Ever head the story of Sniper Charlie? A Vietnam veteran friend of mine told it to me, and I've never forgotten it. Goes something like this:
Near an airbase in Vietnam, there was a VC sniper who was incapable if hitting anything important. It got to the point where US soldiers and were actually cheering him each time he fired, because they knew his aim was so lousy.
Well, one day a very high ranking general landed at the base. After hearing a couple of ineffectual non-damaging pings on the side of his plane, he said "What the hell was that?"
The Marine who had greeted him said "Sniper Charlie, sir."
The general replied "Well, go out there and kill him!"
"Can't do that sir."
"Why not!?"
"Because, sir, If we do that, they might replace him with someone who can shoot."
Now let us discuss current Republican celebrities.
Incompetent enemies are a gift from God.
Here's the lastest Political Wire double whammy on Christine "Never Dissapoints" McDonnell:
O'Donnell's Book Signing Bust
Christine O'Donnell had a book signing for Troublemaker: Let's Do What It Takes to Make America Great Again in Naples, Florida last week but the News-Press reports just five people showed up and "members of the media outnumbered customers."
The failed U.S. Senate candidate also "politely turned down a request from a young man who asked her to sign his book on demonology instead of a copy of her book."
Ah, but look at this:
O'Donnell Will Speak Before Palin
Tea party-backed activist Christine O'Donnell (R) will take the stage at Saturday's tea party rally in Iowa shortly before Sarah Palin, the Des Moines Register reports.
O'Donnell, author of the book Troublemaker: Let's Do What It Takes to Make America Great Again, lost her bid for the U.S. Senate in Delaware last fall.
So a failed Senate Candidate with a commercial bomb of a book will open for a failed Vice Presidential candidate seen, even by a large percentage of Republicans, as a complete goofball.
Thank you, whoever is running this show. Never change.
Now, this is very important beyond it's entertainment value. The top fools of the right wing are predictable, and that means beatable.
All you have to do is head them off at the rhetorical pass.
Take Michelle Bachmann (please). It was fairly obvious that one or more of the Republican candidates was going to blame Hurricane Irene on Washington. And true to form, here is her Grand Inquisitorship in action (again from Political Wire):
Quote of the Day
"I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians."
-- Rep. Michele Bachmann, quoted by the St. Petersburg Times, suggesting the recent earthquake and hurricane were messages from God.
Now, given that anyone could have predicted a statement like this, how hard could it be to be ready to respond?
How about: "How much do the American people have to suffer to get the attention of Michelle Bachmann?'
Just for fun, you could throw Perry into the mix as well: "I know the Governor likes to pray for rain, but I think the evacuees would say this is a bit much."
This is not so hard to do.
So back to O'Donnell and Palin: Here's a couple of quips:
On Palin: "I look forward to a good half speech"
On O'Donnell "I'm sure she'll sell a book if a reporter buys one."
As for Perry: Next time a disaster strikes in Texas: "The country is there to help. Good thing they didn't secede."
As for Romney, next time we hear national news about poor health conditions: "This is what health care reform is all about. We want to thank Governor Romney for his inspiration." (Caveat here: we may want to lay off Romney unless and until Perry is out of the picture.
So here are the two takaways:
1. The right stays on point, and their points have been consistent since at least the 2008 elections. For some detail on how to take advantage of this, allow me to except from one of my previous posts:
We have to study our opponents. People develop patterns. A little history:
Newt Gingrich was very predictable in one way: every time he got caught in an embarrasing situation, he blamed it on the the liberal media (there was some in the 90's). That habit helped cause his downfall after the 1998 mid-terms, when the the President's (Clinton's) party actually picked up seats (unheard of) in mid-term election.
This was all during the impeachment scandal, which Gingrich had been actively pushing throughout the campaign. When the Republicans lost seats, he actually blamed the media for focusing on the impeachment and therefore keeping the Republicans from getting their message out. At that point, his fellow Republican leaders took the Speakership away from him.
We need to find out what patterns Boehner and other Republican leaders have. Why? A predictable opponent is almost as good as an ally.
If we know their likely reactions to praise/criticism, victory/defeat, success/embarrassment, we can be ahead of the game in the news cycle with our messages waiting. Patterns themselves provide us with a weapon, because people hate to be inconsistent with their own actions and are suspicious of inconsistency in others.
This overview of pioneering social psychologist Robert Cialdini's work on influence and persuasion provides some insight:
(all emphasis in citations provided by TGW)
Commitment and Consistency
People have a desire to look consistent through their words, beliefs, attitudes and deeds...
Good personal consistency is highly valued by society.
Consistent conduct provides a beneficial approach to daily life....
...The drive to be and look consistent constitutes a highly potent tool of social influence, often causing people to act in ways that are clearly contrary to their own best interests.
How does this help?
1.Public commitments are the strongest. An official who has made a public commitment to a position will be loath to change it, even if staying the course has a political cost.
2.If a public official has to change from a previous public commitment, supporters will see him/her as a hypocrite.
So, we need to look for ways to force the opponent into a no-win situation in which they loose some support either by pursuing or abandoning a position. (Conversely, we need to frame the positions we want in such a way that it is consistent for our allies to adopt them).
Research their statements, and be ready to wreck them with ridicule.
2. Never mock the supporters, separate them from the leaders. If you mock supporters and they tend to get more dedicated to candidate. Point out, instead, how the candidates are screwing them. At the very best, you change their minds, at the least you get them to stay home. I posted on some of the backing research on this here.
So let's get there before they do, and take full advantage of the fact that they haven't been replace by anyone who knows how to shoot.