The Pelosi-Obama Policies: Campaign 2012

Mercer Tyson
There are a number of reasons Barrack Obama defeated John McCain in the 2008 Presidential election.  I often reflected that I was pleased Republicans didn't waste a good candidate in what was probably an unwinnable election.  John McCain was thrown (or threw himself) to the wolves.  While his answers to such questions as how to stimulate the economy (low taxes, create a business friendly environment, renew domestic oil exploration and production) made considerably more sense than Obama's nonsensical rhetoric, the American public was ready for a "hope" and a "change."  Americans were unhappy with the war in Iraq and the economy, and they were especially unhappy with George W. Bush.  Unfair as it may be, the sitting president usually gets the blame when things are going poorly and the credit when things are going well.

So what better way to win an election than to associate your opponent with someone voters don't like?  Understanding this, the Obama campaign rode the discontent with the sitting president all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  And the best way to do it was to connect McCain to Bush as much as possible.  Sure, they were both Republicans, but that might not have been enough.  Thus they created the concept of the "Bush-McCain policies."

There is no question it was effective, partly because McCain (pacifist candidate that he was) did nothing to counter the charge.  He let it stick.  McCain was not George Bush, but you wouldn't have known it from anything he said.  And Obama, Pelosi, Reid, even Bernie Sanders all piled on the bandwagon. 
 
In a recent late-April Rasmussen poll, Nancy Pelosi had the dubious distinction of (rightfully) having the highest unfavorable rating of all high-profile political figures at 59%, with an approval rating of just 30%.  Since the 30% who approve must certainly be made up of the hard left, it is fair to say the great majority of independents and swing voters do not care for her.  I think it is time to turn the tables and use Obama's clever campaign strategy against him

It is time for the "Pelosi-Obama Policies" to become a common-use phrase.

Not only does tying Obama to Pelosi give Obama a negative association, it will, if stated enough, make him want to distance himself from Pelosi, which could cause further disarray in the Democratic party and 2012 campaign.  If Obama is smart, he will try to play down the association -- but that won't be easy.  For one thing, Pelosi and Obama are attached at the hip over the major issues confronting the American public and the electorate: health care, the deficit, the national debt, and the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques when questioning terrorists.

As of now, Rasmussen reports the President's approval ratings are mixed.  He generally performs well in likeability, and since the military operation that finished off Bin Laden, his approval ratings are higher than previous months.  On most of the issues, however, his disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating.  But, again, he is likeable.

And that's where Pelosi comes in.  She isn't likeable.  Hearing Pelosi's name is enough to turn the stomach of every right of center voter in the country, and many of the left of center voters as well.  The more we hear their names mentioned in the same sentence, the more people will associate them - and that is good for Republicans.  Even Obama knows this.  I listen to a fair amount of news on all channels and I haven't heard Obama mention Pelosi in quite some time.  It is almost as if they think of her as the "P" word.

With that in mind, I especially like the idea of putting Pelosi's name first.  It implies Obama's lack of leadership skills, and puts the nametag in the negative column immediately.

Obama has been the artful dodger concerning his past associations with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.  The American public did not know him and they didn't want to hear about his past.  And many of those who might have been concerned were willing to give him a chance to prove those associations were irrelevant.

But try as he might, Obama cannot escape the Pelosi association if we don't let him.  Nor should he.  He earned it.

There are a number of reasons Barrack Obama defeated John McCain in the 2008 Presidential election.  I often reflected that I was pleased Republicans didn't waste a good candidate in what was probably an unwinnable election.  John McCain was thrown (or threw himself) to the wolves.  While his answers to such questions as how to stimulate the economy (low taxes, create a business friendly environment, renew domestic oil exploration and production) made considerably more sense than Obama's nonsensical rhetoric, the American public was ready for a "hope" and a "change."  Americans were unhappy with the war in Iraq and the economy, and they were especially unhappy with George W. Bush.  Unfair as it may be, the sitting president usually gets the blame when things are going poorly and the credit when things are going well.

So what better way to win an election than to associate your opponent with someone voters don't like?  Understanding this, the Obama campaign rode the discontent with the sitting president all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  And the best way to do it was to connect McCain to Bush as much as possible.  Sure, they were both Republicans, but that might not have been enough.  Thus they created the concept of the "Bush-McCain policies."

There is no question it was effective, partly because McCain (pacifist candidate that he was) did nothing to counter the charge.  He let it stick.  McCain was not George Bush, but you wouldn't have known it from anything he said.  And Obama, Pelosi, Reid, even Bernie Sanders all piled on the bandwagon. 
 
In a recent late-April Rasmussen poll, Nancy Pelosi had the dubious distinction of (rightfully) having the highest unfavorable rating of all high-profile political figures at 59%, with an approval rating of just 30%.  Since the 30% who approve must certainly be made up of the hard left, it is fair to say the great majority of independents and swing voters do not care for her.  I think it is time to turn the tables and use Obama's clever campaign strategy against him

It is time for the "Pelosi-Obama Policies" to become a common-use phrase.

Not only does tying Obama to Pelosi give Obama a negative association, it will, if stated enough, make him want to distance himself from Pelosi, which could cause further disarray in the Democratic party and 2012 campaign.  If Obama is smart, he will try to play down the association -- but that won't be easy.  For one thing, Pelosi and Obama are attached at the hip over the major issues confronting the American public and the electorate: health care, the deficit, the national debt, and the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques when questioning terrorists.

As of now, Rasmussen reports the President's approval ratings are mixed.  He generally performs well in likeability, and since the military operation that finished off Bin Laden, his approval ratings are higher than previous months.  On most of the issues, however, his disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating.  But, again, he is likeable.

And that's where Pelosi comes in.  She isn't likeable.  Hearing Pelosi's name is enough to turn the stomach of every right of center voter in the country, and many of the left of center voters as well.  The more we hear their names mentioned in the same sentence, the more people will associate them - and that is good for Republicans.  Even Obama knows this.  I listen to a fair amount of news on all channels and I haven't heard Obama mention Pelosi in quite some time.  It is almost as if they think of her as the "P" word.

With that in mind, I especially like the idea of putting Pelosi's name first.  It implies Obama's lack of leadership skills, and puts the nametag in the negative column immediately.

Obama has been the artful dodger concerning his past associations with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.  The American public did not know him and they didn't want to hear about his past.  And many of those who might have been concerned were willing to give him a chance to prove those associations were irrelevant.

But try as he might, Obama cannot escape the Pelosi association if we don't let him.  Nor should he.  He earned it.