Posted on 09/10/2008 11:38:12 AM PDT by DesScorp
Interested to know what it is about the ad that is cocky or arrogant (if it is truthful) and what you mean by “allowing the opponent to come to his own conclusions via his own thinking”
Fred Davis is behind this. He is from my home town Tulsa, OK and I remember his ads for a local Congressman, Jim Inhofe. He is doing a great job and now lives in California.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/conventions/co_20080902_4023.php
There was a major shakeup and change in command of the head strategist a couple of months ago.
Well, snakes and rats tend to disappear in the snow and undergrowth. . . .
Schmidt You Magnificent Bastard!
Well he is fantastic. I hope he stays on in the admin...The left are like a rotting carcass of spewing hate and he doesn't let up. I think McCain made a great pick with him.
The beauty of the message is that it pre-conditions voters to distrust FUTURE slams, smears, and criticisms.
And McCain isn’t being defensive, he is being “heroic” by standing up for his running mate.
I think I finally figured out this election (at least based on current facts)
Hmm who to vote for?
Candidate A: a man with little experience who has questionable ties to a prominent member of a terrorist organization which blew up the pentagon and NYC police department and today says he has not done enough. This candidate also has attended a church for 20 years and his reverend (whom was quoted extensively in the candidate’s book) has stated that America deserved 9-11. The candidate’s wife says she has never before been proud of America. The cadidate has questionable connections to a convicted criminal who funded his senate campaign. The candidate himself has derided individuals’ abilities to exercise their first and second amendment rights. The candidate’s vice presidential running mate has been caught numerous times for plagarizing his work. The candidate has made numerous sexist remarks against his opposition in the primary, various female reporters, and a prominent member of the opposing campaign. Both the candidate and his running mate have been behind numerous earmarks which waste tax money for political favors.
OR
Candidate B: Fought for our country. Got captured and tortured as a POW. Was offered the chance to leave but said no. He returned to the US and has represented his state’s best interests even when it angered members of his own party. He has been ranked by a commitee on waste as the best individual for turning down earmarks. He has no questionable ties except for a scandal back in the 80’s for which he was exonerated by even members of the opposing party. He also has a shady history regarding his prior marriage but has on numerous ocassions has stood up and taken complete blame for the marriage’s demise. He is running with a vice presidential candidate who although new to the national stage has drastically changed the way the most corrupt state in the country is run.
Well he is fantastic. I hope he stays on in the admin...
Yes, from what I am reading he was with McCain the primaries....and is with him to the White House. He is a staunch Republican...and likes to say one of the few California Republicans. He’s doing a great job with ads AND another example of McCain hiring and letting those chosen to lead. I love McCain/Palin and have a feeling more are coming around.
“Interested to know what it is about the ad that is cocky or arrogant (if it is truthful) and what you mean by “allowing the opponent to come to his own conclusions via his own thinking”
It’s a tactical, persuasion move. If I tell you to think something that you don’t already think by stating the conclusion I want you to draw, you are likely to naturally resist it. If, however, I supply you with various pieces of non-threatening evidence that just sit there and stew some, without the resistance, then maybe you internally assemble those pieces of evidence on your own and the conclusion I want you to draw emerges as part of your own thought processes. If that happens, then you OWN the conclusion and are far less likely to question it. Because you yourself built the foundation and took part inthe process that supports it. Now, these are just two different approaches to persuasion and I happen to prefer the one I’ve suggested and some others would prefer the more direct approach. The McC side is winning, winning, winning, by letting Obama stumble and trip himself up. The scurrilous rumors are falling flat and causing the folks to whom they are directed to ask “WTF is going on here, can’t I trust what the Obamites are telling me? Aha! What a great thing to have percolating in their minds. With this direct approach, now we are saying “he’s stumbling”. “Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke”. Capiche?
Meanwhile, the ad is saying Obamas’ ideas are old tired ideas. Well, they are NOT old tired ideas to the folks who believe them. Those folks are not fact and data based. They want universal health care, for example, they aren’t willing to ponder details and real-world experience like our side is. They want “alternative energy”, they don’t want to weigh the idea that even if we get there, it will take a while, probably a longer while than bringing our own as-yet-undrilled oil online, leading to interim reduced prices.
In other words, the other side wants to chase “the dream”. They are dream-based. By NOT showing them how Obamas’ ideas are deficient (and I am not sure exactly HOW we would “show” them that) IMO the ad has the potential to talk past their dream-aspiration and now places US in the position or arguing our “same old ideas”. So, if the ad misses, it doesn’t just not work to persuade, it reinforces their notion that WE are the tired old idea party.
Does that explain?
I am going to be broke by the time this election is over...
It does, but why can't we do it with a combination of the 2. Sure it's always better to have your opponent come to your side or at least doubt his own beliefs but there isn't the time imo. McCain and Palin on the stump giving reasoned examples of why they are the better choice along with drawing REAL differences on policy between themselves and Obama, should be enough. The Obama campaign will continue to attack and try to destroy Palin and that will work against them. I suspect they even know this but are unable to do anything to stop it since arguing the direction they want to take the nation (higher taxes, immediate abandonment of Iraq) really won't play well as the country's economy contracts and victory is at hand in Iraq.
Hope ABC and Charlie Gibson see this before they invade AK to go after Sarah.
It is off. Just another day Obama and his presstitutes had to spend on the defensive.
Another great McCain ad.
It is killing Halperin that McCain is beating Obama to the punch. Obama is rattled and off message...as a matter of fact his message is now McCain’s message...McCain is the real change candidate.
So, again IMO, the strategy should NOT be to persuade. It should be to demoralize into no-show and to tweak the other side into committing its' own errors. THOSE strategic "tactics", whether accidental or purposeful are working, right now, and working beautifully. This "explain to them the damage they are doing to themselves" is something I wouldn't engage in nor discourage them from continuing. Demoralization is the only way to channel their intense hatred of all things Conservative and Bushian. These folks are not reachable by logic nor by welcoming them into the tent. What has worked so far is the pure shock of: McC picking Palin and 2: Obama dissing Hillary even from consideration. Shocking! So, has McC blown his shock arsenal? I frankly don't know, certainly the Palin pick was one of the gutsiest moves ever seen in American political history and I daresay the results have blown away the loftiest expectations of McC strategist camp. I mean, this has been dramatic like very few things I can recall. So: I say: Let's not experiment. Let's stick with what is CLEARLY working so well.
New McC/Palin ad ping.
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.