#72 Strategy vs. Tactics

Sarah Painful mentioned, and almost discussed, "the difference between 'strategy' and 'tactics' " during her part of the debate this past week. Of course, as with so many other topics (that, however, Gwen Ifill was actually asking about), Painful did not discuss even this one that she had brought up herself.

But we've been getting practical examples during this past week of the Republicans' distinction between "strategy" and "tactics."

Republican strategy: to withdraw most of its campaign support from Michigan, because Obama has opened up close to a double-digit lead in the polls there.

Republican strategy: to keep putting money into five states that Kerry carried in 2004 (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and, now, Maine).

Republican Strategy: to put more money into Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, ten states that dubya carried four years ago.

Unfortunately for McCain, he's trailing Obama in the polls in the first group, the states that went Blue for Kerry, and he's trailing, tied, or at best only slightly ahead in the polls in the ten states listed above that went Red in 2004.

Now I have to repeat that I'm not sure we can particularly trust the polls this year, given the accuracy of polls in previous elections with Black vs. White nominees running for other offices. But if we practice "the willing suspension of disbelief" (thank you Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who was NOT talking about politics when he used that phrase), then the electoral college could play out very differently this election than last time around.

Republican Tactics: more money in the ten Red states listed above is the Republican admission of desperation. Desperate times call for desperate measures (gee, I wish I had coined that expression). And so, the Republican shift in "tactics": from normal-dirty to REALLY-dirty.

That's right. So far, they've attacked Obama's qualifications, they've attacked what has been said or done by people he knows, and now they're going after his character, his integrity, directly. Sarah Painful was on the news yesterday, indicating that Barack Obama has consorted with terrorists. I don't think she used the word "consorted" (it does have three syllables, after all) but, whatever word she did use, that's what she meant. She was referring to a 1960s era terrorist against whom the government had brought up charges...and then dropped the charges. The man is now a University of Chicago professor, and we all know of the surveys listing university professors as among the most highly respected profession (I'm not making that up). The truth is, Obama had worked with him to help a non-profit organization in Illinois in the 1990s, thirty years after the charges were filed and more than twenty years after the charges were dropped.

Never mind, by the bye, that Painful had chided Joe Biden this past week during the debate, "There you go again, Joe, looking to the past!" when Biden tried to tie John McCain to the bush administration's failed policies.

I think attacking Obama's character will fail: it will create a strong, indignant backlash against Republicans nationally, and may actually drag down Republicans who are further down the ticket rather than just affecting John McCain at the top. Such ad hominem attacks are indeed a sign of desperation. As tactics, they will also be futile.

-- triton --