GOP candidates say Dem free ride is over

Politico:

Mitt Romney compared them to Karl Marx. Rudy Giuliani came right out and used the S-word (socialist). And John McCain poured salt in the wounds.

Reluctant to start slugging each other at this early stage of the campaign and still hesitant to directly criticize President Bush, the top GOP presidential candidates have found another way to vent their building aggression: pounding on their would-be Democratic rivals. Each has stepped up his rhetoric in recent days, sharpening attacks on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

At Sunday's GOP debate, Romney said Obama has "gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove" for stating his willingness to meet unconditionally with hostile foreign leaders but at the same time warning that he would attack al-Qaeda forces in Pakistan without that country's consent.

Giuliani, meanwhile, said the leading Democratic contenders "haven't run a city, a state, a business."

" I think maybe they've run a club somewhere," he joked, a veiled gibe at Clinton's having once been president of the Wellesley College Republican, according to an aide.

For the Republican hopefuls, the strategy is a mix of exasperation, calculation and desperation. Frustrated at the constant drumbeat of negative stories about their president and party, the candidates want to change the narrative. But it’s too politically risky at this point to lash out against one another, let alone Bush. So the obvious and safe alternative is to tee off on the Democratic contenders.

But the attacks aren’t just empty exercises in blowing off steam by top-shelf political performers. In a difficult climate, the Republican top tier recognizes the need to steadily begin reminding its own voters and the broader public about what a Clinton or Obama administration would bring.

...

Charlie Cook points out in a recent column exactly why Republicans need to get working. “In 16 Gallup surveys conducted so far this year, an average of 33.1 percent identified themselves as Democrats, compared with 28.1 percent who considered themselves Republicans,” Cook writes. “When the 37.8 percent who initially called themselves independents were asked which way they leaned, the Democratic advantage ballooned to 51.3 [percent] to 39.8 percent.”

Yet when the Republican candidates are paired with their likely Democratic rivals head to head in polls, the contest appears more competitive. To bridge the gap between these two sets of numbers, the GOP hopefuls have been ramping up the rhetoric, reminding voters of who the Democratic contenders are and what they supposedly stand for.

On the stump in New Hampshire last week, Romney summed up Clinton’s economic views as “out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx” and quipped that she couldn’t “get elected president of France with her platform.”

Giuliani has been even harsher. In New Hampshire last week to roll out his health care initiative, Giuliani warned that Democrats would raise taxes by as much as 30 percent and want to push a “socialist” approach to health care as part of their “nanny government” beliefs.

Also in recent days, Giuliani labeled the Democrats “the party of losers” for their desire to pull out of Iraq.

...

This is sorely needed to bring the debate back to equilibrium. Since 2004 the Democrats have been on the attack with no counter attack because of Bush's "new tone." This has been disastrous politically for Republicans. When you only respond to your adversaries attacks during a campaign it can come too late. The Democrats are pushing some really bad policies, particularly in Iraq, and a response such as Rudy's is desperately needed for the good of the country. They should be required to defend their bad policies. The recent debate on intercepting enemy communications was another example of Democrat policy bumping up against reality.