This story caught my attention as a great example of the "not-him" strategy. I would rhetorically ask who could possibly complain about removing a hated dictator from power and paving the way for a democracy with no loss of American lives and at a fraction of the cost of similar operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- all in around six months' time. But the answer, of course, is Lindsay Graham:
In a talk show appearance just days after the death of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) accused President Barack Obama of being insufficiently aggressive in Libya.
"If you go to war, go to win -- don't lead from behind," Graham said on Fox News Sunday.
And of course, it's not just Graham who feels this way. This "lead from behind" line began shortly after events blew up in Libya, and has inexplicably continued even as the Libyans took care of their own future within the borders of their own country. This is not to say the human cost of this war was low (not for Libyans), but the isolationist Republicans usually aren't worried about what goes on outside the good ol' US of A.*
* Except when George W. Bush (or any other Republican president) thought it was something we needed to be involved in.
I don't know exactly what Graham's definition of "win" is. But I think it's safe to assume it's different from mine.
When it comes to presidential elections, the majority of the bases of both parties are going to vote the way they're expected to vote. The elections are won in the middle 50-60 percent of the electorate -- motivating those who generally identify with you on the fringes and those squarely in the middle.
Rhetoric like Graham's isn't going to excite/woo those in the middle.
No comments:
Post a Comment