How To Defeat Obama: Attack!

The McCain Campaign could have used a graphic like the one above as a potent image to diminish the standing of Barack Obama. Unfortunately, McCain did no such thing. In fact, they let the Obama Campaign use Gov. Palin as a political pinata. That can't be allowed to happen again.

In the 2008 election, John McCain refused to "go negative" on his Senate colleague, Barack H. Obama. That was one decision, among many, that ensured McCain could not win the election. In fact, what happened was that the Obama Campaign relentlessly attacked . . . Sarah H. Palin, one of the most remarkable women ever to hold elective office in America.

The McCain staffers never figured out how to respond effectively to the smear campaign aginst Gov. Palin. They should have counter-attacked with ferocity. They didn't, and the fault for that lies mainly with John McCain.

Where did campaign manager David Axelrod and candidate Barack H. Obama learn how to conduct an all-out war against Sarah Palin? They probably learned the approach from what might seem an unlikely source, Republican strategies Lee Atwater. He was an expert in the use of images and symbols, something at which the Obama effort also excelled.

Consider how Atwater used the American flag as a powerful symbol in George H. W. Bush's 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis. The following paragraphs are from John Brady's super biographty entitled Bad Boy: The Life and Politics of Lee Atwater, a book I urge everyone to read.

Atwater associated Dukakis with Harvard University and highligted the Massachusetts governor's membership in the ACLU. He emphasized Dukakis' veto in 1977 of a bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature requiring teachers to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance.

In the campaign, the American flag became a powerful symbol distinguishing Bush from Dukakis. The implication was that the former was for it -- while the latter's position was less certain.

As Brady says, "Bush stuck to Atwater's script, making the Pledge of Allegiance the centerpiece of his campaign. He recited the Pledge constantly, attended the 'First Annual Flag Festival' in Findlay, Ohio, [and] toured a flag factory in New Jersey. "

By October of 1988, Dukakis' once big lead in the public opinion polls had evaporated. Bush surged ahead and won big in November (54% to 46%).

What about Dukakis' own efforts at symbolism? The governor had to demonstrate that he wasn't merely a liberal wimp. "He visited a General Dynamics facility in Michigan and went for a spin in an M-1 tank. The helmet was too large. The grin on his face was sickly. 'Dukakis looked like he wanted to call for his mother,' said Sam Donaldson as the cameras whirred."

In fact, Atwater got a copy of the video of Dukakis riding around aimlessly in the tank. The Republican strategist used it as a commercial to demonstrate exactly how ridiculous the Massachusetts governor was. As part of his campaign of ridicule, Atlwater always mispronounced the governor's name, calling him Du-kay-kis.

As the 2008 campaign unfolded, I wished many times that I -- yes, me -- had been able to play the role of Lee Atwater for Gov. Palin. The McCain Campaign let a national role model, Sarah Palin, be tarred and feathered by Obama and his minions in the media and blogosphere. Lee Atwater never would have allowed it to happen -- and neither would I.

Palin: Images, Symbols, Attitudes, Winning

PLEASE SIGN JOHN MCCAIN'S PETITION OPPOSING THE CURRENT, BLOATED STIMULUS BILL. (Scroll down below the Palin pictures.)

In the previous column (scroll down), I talked about super-strategist Lee Atwater -- who engineered wins by Ronald Reagan in 1984 and George H.W. Bush in 1988. Atwater believed that issues and opinions were secondary with voters. What counted most were attitudes, ones based on emotional responses to candidates. He said that images (such as pictures and videos) and symbols were crucial in forming attitudes. Later today (below the pictures), I'll be discussing images and symbols and how they can help Gov. Sarah Palin win the presidency in 2012. Consider the pictures below of Gov. Palin and what they say about her. She's NOT a frail woman. And she's a wife and mother, first, last, and always. She's a person of great character and strong values. Most of all, "she's one of us," which should be her campaign slogan. If you want to know what separates winners from losers in politics, I urge you to read a brilliant biography by John Brady:Politics Bad Boy: The Life and Politics of Lee Atwater.

Sign petition opposing stimulus bill - It's quick and easyhttp://www.countryfirstpac.com/petition/economic.aspx

John McCain Sponsors Petition Protesting Bloated Stimulus Planhttp://purplepeoplevote.com/2009/02/03/john-mccain-sponsors-petition-protesting-bloated-stimulus-plan/

Senator McCain sent an email to supporters explaining his opposition to the current emergency economic stimulus package stating that…

Yesterday, the Senate began debate on an economic stimulus package that is intended to get our economy back on track and help Americans who are suffering through these difficult times. Unfortunately, the proposal on the table is big on the giveaways for the special interests and corporate high rollers, yet short on help for ordinary working Americans. I cannot and do not support the package on the table from the Democrats and the Obama Administration.

Our country does not need just another spending bill, particularly not one that will load future generations with the burden of massive debt. We need a short term stimulus bill that will directly help people, create jobs, and provide a jolt to our economy.

He further explains the myriad of problems with this bloated stimulus package and asks for people to sign a petition to voice their disapproval of this bill.

Sign Vote No On The Stimulus Package Petitionhttp://www.countryfirstpac.com/petition/economic.aspx

Palin, Obama: Psychology of Victory

"I want hip-hop Republicans. I want Frank Sinatra Republicans." (Michael Steele, new head of the Republican National Committee). Sarah Palin, with one foot in the hip-hop world and another in the Sinatra-era would nod in vigorous approval at Steele's statement.

Do the vast majority of Americans really understand what's going on in politics? No, they do not.

That's the view proposed by Lee Atwater, the greatest political strategist of modern times -- yes, he was better than Karl Rove, better even that Obama's campaign guru, David Axelrod. He helped engineer Reagan's landslide reelection in 1984 and was George H. W. Bush's campaign manager in the winning effort against Dukakis in 1988.

This week on both of my blogs (http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com/ and http:stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com) I'll be writing about Atwater's insights -- and suggesting how they're similar to Gov. Sarah Palin's approach to political success. The emphasis will be on the psychology of winning.

Regarding Atwater, he's the subject of perhaps the most intriguing political biography of recent decades. It's John Brady, Bad Boy: The Life and Politics of Lee Atwater, Addison-Wesley, 1997 It's beautifully written and profoundly substantial. Brady, a journalist and a consultant to magazine publishers, is a former editor of Boston and Writer's Digest. He wrote The Craft of Interviewing, a classic how-to book for journalists, and The Craft of the Screenwriter.

The material below has several quotes from Brady's Atwater book. As you read the excerpts, consider the two most remarkable politics events of this decade: (1) Barack Obama's election as America's first African-American President; (2) Sarah Palin's victories in 2006 over incumbent Republican Governor (and former U.S. Senator) Frank Murkowski and then over popular former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles.

How did Obama and Palin accomplish these feats? You'll never find out from the MSM, which presents a simple-minded view of what happens in big-time electoral politics.

In fact, Palin and Obama, both master politicians, plugged into a powerful attitudinal current: a yearning for CHANGE. They both offered HOPE to people who had become so exasperated by politics-as-usual that they had veered to the edge of hopelessness.

Lee Atwater died of cancer at a young age in 1991. However, as you'll see below, he would have understood why people like Barack Obama and Sarah Palin won. It had little to do with "issues" -- and even less to do with stated "opinions." It had everything to do with deeply held --and mainly emotional -- attitudes.

Brady describes Atwater's key insights this way: "[In life generally and politics specifically], It's not what happens to us that matters - it's how we interpret what happens to us. The interpretation establishes an attitude, which can then be catered to emotionally - [a form of] mental crowd control. When we want your opinion, we'll give it to you."

(In other words, attitudes drive opinions -- not vice versa. Concentrate on attidues, and the opinions will follow.)

In Atwater's words, "attitudes are deeply ingrained. You can't even necessarily verbalize them."
In other words, attitudes are so powerful that they override even what we believe are our opinions. They are deep within us -- visceral and largely subconscious.

Brady adds, "Before going negative on an opponent . . . he [Atwater] cultivated strong positive attitudes among the electorate. He used impressionistic images and symbols to depict his candidate in such a way that perception 'can't be busted up even with opinion changes on specific issues that my opponent might accomplish.'"

(By the way, Sarah Palin is even better at using images and symbols -- especially ones related to her husband and children -- than Obama. Everything Palin does reinforces her most powerful theme: "She's one of us." She's a mother, a wife, a middle-class woman whose life closely resembles ours. And, wonder of wonders, she's HONEST!)

Brady observes, "The average voter was kind of slow, actually . . . . The average voter could absorb only a limited amount of information about his candidate, Lee thought, and should never be bewildered with specifics"

Brady goes on, "Lee realized that in order to get swing votes, [George H.W.] Bush had to tap voters' emotions instead of their brains. It was Lee's job [as a campaign guru] to find the specific example, the outrageous abuse, the easy-to-digest tale that made listeners feel - usually, repulsion - rather than think. Like the old carnival barker, he needed a hook to get them into the tent."

In future blog columns , I'll discuss more of Atwater's insights -- and how they can help a Sarah Palin get voters "into the tent."

Schwartz, Murtha Say "Bah Humbug"

John Murtha Showing His Joy at Seeing Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco Oufit

This weekend I'll be writing about political guru Lee Atwater and his political tactics as outlined in John Brady's book Bad Boy. Atwater knew how to get the extra 3-5% that makes the difference between winning and losing an election.

Lee has a way with words. As George H. W. Bush's campaign head in 1988, Atwater said of Michael Dukakis, "I'm going to strip the bark off him." About Dukakis' "furloughing" of a murderer and rapist, Atwater promised, "I'm going to make Willie Horton [the rapist] his running mate."

But my emphasis is going to be on the practical side of Atwater's campaigns. In his early career, Atwater emphasized the use of billboards and, especially, radio spots during drive time. Those are favorites of mine also.

Winning campaigns is not a matter of spending huge amounts of money. If it were, Rick Santorum (who spent $27 million in 2006) would still be the Senator from Pennsylvania. Rick probably spent around $12 million on TV ads, and he might as well have saved his money.

If you're going to one political good deed this December, I suggest that you contribute to William Russell's campaign.

What Do Allyson Schwartz [and John Murtha] have against Christmas?
Posted by Brett Lieberman/The Patriot-News December 12, 2007 16:22PM
Categories: Federal government, Murtha, Schwartz, U.S. House

The Philadelphia Democrat was one of a handful of House members and one of two from Pennsylvania who didn't vote Tuesday night for a resolution that recognized the importance of Christmas, the Christian faith and condemning Christian persecution.

"Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz decided to simply vote 'present' rather than take a stand on such a controversial issue as Christmas," noted Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania.

Speaking of presents, we're wondering why Schwartz was even in the House chamber last night rather than spending time at home with her family spinning the dreidel, eating potato latkes with sour cream and applesauce, and opening gifts during the last night of the Jewish Festival of Lights, aka Hanukkah.

Schwartz is the only Jewish member of the state's House congressional delegation.

Even without Schwartz' vote, the non-binding resolution narrowly passed 372 to 9.

That distinction, or religious tolerance for that matter, didn't matter much to Gramley, who noted all nineteen Pennsylvania House members voted for an equally non-binding resolution in October supporting the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

"Apparently on that day Congresswoman Schwartz did not hesitate to vote for a resolution supporting the religion of the nineteen hijackers of 9/11 who brought down the World Trade Center, flew their airliner/missile into the Pentagon, and caused the death of the crew and passengers of Flight 93 as it crashed into a field outside Shanksville, PA," said a statement from the conservative group.

"I believe there are more Christians in her district than Muslims and they deserve an explanation for her vote last night," said Gramley.

Schwartz's office had no comment this afternoon.

U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, was the only other Pennsylvanian not to support the Christmas measure and was among 40 members who did not cast votes.