Obama’s Campaign: Doing whatever it took to succeed

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-abortion President Barack Obama

Like many of you, my wife and I used Veteran’s Day to remember those who have and are serving in the military and to feed the homeless. Last night as an elderly gentleman prayed over the food we had brought to the shelter, he said something I will never forget: he asked for protection for himself and his friends.

As amazing as it seems, it’s only been a week to the day since the electorate went to the polls all across this great land to choose between President Barack Obama, a man who in my opinion ran an ugly campaign, and Mitt Romney whose unassailable character was besmirched in every imaginable (actually imagined would be a more accurate description) way.

Heading into last Tuesday, National Right to Life News Today ran hundreds and hundreds of stories about the magnitude of the issues at stake. We’ve written or reposted a great many stories in the aftermath of last week’s defeat for unborn children.

NRL News Today has cut through the pro-abortion nonsense and hype (see www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/11/countering-the-conventional-wisdom-on-the-election-day-results and http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/11/a-blatantly-self-serving-and-mistaken-explanation-of-election-night),  but it will be recycled endless by a sympathetic “mainstream media.”  We will be told that President Obama was carried to victory in no small part on the shoulders of a spurious mantra of a Republican/pro-life “war on women.”

Poppycock. He prevailed even though his vote total was down over seven million from 2008 and Romney’s was up over McCain’s 2008 figure primarily for two reasons.

First, as we’ve discussed in this space, the “genius” of the Obama campaign was to benefit greatly from imputing to Romney his own failures, which was appropriate given that this was a campaign where truth was the first casualty. The further from reality Obama’s vituperative re-election campaign ads were, the more uncritically they were accepted by large segments of the media. By Election Day, the character of the real Mitt Romney had been so besmirched he was unrecognizable.

Second, and related, as Michael Medved so keenly observed,

“He [Obama] and his supporters succeeded in discouraging and disillusioning the Republican and independent voters whom Romney needed for victory. In post-election comments, GOP strategist Karl Rove argued that the Obama campaign succeeded by deliberately ‘suppressing the vote,’ a response to Democratic accusations of Republican ‘voter suppression’ schemes.”

How could that be, given the greater enthusiasm among Republicans revealed by poll after poll? By running a campaign not of hope and change but of discouragement and negativity. Medved wrote

“A report from a monitoring agency at Wesleyan University suggests that an astonishing 85 percent of all campaign commercials by the Obama campaign and allied groups featured negative messages about Romney. These attack ads aren’t supposed to inspire your people to go to the polls; they’re meant to dissuade the other guy’s supporters from going to the polls. The purpose of negative advertising is to discourage, not encourage, voting. …

“In this election, the lower overall turnout clearly helped Obama. The president got a smaller share of the vote in 48 of 50 states, everywhere except Hawaii and Mississippi, but he retained enough support in the diminished electorate to hang on to the White House. Lacking any confidence that they could reinspire cynical, disillusioned citizens about the glories of hope and change or the president’s heroic first-term achievements, the Obama high command settled for producing a general distaste for both candidates and even for the political process itself.”

In simple terms, the Obama team poisoned the electoral well. Given all we know about the team he had assembled, this should have come as no surprise.

Last February Mark Leibovich wrote a profile of Obama’s hatchet man, David Plouffe (www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/us/politics/plouffe-obama-aide-lends-firm-hand-to-campaign.html).

Leibovich observed, “If the campaign of four years ago sold Mr. Obama as a force for what Mr. Plouffe called ‘a politics of unity, hope and common purpose,’ this one is rooted firmly in the grind-it-out imperatives of re-election. Today, Mr. Obama seems every bit primed for ‘brass-knuckle time,’ as Mr. Plouffe once termed campaign brawling, with Mr. Plouffe leading an effort that has shown every sign of doing whatever it takes to succeed.”

When it comes to unborn babies and the medically dependent elderly brass knuckles is a superbly apt metaphor for the Obama Administration. Whatever hesitations, however minor and perfunctory, the President displayed as he ran for re-election, will be dispensed with. He believes passionately in punishing “enemies” (that would be us) and rewarding friends (that would be Planned Parenthood which spent north of $12 to $15 million to re-elect him).

However facing bullies is nothing new for our Movement. Facing harassment goes with the territory. The only thing “new” is that Obama is a master at the mailed fist in a velvet glove.

I say all this to end with this request: pray for unborn babies; pray for National Right to Life, the leader of our Movement for 40 years; and pray for all those who worked so hard in defense of the littlest Americans.

The next four years will be difficult, we all know that. But as long as we remember what Paul Stark said, our resolve can only redouble. He wrote

“Elections can change the political landscape and impact our laws and public policies, for better or for worse. But the facts of embryology have not changed. The reality of abortion — the killing of unborn children on an industrial scale — has not changed. The urgent need to educate, to persuade, to help pregnant women in need has not changed. The importance of involvement in the political and legislative process — to secure protection for innocent human beings in all stages and conditions — has not changed. Lives are still at stake. The moral imperative is just as clear.”

Editor’s note. If you are not currently receiving NRL News Today in your inbox, you can sign up at www.nrlc.org/join_our_mailing_list.htm