most people do raise their eyebrows at a politician being caught in a provable lie. Obama's campaign said that Kurtz' 2008 allegations were a "crackpot smear", and that was a lie.