From Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal:
Presidents throughout history have kept lists of political foes. But the Obama White House is the first I am aware of to pick targets based on polls. Even Richard Nixon didn't focus-group his enemies list.
Team Obama -- aided by Clintonistas Paul Begala, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg -- decided to attack Rush Limbaugh after poring over opinion research. White House senior adviser David Axelrod explicitly authorized the assault. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel assigned a White House official to coordinate the push. And Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gleefully punched the launch button at his podium, suckering the White House press corps into dropping what they were doing to get Mr. Limbaugh.
Was it smart politics and good policy? No. For one thing, it gave the lie to Barack Obama's talk about ending "the political strategy that's been all about division" and "the score-keeping and the name-calling." The West Wing looked populated by petulant teenagers intent on taking down a popular rival. Such talk also shortens the president's honeymoon by making him look like a street-fighting Chicago pol instead of an inspirational, unifying figure. The upward spike in ratings for Rush and other conservative radio commentators shows how the White House's attempt at a smackdown instead energized the opposition.
Did it do any good with voters not strongly tied to either party? I suspect not. With stock markets down, unemployment growing, banks tottering, consumers anxious, business leaders nervous, and the economy shrinking, the Obama administration's attacks on a radio talk show host made it seem concerned with the trivial.
Why did the White House do it? It was a diversionary tactic. Clues might be found in the revelation that senior White House staff meet for two hours each Wednesday evening to digest their latest polling and focus-group research. I would bet a steak dinner at Morton's in Chicago these Wednesday Night Meetings discussed growing public opposition to spending, omnibus pork, more bailout money for banks and car companies, and new taxes on energy, work and capital.
What better way to divert public attention from these more consequential if problematic issues than to start a fight with a celebrity conservative? Cable TV, newspapers and newsweeklies would find the conflict irresistible. Something has to be set aside to provide more space and time to the War on Rush; why not the bad economic news?
Here's the problem: Misdirection never lasts long. Team Obama can at best only temporarily distract the public; within days, attention will return to issues that clearly should worry the White House.
Not even Team Obama can forestall unpleasant reality. And among those America now faces is Mr. Obama adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, eclipsing the $2.9 trillion added during the Bush presidency's entire eight years.
2 comments:
Misdirection and attention-getting gimmicks are the tools of the trade. The whole Rush saga was played well by the WH and the DNC; until they decided on that ridiculous billboard. I've called this latest ploy juvenile, petty, and downright corny. But viewed in the context of the greater strategy, the Rushorama is but one prong of an the attack on the GOP. And lets face it; starting with the Jindal speech, the Rush comments, and the constant stumbling of Steele, the GOP seems to be lost.
However, as someone a bit left of center, I do get a sense that the change the GOP needs may come in the form of Governors arguing the case for refusing government aid. Done right, these are the kinds of media moments that can shift the spotlight where the GOP needs it most: the cost of our recovery. But if they fail, and deliver Jidal-esque performances, those very governors run the risk of cementing the image of the GOP as the party of No.
The GOP needs a strong voice; a new voice that should announce the alternatives to all of this spending. But the stall tactics of the DNC may have already succeeded; the markets have been up for the last three days. And it looks to be much harder for the GOP to make a case when it looks as though we're starting to climb out of this.
You are correct, Rado: Jindal's performance was disappointing both in form and in substance.
But Bobby is still young and he has time to overcome this and bounce back.
As for the market's new "strength" it's too early to tell. The market has gone up before but it has simply been unable to sustain a rally. Next week should give us a better indicator as to whether or not we have turned the corner.
Post a Comment