"The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
Rep. Michele Bachmann's first campaign ad came out today to the approbation of the talking heads on MSNBC who deem it "palatable" and "mainstream." Candidate Bachmann's early campaign slogan, "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama," is an interesting choice, given that a) judging based on what we saw on Mike Murphy's recent Bachmann thread, she seems to be quite a divisive figure (though, granted, not as divisive as she-who-must-not-be-named); and b) she's positioning her campaign as an effort to take Obama out of the White House, rather than as an effort to install herself in it.
The ad itself hits on exactly one theme: we're spending too much. The message is a good one, but I can't help but wonder why she focused on the abstract concept of government spending rather than on the more potent message of unemployment and personal suffering the Obama administration has caused.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
If the MSNBC crowd is praising Bachmann, that means they think she's a Hindenburg-size target and Obama can beat her. I'm waiting for Governor Rick Perry to throw his Stetson into the ring. The news that Bush/Rove and the rest of the budget-busting country club RINO set detest Perry makes my heart grow all the fonder.
Dec '10
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
Americans' understanding of the concept of out-of-control government spending is becoming more concrete every day.
Meanwhile unemployment can be as abstract a concept as government spending -- if you don't happen to know someone who's unemployed. Of course, fewer and fewer Americans don't know someone who's unemployed....
Feb '11
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
I don’t think this “living within your means” is an especially abstract concept. It’s something everyone who has to make a family budget (or who has failed to make a family budget) can understand. She’s suggesting that Obama and the Democrats can’t handle the basics — the very same basics that any working parent or businessman has to deal with.
May '10
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
They should be careful what they wish for. As has been pointed out before, Reagan was far and above the opponent of choice for the Dems in 1980.
As for messaging, perhaps because Iowa's unemployment numbers are three full points lower than the national average has something to do her focus on Washington's budget problems.
Aug '10
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
I like that she's focusing on spending instead of unemployment. The Republicans can't get caught up in a debate about who's going to create the most jobs, because the Democrats are the ones who try to use government to create jobs. All the Democrats have to do is ask, "So what are you going to do to create jobs? We want to spend money to do X, Y, and Z." Then the Republicans have to get into an abstract argument about private sector vs government job creation and all that.
Instead, just keep hammering home that the government is going broke, and can't keep borrowing without risking a default and a complete economic meltdown. Make it about spending and deficits, and you yank the rug out from Democrats who try to play the 'spending creates jobs' card.
Aug '10
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
Is it just me, or does it look like her hair changes length a couple of times in that commercial?
(Romney's ads are better, FYI.)
May '11
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
Diane, You are right that the message needs to be personal to some degree but I don't want our nominee to bolster the false belief that the health of the economy is solely due to the acts of the President. The President has more controll over government spending than he does on the level of employment. Obviously both are related but too many voters don't understand what really creates jobs when all the talk is focused on Washington.
Edited on Jul 7, 2011 at 12:38pmDec '10
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
Well, it is one ad and it is the central theme of her campaign. She most irritates her RINO colleagues because she refuses to go along with even the "Cut, Cap and Balance" movement, or with the Ryan plan, because she feels they do not go far enough.
Kudlow makes a similar point with this graphic, showing the horrendous and continued increases in spending, even under the Ryan plan. Ryan, like everybody else, cuts nothing in the long term; he merely slows the rate of proposed spending increases.
Dec '10
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
Misthiocracy: Is it just me, or does it look like her hair changes length a couple of times in that commercial?
(Romney's ads are better, FYI.) · Jul 7 at 12:33pm
Parts of the back are over her shoulder at times and are longer than the sides. Shows the editing and that multiple takes were required. I completely missed the message of the ad while looking for that...
Dec '10
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
On the substance, I like what she says and how she says it. At my core, though, I love her because so much of the establishment hates her. It's a lot like cheering when the nerds win at the end of "Revenge of the Nerds." I've always had a soft spot for those the jocks (aka establishment R's) set out to destroy.
May '10
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
Please explain to me why we should care what Mike Murphy thinks. Ask Meg W. how it turned out for her listening to him. I am sick of the MM's of the world who wish to always foist onto the Republican Primary voters people like Mitt, and Mitch D. and Huntsman. He may have been part of Tommy T's winning campains here in WI but we love TT because of the way he Governed. But I guess we can give him points for jumping onto a winning train rolling down hill. MB can win because she is an unapologetic conservative and that is what this country needs right now, not another John McCain type.
Mar '11
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
"MB can win because is an unapologetic conservative and that is what the country needs now..."
This I affectionately call the Rush Limbaugh Election Fallacy because Rush usually formulates it as some variation of the theme of "Every time we put forward Democrat-lite, the voters choose the real Democrat. Every time we put forward a conservative, they choose the conservative." But its not true.
The last "unapologetic" conservative who won the Presidency was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Before that, it was Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s.
There were other Republican Presidents in the 20th century than Reagan and Coolidge.
Sep '10
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
If Bush/Rove truly detest Perry it would be a big plus for me. But I think this may simply be a ploy to get one more of their kind into office.
Mar '11
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
"I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling"
Interesting, that the ad ends there. Interesting that the statement was not "I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling without serious reforms being enacted".
Not sure if that's a result of the spot needing to fit into 30 seconds, or if Bachmann will defy the Congressional leadership vote against the uneasy deal which is beginning to fall into place.
May '10
Re: "The Unifying Choice to Beat Obama"
Crow's Nest: "MB can win because is an unapologetic conservative and that is what the country needs now..."
This I affectionately call the Rush Limbaugh Election Fallacy because Rush usually formulates it as some variation of the theme of "Every time we put forward Democrat-lite, the voters choose the real Democrat. Every time we put forward a conservative, they choose the conservative." But its not true.
The last "unapologetic" conservative who won the Presidency was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Before that, it was Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s.
There were other Republican Presidents in the 20th century than Reagan and Coolidge. · Jul 7 at 11:03pm
Everyone is trying to claim she isn't electable and that she is a nut because she is so conservative. I am saying she can win because of it and it's what we need right now in this country.