Subscribe
RSS
Mobile
Unless you are an inside-the-beltway campaign consultant or you have been living an oblivious life, you most likely stand with the rest of the American electorate in being increasingly disgusted with the negative tone that the Republican candidates for President have employed over the last few months. The opportunity for the GOP candidates to coalesce behind a common goal – the “de-transformation of the United States of America” – is slowly passing. The opportunity for them to embrace a teachable moment so as to explain, in layman’s terms, why the country has suffered under the current administration’s policies, and why their proposed platforms bring relief to individuals and business owners across the political ideological divide, is slowly fading into the history books as “what could have been.” It doesn’t have to be this way, but, then, the proprietary minions of the inside-the-beltway GOP establishment don’t much care for the notions of we “fly-over” types. They know all about campaign strategy. Just ask them.
If avoiding the alienation of the electorate’s goodwill wasn’t enough of a reason not to go so personally and caustically negative, there is the notion that in doing so a great amount of damage would be done to each of the candidates, so much so – and for no other reason than to win the nomination at all cost – that the Obama campaign would be handed a full arsenal of negative talking-point ammunition for the General Election campaign. Armed with this free opposition research, already tested for its maximum destructive potency, and close to a $1 billion campaign war chest, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, David Plouffe and Roberts Gibbs could get a mentally challenged three-toed tree sloth elected over the Republican challenger.
And while there is merit to the argument that the negative attack campaigning is “honing” the eventual candidate’s ability to confront the Obama campaign’s inevitable onslaught of attack ads and smear tactics, the fact of the matter is this: Axelrod, Jarrett, Plouffe, Gibbs and President Obama himself are infinitely more acclimated and proficient in the ways of Saul Alinsky than anyone on the Right side of the aisle, short of David Horowitz. The idea that any Republican candidate can compete in the arena of Alinsky negative political campaigning is a reality only in the realm of the absurd. Only a megalomaniac of a Republican campaign strategist would even entertain such a ridiculous notion.
Proof positive that the attack and smear campaign strategy currently being employed by the GOP primary candidates is doing more harm than good comes in the poll numbers. Yes, Mitt Romney’s attack ads aided his campaign in Iowa against Newt Gingrich. And yes, Newt Gingrich’s attack ads helped him in South Carolina. And again, attack ads helped Mr. Romney beat Mr. Gingrich in Florida – even though it cost him close to $17 million to achieve that victory. But, in the end, it was Rick Santorum who – without spending millions of dollars – swept the caucuses in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri. Out of all of the Republican candidates, Santorum has waged the least negative campaign where attacking his fellow Republicans is concerned. I suppose one could go as far as to say that not only does Mr. Santorum believe and adhere to the Ten Commandments, he holds faithful to the “Eleventh Commandment” as well, or, at least better than the others.
But aside from the GOP primary candidates’ poll numbers and approval ratings – and perhaps more importantly, we need to look at what happened to President Obama’s poll numbers while the mainstream media was fixated on the negative campaigning of the GOP primary candidates.
In December of 2011, at the quasi-official onset on the GOP Primary cycle, President Obama’s poll numbers were something that the “axis political powers” of Axelrod, Jarrett, Plouffe and Gibbs were starting to become concerned about. His disapproval rating stood at 51.4 percent while his approval rating was an alarming 43.2 percent. Yet today, in just two and a half short months, Mr. Obama has reversed those numbers. Today, Mr. Obama’s disapproval rating is 47.0 percent and his approvals are at 49.0, according to the RealClearPolitics.com average of the major polls as of February 9, 2012.
Traditionally, negatives, or disapproval ratings – the percentage of people sampled who voice a disapproval of the elected official’s performance – are much harder to turn around than approval ratings. When someone disapproves of the performance of an elected official it takes an incredible amount of “good behavior” on the elected official’s part or an extraordinary event to change that perception. This is also the case with voter turnout. It is always easier to motivate people to turn out at the polls to vote against someone or something. To wit, in 2008 Mr. Obama’s supporters were more motivated to vote against President George W. Bush than they were convinced by the obtuse and undefined notion of “hope and change,” a recycled campaign slogan from the Clinton campaigns.
It can be easily established that Mr. Obama didn’t execute a change of agenda to affect “good behavior”:
▪ His performance in Middle East diplomacy has been dismal; his alienation of the Israelis has resulted in a movement to the Right among the American Jewish voters.
▪ The American voter has finally come to the realization that the Obama Administration’s Labor Department has been “cooking the books” where the unemployment numbers are concerned; true unemployment, when those who have given up looking for work out of exasperation are calculated in, stands at 22.5 percent.
▪ And Mr. Obama has gone out of his way to offend not only Catholics with an incredible transgression against religious liberties in his contraception mandate, a mandate aimed at Catholic universities, hospitals and philanthropic organizations, he has motivated the whole of the religious community in the United States to rally against this element of Obamacare.
So, with the idea that Mr. Obama has turned his disapprovals around because he executed “good behavior” disproved, we can only surmise that something else affected this dramatic turn-around; something extraordinary. Now, what took place between last December and today? Could it have been Republican primary votes and caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado? Could it have been millions of dollars spent on ads ripping our Republican candidates apart; ads that smeared the records and characters of those who would run against Mr. Obama in November?
As I stated in an earlier article on this very subject:
“Mr. Gingrich, you’re a professor (and not a fake activist professor, like the one currently inhabiting the Oval Office)...seize the teachable moment to explain to the American people why Capitalism works, why limited government works, why American entrepreneurship is the best in the world when allowed to be free...
“Mr. Romney, seize the teachable moment. Abandon the negative campaigning and explain to the American people why Capitalism is good; why venture Capitalism serves a great purpose; and why redistribution of wealth only creates a non-motivated society that eventually devolves into the Atlas Shrugged storyline.”
I meant it then and, with the reality that this ridiculous and self-serving negative campaigning is literally aiding Mr. Obama’s approval ratings, I mean it even more now. Our candidates – Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul – have a golden opportunity to inform and educate the American citizenry on some of the most basic and critical elements of Americanism; elements blurred by the bribery entitlement mentality of the Progressive Movement and, especially, the Obama Administration. Pray tell, what do you really think this underwater mortgage homeowner bailout is all about? Why now? Think about it!!
There comes a time when even politicians have to come to the realization that they have an obligation to do what is right for the country before they do what is advantageous for themselves. That time, for the Republican Primary participants, is now. It is one thing to debate differences where issues and ideology are concerned. We the People expect and deserve that from those vying for public office. It is quite another to employ, narcissistically, the tactics of slash-and-burn politics for the sole reason of “winning.” We the People, the nation, in the memories and of the Framers and the blood of true Revolutionaries – our children’s’ futures – do not deserve that.
---
Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.org. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at contact@newmediajournal.us.
February 10, 2012 @ 8:42 am
I couldn’t agree more with your analysis, Mr. Salvato, unfortunately, it looks as though it’s becoming too late for anyone to turn this campaign around and start acting like professionals instead of juveniles.
Insofar as none of these candidates being able to match the tactics of Obama via Alinsky, it would have done them all well had they done their homework. Alinsky was not a brilliant man, but a brilliant strategist and reading his books instead of destroying each other with million dollar ads, would have been more beneficial in the general election. What one person can learn — so can another, and avoid the pitfalls of the Alinsky methods. Whether or not it’s becoming too late for any Republican nominee to win over Obama remains to be seen, but the prospects now are not looking that good.
February 10, 2012 @ 10:25 am
I don’t understand the references to Alinsky. On the one hand Mr. Salvato says, “The idea that any Republican candidate can compete in the arena of Alinsky negative political campaigning is a reality only in the realm of the absurd”, on the other, his book is distributed to Tea Party leaders by Dick Armey. And you write he was a, “brilliant strategist and reading his books instead of destroying each other with million dollar ads, would have been more beneficial in the general election. What one person can learn — so can another, and avoid the pitfalls of the Alinsky.” This is not a criticism, newsjunky, I just don’t understand: 1. the relevance of Alinsky in this election and 2. How he can be admired and reviled at the same time.
February 10, 2012 @ 11:37 am
missmarple
The reason why the book was distributed to Tea Party leaders is because the progressive party uses the tactics of Alinsky to help them “transform/change” this country which is actually what Alinsky’s books are all about. Knowing thy enemy is the only way to defeat him which is why the book was distributed to Tea Party leaders.
Avoiding the pitfalls of the instruments of revolution is one way to do battle with progressives who use Alinsky’s methods all the time. Even Michele Obama has quoted from Alinsky’s book while addressing the public during a speech. The reference to Alinsky in this campaign is relevant to the election because you are dealing with a President, his wife, administration, and a long line of Alinsky followers including the MSM that has used the propaganda from “Rules for Radicals” to influence the public.
Chris Matthews and other liberal journalists have admitted to be followers of the Alinsky strategies in order to bring about the “transformation” Obama spoke about. Mr. Salvato’s point was that any Republican candidate can’t compete with the negative political campaigning that those he mentioned in his article have been absorbed in for decades, as he finds that absurd. This is how I comprehended this article as Mr. Salvato has spoken frequently about the progressives use of the Alinsky tactics.
The progressives have always admired Alinsky, and his son, who actually wrote a letter commending Obama for following the tactics of his father to bring about the revolution his father spoke about in his books. My thoughts were that even though this man was evil, and actually dedicated his book to Lucifer, it would be well for those who are dealing with these strategies to at least know what they are up against and have enough knowledge to avoid the pitfalls. To “Know thine enemy” is an advantage.
February 10, 2012 @ 11:59 am
Thank you for your excellent explanation.
February 10, 2012 @ 10:16 am
We conservatives shout to the public that Obama’s failure to properly administrate and govern will leave him in a position where he can no longer run on his record, but will default to attack mode in order to win the election. Then what do our own candidates do, but fall into the same old attack mode upon each other revealing perhaps a paucity of their own ideas and their own failed past attempts to administrate properly themselves. No wonder we are attracting less volume of voters in the primaries as compared to last year. The louder the intraparty denigration of fellow Conservatives, the lower the voters expectation of real change.
We have met the enemy and become his evil campaign twin.
We can only win this race with a positive message of correction and promise, not the same old finger pointing accusations which tear down the Conservative opponent and discredit our own message in the process. People want solutions, not more pandering rhetoric.
Obama and his administration have given Conservatives plenty of ammunition to gun him down in the next election if we would only stop playing Russian roulette in the primaries, followed by shooting ourselves in the foot. No amount of good behavior on Obama’s part in the next 7 months can overcome the bad behavior displayed over the past three years. We can only lose this election by lowering ourselves down to his level of gutter campaigning to look just as bad by comparison. Forget the established campaign tactics of attack,,,unless it is the truth you are attacking with. The ball is in our court, let’s keep it there.
February 10, 2012 @ 11:09 am
If you know your client is guilty, you attack the methods the police used to charge him and in politics if you don’t have a record of accomplishment you get your potential opponents to attack one another. It may not be the plan of any one of the candidates, but the media and those political consultants love this type of smear approach because it sells papers and achieves its objrctive — thr re-election of President Obama and continued spending.
February 10, 2012 @ 11:17 am
The first few lines of your op-ed is far as I got. Sick and tired? Yeah you bet! I am sick and tired of liberal representatives and their supporters calling me racist because I want to seal the nation’s borders, not against Mexicans or Hispanics, but EVERYBODY, that makes me a NATIONALIST (or one who puts the nation first) not a racist. Iit’s NOT about who someone’s daddy is. It sickens me when Janet Napalitano (SP?) says to watch the Vets, they could be terrorists. Now what would motivate a Vet. to do things like that? I’m sick of my views being ignored by my representatives. I’m sick of the lack of compromise on the left. We all know what Obama is doing, he’s finally decided to ACT like a president by listening to the complaints and changing some policies, it’s all smoke and mirrors to get re-elected so they can shove some more stuff down our throats and take this country further down the road of socialism. I’m sick of opening our job market to new people when we can’t employ the people we got now. I’m sick of letting people in our country who have no skills to offer us. How does that make any sense? Then we pay them social security because they are “disabled” because they don’t speak english! I’m frustrated with representative rubbing their hands together in glee because now with a majority they can shove every failed and defeated liberal hope and dream down my throat and make me pay for it. I’m sick of the workers in this country having to submit a urine sample to get a job but those that don’t work, they get to collect money (MY tax dollars) without proof that they aren’t spending it on illegal drugs. If you are going to LIVE off the people you should pee in a bottle. It can be voluntary you know. No sample/ no money, here you are free NOT to take the peoples tax money, you really are. There is no law that says you HAVE to take welfare so if you want the money you HAVE to give a urine sample. If you think it’s humiliating to have to do that try being the underwriter of the welfare system. I made over $75,000 last year and PAID over $4K in addition to the payroll federal tax I paid. I see the able bodied sitting around whining because it hurts their pride to pee in a bottle. If they had any interest in a job they would complain about the jobs here going overseas or the market being opened to foreigners. Just in case the public doesn’t know our military people pee in a bottle regularly! Oh yeah, you bet! I’m sick over the 2004 Washington State election we had, the liberal run election board in King County kept “finding” more vote 2 WEEKS after the polls closed so their candidate could win the governorship. A Federal election with goings on like that and no investigation by the Bush DOJ. That tells me the system is corrupt and the politicians don’t want it fixed. I mean think about it; have you ever received some one else’s money in your bank accounts? Yet we can’t make a vote counting machine that’s as secure as a ATM? OH PLEASE.
Pingback: Salvato: Another Reason Why Going Negative Is a Bad Thing | Western Journalism.com
February 10, 2012 @ 1:49 pm
You hit the nail on the head Dana! Unfortunately, I feel that we are unable to stop any of it. We must remember, socialism did not rear its head with this administration. As we slept, in it crept, through more than one generation of those elected. No party did much to stop it.
How I would love to be able to sit in on what actually takes place in the halls of Congress! Someone once elected, it seems, even those most conservative of leaders are somehow squelched in their efforts. Some, like Scott Brown, simply betray those who elected him, ignoring why he was given his position. Perhaps he never intended to do any different, and the people were just fooled.
I can find no other reason why impeachment has not occurred. What happened to the one Congressman’s effort to make that happen? Nary a word. I have heard it stated that Congress is afraid to do so, fearing race wars. Why didn’t they take advantage of the O’s approval ratings dropping like a rock when they did? Race riots?! I fear we will soon have riots period, if for no other reason, the high rate of unemployment, & the eventual “cut off” of all things nanny state, as the country simply runs out of money.
Yes, I would love to be a fly on the wall! I would love to hear what really goes on that convinces even the staunchest to cave. I think it has little to do with majority. I have come to believe that it is simply the plan, & we are all powerless to stop it! Just how many of your elected officials have listened to you lately? They got your vote, that seems to be all that mattered!