Americans Don't Like "Meanies"

Ad Hominem Attacks Will Re-Elect Obama!

Justice Dakota

03/15/2012

President of the United States (POTUS) Barack Obama, is really good. He may be the best campaigner ever. And, people like President Obama. I like President Obama -- and, if you are slightly open-minded, you probably like the POTUS as well (at a personal level).

President Obama is smart, articulate, young (for a President), cool (and, old-folks, please don't try to define "cool" -- you know it when you see it ...), attractive, healthy, active, and ostensibly a good husband and father.

As America's first black president, Obama is a historical figure above and beyond his role as POTUS. It's a big deal for a person who would have been considered a slave and three-fifths human in terms of representation in 1787 (The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution) to become POTUS in 2009!

Americans know that Obama as President of the United States is a big deal. President Obama gives us a sense of pride by reminding us that we are collectively stitching a horrific, historic, national wound.

The contemporary political problem with POTUS is that he happens to be ideologically extremely left-wing, and he has governed during an exceptional period of American economic decline. From a policy standpoint, it is reasonable to argue that President Obama has contributed to America's economic decline.

However, because Obama is generally liked and respected, only Governor Mitt Romney, despite the current economic mess that must now be owned by Obama, has a chance to defeat him in 2012.

Romney (strategically or intuitively) knows Americans hate "Meanies." Is it possible that Romney's integrity, intelligence, and personal disposition will not allow him to engage in ad hominem attacks? 

Definition: Ad hominem

1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments

2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason

The Real Conservative Movement (RCM) which idolizes the Right-Wing Social Conservative Republican Primary voter, seems to worship the ad hominem attack. They love appealing to emotion (fear, mostly) as opposed to reason.

Apparently, Romney is the only Republican candidate for president who does not have a "political potty mouth." I for one appreciate his "Gentleman" approach toward his political adversaries.

Think about it: Social Conservatives in South Carolina loved Newt's barking at the press! They loved Newt's ad homenen attacks on President Obama and other Republican candidates. The audience responded like a crowd at a professional wresting match when Newt, as opposed to addressing a question regarding his second wife's allegation that Gingrich wanted an "open marriage," blamed the mainstream media for detracting from the issues.

But, wait a second: I thought Southern Social Conservatives cared about things like family values, non-traditional marriage arrangements, etc.?

Is it any wonder that Newt has only subsequently won one other state -- his adopted home state of Georgia where he does not live and was not born? Is anyone surprised that, but for his ego and/or narcissistic personality disorder he would have dropped out of the race after losing in Alabama and Mississippi?

Once the universe broadens beyond the Southern Social Conservative Republican Primary voter, ad hominem attacks appear desperate, mean, irrational, and are not politically effective.

Without having conducted a poll, I suspect average women voters are particularly offended by ad hominem attacks (maybe they have been on the receiving end of such attacks more than most?)

Senator Rick Santorum, in 2007, went ad hominem on Romney's religion. Santorum wrote: "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?"

Santorum's next paragraph began: "Assume for the sake of argument that there are valid considerations (to the comments noted above)."

Santorum, in his article, drew distinctions between Mormonism and Christianity. Referring to Romney's "Freedom of Religion Speech," Santorum wrote: "He tried to address the questions by discussing Jesus, suggesting that the specific theological tenets of Mormonism are not in any important respect different from those of traditional Christianity. I disagree."

Very, very slick ad hominem attacks by Santorum. A clever, but obvious attempt to bring religious bigotry into the Presidential Campaign. Again, proving (or at least suggesting) that only Romney has the personal attributes (he's not a "meanie") to successfully compete against President Obama in 2012.