Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sub-Driver
Before the angst starts to melt the monitors let's take a look at what is going on here. It is one month into the Obama regime and three prominent public relations specialists are attempting to lay the laurel crown of the Republican party (that they do not actually posess) on an entertainer. Why? To disempower the "legitimate" heads on which that laurel crown might land. Steele, for one. Palin for another and I suspect especially her. In theory that individual will have to take the crown back by force, fracturing the Republican party.

The problem with this little attempt at branding is that it is effective only so long as the negative numbers on which it is based remain constant, and those numbers are the most evanescent thing in politics. In this case those numbers are strongest among people who have never listened to the program, the 18-25 demographic, and the campaign is based on the hope that they do not change their minds. Given we're only one month in, I think that's a bad bet.

It might be a very effective strategem were we actually in a campaign environment, this buildup of a third party as a puppet master. But contrary to the current Democratic approach that all of politics is a constant campaign, we aren't in that mode and it is beginning to be painfully obvious that Obama is a far better campaigner than he is an executive. Were the constant-campaign theory correct that wouldn't be a problem. It is a problem.

Palin isn't necessarily the next standard-bearer but she's the frontrunner at the moment. The difficulty with the focus on Rush is that smears pointed her direction are no longer as effective. We've already seen Andrew Sullivan left holding the bag on the Palin pregnancy issue, becoming a laughingstock for his trouble. People may have cared six months ago but they don't care now. With Rush as a lightning rod they'll continue not to. He is, in effect, running interference for the next Republican standard-bearer as long as the emphasis is kept upon him.

There is an additional risk from the Democrat point of view, and that's that it formalizes the change in emphasis that is a natural consequence of their majority in Congress and possession of the White House. It is that Rush is not accountable to anyone for what he says but Obama is entirely accountable for what he does. This is the reverse of the comfortable position the Dems enjoyed under Bush and most of them still haven't realized that Bush-sniping isn't going to work anymore. And that's a game that Rush plays better than anyone in the country.

I might note with some amusement that Carville, recently quoted as characterizing Rush as a "mean, awful man," was also the best man at Rush's wedding. He is a consummate professional at what he does, meaning that not a single word coming out of his mouth that is directed at a microphone is uncalculated. Carville is a terrific smear artist who has somehow managed to keep most of his listeners convinced that he's sincere. When you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.

119 posted on 03/04/2009 9:48:39 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Billthedrill
It is one month into the Obama regime and three prominent public relations specialists are attempting to lay the laurel crown of the Republican party (that they do not actually posess) on an entertainer. Why? To disempower the "legitimate" heads on which that laurel crown might land. Steele, for one. Palin for another and I suspect especially her. In theory that individual will have to take the crown back by force, fracturing the Republican party.

Well stated.

124 posted on 03/04/2009 10:13:11 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson