From today’s Best of the Web on the polarizing Mr. Obama and his standing among independent voters:
According to exit polls, independents made up 29% of the electorate in 2008, and Obama carried their votes, 52% to 44%, very close to his overall margin over John McCain. Obama’s airy promises of postpartisanship no doubt helped him win over independents, but our guess is that an even bigger factor was the sense from the preceding few years that Republicans were incapable of governing competently.
Obama has had low approval ratings among independents for most of his presidency. That, not “polarization,” is the reason he is in danger of defeat this year. The way for a Republican to beat him is to run a campaign centered on competence, not ideology.
I see the reasoning in this. However, I think beating Obama by running “a campaign centered on competence, not ideology” has several meanings.
1) Obviously, the competence applies to managing the economic crisis and working our way out of the deficit chaos and putting entitlements on firm footing. To me, it is logical the Wall Street Journal and Taranto would focus on that: the “business management” aspect of our mess.
2) All of #1 plus repairing the “extra-constitutional” damage done to the structure of the government such as the “czars” and the invasive regulations that have by-passed the legislative process. That additional form of “competence” is best articulated by Newt, Santorum and Paul.
So, in my opinion, all four candidates, if they stick to their strengths are far more competent that Obama.
But the “ideology” part of the quote, when tied to the idea of winning the “independent” vote is the “loaded” word and presents a snag.
Certainly Ron Paul flunks the “ideology” test hands down. Santorum is most likely eliminated for this “social conservatism” long before he is examined for his competence.
Newt is so loaded with baggage and so loads himself consistently with more baggage of by being defensive and having to re-explain himself, that he not only appears to be an ideologue, but a marginally incompetent ideologue.
Romney has fairly well avoided taking a hit for being Mormon. That has allowed him to stay on message and come out of the fray of the debates looking prep school sharp and unfazed. That is a form of competence that shows. (The one other candidate who has been largely above the fray and the only candidate who has been untouched by battering of the other three is Santorum.)
But the real issue is the importance of the “independent” vote.
Everybody who does not have a candidate is considered to be an “independent.” By far, the largest block of “independents” are the people who do not vote at all. In 2008, the Democrats sent their “crack dealer” ACORN squads out and rounded up this group in droves and herded them into the polls. This group is the true base of the Democrat party and Democrats try to grow it by “same day registration” and bringing in illegal immigrants, the dead, the alzheimer residents, etc. to cast their ballots according to instruction.
The actual number of “voters” who can not make up their minds until near election day is unknown and just how honest they are about their status is unclear. It is extremely difficult to believe that any person could be looking at the four Republican candidates and the Obama administration and not have an opinion about which camp to throw in with.
If “independents” were some sort of pure group of careful, methodical judges who weigh every word and concept in order to make the best choice possible, then Taranto’s words have meaning. Competence would be the key.
But the Democrats do not round up the “independents” with issues of “competence.” They use demagogic means like promising “hope” and “change” and “fairness” and “justice” and “equality” and all the things that pimps and crack dealers know will reel in the suckers. The Democrats see “independents” as useful idiots and act accordingly.
So, the issue is really whether the Republicans can appeal to the “independents” who are marginally sentient and beat the Democrats at their own game of rounding up the “independent” riffraff.
It would be interesting to hear the views of a true “independent.” Some one, say, who voted for Reagan, then Mondale, then Dukakis, then Bush for a second term, then Dole, then GW, then Kerry, then McCain…… You know, a real thinker.