Why Republicans should ignore Obama
A strategy of disengagement from Obama won’t yield great policy breakthroughs for conservatives. Yet neither will a strategy of confrontation. Republicans hold a minority share of power in Washington. They shouldn’t conduct themselves in a way that gives their supporters excessive hope. And they shouldn’t give themselves a disproportionate share of ownership in the mostly dismal results of national politics.
The less they define themselves as an anti-Obama party, the more Republicans will avoid a pitfall that conservative pollster David Winston has identified: The public sees hostility as playing a more important role than principle in Republicans’ opposition to Obama. A party that aspires to governing the country should avoid looking petty.
There are limits to how far this strategy can be pursued. Obama is going to be president for four more years, after all, and Republicans will sometimes be duty-bound to work with him and more often to criticize his actions.
At the same time, they should keep in mind that it’s more important to build a post-Obama future for conservatism. That future will probably be led by a governor who has played little part in any of Washington’s battles between Republicans and Obama.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Isn’t THAT the understatement of the decade? Because all three of those things are exactly what’s going to happen. All too predictably.
That said, it’s hard to imagine the public turning on Obama the way they did with Bush. Bush didn’t have the advantage of a sycophantic media to cover up all of his problems and never ask a question tougher than, “Why are you awesome?”
I predicted the day after Obama was elected in 2008 that his fall from grace will be even more spectacular and interesting to watch than his meteoric rise from nowhere. I still stand by that, but it does get harder to conceive by the day.
baldylox on January 29, 2013 at 9:11 PM
In a word: no
In two words: hell no
This traitor, this malignancy, his demon must not go to the toilet without full throated opposition
This is a supremely dangerous time in our history when someone is willfully trying to destroy our republic.
turfmann on January 29, 2013 at 9:15 PM
But what if Obama’s manufactured crisis, lede from behind, perpetual campaign won’t ignore republicans?
locomotivebreath1901 on January 29, 2013 at 9:24 PM
Translation: don’t take on Obama and risk setting fire to some other Tea Party uprising. Cave, risk losing a few seats here and there but overall keep your place at the feeding-trough.
ddrintn on January 29, 2013 at 9:47 PM
I think everyone should ignore Obama. People not paying attention to the attention whore nature of our “godking” would drive him crazy.
wildcat72 on January 29, 2013 at 9:50 PM
First we have to get him to New Jersey.
The Rogue Tomato on January 29, 2013 at 10:52 PM
I keep thinking along those lines and how the American people have a tendency to join in the feeding frenzy when they watch their heroes fall from grace. Like Tiger Woods. They can turn on you like petting a cat on its tummy. I’m hoping.
Norbitz on January 29, 2013 at 11:24 PM
It is coming. Not a bang-a whimper, as they say.
That’s why there is the big blitz now to try to get all of these policy initiatives through. Believe me-the democrats know better than anyone how fast the window is going to close.
Dreadnought on January 29, 2013 at 11:42 PM