I have found the developments in the White House's media strategy fascinating over the past four days, starting with President Obama's Labor Day Speech and culminating in yesterday's speech in Ohio.
Last night, as I flipped between CNN and MSNBC, I started actually see a concrete strategy developing. The $50,000 question: will it be a winning strategy?
More over the fold.
I believe there are four distinct but interrelated strategy points. Barbara Morrill has underscored the value of strategy point #1 (as communicated by Robert Gibbs):
- Our position is tax cuts for the middle class. Theirs is tax cuts for millionaires.
Clear, bright line in the sand. They are for about 3% of the population. We are for the rest of you.
Throughout both speeches, there were historical references back to "before" - lack of concern about the deficit before passing unfunded entitlements; lack of concern about the expense of not one but TWO wars before committing to them; lack of concern about the effect tax cuts would have on the deficit before they made it their hue and cry; support for certain proposals before a Democrat took the White House and subsequent withdrawal of that support today (to put it mildly). Stuff like that. It's being repeated over and over. And, to my mind, it's making it into the news cycle - a critical part of hammering it into the collective American psyche.
Strategy point #2:
- Define John Boehner.
This is one I particularly like. Because as either Maddow or Olbermann noted (can't remember which, and MSNBC is not quick with its transcripts so I can't check) last night - if anyone is an apt characiture of the mistakes of the Republican party past and the dishonesty of the Republican party of the present, it's John Boehner. A CNN/Opinion Research poll reported yesterday that 22% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Boehner while 23% have an unfavorable opinion. That leaves 55% who hold no discernable opinion. And THAT leaves plenty of room to get on in there and define Boehner for that 55% in a way that illuminates his "character". Already of note: cable news is picking up on Boehner's tearful speech about how Congress needed to put country first and put partisanship aside - vote YES on the bank bailout - and are juxtaposing that with Republican candidates (and Boehner) vilifying Democrats for voting yes on the bank bailout.
Strategy point #3:
- Make John Boehner the representative of ALL Republicans in the 2010 election.
Since the Republicans are trying to capitalize on tying all Democratic candidates to Barack Obama with the idea that this somehow is a foregone, permanent conclusion that it's a negative (more on that later), the emerging Democratic strategy seems to be to tie all Republicans to John Boehner. I kinda like that. I'll take President Obama's record over Boehner's any day of the week. It's also guiding the idea that, while people are scared and pissed and in an anti-incumbent mood, an anti-incumbent "protest vote" would give us back what we just managed to escape from a mere 2 years (less) ago.
Which brings us to strategy point #4 - by far the riskiest:
- Make Election 2010 about Obama v. Boehner
Via Chuck Todd at MSNBC:
Via Chuck Todd The question has now become: Why elevate Boehner? A reasonable response: Why not? As our own NBC/WSJ poll showed, nearly six in 10 respondents believe that Republicans will have different economic ideas than Bush’s if they take control of Congress. So Democrats might as well define Boehner. What else do they have to run on at this point? The White House needs an opponent.
I don't argue that Republicans will have different economic ideas. That's a huge part of the whole issue, isn't it? And that brings us neatly around to strategy point #1: "Our position is tax cuts for the middle class. Theirs is tax cuts for millionaires." Make sure that "different" equates to "bad".
Via EJ Dionne at WaPo:
In the process, [Obama] will confront a deeply embedded media narrative that sees a Republican triumph as all but inevitable. Paradoxically, such extravagant expectations may be the GOP's biggest problem -- by raising the bar for what will constitute success and by discouraging necessary strategic adjustments if our newly combative president begins to alter the political battlefield.
::snip::
Yes, Republicans had better start defining themselves. If they don't, Obama, who labeled them the party of "stagnant growth, eroding competitiveness and a shrinking middle class," is happy to do it for them. That's what changed in Milwaukee and Cleveland.
I look forward, now that Boehner's "plan" (hint: "plan" is code for "tax cuts for the rich" - See strategy point #1) is out there, to hearing more on the stump about how it is projected to add roughly $3.781 trillion to deficits and debt of the next 10 years (see strategy point #2).
Via today's New York Times editorial:
The speeches were a pointed rebuttal to Representative John Boehner, the House Republican leader, who has spearheaded his party’s implacable opposition. In a speech in Ohio last month, billed as the definitive Republican position on the economy, he declared that “the prospect of higher taxes, stricter rules and more regulations” was choking recovery.
The president was exactly right when he said that Mr. Boehner’s proposals were nothing more than a return to the past decade of economic mismanagement; the same policies that helped turn budget surpluses into crippling deficits nearly destroyed the financial system and cast millions of Americans into long-term joblessness.
::snip::
Mr. Obama did more than just rebut Mr. Boehner. He also offered some sound ideas — some that also had Republican support, at least until Mr. Obama raised them. He proposed on Wednesday to allow businesses to write off all the investments they make in 2011, rather than over several years, to close loopholes that reward businesses that send jobs overseas and to permanently extend a research and development tax credit.
He started with his Milwaukee stemwinder which fully embodied strategy point #1, and segued to Parma, OH, where he fully implemented strategy points #2 and #3, invoking Boehner's name 8 times in the speech itself. My guess is that strategy point #4 is going to be left to the media - and so far, they're picking up on it.
As the Dionne piece noted - the ridiculously high expectations on Republicans in November could work to their disadvantage in much the same way that generalized ridiculously high expectations of Obama has worked to his disadvantage.
The beauty of this whole strategy, to me, is that it is so easy to quickly and concisely hoist Republicans on their own collective petard. It's easy to show a quick Youtube clip of impassioned calls for bailouts to give lie to today's criticisms of the same. It's so easy to show Republicans proposing items last year and the year before that are being proposed today and then cut to their lack of support. And it's SO EASY to show that tax cuts for the richest 2-3% do nothing but worsen the deficit, which Boehner - and they - have made a central issue. A bonus is that all but the fundiest of the teabaggers understand that tax cuts will remain in place for 97% of taxpayers. There's still work to be done, however, on knocking down the false Winger talking point that allowing the tax cuts on the richest 3% to expire will hurt small business.
This could actually work.
And just a disclaimer: I don't think that any of this is aimed at the leftmost 20% of the Democratic party or the rightmost 20% of the Republican party. This is aimed squarely at moderate Republicans (yes, they exist), moderate Democrats, and independents. They are definitely counting on those of us in the leftmost 20% to, at a minimum, show up and vote. I think most of us will.
If you've read this diary, I thank you. Now, if you missed it, go visit Femlaw's diary from yesterday. As you read it, picture yourself phone banking or door knocking and remember:
- They're for tax cuts for the rich. We're for you.
- John Boehner had no plan until September 1 2010 and the plan he proposed will add nearly $4 trillion to the deficit and debt.
- John Beohner is the titular head of the Republican party. It will be he that decides on the Republican agenda, and his agenda is the same one that put us in the economic mess we're in today.
- In a fight between Barack Obama v. John Boehner, and Democrats v. Republicans, Democrats want to move away from all the policies that put us where we are. Republicans want to go backwards.
Update [2010-9-9 16:51:35 by RenaRF]: Check out this chart from a comment by Diogenes2008:
Kind of speaks for itself. Later in that same thread Diogenes2008 provided a link to the source - from Slate.