Two basic questions came to mind when I opened the referenced e-mail:
Why have Republican candidates in this state been so unwilling to aggressively tie the Obamanation to other Democrats — have they not read the polls for the last oh, say six to twelve months?
And for what efficient purpose is the targeting of this message and e-mail anyway?
The Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) State Chairman Jeff Kaufmann sent the following e-mail this week capitalizing on the Obamanations’ recent statement at a political event, twit to wit” “Make no mistake these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.”
Obama’s statement was no doubt meant to turn out the base, to protect what they have wrought on the country. But it also serves as a verification of what Republicans should be striving to make the purpose of this election, a referendum on Obama and Democrat policies in order to claim a mandate to overturn them and replace them with Republican alternatives.
Some Republican candidates have been using such a tack, but strangely most are not. Instead of tying their opponent to association with Obama’s low popularity, tying him or her to low confidence in Obama’s policies in general, coupling them to the high unpopularity of key Obama policies on immigration, Obamacare, foreign policy, his economic performance . . . instead of calling for change, they are defensive and are avoiding a prime issues. It is like they do not want a referendum on Obama or a mandate, rather they want to skate through just to be elected, to not promise change and not be obligated to risk a long-term sinecure (the price of leadership) for the good of the country.
Kaufmann’s communication makes partially good use of the Obama comment using rhetorical questions juxtaposing certain Republican candidates with their Obama supporting opponent. But it leaves out the current key issue to undermine traditional blue-collar support of Democrats — failure to control the border. Unchecked costly immigration impacts the debt, employment and wages. That the matter is unmentioned either to a general audience or even a soft Republican one says something about intentions, political responsibility, timidity or tactical competence.
How will you vote this fall, friends?
As President Obama said, his policies are on the ballot in this election: Obamacare, $17 trillion in debt, Cash for Clunkers, millions of Americans unemployed…
Will you vote for Joni Ernst or Obama’s failed agenda?
Will you vote for Rod Blum or Obama’s failed agenda?
Will you vote for Mariannette Miller-Meeks or Obama’s failed agenda?
Will you vote for David Young or Obama’s failed agenda?
Will you vote for Steve King or Obama’s failed agenda?
It’s an easy choice, isn’t it? We need you to get out and vote: Click here to vote early.
We can’t afford any more votes for Obama’s failed agenda. Vote REPUBLICAN – and do so today.
Sincerely,
Jeff Kauffman, Chairman
Republican Party of Iowa
Now we applaud that the message serves as a textual example (however partial) of tying Democrats to Obama, something the candidates should be doing more of as well. But why is it being wasted on a hard Republican? The message included as an aside a reference to a fundraising event, but that was hardly the main purpose given the plethora of other communications, other focus and bare mention of the event in the email, and indeed the subject line of the e-mail.
It is clearly a call to vote Republican, early, made to someone who is a hard Republican by any standard imaginable . . . party affiliation, active voter in all elections, donor, p[arty activist, candidate activist, petition signer, every single and every cross-reference possible says “hard Republican.” So it is inescapable that either the communication is ridiculously targeted to hard Republicans to exchange an absentee vote for a polling booth vote, something “the Party” operatives have said they are not doing, or it is wasteful to be inclusive of such dependable voters, a cost they are said to be able to avoid, those so called bankable costs.
Champions of this nonsense suggest that e-mail costs little or nothing. OK, then why the plea to vote now, said with alacrity “so we can bank your vote” and “save costs” if there are no such costs to be saved or it is going to extremely likely voters in the first place? Is there really any leapfrogging of Democrats in the tech area going on? Or is the emphasis on early voting mostly churning vendor coffers pumping up (wearing down) hard Republicans to vote early, to no definable electoral avail, other than negative, as an inefficient use of resources?
We offer this retort to those who hector hard Republicans to vote early because “they might die before the election is over . . . or something might happen!” Might I suggest the candidate might die or something might happen to them and then where are we? A Democrat wins and there is no opportunity to vote for a superior alternative (to the Democrat) indeed a third-party or write in candidate. The point is, as practiced, it is silly, overwrought, expense churning, inefficient, un-targeted nonsense apart from what the traditional absentee voter programs were. R Mall
