Attack of the Killer Chihuahuas

Oh Lordy!  The rabid killer chihuahuas of Obamanation are in an ankle-biting frenzy over how many houses John McCain and his wife own.

They seem to think they have found “THE ISSUE” that will carry Teh Precious to victory.  Once again they prove their lack of political instinct.

First of all, they have completely forgotten the old saying “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”  Guys?  You really don’t want to discuss the candidates’ real estate holdings.

Why?  Two words: “Tony Rezko”

Secondly, negative attacks don’t work unless they resonate with the target audience.  The target audience will be one or more of these: your base, their base, and/or undecideds.  Your goal should be to motivate your base, depress their base, and/or persuade undecideds to vote for your candidate

If this attack gets your base fired up, y’all need to switch to decaf.  This issue is another “big nothing burger.”  The McCains are rich, so what?  The Obamas are millionaires too.  Not only that, but this is the United States of America, where being rich is the ambition of 99% of the population.

This attack isn’t going to depress and demoralize the GOP base, nor is it likely to persuade any undecided voters, especially since it opens the door to the issue of Uh-bama’s relationship with slumlord Tony Rezko.

Do you guys ever learn anything?  Has an attack on a candidate’s financial status ever worked?  You guys went into an ankle-biting fauxrage over Hillary and Bill’s tax returns showing they made beau coup simolians since he left office, and the blue-collar and rural voters of West Virginia were soooo impressed they gave Hillary a 41 point victory.  Without the money issue, she might have won by 60 or 70 points!

What’s that you say?  This issue is just like when Poppy Bush was amazed at a supermarket checkout scanner?  Well, yes it is, but not why you think.

The reason they are the same is because that story is an urban legend!  IOW – a big nothing burger.

 

(Cross-posted at Klownhaus)

Junk, meet boot

WKJM and the Cheetopians want Barack Obama to “go negative” on John McCain (as if he has been running a positive campaign until now.)

According to Real Clear Politics, the Obama campaign released an ad linking McCain to Ralph Reed & Jack Abramoff.

Brian Rogers, spokesman for McCain’s campaign, responds:

“Barack Obama’s ad is ridiculous. Because of John McCain, corruption was exposed and people like Jack Abramoff went to jail.

However, if Barack Obama wants to have a discussion about truly questionable associations, let’s start with his relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, at whose home Obama’s political career was reportedly launched. Mr. Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group responsible for countless bombings against targets including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and numerous police stations, courthouses and banks. In recent years, Mr. Ayers has stated, ’I don’t regret setting bombs… I feel we didn’t do enough.’

“The question now is, will Barack Obama immediately call on the University of Illinois to release all of the records they are currently withholding to shed further light on Senator Obama’s relationship with this unrepentant terrorist?”

Not only is Uh-bama the least qualified candidate for President in modern history, he’s up to his eyeballs in Chicago corruption and dubious associations.  Talk about the worst of both worlds!

Issue-based campaigns are where you contrast yourself from the other candidate based on your positions on important issues.  Character-based campaigns are where you talk about honesty, judgment and experience.

Character-based campaigns are usually called “negative” because you want to portray your opponent as bad (at least in comparison to yourself.)  These type of campaigns are easier (and cheaper) when the media helps by acting as an echo-chamber because they hate your opponent (and her husband.) 

They don’t work as well when the media defends your opponent because they think he’s a straight-talking maverick.  Unfortunately, Obamanation assumed the media would continue to fluff Him the way they did during the primaries.  Oops! 

But Teh Precious has to run a character-based campaign, because he already conceded the issues by running as a “post-partisan” with vague platitudes about “hope” and “change” and then veering hard to the right in June.

So Obamanation is using Rove’s playbook.

But McCain is using Rove.  Talk about a mismatch!

Turdblossom must be laughing his ass off.

UPDATE:

Obamanation fires back this morning with an ad bashing McCain for being unsure of how many houses he and his wife own.

Karl Rove McCain’s campaign responds:

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people “cling” to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans? 

“The reality is that Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he’s completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans.”

Wow!  That’s gonna leave a mark!

Bashing a Republican for having money is like criticizing a cat for having fur.  Has that line of attack ever worked?

But what do I know?  Go ahead guys, get down in the mud with the pigs.

Let me know how that works out for you!

(Cross-posted at Klownhaus)

Dear Obama Supporters: Define “Negative”

I’ve been reading all day about how negative Hillary has been towards Obama. MSNBC had a question from their exit poll asking who ran a more negative campaign in PA and 67% of all voters thought Hillary had. And if the media says it, it *must* be true, right? Of course, it might also be the case that people are predisposed to believe what they want to hear. I was on the ground in PA and I have to honestly say that I didn’t see much negativity from the Clinton campaign staffers or volunteers. They complained mightily about being soaked through while canvassing in the rain. But other than that, zip. But maybe I’m biased.

So, I am giving you Obama supporters a chance to set the record straight. Please define the term “negative campaigning” with regard to Hillary Clinton. Parameters:

1. You may not use an example where the candidate compares or contrasts herself with Obama.
2. The offense must be an overt and deliberate attack on Obama’s personality or character.
3. Outperforming Obama, for the purposes of this exercise, is not considered negative campaigning.
4. The negativity can not have been initiated by a media source.
5. Please back up your examples with citations.
6. Rude, obnoxious or obscene comments will be deleted.

Conflucians, sit on your hands and let the Obama supporters answer this without critiques, responses or comments of any kind. Go to the Open Thread below instead.