The Democratic effort to change Paul Ryan’s image from one of a choirboy intellectual to a monster threatening the rights of women is in full swing. As Politico reports, liberals are concentrating their fire not so much on the Republican vice presidential candidate’s plan to reform entitlements as on his part in the faux Republican “war on women” that they launched earlier this year. Instead of Ryan pushing granny off the cliff as part of the Mediscare smear, we’re likely to hear a lot more in the coming weeks about Ryan’s stand on abortion and efforts to depict his budget proposal as hurting women. But the question liberals need to be asking themselves today is not just if these sort of attacks will work but whether they might backfire with a crucial constituency the Democrats need desperately if President Obama is to be re-elected.
The primary obstacle to the Ryan demonization campaign is that it is difficult to whip up hatred for someone who is basically likeable. Ryan’s thought-provoking proposals are controversial because he isn’t afraid to take on hard issues and prescribe bold solutions to seemingly intractable problems. But politics is about personalities and the idea that a person like Ryan, whom has always been described even by his political foes as reasonable, cordial and respectful, can be transformed into a sinister figure is a stretch. It’s certainly not going to be accomplished by hysterical appeals from the left-wing groups or snarky columns by the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd who today wrote of the GOP veep candidate as a Catholic version of arch villain Dick Cheney. The utility of this sort of cheap bile may be to rile up the liberal base. Yet the more Democrats go down this road, the danger is that they will not so much rally women to their cause as they will alienate working class Catholics, a demographic group that Democrats need to win elections.
Liberals always think waving the bloody shirt of the culture war works to their advantage. That’s because everyone in the circles in which they move view Americans who share Ryan’s views in the same way that candidate Barack Obama did in 2008 when he candidly dismissed them as proles “clinging to guns and their religion.” But just as President Obama is smart enough to understand that advocating restrictions on gun ownership is a political death wish in which in which the vast majority oppose such proposals, his media cheerleaders should not deceive themselves into thinking that the electorate will turn on a politician merely because he is a social conservative.
The attacks on Ryan are politically tone deaf because it is not enough to merely target a man’s views to get voters to put them down as an extremist. Those attacks must be linked to something in the candidate’s personality, demeanor or record that strikes the public as disqualifying. But in Ryan, Democrats are confronted by a person with a positive vision, intellectual depth and integrity and a nice personal touch that has been able to transcend partisan differences both in Congress and in his Wisconsin Congressional district where he has consistently won the support of Democrats and independents. Negative ads can be useful but in Ryan, Democrats may be confronting a target that is just too smart and too appealing to besmirch with impunity. Nor can they be sure that by doing so they are not hurting their party with Catholics who might otherwise be enticed to back Obama in November.
The Paul Ryan who toured Florida this week with his 78-year-old Medicare recipient mother is not one that will be so easily trashed as a threat to old people. Expecting female voters to fall in lockstep with Obama merely by screaming about abortion may be equally futile.
I'm not even sure it will rile up the base, Mr. Tobin. This silliness is becoming irksome, and even the True Believers must be getting sick of it. The Democrats are desperate. They clearly have nothing positive to brag about, so they are reduced to snark, viciousness and dishonesty. What a combination. For liberals, this has got to be depressing. They have to reckon with a VP's race-baiting, a Senate Majority Leader's McCarthyism, a former Speaker's scaremongering, etc., and President Bridge Builder the Uniter's acceptance of all of it. Day in and day out they have to sacrifice common sense and put their intellect to work defending the indefensible. I suspect the biggest factor in this election between now and November 6 will be the slow but sure demoralization of the Democratic base. Republicans can appreciate what that does to a party – think 2006 and 2008. Ugh.
"But just as President Obama is smart enough to understand that advocating restrictions on gun ownership is a political death wish" n nThis is why Obama is so dangerous. We know he is hostile towards gun ownership. The president would probably remove all our firearms by the end of the day if it were possible. Obama instead pursues indirect and dishonest strategies to achieve his goal. It is disturbing how many gun owners prefer to ignore reality.
hey–the the way Obama rolls, it may BE possible to take our guns away. whether it's ignoring Congress to make sure the Palestinians keep getting millions of our dollars, or deciding to give amnesty to illegal aliens, Barack Obama will do what he wants to do, whether it's in his power legally or not.
but heartening how many are maintaining and replenishing stocks of ammunition…
At this point it appears that the democrats think women are so shallow and ignorant all that women EVER think about is contraception and abortion. Economics, debt, and deficits are not over my head.
I'm not one who believes that, as yet, the Ryan selection has morphed Romney into a much better candidate, but I do believe it has improved his candidacy. By "risking" a debate on Medicare, the Romney camp has taken an initiative that uses the enormous strengths of Ryan: knowledge and personality. He may not be, as liberals accused Reagan of being, made of Teflon, but the aforementioned characteristics will cause the liberals to waste their political ammunition. Given that VP choices, in the end, mean very little, their attacks will not only fail, but turn them away from zeroing on the real serious flaws that Romney has.
If you are correct – and your analysis seems sound regarding Ryan's role – then your conclusion that VP picks in the end mean very little is absolutely wrong. They do matter, but in ways that are essentially immeasurable.
Mike, nMy statement was a bit too sweeping. You're right, the picks may mean–both positive and negative–more than a net plus in votes.
Simpering, mincing, twerpy, and insufferable – Eddie Munster (aka Paul Ryan) is a delight!
nWhile I am not a Catholic, I can't for the life of me figure out why a Catholic would even consider voting for Obama/Biden, it seems that everything in their agenda is counter to their religous beliefs.