Posted on 10/17/2007 8:15:22 AM PDT by pissant
I think this is exactly what Bush tried to do with the “new tone”- it doesn’t work against something as evil and vicious as the Clinton machine. This is war as far as I’m concerned. Clinton has so much baggage that she shouldn’t get 20% of the vote. The repub candidate needs to MAKE SURE that the public is reminded of exactly who the Clintons are. You can take it to the bank that she is going to try to destroy her opponent and the Repub better be ready to fight back or we are sunk.
You don’t know? Sheesh. Check his cash-on-hand in his financial report. He’s a famous thousandaire from California.
Re#41 Oh, they will, and Fred will. Others will be attack dogs but he will do it with a smile, with humor (and humiliation which the Grifter can not stand) and with effect. Time will tell but that is what I foresee, FWIW...
I hope you are right!
Negative ads work in the short run - which is why the Dems ALWAYS come out with the nastiest of such ads about 2-3 days before elections. However, if the Republicans have done their job with positive ads and a positive approach, the few people swayed by such obvious nonsense won’t matter.
Yep. Rick Lazio made the mistake of being solely Mr. Negative. Had he run on a positive platform, he would have done better (bearing in mind that attacks could still be made) IMHO...
“By being the most consistent, most straightforward conservative. :o)”
I believe that he is but it might not be enough. That is not a knock on Duncan, but more on the electorate.
Fred is exactly right. YOU may have figured that out, but I daresay there are a lot of Republicans sitting out there wondering just what POSITIVE points the candidates can make rather than just bashing their opponents in the Republican primary or the Democrats.
Most folks like thinking positively, and want a candidate who does the same. That's why Ronald Reagan was so popular. Though he ran during an TRUE economic crisis, not one just ginned up by media headlines, he looked at the positives in this country, and campaigned on those, rather than dwelling on the negatives.
It might not be. At this point he certainly is not a shoo-in. LOL. Gonna work to change that.
Reagan hit liberals harder than any Predisential candidate I can remember. He also hit hapless Gerald Ford between the ears with a mallet in the 76 primary.
Oh, he did hit the liberals in an oblique manner, as Fred is doing, and like Fred, he did it with a smile. Fred is talking about not obsessing about Her Heinous, since she is not yet the nominee. It isn’t good to talk about her too much anyway, because it will only give HER free publicity.
I agree to a point, especially in the primary. But whoever wins better go after that hag with both barrels blazing.
And Reagan was not so oblique, IMO. He stuffed Jimmy Carter like a taxidermist.
Pissant, Fred is RIGHT as usual.
Perhaps, but if it is such a good strategy, why share it with his primary opponents.
OK, nobody is saying to ignore obvious threats. But if you were high up in the US military or White House and if you were only obssessed with Nazi Germany in 1939 and 1940, then in hindsight you have a problem. (Pearl Harbor)
Single-issue worry worts keep pointing to Berlin when we're about to have to first engage Tokyo.
We need to stop getting ahead of ourselves. We need to remember that we will be voting for someone in the primaries long before we ever get to any point of having to vote against someone in the general election.
The primary opponents are going to do what they are going to do regardless. They are all capable of going negative and we’ve seen it. The thing that needs to stick in people’s minds the most is what do we really stand for. The negative things are just to draw a contrast.
The only thing that is really puzzling to me is Guiliani’s poll numbers. Why so high in comparison to everyone else? Unless it is purely ignorance with the voters.
The primary opponents are going to do what they are going to do regardless. They are all capable of going negative and we’ve seen it. The thing that needs to stick in people’s minds the most is what do we really stand for. The negative things are just to draw a contrast.
The only thing that is really puzzling to me is Guiliani’s poll numbers. Why so high in comparison to everyone else? Unless it is purely ignorance with the voters.
Sorry for the double post, I got an error message and thought the first one didn’t post.
Sorry for the double post, I got an error message and thought the first one didn’t post.
Rudy’s poll numbers are high because he is going after the dems the hardest. He is running a smart campaign. So I do not see that Rudy will drop off going after Hillary and take Fred’s advice.
But this is the primary, and Rudy cannot very well attack his opponents from the right and it would be suicide to attack them from the left. So he is making due with his best option. But whoever is going to take Rudy out is going to have to expose his record in very uncharitable terms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.