RNC Chairman Spoiling for a Fight
January 24th, 2008 at 12:03am Mark Noonan
This is the spirit we’re wanting:
Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Mike Duncan believes Republicans can beat either of the two top Democrats racing for their party’s nomination.
For Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Duncan says it comes down to trust. Sen. Barack Obama’s (Ill.) weakness, on the other hand, is his experience, according to Duncan.
Duncan continually brought up Clinton and Obama during a Wednesday morning breakfast with reporters sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. Pointing to internal poll numbers, the RNC chairman repeatedly insisted that no matter who Republicans nominate, the Democratic candidate can be defeated in November.
Internal RNC polls show Clinton has significant trust issues with voters, who also worry Obama has too little experience to be president.
“With Sen. Clinton, it comes down to trust,” Duncan said. “She’s a lifelong liberal politician with some political baggage.”
The RNC’s polling on Clinton found that less than 50 percent of respondents see her as “honest and trustworthy.”
Sixty-five percent say she “will say or do anything to get elected” and 68 percent “agree that Sen. Clinton will raise their taxes.”
The polling on Obama is not quite as damaging on its face. Only 40 percent of respondents to the RNC’s survey agree that Obama “has the experience necessary to be Commander-in-Chief.” Forty-nine percent said Obama has a “record of accomplishment,” but only 19 percent say they are “very familiar” with the senator’s positions. Forty-four percent of respondents in the RNC poll view Obama as a uniter of Democrats and Republicans.
“His rhetoric is very good. He’s a great speaker. But at the end of the speech, people go, ‘Where’s the beef?’ ” Duncan said.
Naturally, Duncan’s job is to rally the base and get everyone willing to fight - but he’s also got some good points, and as RNC fiundraising was the bright spot for the GOP in 2007, Duncan certainly has the resources to press the Democrats hard. The pragmatic facts of political life are that in a national election, conservatism will always beat liberalism unless conservatism is split and/or demoralised. In 1992 and 96, it was split; in 2006, it was demoralised. But if we can get the GOP base energised and united, then there’s no Democrat we can’t beat - and beating a babe-in-the-woods like Obama or a corrupt party hack like Hillary should be not only doable, but lots of fun.
Lets have at it!
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
30 Comments
1. Diana Powe | January 24th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Of course, there’s always the pesky counting of the actual votes that gets in the way of an election result. However, I wonder if the following thought has crossed the mind of anyone at the RNC.
1) The GOP has repeatedly used the prospect of another mass-casualty attack on the United States as a potential cudgel against Democrats for not doing what they’ve done, which is to rubber-stamp the White House’s demands.
2) The GOP asserts that the threat of such attacks are always out there, thus justifying various policy measures including a decades-long presence in Iraq.
3) The notion that the United States actually can reduce the chance of another mass-casualty attack to zero would be scoffed at by anyone in the intelligence business.
4) The president in office at the time of a potential future mass-casualty attack will undoubtedly be blamed for the fact that the attack was not prevented. The blame will extend to others but part of being President of the United States is that you get the blame and credit for things that weren’t really your doing.
So, hypothetically, if a President McCain takes the oath of office on January 20, 2009 and continues a seventh year of Bush Administration counter-terrorism policies, what happens to the GOP brand if a 09/11/01-scale attack occurs? Regardless of the answer, even if somehow it redounded to the favor of the Republican Party, I would certainly pray no such attack takes place. However, what if it did? Would the imaginary GOP competence in “protecting America” vanish?
2. Hillary Clinton » R&hellip | January 24th, 2008 at 1:42 am
[…] Mark Noonan wrote an interesting post today on RNC Chairman Spoiling for a FightHere’s a quick excerptHillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Duncan says it comes down to trust. Sen. Barack Obama’s (Ill.) weakness, on the other hand, is his experience, according to Duncan. Duncan continually brought up Clinton and Obama during a Wednesday morning … […]
3. Election » Blog Arc&hellip | January 24th, 2008 at 2:22 am
[…] Third Party Watch wrote an interesting post today on RNC Chairman Spoiling for a FightHere’s a quick excerptThe pragmatic facts of political life are that in a national election, conservatism will always beat liberalism unless conservatism is split… […]
4. Barack Obama » RNC &hellip | January 24th, 2008 at 2:24 am
[…] Daily Kos: State of the Nation wrote an interesting post today on RNC Chairman Spoiling for a FightHere’s a quick excerptBarack Obama’s (Ill.) weakness, on the other hand, is his experience, according to Duncan. Duncan continually brought up Clinton and Obama… […]
5. Pain | January 24th, 2008 at 4:38 am
You will see in the days after the next terror attack on the US if Hillary Clinton is President just who the real traitors to American liberty are. Every right wing pundit will be calling for her pretty head on a platter. The entire nation rallied around Bush, save for Falwell and Robertson who blamed America for the attacks.
In the end it will be such an irresistible temptation for the Right to blame Hillary Clinton even if she catches and punishes the parties responsible that they will not be able to resist. This is a travesty because all of those in intelligence that We communicate with state that the only reason al Qaeda has not struck on US soil is that they are not prepared fully to do so.
No president can stop a lone detached operator who accepts his or her orders from a variety of movement sources. These people learned their tradecraft from you and incorporated that into what they learned from the Soviets. What America needs is a Law enforcement/Intel cooperative approach to al Qaeda not a war first mentality.
Hillary Clinton will leave 50 000 American troops in Iraq much similar to what remained near the cease fire in Korea and in eight years it will be up to the next president to decide. Our intelligence estimates still point to an attack on US soil before May 1, 2008 with enough of a drop in chatter to support this hypothesis.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
6. keefer | January 24th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Every right wing pundit will be calling for her pretty head on a platter.
Pretty head? Must be dark down there in hell…
7. keefer | January 24th, 2008 at 4:56 am
The president in office at the time of a potential future mass-casualty attack will undoubtedly be blamed for the fact that the attack was not prevented.
I’m sure you’re correct, Diana; that’s how it is in partisan politics. However, if a Donkaroach is in the WH, and an attack occurs, how many kook groups, such as the 911 Truthers, will actually accuse the Donk administration of planning and executing the attacks? Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Rice/Halliburton have been accused by the kooks of knowing about and assisting on 9/11. How many people came out and accused Slick when the Cole was hit? Khobar Towers? The two embassies in Africa? Sure, he was criticized for inaction following the attacks, but he wasn’t accused of permitting the attacks, or planning/executing them.
8. Pain | January 24th, 2008 at 5:06 am
keefer,
Not very dark at all with all the fire and glowing rocks et cetera. We, Ourselves, do find her head attractive in a rather presidential sort of way. It is strong and yet feminine and well structured and Ms Clinton is aging very gracefully.
We also think that despite the tiring burden of his job George W Bush is a rather good looking ma but he has the advantage of coming from some excellent stock we are told. All the Bush men of the last few generations have been quite handsome.
9. js | January 24th, 2008 at 6:20 am
“Of course, there’s always the pesky counting of the actual votes that gets in the way of an election result”–DP
Is that snide, or grandeur?
Can WE vote?
10. js | January 24th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Here is a little ammo for the fight;
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4C151402-CBE7-4262-BD0E-B82F089869BA
Surely, you dont think the Clintons would hid the truth, do you? (NOT)
11. Diana Powe | January 24th, 2008 at 7:58 am
js,
It was being snarky, but only in the sense that all the polls and all the punditry can predict what they will, but in the end it is impossible to predict human behavior, i.e., voting.
keefer,
To paraphrase Jesus, “The kooks are with you always.” Just look at those who are still rehashing the assassinations of President Lincoln and Kennedy. The fact that there are people who think that President Bush was part of a conspiracy related to the attacks of 09/11/01 is pretty meaningless in the overall scheme of things. They’re in the same boat that see that Osama bin Laden is alive and well on Mars.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/01/21/speaking-of-dumb-mars-claims/
12. AAR | January 24th, 2008 at 9:33 am
The fact that there are people who think that President Bush was part of a conspiracy related to the attacks of 09/11/01 is pretty meaningless in the overall scheme of things.
Only a Liberal Democrat nut would actually believe it is “pretty meaningless in the overall scheme of things” when approximately one-third of Americans think the American government “knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military, and economic motives”… and almost 5 percent believed that U.S. officials “actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack.”
One website noted: “Those who doubted the official explanation also tended to be low-income, single, and young. They most frequently associated with a liberal or progressive ideology.”
Misinformation and beliefs like that — whipped up and spread by the looney left-wing Democrat fringe — are a threat to our democracy and our nation!!!
AAR
13. Diana Powe | January 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
AAR,
Here’s a suggestion that I believe may have been offered to you before. If you’re going to quote another source, it is pretty meaningless to do so if you don’t identify the source of the quote. I know. What a nutty idea.
By the way, thanks for participating in Mark’s demonstration project for how uncivil and hateful that liberals are.
14. Joe | January 24th, 2008 at 11:59 am
AAR:
when approximately one-third of Americans think the American government “knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military, and economic motives”… and almost 5 percent believed that U.S. officials “actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack.”
Where the hell did you get that from? I’m going out on a limb that those are WAY off.
Go on… link where you got that “information” from.
15. Diana Powe | January 24th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Another fascinating aspect of keefer and AAR complaining about the conspiracy-minded who have tried to persuade the public that the Administration was part of the attacks of 9/11/01 is that, once again, we find the conservative-as-victim mentality in play. It’s interesting to contrast that with the tough-guy warrior rhetoric that often comes from the likes of their role models who find or have found various reasons not to live out those roles in some way other than typing words on a keyboard, talking on the radio or running for political office.
16. keefer | January 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
They’re in the same boat that see that Osama bin Laden is alive and well on Mars.
I guess President Bush, after flying all of Osama’s relatives out of the U.S., put ol’ Osama, and his dialysis machine, on a Mars-bound shuttle. lol
17. Retired Spook | January 24th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I would certainly pray no such attack takes place. However, what if it did? Would the imaginary GOP competence in “protecting America” vanish?
Come on, gal, get with the program. Don’t you know we’re less safe now that we were on 9/10/01?
Seriously, how can something that’s “imaginary” vanish?
18. Ricorun | January 24th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
keefer: I guess President Bush, after flying all of Osama’s relatives out of the U.S., put ol’ Osama, and his dialysis machine, on a Mars-bound shuttle. lol
Maybe Richard Branson had an already existing spin-off to his new Virgin Galactic business — Virgin al-Qaeda maybe. You have to admit, the thought of Osama being shot off into the heavens on a Virgin craft is rather appropriate. Lol!
19. keefer | January 24th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Diana, I wasn’t complaining and as for the rest of your post, WTF
Pain, thanks for the civil response to my rather uncivil post. You and your cohorts confuse me, but I mean no harm. Let’s just say I’m bedeviled. lol
20. keefer | January 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Oops, I forgot a question mark, Diana. Please excuse my error…
21. AAR | January 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Diana,
If you want to know the source of my quotes and information… Google and find one that suits you! There are often multiple sources for the information, if not the exact quote.
Regardless of which one I might provide, Liberal propagandists like you will attempt to make the source and link the issue, attacking and discrediting the messenger (source) rather than acknowledging the facts of the message!
I’m sure you can tell us the proper term for your technique and more details about how and when to effectively use it!!!
AAR
22. Diana Powe | January 24th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
keefer,
I’m sorry if I mistook your intent. Pardon me.
23. Diana Powe | January 24th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
AAR,
That’s why, when I quote from and provide the source link to things, that I try to link to either primary documents, government sites or major media sites (in that order of preference).
24. AAR | January 24th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Diana,
Are you too going to claim that you too have not read or heard about the various conspiracy theory polls indicating that approximately one third of Americans actually believe the U.S. government knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen… or were involved in the planning… or were complicit in some way in the attack… or were directly involved in the attacks in some manner?
(Concentrate on the thought. Don’t get hung up on the exact words or one of your play-on-words diversions, etc.!!!)
So are you going to plead ignorance of the polls and facts?
Or, are you going to join that one-third of America (100 million people +/-)?
Or, are you going to stick by your belief that it’s “pretty meaningless in the overall scheme of things” when almost one third of Americans have been duped and mislead into believing that their government and their President were in some way involved in 9/11, the destruction of the WTC and portion of the Pentagon, the destruction of four commercial airliners, and the deaths of almost 3,000 civilians?
Is that what passes for an educated, knowledgeable and “informed” electorate in a democracy?!!!
AAR
25. AAR | January 24th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Joe,
Are you really that ignorant of the news? Are you really claiming you have no knowledge of all the polls, articles, and news stories about the 9/11 conspiracy theories and government involvement in 9/11? Give Rosie O’Donnell a call!
I’m sure she can enlighten you!!!
In the mean time, Google topics like:
poll government knew about 9/11 2007
poll government knew about 9/11 2006
poll government planned 9/11
poll government conspiracy 9/11
poll conspiracy 9/11
etc., etc., etc. …
Surely you can find at least one site you might believe!!!
AAR
26. AAR | January 24th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Diana,
That’s why I ignore most of your links as well as your twisted interpretation, half truths, and “believable lies”!
There’s more than one interpretation for most data and information. Unfortunately, as you Liberals well know, most illiterate suckers fall for your bait and line!
Republicans need to work to change that… but unfortunately for America they don’t!!!
AAR
27. Ricorun | January 24th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
AAR: Republicans need to work to change that… but unfortunately for America they don’t!!!
Yeah, keep that “incompetence” meme going. I’m sure that will be constructive.
28. AAR | January 24th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Ricorun,
You can call it “meme” or whatever you choose.
The fact is, Republicans and Conservatives have demonstrated total incompetence in dealing with the Democrat (Liberal) propaganda, disinformation, misinformation, lies, and “believable lies” for the past seven plus years!
Because of their incompetence, many may well be replaced — by Democrats!!!
AAR
29. Tractatus | January 24th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
The pragmatic facts of political life are that in a national election, conservatism will always beat liberalism unless conservatism is split and/or demoralised.
And how do we know this is a “pragmatic fact?” Why, because Mark Noonan (who, by the way, did a bang-up job predicting the 2006 results using his “pragmatic facts”…did any of your predictions actually happen, Mark?) said so–that’s all the proof required!
30. keefer | January 25th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Another intelligent post from Tractatertot–libretard’s twin brother. My, my–this blog has the market cornered when it comes to moron lemming trolls…