In September 1992, an increasingly desperate-sounding George H. W. Bush went on the attack.
Trying to stem his slide in the polls, Bush named Bill Clinton as “a slave of “labor bosses” and an advocate of socialist policy”, and he “summoned scary images of Mr. Clinton’s “socialist” economic ideas and the “liberal guys” who Mr. Bush said evaded the Vietnam draft and now want to invade the “real America”.
This is what passed for “politics” in America in 1992, and it’s no less hysterical-sounding in 2008:
LEADING Republicans believe they can trounce Barack Obama in the presidential election by tarring him as a shady Chicago socialist. They are increasingly confident that his campaign could collapse by the time their attack machine has finished with him. […]
“It will be easy to portray him as even harder-left than Hillary,” said Norquist. “Hillary could lose the election, but Obama could collapse. People already know Hillary and she is not popular, but the disadvantage for Obama is that Republicans can teach people who don’t know him who he is.”
Shorter version: “We’re going to reinvent this man, complete with horns and a tail, and try to scare the bejeesus out of all you ignorant people, and we’re absolutely positive you’re too stupid to notice that we’ve fired this cannon at every Democrat who dared run for president.”
Nobody channels fear unless they’re afraid, folks…. and the Republicans are terrified.
After nearly 8 years of a disastrous GOP presidency, their party is in disarray. Their “coalitions” are splitting down always-fragile lines, and they’re worried that any Democratic president who comes to the White House this year with wide popular support will set them on the sidelines for decades to come.
Only one of the two Democratic contenders has the potential for such a win, and it isn’t Hillary Clinton.
It’s not just that Barack Obama has the potential for a huge win in a general election, though. Just as importantly, Hillary Clinton doesn’t scare the Republicans. Rather, she would give them a rallying point — an opportunity to reignite their party’s energy. The GOP will raise the Clinton-hatred banner in front of their disheartened and disillusioned party members, bringing them together, however temporarily, around a common enemy.
The Clinton camp and the Republicans both want Hillary to win the nomination, and they’re joining together for this common cause.
But their reasons are much, much different.
* * * * *
More thoughts on all this from various perspectives:
Jules Crittenden:
Meanwhile, Novak says the McGovern slam is Hill’s idea. Executed by a vast left wing conspiracy that apparently includes Murdoch-owned papers across the pond.
Ron Beasley at Middle Earth Journal:
This might have worked four years ago but not now. Grover Norquist and the rest of the wingnuts have no credibility.
Karl, at Protein Wisdom:
Now that her cover is blown, perhaps Clinton ought to be more overt about comparing Obama to McGovern.
She can say that the Right is going to compare Obama to McGovern — and the Clintons cut their teeth in national politics working for the McGovern campaign — which compels her to raise the subject.
Damozel, at Buck Naked Politics:
Gingrich and Norquist are gearing up to position Obama as the “most leftwing candidate to run since George McGovern.” (Times Online) Oh, nonsense. I don’t think anyone will fall for that line of crap. They’ve heard it all before, and the Republicans aren’t exactly invulnerable on the issue of indiscriminate spending.
Polimom,
A couple of differences between then and now. Bush 41 did wage a desperate campaign down the stetch and most everyone recognized the fear and noticed the lack of substance. Because of this, few people bought into the imminent socialism smear when it was rendered against WJC back in ’92; I know that I didn’t. Clinton’s moderate record as Governor of Arkansas provided substantial protection against this type of fear-mongering.
OTOH, I do believe that such an attack on Obama would reasonate with a lot of people and would, ultimately, leave a mark. This is particularly so because of his liberal and, well documented, voting record. Don’t know if this will be much of an asset come general election time. I do know, however, that it will be an issue. Can you say: “Dukakis?”
On the subject of “reinventing.” If Obama does not do a better job of defining himself, and soon, the Republicans will surely fill in all of his blank pages. I do think that this process has already begun.
“Gingrich and Norquist are gearing up to position Obama as the “most leftwing candidate to run since George McGovern.” (Times Online) Oh, nonsense…”
I am assuming that by “candidate,” they are referring to a party’s nominee in the general election. If not Obama, who is the most leftwing candidate to have run since 1972? Carter? Dukakis? Mondale? I don’t think so. Do Bradley and/or Nader count, in that they ran as third party candidates?
Lots of folks are gonna be unhappy with this line of attack, but it is not an unreasonable tactic to pursue. Assuming, of course, that enough of the electorate
remembers it’s “leftwing” candidates.