1. Have your best speechwriter prepare a speech that makes the following points:
2. Let it be known behind the scenes that you won’t tolerate trash-and-burn strategies by supporters. Period.
The Obama team smiles as the Republicans brawl. If the Fox News poll of likely voters in swing states is accurate, the Republicans are in trouble, and the scorched-earth campaign tactics of the candidates and their super packs are likely major contributors.
The Romney apparatus has unleashed the dogs with ads labeling Santorum as a big spending, Washington insider. Santorum ads picture Romney as a machine gun toting mudslinger. Gingrich is keeping a low profile, hoping for a chance to emerge from the carnage.
The 11th Commandment (Thou shalt not attack a fellow Republican) has never been honored. The Goldwater/Rockefeller, Reagan/Ford, McCain/Romney battles were not always polite. But the animus and 24-hour high-tech visibility of this long campaign are distinctive.  An uninformed, independent observer could easily decide that none of the Republican candidates deserves to be President.
Could this have been prevented? If Governor Romney supporters had not carpet-bombed Speaker Gingrich in Iowa, would Newt have resisted attacking the Governor’s Bain experience?  If campaign finance laws had not forced the super pac / campaign separation, would Governor Romney have kept his message on a higher plane?
This is the most important election since 1980. The Republican nominee may be able to overcome the damage once the nomination is settled. If not, the candidates’ trash-and-burn strategies will be just as important as any improvement in the economy in explaining an Obama reelection.
Any young, or for that matter old, and thoughtful conservative who finds it difficult to understand why smart people can be quite liberal, and perhaps vice versa, might find it useful to read Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions — Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (Morrow, 1987). In my 20s and early 30s, I would argue about economic issues with people who just didn’t seem to get it, and I was mystified by their apparent ignorance in the face of compelling argument. This book helped me to understand when argument would be pointless. Many of my antagonists were not ignorant, they just had different presuppositions and thus a fundamentally different visions of the way the world worked and the appropriate role of government. Many people certainly learn this without reading a book — but it helped me, saving lots of time and aggravation over the years.  The book also can help one understand why political compromise is often elusive and would be counterproductive. People with fundamentally different visions can compromise on small things. But big things are too important. You either win or lose, and doing nothing can be preferable to doing something.
I once received a nasty email about a column I had written against the proposal for a government insurance (public plan) option under health care reform. I decided to reply with kindness (with perhaps an unintentional note of academic condescension).  I explained that the commenter and I obviously viewed the world differently and were both being true to our principles. I also indicated that Sowell’s book had helped me to understand such conflicts. The reply I received was pretty vicious — I guess the person had not Sowell.