Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Questions for a Consultant, or, Paging Rick Wilson
In his excellent post, my friend and Ricochet member The King Prawn, directed my attention toward a handy article authored by Ricochet Contributor and Political Consultant Rick Wilson. I’ve had a few brief exchanges with Rick and I like him. He’s always impressed me as a straight shooter, earnest, affable, experienced, and capable of communicating without the sneering derision we’ve come to expect from others in his profession.
His latest, Trump Voters Are Hillary’s New Best Friends, is a well-written piece that features an itemized list of reasons Trump will crater and why his supporters are unwittingly aiding the opposition. In the interest of opening a dialogue between two factions that seem diametrically opposed at times, I’d like to pose a few questions to Rick that his article raises, to wit:
Donald Trump is not running a real campaign. He is working the phones, stirring the pot and using the media ecosystem to its fullest. Soon, the bolder members of the field will follow Rick Perry, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush in making harder and more decisive strokes against him. Unlike Trump, they’ll use real oppo, tested and targeted messages—ads built not just to cut, but to kill. They’ll break his operational tempo, get inside his OODA loop and turn his circus into a crispy ruin. It’s what real campaigns do.
I really liked this part, Rick. It made you sound like Conan the Consultant. “…ads built not just to cut, but to kill. They’ll break his operational tempo…” Yes yes, and we will crush our enemies and hear de laminations of de women! And trust me, sir, I believe you. We’ve seen this done with devastating effect on other Republican challengers in the past. But tell me, Conan, where were those “harder and more decisive strokes,” against Barack Obama? When did the “targeted messages … built not just to cut but to kill,” take effect, because I don’t remember seeing them. When was Barack Obama’s circus, complete with faux Greek columns, brought to a “crispy ruin?”
From launching his career in the home of a domestic terrorist to spending 20 years listening to anti-American rants from the pulpit, here was a guy whose heroes were Marxists and who presented more quotes lambasting American constitutional government than I have liver pills. Indeed, the only thing missing was a revelation that he had been taught civics by Alger Hiss, and yet both John McCain and Mitt Romney, whose campaigns I expect you would call “serious,” lost their voice when it came time to launch the heavy artillery against a dangerously radical man, artillery they so readily employ against people in their own party. Is it unreasonable to expect the Republican nominee to be as tough on the real enemy as he is on his colleagues?
Can you understand the frustration this sort of political bipolar disorder engenders on the part of those who grow weary at seeing their advocates savaged by the “establishment” nominee, who then gets trounced in the general election? And if you in fact can understand this, do you think the sort of condescension that is being heaped on those who are relieved to hear Donald Trump (or anyone, for that matter) speak to their concerns will actually persuade them to support the eventual nominee? John McCain refers to those who are taking Donald Trump’s points seriously as “crazies.” A dear friend of mine, who tenaciously defends Republican timidity, wrote in another forum that Trump is, “not a serious candidate for a sentient human.”
Perhaps you’ve heard of Lauran Wilkerson, the lady who spoke yesterday before a Senate hearing on sanctuary cities. Her son was tortured, murdered, and his body was set on fire by an illegal alien who is here by virtue of parents who came here illegally, qualifying him as a “dreamer.” Ms. Wilkerson said:
Sanctuary city policies scream to the criminal element of illegals in this country: ‘Come to our town USA, we’ll protect you from our terrible policemen. We’ll protect you from these tough American laws, that you — because you had a hard life — are not able to go through the same motions that an American is. It is going to take another life lost by a Senator, a Congressman, the President, even another of today’s heroes, someone from Hollywood before someone in a position moves on this. I urge you: you are in a position to do something about this for Americans.
I thank you to Mr. Trump for getting a message out about the nation in two minutes… that countless families like my own have been trying to say for five to six years. It feels good to be heard whether you love him, or whether you don’t, I felt heard.
Is Ms. Wilkerson sentient? Is she a “crazy?” Is she someone that fits into your own characterization of those who suffer from, “a combination I call ‘herpes and a hangover.’ They may have had fun the night before, but they’ll regret the hangover for a day.” Fun? Her son is no longer sentient, of course, his life having been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency by both parties. Did you catch Ms. Wilkerson saying, “It feels good to be heard whether you love him, or whether you don’t, I felt heard?” Rick, why, in your opinion, did Ms. Wilkerson feel that her message had fallen on deaf ears since her son’s murder? You’re a professional, after all, so I’m curious as to why you think she felt as if she had no advocate in a party that ought to embody the justice she seeks? Is it a combination of Republican political and moral sclerosis that left this mother feeling alone in her struggle, or simple bureaucratic idiocy?
One last thing that really came across in your article was a rather high sense of confidence in the abilities of consultants as a group. But I wonder, respectfully, if two resounding defeats at the hands of a very beatable radical ought instead to provoke a bit of humility, introspection and, dare I say it, respect toward those whose vote you will solicit in November?
Published in Law
This is the age martyrs. Every one can feel bad, mostly people who dont suffer. I believe there is lost people who suffer from illegal immigration, but the biggest martyrs are the ones root Trump in the net.
“…border sealing syntax.” Do they sell that at Home Depot?
Si senor.
The cigarettes and whiskey keep me young.
“The front of Bill Clinton’s pants have been declared a Federal disaster area.” – Mark Steyn
And do their own gardening and hedge trimming.
Wall Mart.
I’ve got three words for you: “War on Women”.
Republicans couldn’t counter a bald-faced lie about legislation that never existed. They dutifully responded to this vicious slander from hostile reporters, never daring to call the smokescreen what it was.
Republican consultants have got nothing.
It appears that the GOPe strategy moving forward when Trump eventually implodes will be to proclaim that the GOP ‘had a healthy debate about immigration and the fact that Trump lost so convincingly on that “fringe issue”, that its clear that passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform is what the majority of Americans want’.
Just like the majority of Republican Mississippians wanted Thad Cochran again.
“Whig Party – The Sequel”
This is so breathtakingly painful it must be true.
I expect you’re right. Demonize opposing ideas, slander the motives of those who oppose you, refuse to consider the facts on the ground, and then claim the debate is settled. And (bonus), wonder why your base doesn’t turn out on election day.
As Get Smart would say:
“And loving it.”
So you seem to be suggesting that saying,”Hey, you guys are a bunch of stupid crazies, please vote for our candidate” is not a winning formula. Are you just guessing or did you run this by a focus group?
I think the calculus by consultants/GOP establishment/etc is simply this: Red meat content (AKA the truth) can rally the base but can and will be used by the enemy in the general election. Recall what the left did to Mitt Romney with one single remark (“47% will never vote for us..”) recorded and released by a congenital Democratic weasel.
To put it bluntly, a significant majority of uniformed, ideologically retarded voters are women. The slightest appearance of a hard edge can be death for a GOP candidate in a general election. We forget the power of Reagan’s geniality and wit, the ability to reduce his enemies to sputtering angry loons screaming at a really nice old guy. Talking past the media (and the multi-hundred-million dollar lefty operations set up to use the media) is a rare skill.
I admire Ted Cruz immensely, he is the smartest man in politics today but he could be too easily caricatured as that scary hard man of the right. That is why I think Rubio or Walker have a better shot.
It is also why I think Carly Fiorina looks like the ideal candidate, astonishingly good on her feet, deep, thorough, articulate and a female. She could get a pass for taking that ‘hard edge’ (i.e., the truth) because she is a woman.
OB, my take on this is different. You’re example of the 47% issue is bad. The media will find an issue. That’s what they do. There are no lessons to be learned with “getting our message just right”. The only lesson Romney never learned is to fight and fight hard and as nasty as the other side.
We have to get in the real game. The weapons have changed. Example: McCain should have used the Jeremiah Wright videos against Obama. He was a fool to not fight. Truly pathetic performance from a light weight.
The 47% one was really bad. It basically implied he didn’t need (or care about) half the country. I don’t expect a candidate to be perfect, but I hope he or she can avoid something of that magnitutde.
Democrats and liberals have proven capable of demonizing Republicans and misrepresenting their positions with or without any facts to weave the narrative around.
Whatever Republicans do, they will be demonized and misrepresented. They might as well talk plainly and stand on principle. Moderation is no defense.
No campaign strategy is operable without solid PR. Until Republicans learn to control the public focus and to counter hostile reporters, they are dead in the water.
Hear, hear (again)!
You’ve brought back to me the burning frustration I felt watching the GOP reduced to virtual babbling by this attack, which was as predictable as it was slanderous. Can’t anyone besides Newt play this game?
But, how can that be? Weren’t we assured by all the consultants and insiders that only a moderate like Romney was electable?
I think we were assured that Romney was the only one in that field who was electable — and I think they were very possibly right. If Perry had been prepared, or if Pawlenty had been tougher, who knows? “Oops” was pretty bad too, and so was going after Romneycare in an interview and then backing off on the debate stage.
One can never be sure, but I’d be reasonably confident that among this field, at least Rubio, Walker, or Fiorina can avoid that serious a verbal stumble — things to give their opponents talking points, yes, but nothing devastating. Bush, on the other hand… His inability to answer the Iraq question — the one he should have known was coming for the past ten years — was scary.
Leigh, you are repeating the Dems’ talking points. What did Romney say that he meant? He’s the one we can ask. It’s very different to “imply something about half the country” and to be deliberately mistaken and not try to correct the record. Romney wasn’t dead — they could have asked him about that but they don’t want to know what he thinks they want to damage him politically.
It’s like the quote about him not worrying about the very poor on welfare and medical care from the state. It was clear to me what he was saying. Is that what most of the country understood?
MSM reporters and columnists and anchor men are Democrats — not reporters keeping the record for us all.
A candidate must be careful what he says but he must also hit back hard against lies about what he is “implying.”
He didn’t intend to imply it, but it was an easily-taken implication from his words. If it were still 2012 I’d defend him on similar grounds. But that’s water under the bridge. I’ll agree it would’ve been more accurate to say “many voters (including among my acquaintance) took him to mean he didn’t need or care about them.” And that I can see how they took that from his words.
I agree about the “very poor” quote — though there his actual meaning was problematic too.