Getting Results
The other day, I implored the Obama campaign not to ignore Sarah Palin. I pointed out that you get very few chances in presidential campaigns to paint on a blank canvass, to influence voters' very first impressions of a rival candidate. I argued that if the Obama campaign just sits back and allow others to do all the painting, it would be political malpractice.
Yesterday, the Obama campaign seemed to follow this advice as Obama himself took a jab at Palin:
So here's the soundbite I would recommend:
In case you missed it, the key word here is "lie." Obama needs to stop beating around the bush on this point. If he won't call it a lie, there's no way the press will. And if he doesn't make this jab a little more pointed, it's unlikely the press will cover it at all. Both he and his surrogates (especially his surrogates) need to start attacking McCain aggressively on his truthfulness. McCain is trying to re-cultivate his 2000 straight-talker persona while simultaneously relying on a number of vary blatant lies in his commercials and stump speech. That's his vulnerability.
There's a real opportunity for Obama to have a Reagan-esque "there he goes again" moment in the debates. But in order for that to happen, his campaign needs to lay the groundwork now. The "there he goes again" line only works when the audience knows what you're talking about. If, over the next few week, the Obama campaign repeatedly calls McCain a liar when he makes certain claims, they'll help focus the media debate on those claims. Then, if McCain repeats any of those claims in the debate--which he's liable to do--Obama can pounce: "There you go again, John. Every major news organization has debunked that lie but you continue repeat it . . ."
UPDATE: Check out this clip. Palin, sitting next to Senator Stevens, explains that when it comes to federal earmarks, she's "seeing the writing on the wall and dealing with it." How mavericky.
UPDATE II: Wow, right on cue. Here's the new Obama ad, and it even uses the L-word. My only quibble: they still use the "for it before she was against it" framework. The truth is actually much worse.
Yesterday, the Obama campaign seemed to follow this advice as Obama himself took a jab at Palin:
I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she's change, and that's great. She's a skillful politician. But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up.To which I responded:
That's a good start. It hits the right notes. But if Obama is going to take a jab at Palin, I think he needs to be a little more focused and specific. . . . If the Obama campaign really wants to burst the Sarah Palin bubble, it needs to make sure that everyone in America knows that her Bridge to Nowhere claim is completely bogus.Well, ask and ye shall receive. Here was Obama today:
Well, how about Governor Palin? She's you know, an up and comer from Alaska. She - they're starting to run an ad now saying she opposed the bridge to nowhere. Well now, let's get the facts clear here. When she was mayor, she hired a Washington lobbyist to get earmarks - pork barrel spending - all the things that John McCain says is bad, she lobbied to get! And got a whole lot of it. When it came to the bridge to nowhere, she was for it until everybody started raising a fuss about it and she started running for governor and then suddenly she was against it!Much better. Much more specific. It still needs some work, though. Obama is actually being far too generous to McCain and Palin here. The new McCain ad doesn't claim that Palin "opposed" the bridge; it claims that she "stopped" it. Those are very different things. And Palin herself has claimed repeatedly that she "told Congress 'thanks but no thanks.'" to the bridge. The reality, of course, is that Palin campaigned for governor on a platform of building the bridge. She had nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating the Congressional earmark and, once she took office, she accepted all of the federal money for the bridge and spent it on other things.
You remember that? For it before you were against it? I mean you can't just make stuff up. You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid.
So here's the soundbite I would recommend:
Well, how about Governor Palin? She's you know, an up and comer from Alaska. The McCain campaign keeps telling us that she's a straight-talker, even though she won't do any interviews. But she is giving speeches and she's telling anyone who'll listen that she's a "maverick" because she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere, that she heroically told Congress it could keep its earmark. They've even got an ad saying this now. Well, that would be quite story if it were even remotely true, but facts are stubborn things, folks. Every major news organization (including Fox News!) has now reported the truth, that Governor Palin ran for governor pledging to build the bridge! The Congressional earmark was then eliminated before she ever took office. I know. I was there. She had nothing to do with it. And when she took office, the only thing she ever told Congress was "thanks for money, we'll spend it on other stuff." Now I don't know about you, but where I come from there's a word for that and it's not "straight-talk." It's called lying, folks.
Now ask yourselves, if these people are willing to repeat a lie over and over again, even after every news organization has pointed out that it's a lie, what must they think of you? I tell you what. They think you're stupid. They think that if they repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth. Well, that's the same cynical approach to politics that resulted in the last eight years of failure. It's time to put an end to it.
In case you missed it, the key word here is "lie." Obama needs to stop beating around the bush on this point. If he won't call it a lie, there's no way the press will. And if he doesn't make this jab a little more pointed, it's unlikely the press will cover it at all. Both he and his surrogates (especially his surrogates) need to start attacking McCain aggressively on his truthfulness. McCain is trying to re-cultivate his 2000 straight-talker persona while simultaneously relying on a number of vary blatant lies in his commercials and stump speech. That's his vulnerability.
There's a real opportunity for Obama to have a Reagan-esque "there he goes again" moment in the debates. But in order for that to happen, his campaign needs to lay the groundwork now. The "there he goes again" line only works when the audience knows what you're talking about. If, over the next few week, the Obama campaign repeatedly calls McCain a liar when he makes certain claims, they'll help focus the media debate on those claims. Then, if McCain repeats any of those claims in the debate--which he's liable to do--Obama can pounce: "There you go again, John. Every major news organization has debunked that lie but you continue repeat it . . ."
UPDATE: Check out this clip. Palin, sitting next to Senator Stevens, explains that when it comes to federal earmarks, she's "seeing the writing on the wall and dealing with it." How mavericky.
UPDATE II: Wow, right on cue. Here's the new Obama ad, and it even uses the L-word. My only quibble: they still use the "for it before she was against it" framework. The truth is actually much worse.
posted by A.L. at 3:02 PM
25 Comments:
I still don't like the fact that they repeat McCain's "Maverick" line before trying to shoot it down. They're just giving it more airtime. They should be trying to reframe him without having to cast back to his basic premise. The McCain camp has done a fine job of painting him as a celebrity, without having to mention how valid his claim to "change" is.
Barack Obama said:
When it came to the bridge to nowhere, she was for it until everybody started raising a fuss about it and she started running for governor and then suddenly she was against it!
You know, maybe Barack Obama should stop mentioning that "bridge to nowhere" since somebody is bound to find out how he voted on it.
Here's what really happened. Sen. Stevens wanted the money for the bridge project, initiated during the administration of Alaska Gov. Murkowski, as attested by this Environmental Impact Statement that came out in 2004. Sen. Coburn put in a Senate amendment to kill it. Sens. Obama and Biden voted against the amendment, authorizing the funding for the bridge project (McCain didn't vote on it). The conference report for the 2006 Transportation appropriations bill killed the federal funding for the project. Sarah Palin continued pursuit of federal money for the project while she was a gubernatorial candidate, but Congress never considered it. Palin cancels project several months after being elected governor.
Bottom line, Palin is NOT lying when she says she killed the project, "thanks but no thanks". She's never said she never supported it, just that she was the one who cancelled the project, which is true.
And Biden and Obama are hiding their own roles in originally voting to authorize the money for the bridge project.
Nice try, steve. The earmark was removed before Palin became governor (while she was promising to build the bridge). Later, after the project became a political lightning rod and an embarrassment, she decided to stop building it, but didn't return any of the federal money. She did absolutely nothing to reduce pork barrel spending. What a maverick! Glad to know there's no lie you won't defend, though.
Nice try yourself.
I've seen the McCain/Palin ad. It says, and I quote, "She stopped the 'bridge to nowhere'." She did. It doesn't say she never supported it; it doesn't say she did support it. It said she stopped it. Even though Alaska didn't get the earmark for 2006, she still wanted funding for it since there was a project to have it built. Since the federal money was out of the question, she stopped trying to get federal money and she stopped the project. That is the absolute truth. Even you can't dispute the facts.
Obama said that the McCain campaign is running an ad saying she opposed the bridge to nowhere. That's a lie. By Barack Obama. Who, along with Biden voted for federal funding of the bridge. Twice. Once when they voted against Coburn's amendment, and once when they voted for the full bill with the funding still in place (McCain did not vote on that either). It was the conference report that killed the funding, and it was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent. The conference report allowed the dollars, but it wasn't to be used for that project. She didn't return it. Of course, she wouldn't have gotten it if Obama and Biden (and, in the end, even McCain) hadn't voted for that amount to be sent to Alaska.
Look, I get how slippery Obama is. He hasn't taken responsibility for anything he's done as a legislator, and attempts to give himself undeserved credit for other things. He's still living the life of a community organizer (and yes, I did read about what he did as one).
Look, Steve, if you want to take the position that Palin's claim is technically true on some level but very misleading, fine. But you're just being a hack if you're not willing to acknowledge that the purpose of this claim is to mislead people. Here's why. No one cares whether Alaska builds a bridge on its own dime. The issue was the federal earmark and the federal taxpayer funds associated with the project. By claiming that she "stopped the bridge," Palin is implying that she did something praiseworthy to save the taxpayers money. She didn't. The earmark was killed--through no effort of hers--before she became governor. And then she kept the federal money.
She never told congress "thanks but no thanks." She just told Congress "thanks."
The bottom line, Steve, is that Palin and McCain are deliberately misleading voters about this. They want the public to believe that Pailn did something praiseworthy here from a federal spending perspective. She didn't. It's that simple. Everything else is irrelevant. They are lying.
Alright. Two can play this game.
By criticizing Palin, implying that she supported the "bridge to nowhere" in that ad, he's implying that he was against it. Yet, there are two recorded Senate votes of his (four if including Biden) that shows he had no problem supporting the "bridge to nowhere". Who's doing the flip-flopping?
And another thing. Palin wasn't governor when Alaska would have received their money from that bill for 2006, Murkowski still was. Palin didn't get into office until December, 2006. If anyone was to return all that money, it would have been Murkowski.
There was $550 million in pork money for Alaska voted on by Congress in 2006 for 2007, but none for the bridge project. That is first year Palin would have had money from the federal government as governor. And for this year, she cut the amount of requested federal money by 64% (both items can be found here.
Alright. Two can play this game.
By criticizing Palin, implying that she supported the "bridge to nowhere" in that ad, he's implying that he was against it. Yet, there are two recorded Senate votes of his (four if including Biden) that shows he had no problem supporting the "bridge to nowhere". Who's doing the flip-flopping?
Steve, you may be playing the game, but you're not playing it well. Obama isn't implying that he was against the bridge (earmarks aren't his issue). He's just pointing out that Palin is lying and a hypocrite. You can't run as anti-pork crusader when you are one of the worst offenders.
By the way, that Coburn amendment to kill the "bridge to nowhere" was designed to take the money going to Alaska and provide it to Louisiana for relief from Hurricane Katrina. As I mentioned, both Obama and Biden voted against it.
They voted for the money for the "bridge to nowhere" instead of for helping out their suffering fellow citizens.
Steveil,
The complete story is that the amendment failed 82-15. McCain didn't vote for it (he didn't even show for the vote.)
If you are going to present incomplete information, why not give a link to the complete information?
Steve, you may be playing the game, but you're not playing it well.
Sure I am. You are arguing that Obama implying there is something in that ad that clearly isn't there is OK, and that my implying that his criticism was tantamount to being against the bridge even though he didn't say it isn't OK. How can that be different when both his argument and mine imply something that isn't there? Answer: there isn't any difference.
The fact is that Obama voted against helping the people of New Orleans and supporting the "bridge to nowhere". Palin didn't because she isn't in Congress. And I'll add this: that bill was passed in 2005 and the money to be used in 2006. Frank Murkowski was governor of Alaska in 2006, until December of that year when Palin became governor. If anyone was to return the money, it was Murkowski.
If you are going to present incomplete information, why not give a link to the complete information?
Re-read that comment. I did put in a link to that particular Senate roll call vote. I also mentioned in the comment that McCain didn't vote on that amendment.
Sorry, re-read comment #2 (my first comment). The link is there.
c2h50h
Not quite the complete story. Why did 82 members of the Senate, including Obama and Biden, vote against the amendment? Because they thought that building the bridge to nowhere was the best use of the taxpayer's money? Or because they did not want to anger Ted Stevens, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who controlled their own pet projects? Maybe Obama and Biden can answer those questions.
As for McCain, he missed the vote, but no one has any doubt as to his opposition to the bridge to nowhere, or his willingness to tangle with Ted Stevens.
Steve, you've reached astounding levels of incoherence in this thread. Your point about Murkowski being Governor only underscores my point, i.e., that Palin's claim that she told Congress "thanks but no thanks" to the bridge is a rather audacious lie. She wasn't even Governor when this thing was being hashed out in Congress (at the time she was running for Governor and promising to build the bridge). Honestly, Steve, do you really think Palin and McCain aren't trying to deceive voters on this point? Really?
Honestly, Steve, do you really think Palin and McCain aren't trying to deceive voters on this point? Really?
No. I've listened to the speech she gave when McCain introduced her in Dayton, and the one she gave at the Republican convention. For the former, she said, and I quote, "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge,' I said, 'we'd build it ourselves.'" She hasn't changed her tune. Her own words show that she's never said she was opposed to the bridge, but that she told Congress (in 2007) that she canceled the project, which she did do. She talked about earmark reform, which she also did. For 2008, she cut the amount of requested dollars from Congress by 64%. These are on record. These are accomplishments.
How people take these statements is their own deal. What is deceitful is liberals, especially in the liberal mainstream media, attempting to make more of what she actually said. They're spinning, and they're spinning her words because of their overt support of Barack Obama. I've been seeing it since Reagan, and it's gotten worse since President Bush was elected in 2000. And now, Obama and Biden are doing it with Palin's statements. Yet, they are the ones who voted to fund the bridge to nowhere, even over funding to help New Orleans. It's false, it's deceitful, it's typical Barack Obama.
She wasn't even Governor when this thing was being hashed out in Congress (at the time she was running for Governor and promising to build the bridge).
Yeah, I know. I said that already in one of my comments above. In fact, Murkowski was governor until December, 2006 (when Palin took over), the year that the earmark money came in for Alaska that originally had the bridge money (and was pulled in conference). In your comment (comment #3), you said:
She didn't. The earmark was killed--through no effort of hers--before she became governor. And then she kept the federal money.
If anyone was going to return any money, it would have been Murkowski, not Palin. Regardless, the project was still on the books until August, 2007. Then Palin canceled it. Facts, not spin. Liberals are the ones spinning.
Steveil,
I'd have voted for the amendment too, if I were a senator. This is worth just as much as McCain's non-vote.
I'm not asking you to interpret anybody's actions any particular way, but the fact is that McCain's -- and Palin's -- actions are a matter of record.
How does it help your credibility if you keep giving us half-truths?
I am curious about AL’s statement that earmarks are not Obama’s issue. Does that mean that Obama believes that the bridge to nowhere was a good thing and is prepared to defend his vote in favor of it? Or that he doesn’t care one way or another about whether the bridge was a defensible use of taxpayer funds? Or that Senate tradition/courtesy demanded that he go along with Ted Stevens’s earmarks whether he agreed or not? Or that he had to go along with the bridge in order to protect his own state’s earmarks?
If Obama is not prepared to answer these questions, I wonder whether he is wise to raise this issue. It might look as if Obama is more concerned that McCain and Palin may be stealing the “change” theme than he is about wasting taxpayer money.
mls,
To answer your question, I'm pretty sure Obama was not pro-Bridge in any meaningful sense (who, other than Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin cared about the bridge?). I think Obama has a more rational view of earmark spending. First, even when earmark spending is out of control, it's still only a small portion of the budget. Other fiscal issues are way more important. Second, a lot of earmark projects are worthwhile projects, even some of the ones that McCain mocks. Third, earmark spending really wasn't much of a problem before the Delay congress and Bush White House teamed up (then they shot up exponentially). So there's very little reason to believe that with a Democratic congress, things would get similarly out of control.
Ok, lets think about the implications of what you are saying. Obama has raised the issue of earmark spending and, if questioned, he is going to say (1) I voted for the bridge but I wasn’t really for it; (2) earmarks may waste a few billion here or there, but that’s just a small part of the budget; and (3) earmarks aren’t so bad anyway. The first point doesn’t sound too good and the second two (regardless of their intellectual merit) are exactly what Ted Stevens, John Murtha and the rest of the appropriators say.
Is that really the message that you want the candidate of “change” to be sending?
MLS,
Just how has Obama "raised the issue of earmark spending"? Were you asleep during the huge brouhaha made over earmarks at the RNC?
So the issue isn't Obama's to raise. He doesn't need to defend earmarks, except in your eyes. He only needs to point out the hypocrisy of Palin's position.
To answer your question, I'm pretty sure Obama was not pro-Bridge in any meaningful sense (who, other than Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin cared about the bridge?).
To answer the question in between the parentheses, Republicans Frank Murkowski and Don Young. Murkowski is out of office, and Young very well could be by the end of the year; conservatives don't have a problem losing Young's or Stevens' seats.
As far as the part before the parentheses, it comes back to things being implied based on what isn't said or on record. Obama implied that Palin is flip-flopping on the bridge to nowhere, even though she hasn't said in her speeches that she supported it one way or another (we know she supported it). And she did end the project.
You are now implying that Obama and Biden weren't "pro-Bridge in any meaningful sense", yet they voted to keep the money in place for the bridge instead of sending the money to Louisiana.
How can you accuse Palin of flip-flopping when she hasn't said that she was against it while at the same time trying to say Obama and Biden weren't for the bridge when they clearly voted for the funding? In the Democratic primaries, Obama said "Don't tell me words don't matter!" But if that's the case, why is it being made out that Palin said something she clearly didn't?
So the issue isn't Obama's to raise. He doesn't need to defend earmarks, except in your eyes. He only needs to point out the hypocrisy of Palin's position.
What is that position? What is that based on?
Steveil,
I'm not going to bother with you anymore, as it goes nowhere. While I'd like to do my part to inform the uninformed, when it comes to shining a light into a black hole -- one has to understand that it's pointless.
Live long and prosper.
Yes yes. I am thrilled to see that new ad. For weeks I've been saying on this blog that Obama needs to call McCain a liar to his face. To up the ante. Force the media into focusing on McCain's/Palin's lies.
They are lying of course. When you say something DESIGNED to make people believe something that ISN'T TRUE, that's a LIE.
The Republicans literally can't open their mouths without gross misrepresentations coming out. "Obama will raise your taxes." Etc.
I posted here recently that Obama is going to destroy McCain in the debates, because the only thing McCain can rely on are these lies - it's ALL he's been saying from the stump. There is nothing else for him to say. When given the chance to directly confront this in three debates, Obama is going to witheringly refute McCain's every statement.
I'm just disappointed that the media isn't calling out McCain on the lies even more than it has been. The only truth about "the liberal media" is that no liberals are allowed. The "liberal media" is one of the pillars of Republican propaganda, a lie repeated so often that it's perceived as truth.
I think I am switching platforms. I'm a democrat now. My whole family is on board too. We're tired of being lied to by these republicans who claim to be acting in our best interest. Go Obama! We're voting for you now!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home