Redstate

(I know, I know: I keep bringing up Reagan.)

By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

What is now called "Reagan's Eleventh Commandment" goes like this: "Thou shall not speak ill of any Republican." Only the mainstream media, this time in the unlikely person of The Politico.com's Jonathan Martin, can turn this into "another way [for the declared GOP Presidential candidates] to vent their building aggression: pounding on their would-be Democratic rivals."

You see, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney all took swings at their probably Dem rivals: Hillary and Obama. Martin decides:

For the Republican hopefuls, the strategy is a mix of exasperation, calculation and desperation. Frustrated at the constant drumbeat of negative stories about their president and party, the candidates want to change the narrative.

But it’s too politically risky at this point to lash out against one another, let alone Bush. So the obvious and safe alternative is to tee off on the Democratic contenders.

That is a partisan argument, a childish theory, but perhaps it was gleaned from some Dem consultant before the consultant'd had his morning coffee but well after the morning's first beer.

Read On…

Yet Martin, whom I'm led to understand is a saavy guy, contradicts himself:

[T]he attacks aren’t just empty exercises in blowing off steam by top-shelf political performers. In a difficult climate, the Republican top tier recognizes the need to steadily begin reminding its own voters and the broader public about what a Clinton or Obama administration would bring.

Thanks to Bush’s sagging poll ratings and the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, the GOP brand isn’t likely to improve over the next year and a half.

Oh wrong, wrong, wrong. That was gratuitous. If the surge works as planned, if the American people start to see and feel progress in Iraq, if the Democratic Congress continues its astoundingly amateurish politicking, the GOP brand will be fine.

But an Obama or another Clinton Presidency will be awful for the country, as neither is qualified to run anything but a pandering welfare state.

But back to Republicans attacking Democrats, not each other.

From the old, intellectually honest TIME magazine:

There's feeling," notes one [California] G.O.P. chieftain, "that the first guy who throws a real mud ball will get ten back in his face from party rank-and-file members who just don't want the apple cart upset."

High Asparagus. This year, by contrast with the 1964 campaign, there is no bitter ideological division between the Republican rivals.

That's from 1966. Hollywood Actor Ronald Reagan was taking on a Rockefeller Republican, former San Francisco Mayor George Christopher for the right to take on Democrat Governor Ed "Pat" Brown. Rather than lose the election by having the damage done in his own party's primary, State GOP Chairman Gaylord Parkinson issued the write now attributed, with good reason, to Reagan.

Ronald Reagan and George Christopher did not temporarily pull their punches in order "to vent their budding aggression." Pat Brown was a lousy governor, the party and the people held, so he was a natural target. The divisions between Reagan and Christopher, though large enough, did not lessen the damage of Brown. Likewise, the differences between what one erstwhile candidate called "Rudy McRomney" are nothing when stacked next to the potential catastrophe of Barry or Hillary.

Now we have to see if this GOP field intends to continue to point to the real nemesis. It will be interesting to see how this plays after Thompson enters the race. And what becomes of the Brownback-Romney "disagreement."