Democrats took the Congress back in 2006 by portraying GOP candidates as clones of George W. Bush. It was an effective strategy that is informing our efforts in 2008. But we’re starting to see the drawbacks of that strategy play out in the race against John McCain.
Political attacks work best when the charge they make is both echoed by the subject of those attacks and resonate with voter perceptions of that candidate. Case in point: The flip-flop attack on John Kerry wouldn’t have been nearly as effective as it was if he hadn’t told voters in West Virginia that he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Kerry gave the Republicans a real time example of the negative storyline they were driving against him.
Fast forward to 2008: It’s tough to make the McSame attack stick because John McCain rose to national prominence by being a thorn in George W. Bush’s side. McCain might have voted for 90 percent of the Bush agenda but the public got to know him as a pain in Bush’s behind – a perception aided by the fact that Democrats rushed to exploit the McCain-Bush schism that came out of the 2000 primaries.
So does that mean the Obama campaign should ignore the fact that McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush. Absolutely not.
It means that the Obama campaign needs to focus its energies on generating some real time examples of McCain hugging Bush. (I think there are some other areas to hit as well but that’s a post for another time.)
Democrats need to test McCain’s maverick claims by creating news stories that force the Republican to choose between opposing the Bush Administration OR adopting the Bush position on an issue playing out in the headlines.
If we can get McCain to embrace a Bush position in real time, we can breathe new life into the McSame narrative and put McCain back on the defensive.
So I would kickstart the process by challenging John McCain to name three times he disagreed with the White House this summer and asking him to detail what he did to act on those disagreements. Did he hold a news conference to air his disagrements? Did he cut an ad? Did he speak out on the Senate floor?
Get the conversation back to focusing on the fact that McCain is a Bush clone.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential, Politics | Tagged: Bush, Maverick, McCain, McSame, Phil Singer
Absolutely. Not only that, they should have a ad tag line starting out that 6 out of 10 historians view George Bush as the worst President ever. And segue into “Do we need another George W. Bush”?
Brilliant point. And what better place to start than on the Justice departments stonewalling/obstruction of justice into the sex, drugs and oil kickbacks scandal in the Interior department. Eventually McCain will be forced to comment, and will be forced to either call out the Bush administration, and as such remind Americans what an atrocity it has been, or he won’t and the Democrats can go to town on him. This is far better stuff- topical, tactically sharp, etc.- than the issue ads they’ve been going with…
McCain hasn’t spoken a single word on the Senate floor this summer; he hasn’t voted since April
[...] Clinton aide Phil Singer: “It’s tough to make the McSame attack stick because John McCain roseto national [...]
Right on, and there are some real-time examples that the McCain is already generating: the lies, innuendo, and slander that are part of their campaign messages. It’s just like much of the Bush administration: Smoking Gun, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Valerie Plame, etc. Obama’s team should keep a list of these Bush examples that they can tie around McCain’s and Palin’s distortions.
Underlying theme: Remind you of anyone?
Good points, but we are making a big mistake with this “more of the same” charge. The argument shouldn’t be Mccain is going to be more of Bush, the argument needs to be that Mccain is going to be WORSE than Bush.
“The same” might not be all that bad. If things stay the same, you may still have your job, your health, your loved ones, etc. So, maybe more of “the same” isn’t all that scary after all. But if you tell the voter that voting for Mccain will make things WORSE and then tell the voter WHY mccain will make things worse, then you have message that will resonate.
The “more of the same” argument is not a winning frame.
Phil – what are your thoughts on tying McCain to his vote against the CIA torture bill, and then voting to uphold the Bush veto? It’s not real-time, exactly, but it’s still timely (after 9/11) and indicative of his complete capitulation to Bush policies.
Also – along the same lines of “more of the same” when it comes to Bush policies, why isn’t there more of a hit on “more of the same” when it comes to Bush’s character – which John McCain seems to have taken on as well?
Text:
John McCain cannot help American’s out of this lousy economy because John McCain does not understand our problems. Take John McCain’s words for it “It’s easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have.” [take his voice].
We cannot afford four more years of another President who is “somewhat divorced” from our problems.
When we are struggling to pay our mortgages, John McCain has lost track of how many houses he owns.
When we are struggling to afford health insurance, John McCain wants to raise taxes on your health benefits.
When we are struggling to makes ends meet on Social Security, John McCain wants to put your Social Security funds into the hands of the Wall Street wizards who got us into this mess.
It’s time for a change. Barack Obama for President.
I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message, because you deserve a President who understands your problems and has solutions to help solve them.
I hope you-all won’t mind the intrusion of a McCain supporter, who just happened to find this post of interest.
I do think the “third term” theme has been effective and will continue to have bite. But the only specific “same policies” that seem to me helpful to Obama are (1) Iraq and (2) the Bush tax cut, which included high-earners, and was not focused on the middle class. I think (2) is still a winner for Obama. As to (1), I think Obama has muddied the distinction between himself and McCain in an effort to prevent his position from being characterized as “cut and run.” If he really thinks our military involvement there is a waste of lives and money, he should be more blunt about pulling out as quickly as possible, without regard to anything but minimizing any further loss of American lives.
McCain *was* the about same as Bush on waterboarding and immunity for the telecoms, but the blue collar swing voters Obama needs now may not think Bush was wrong on those issues. (I am not here to argue he was right)
McCain was also on board for the Bush immigration reform bill; but again, I don’t think enough swing voters would agree that that bill was too tough on undocumented immigrants.
Maybe McCain and Palin will make fools of themselves in a way that resonates with non-blog readers; maybe they won’t. Obama should focus on selling *his* agenda, emphasizing one bold *new* (not a retread from Gore/Kerry) policy move that folks can understand, will make their lives better, and seems realistic.
Two years ago lots of folks were attracted — *I* was attracted — to Obama’s talk about rising above partisan bickering. Obama has not been able to accomplish that goal, however; so now like all the past elections we get the dreary exchange of ads about Obama supports sex ed for kindergarden/ McCain has 7 houses / Obama = Britney Spears / McCain favors 100 years of fighing in Iraq, etc. Maybe on one candidate can make that change.
I’m not saying I’m right about any of this stuff, or saying folks here are wrong. Like I said, this just caught my interest.
Oops that “maybe *no* one candidate can make that change”
[...] look at this excellent piece by Patrick Ruffini on what makes a good attack meme. First, he quotes Phil Singer’s incisive take on what is needed for a successful attack: Political attacks work best when the charge [...]
I think everyone expects politicians to stretch the truth, but such outright lying as displayed by McCain this week is a great REAL TIME example, and they can hit him hard on this, especially when you consider the WMD lies from before. I think it will if nothing else force some serious defense. Another thing this will do is float out there something that most seem hesitant to confront– you can serve your country in battle courageously, 40 years ago, and still be a down and out liar today. I think McCain seriously undermined his sense of honor this week by parroting these lies, and not even leaving it to his surrogates, and this is an opening to exploit. The Obama campaign can play this for all the independents out there who think that maybe, just maybe, McCain will be a different kind of republican. By November 3, voters need to go to bed at night with an image of McCain, a little less sure about his integrity.
[...] about giving your opponents a real-time example of your prime negative – McCain proposed the kind of policy that is the hallmark of the [...]