#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 --

#12 The Numbers "Game"

You may be thinking that it’s too bad we can’t just nominate and elect the most-qualified people and forget about the strategy of getting 270 electoral votes. I agree wholeheartedly. It is too bad. But we can’t look at the history, especially the recent history, of presidential politics and say that we’ve always, or even often, elected the most qualified candidates. We haven’t.

However well or poorly we think our presidents have performed once in office, Eisenhower the candidate was not more qualified than Stevenson, Kennedy was not more qualified than Nixon (I can’t believe I’m saying something not-negative about Richard Nixon!), Reagan was NOT more qualified than Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton was probably not more qualified than HW, and dubya was most definitely not more qua…. Ohhh,…the Humanity.

Besides, in this current election, all three possible major party candidates are likely qualified to lead the country, though BO has less experience than HRC who has less experience than JMcC. And I disagree with JMcC’s proposals most of the three. We can debate what “qualified” means anyway. The point is that we need to change the direction of the country, and it’s not going to happen enough, or possibly at all, under another Republican administration. Hence, we play the political numbers game. Except that it’s not a game. It’s deadly serious. And it’s been particularly deadly for our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for untold thousands of civilians there. John McCain said he is willing to keep our troops in Iraq “for a hundred years” if necessary.

No, this is no game.

And now, with tweve posts in a month, I think it’s time to let political matters settle down a bit. Let’s give the two major parties awhile, including today’s primaries in Ohio and Texas which pundits are saying may yield something resembling conclusive results. My thought is to give the Democrats and Republicans perhaps until later this month, before we continue to tell them how to conduct their campaigns. Oh. Wait. They’re not reading this blog.

Well, I’ll wait a couple of weeks anyway, say, until the week of March 17. At that time, I’ll have some thoughts on how one part of the economy in particular might play an even bigger role in the election than we currently expect. And then I’ll identify, at this early point at least, what I believe the likely swing states are going to be. In the meantime, feel free to add your own comments on the blog or by email. I look forward to them.

As they might say in Ahia and Texas, Y’all be well, now, y’hear.

triton