The Wright distraction?

John Podhoretz:

Yesterday’s breathless campaign hysteria arose out of a not-really-much-of-a-scoop from the broadsheet across town: A rich guy in Omaha wants to spend a lot of money defeating Barack Obama. 

Stop the presses. Eek. 

Said rich guy sought the advice of a controversial consultant (who’d very much benefit from getting the rich guy’s commission) on a strategy. The consultant proposed reviving the 2008 controversy over Obama’s relationship with his egregious pastor, Jeremiah Wright. 

You’d have thought, from the mainstream-media tweets yesterday morning, that the mere act of mentioning Obama and Wright in the same breath was nothing less than a hate crime in itself. How dare anyone mention the president in the same breath as the anti-American demagogue who officiated at his wedding, baptized his children and gave him the title of his second book.

For those of us who enjoy seeing such folk sputter and squirm, the idea of a Wright attack against Obama instantly seemed rather piquant. But it only took a moment’s reflection to see how senseless and even stupid such an approach would be. 

First, the sheer quantity of facts and figures and issues from Obama’s actual presidency that can be used to argue against a second term are far more devastating. 

There’s little point in going after Obama for what someone else said in his earshot years ago, when so many damning things have come out of his own mouth since he became president in 2009. 

The trick for Republicans in 2012 is to keep the voter’s eye on Obama’s record as president. If they can do this well and authoritatively, while Mitt Romney offers a positive vision of a post-Obama America, they’ll almost surely win the day. 

Obama’s record will allow Republicans to make this a fight about policy, not about personality — about what he has done rather than imputations about what he thinks and what he secretly believes. That’s not only better for the country, it is better politics.

...

I agree with John's strategy for the fall campaign, and I think Romney does too.

The Wright gambit may make that even more possible.  I don't know if the leaked material was done so for this purpose, but the effect of it along with the Obama campaign's reaction to it has destroyed any plans they and their surrogates might have had to paint Romney as weird because he is a Mormon.  And, it was done without having to spend millions on an ad.

The well placed leak to the Times was actually better than an ad.  It played to their strategy of defending Obama and ended with Romney making a statesman like response saying that religion should not be an issue in the campaign.

It looks to me like a good day's work for team Romney aided by the New York Times and the high dudgeon of the Obama campaign.  If Ricketts is half as successful with his ad campaign Obama is in deep trouble.