A Question For Peter Robinson
While listening to last week's podcast, I was not at all surprised that Peter Robinson might occasionally take a different view from Democrat strategist Pat Caddell. But when the divergence occurred over Caddell's contention that the Republican leadership really ought to be nationalizing myriad races across the country, I nearly ran my semi through a red light.
My first reaction when I heard Pat Caddell's idea was of the tons of file footage showing Democrats blathering that, "Elections have consequences," in the aftermath of the 2006 and 2008 elections. Now, imagine if you will a campaign ad showing Nancy Pelosi clucking that elections have consequences, followed by some stats on the trillions in debt this bunch has run up. Or, how about Barack Obama saying the same thing, followed by headlines that the feds are suing Arizona for enforcing its border, or footage of the President telling us that at some point, we've earned enough. Followed of course by his admonitions to austerity, made from a golf course. "Elections have consequences," followed by footage of the New Black Panther thugs outside a voting precinct and the headline that the Department of Justice has dropped all charges. The possibilities are endless.
The effect, as far as I can tell, would be to remind people across the nation that that these local elections have national consequences. If it were ever appropriate to make such a reminder, surely this year would be such an occasion, yes?
So Peter, would advertisements of this order be inappropriate, or perhaps a poor expenditure of limited resources from the RNC? I ask as someone who honestly doesn't know (a point which I'm sure my ideas make redundant).
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: A Question For Peter Robinson
If the RNC can't fund it, we should have a bake sale or something. That ad campaign would be fantastic.
May '10
Re: A Question For Peter Robinson
Great question, Dave; I'd love to hear Peter's answer, too.
I've been wondering about the opposite question: How could any Democrat think it's a good idea to further nationalize this election? See, for instance, President Obama in Columbus yesterday. Do they honestly think the big city liberals fired up from "frigid" to "tepid" by that pep rally will outnumber the Ohioans from around the state who see Obama flying in for Strickland again and go from "hot" to "boiling?"
If so, gimme some of what the DNC has been drinking.
Jul '10
Re: A Question For Peter Robinson
Dave, I think Peter's point is that the nationalization of this election is already a given. But following Tip O'Neil's axiom that all politics are local, each candidate also needs to stand on his own merits and address the unique concerns of his constituents and the individual dynamics of his race.
Let's take the loathesome Pete Stark, Democrat for California's 13th District, for example. A national, anti-Obama, anti-Pelosi campaign isn't going to sway the zombies of his district to vote for a Republican. But reminding voters of his vile behavior during townhalls might make significant headway.
Re: A Question For Peter Robinson
To be honest Dave--and honesty really is the best policy, I've found, at least when I'm caught out in public--I can't remember quite what I said, still less what I may have been thinking. I suppose, though, that I was trying to make an organizational point.
To wit: Whereas it's easy for a presidential campaign to take charge of a party's resources, it's darned difficult to coordinate 30 gubernatorial campaigns, 435 House campaigns, and 33 senate campaigns. On top of the structural complexity, this year the GOP has a special problem: Michael Steele. As chairman of the Republican National Committee, Steele has proven...eccentric. That's meant others in the GOP have sought to work around him. So you've got Haley Barbour running the Republican Gubernatorial Committee, and Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie running a complex of private organizations, and who knows what all else, and they're all legally forbidden from coordinating their efforts with candidates.
Pat's idea wasn't bad, in other words. Just impossible to implement.
And I'm with Grant. "Elections have consequences" would have made for a brilliant ad campaign. Hold the thought for 2012.
Edited on Oct 18, 2010 at 9:01pmRe: A Question For Peter Robinson
Just wanted to welcome you to Ricochet, Grant. I see from your profile that you're working on your doctorate in economics. Glory be! We could use some economic analysis around here.
May '10
Re: A Question For Peter Robinson
I had the same reaction as Dave when I listened to the podcast. Imagine my surprise when Democrat Pat Caddell expressed the frustration that I and many others feel more fervently than the center right proprietors of this site. There is a famous old quote from former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban concerning the Palestinians that I fear can now be adapted to apply to the Republican Party: "The Republicans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." If they miss this one, we will all suffer the consequences for years to come.
Re: A Question For Peter Robinson
To me, the Tea Party is the national force behind this election. And that's a good thing..
I'm actually grateful that the RNC lacks the resources to put its stamp on the midterm. Join me, for just a moment, in imagining saturation rotation of Republican establishment ads on television. Remember, this is the crew that brought us primary endorsements of Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist and Mike Castle; also winding up on the wrong side of several other races.
For a trip down memory lane, how about this quip from Senator John Cornyn last December:
A little less "reality" and a little more consitutionalism is required.
Edited on Oct 18, 2010 at 11:27pmOct '10
Re: A Question For Peter Robinson
Peter Robinson
Just wanted to welcome you to Ricochet, Grant. I see from your profile that you're working on your doctorate in economics. Glory be! We could use some economic analysis around here. · Oct 18 at 8:57pm
Thank you. I'm really enjoying the posts and conversations so far. Never before have I seen online discourse of the caliber Ricochet offers. Keep up the good work.
Jun '10
Re: A Question For Peter Robinson
I think George has it right. The election has been nationalized, but it has very little to do with efforts by the RNC. The combination of talk radio, tea parties, and Internet has allowed grassroots conservatives to weigh in on local races across the country. Christine O'Donnell was initially shunned by the party leadership, but the grassroots put a million bucks into her campaign literally overnight. Michael Steele is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
I'm personally going to mail my congressional representatives a facsimile teabag after the election as a reminder where the real power is. If you are inclined to do the same, don't send the real thing because it triggers an investigation. No fooling! I have it on authority from a former student who works in a congressional office. Meanwhile, if Ricochet has any cartoonists amongst the membership, someone can start work on tsunami made entirely of teabags.
Jul '10
Re: A Question For Peter Robinson
George Savage: To me, the Tea Party is the national force behind this election. And that's a good thing..
I'm actually grateful that the RNC lacks the resources to put its stamp on the midterm. Join me, for just a moment, in imagining saturation rotation of Republican establishment ads on television. Remember, this is the crew that brought us primary endorsements of Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist and Mike Castle; also winding up on the wrong side of several other races.
This is an excellent point. I can't imagine an organization as tone deaf as the RNC coming up with an effective national campaign.
Also in the podcast Pat Caddell mentions in passing the corruption of political strategists especially on the Republican side . Is there anyway we could get Pat to explain this in greater detail on the site?
Re: A Question For Peter Robinson
Great points, all. And thanks, Peter, for clarifying. George is right, it's the people themselves who have nationalized this race, and very effectively. Asking the RNC to do it in this case might be like inviting Inspector Clouseau to cook gumbo; an ugly process culminating in disaster.
Re: A Question For Peter Robinson
I agree with George and Paules -- just because the Democrats aren't popular doesn't mean the Republicans are. In some of the purpler districts and states, a lot of people who voted for Barack Obama are going to be voting, essentially, against him in 2 weeks. Good strategic thinking, it seems to me, is to make it easy for them to do just that: they're voting against the entrenched status quo, they're voting for change. They're not voting for Speaker of the House John Boehner.
The Tea Party, I hope, is going to become the great enforcer -- making sure that change comes, and comes to stay.