POLITICAL MEMO:
Dems fail to aim at big target
Not attacking governor when he’s down may be major mistake
Sun, Apr 27, 2008 (2 a.m.)
Nevada Democrats are operating with a faulty strategic premise. They’ve heard politicos and journalists on TV chuckling about an old rule in politics: When your opponent is facing scandal, say nothing, get out of the way and watch.
They believe this rule applies to Gov. Jim Gibbons. Indeed, one elected Democrat said recently that she felt no need to attack Gibbons because he stumbles on his own.
This is faulty thinking. Gibbons is not in a scandal whose momentum will lead to immediate self-destruction, as wishful Democrats assume.
Rather, Gibbons is severely weakened, providing a target for a sustained onslaught that would attack his performance and lay out an alternate vision for the future.
To wit:
After a series of gaffes and distortions — the latest being a strange story about renewing the concealed carry permit for his nine guns — Gibbons has lost credibility. His staff is unfocused and divided. Republicans who should be effective surrogates roll their eyes when given the opportunity to defend him. An FBI investigation of his relationship with defense contractor Warren Trepp remains unresolved.
And yet, aside from an occasional tough quote in a news story, nary a word from Democrats and their interest group allies, even as Gibbons — now with Democratic input — continues to slash spending on programs such as education and health care.
The Democrats are playing the political equivalent of football’s “prevent defense,” assuming that if they say nothing and do nothing, they will win the Governor’s Mansion by default and take the state in a new direction.
That’s an assumption worth testing.
Think back to 2005, when the newly reelected President Bush had a store of political capital and Sen. Harry Reid was leading the Democratic opposition.
Bush introduced a deeply unpopular idea — privatizing Social Security — and Reid and the Democrats hung together and attacked the idea at every turn.
Bush next bungled the crises of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, and Democrats attacked him for hiring cronies and failing to competently run the government. (“Now is no time to play ‘the blame game’ ” was the Republicans’ weak nonresponse, which only emboldened Democrats to press on.)
Every week or two, it seemed, another report came along of a White House official or Republican member of Congress under investigation.
Seemingly every story began to fit a pattern — the one Democrats had established by attacking those earlier White House blunders. The party succeeded in crafting a new public image for Bush: out of touch, incompetent, friend of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
His public approval rating plummeted and never recovered.
All told, the Democrats had mounted an effective campaign that mirrored that of the Republicans’ 1994 victory, which gave them control of Congress.
Now think of Gibbons’ tenure. Unpopular idea: education cuts. Bungled crises: Hepatitis C, foreclosures. Bad appointments: How many have quit? (For that matter, Democrats could effectively draw parallels to Bush.)
But the Democrats are sitting back.
This lassitude is a mistake, said Dan Hart, the Democratic consultant. “It’s up to the opponents to keep the focus on the mismanagement.”
I asked Steve Wark, the longtime Republican consultant, about the strategy because I thought someone on the other side could offer insight. Republicans love nothing more than a good broadside on the “libruls,” after all.
He gave lots of reasons why Democrats might want to hold back, but this sounded the most compelling:
“Here’s the dilemma they’re in: If you jump all over him on public policy issues, then you need a well-thought-out alternative.”
Yes, there’s always that.
But as I talked to Wark, it occurred to me that he was playing a shell game, telling Democrats they were being smart but hoping through his encouragement that they would continue their silence. If the situation were reversed, I said, and the Democrats had a flailing governor, Republicans would be unloading every day.
He laughed vigorously.
Discussion: 4 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Editors’ Picks
- UPDATE: Girl dies after heart attack on Las Vegas Strip roller coaster
- MWC chief Thompson says he’d listen to a Pac-10 (or 12) offer
- In his shoes: Self tries to reload just like everyone else in Vegas
- Dressing down: Web gambling’s hallmark
- Ron Kantowski thinks it’s swell The Mtn. finally has a national TV hookup, but wishes the wind would stop knocking the camera around
- Man dies in scooter accident
- Anthony returns to UNLV with Team Canada
- Fired hospital workers get settlements
- Just go with the Izzard flow
- LeBron sprains ankle, but the Rolls-Royce isn’t his
Blogs
Sports: Upon Further Review
Local stars Johnson and Marshall team up at adidas Super 64 ... and maybe at the next level, too?
Cotto-Margarito quiet on pre-fight front (1 Comment)
Now and Then
Florida State steals UNLV's last-place softball coach
Sports: Upon Further Review
Colangelo says Team USA-Las Vegas is a great fit
Favors favors, oh, nearly 20 college hoops programs
Elsewhere
James likely to miss game against Canada
Vegas News
Siegfried & Roy, elementary students welcome new ‘Star’
Politics: The Early Line
UPDATED: Nevada political roundup: Berkley circulates article
Calendar
- Jerry Tiffe (2 p.m. to 4 p.m.)
- The Bargain DJ Collective (9 p.m.)
- Las Vegas Weekly presents Acoustic Strip (9 p.m.)
- Craig Ferguson (9 p.m.)
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.


Didn't Bush win re-election in 2006?
you're thinking of 2004.
I don't think the premise of this article is necessairly wrong, but I do believe if Democrats go overboard in attacking this guy they risk making a martyr of him for all Republicans. Right now, even Republicans who were ardent fans of Gibbons (including some of his cloest advisors) are shaking their heads and wondering what the heck happened. If the Dems start attacking all the time, these people will have no choice but to rally around their man out of party loyalty. They also risk making sure he gets out of the race in 2010, paving the way for an even stronger candidate.
In addition, if you read Ralston's column today, the Democratic challengers that are outlined there are just not the type to do that kind of attacking (save Sen. Titus, who has had to do it all her career as Minority Leader). I guess I just agree with the sentiments in the beginning of your story...you just can't do much more to hurt a guy who his hemorrhaging bad press on a daily basis.
I agree Patrick, and there's a middle ground, where the Democrats connect the words Bush to Gibbons, Ensign, Heller and Porter at every opportunity - and then just lay out the facts of their pathetic voting from the Congressional Record and other public sources - Facts, More FACTS and MORE FACTS!
When a Republican rogue like Wark gives advice to Democrats - you can bet we should do the exact opposite (in most cases) - and we can inform the public and keep them reminded regularly of facts without going over the top!
Bush/ENSIGN! Bush/GIBBONS! Bush/HELLER! Bush/PORTER!
"It's about the Bush, Ensign, Gibbons, Porter Unjust War in Iraq AND the Republican's raping the Economy DUMMY!
And repeat, Repeat, REPEAT!
Nothing cuts so well or beautifully than nice razor sharp FACTS!