How to Make an Issue of McCain and Palin's Continued Lying
The Obama campaign is clearly a little taken aback by the brazenness of the lies emanating from the McCain/Palin campaign. Even by Republican campaign standards, this is pretty flagrant stuff. The real question, though, is how to respond to it, how to go about generating some sort of backlash.
Some are suggesting that Obama should display some genuine outrage, like Bill Clinton did from time to time in 1992 (see this clip, for example). I don't think that's a good idea. In addition to the reality that, as a black candidate, showing anger is a risky proposition, such a display would only reinforce the current Republican narrative that Palin has "gotten under Obama's skin" and he's "starting to lose it."
Obama has instead approached the problem with a light-hearted and mocking tone coupled with a message that the Republicans are trying, yet again, to distract the American people from the real issues. I think that's the right approach to take, in principle, but I don't think it's enough. In order to drive home the point that McCain and Palin are liars, Obama needs to be a little more clever. His retort needs to cut through the clatter and really stick in people's minds. And I think there's a way to do that. Here's how I imagine Obama responding:
"You know, I was listening to the Governor of Alaska today and she repeated a claim that virtually every news organization has already disproved. She said she "told Congress 'thanks but no thanks' to the Bridge to Nowhere." Then I heard John McCain speak and he repeated that claim too, along with several others that have been disproved: she sold the plane on Ebay, she fired the personal chef, and so on . . . . and while I was listening to all that, something occurred to me. I've been doing this all wrong! You see, I've been limiting my claims to things that are actually true. But campaigning is so much easier when can just make stuff up.
So today I wanted to tell you some things I never have before. Did I ever mention that back in my Chicago days I played professional basketball for the Chicago Bulls? It's true, when Jordan retired, they wanted me to take over at guard, but I said "thanks but no thanks; I've got a job to do in the state Senate." Oh, and I don't think I've mentioned this before either, but my running mate, Joe Biden, he once wrestled a live grizzly bear...and won! He also once sold the entire state of Delaware on Ebay. I kid you not.
I don't know about you, but I feel liberated. This whole truth thing was really holding me back. I mean, John McCain keeps saying that I'm going to raise your taxes, even though every independent organization who's looked at it says that my plan gives you a bigger tax cut than his. Well, two can play at that game. Did you know that under John McCain's economic plan, if you fall behind on a house payment, his staff comes and takes your house away? It's true. I swear. How do you think he got all those other houses?"
Okay, that's enough, hopefully you get the gist. The point of taking this approach is twofold. First, the press would eat it up and play it over and over again. Second, it gets the point across in an effective and memorable way. It turns McCain and Palin's lying into an ongoing joke. And whenever they repeat these lies, they'll be setting themselves up for mockery. It would work. I'm sure of it.
Some are suggesting that Obama should display some genuine outrage, like Bill Clinton did from time to time in 1992 (see this clip, for example). I don't think that's a good idea. In addition to the reality that, as a black candidate, showing anger is a risky proposition, such a display would only reinforce the current Republican narrative that Palin has "gotten under Obama's skin" and he's "starting to lose it."
Obama has instead approached the problem with a light-hearted and mocking tone coupled with a message that the Republicans are trying, yet again, to distract the American people from the real issues. I think that's the right approach to take, in principle, but I don't think it's enough. In order to drive home the point that McCain and Palin are liars, Obama needs to be a little more clever. His retort needs to cut through the clatter and really stick in people's minds. And I think there's a way to do that. Here's how I imagine Obama responding:
"You know, I was listening to the Governor of Alaska today and she repeated a claim that virtually every news organization has already disproved. She said she "told Congress 'thanks but no thanks' to the Bridge to Nowhere." Then I heard John McCain speak and he repeated that claim too, along with several others that have been disproved: she sold the plane on Ebay, she fired the personal chef, and so on . . . . and while I was listening to all that, something occurred to me. I've been doing this all wrong! You see, I've been limiting my claims to things that are actually true. But campaigning is so much easier when can just make stuff up.
So today I wanted to tell you some things I never have before. Did I ever mention that back in my Chicago days I played professional basketball for the Chicago Bulls? It's true, when Jordan retired, they wanted me to take over at guard, but I said "thanks but no thanks; I've got a job to do in the state Senate." Oh, and I don't think I've mentioned this before either, but my running mate, Joe Biden, he once wrestled a live grizzly bear...and won! He also once sold the entire state of Delaware on Ebay. I kid you not.
I don't know about you, but I feel liberated. This whole truth thing was really holding me back. I mean, John McCain keeps saying that I'm going to raise your taxes, even though every independent organization who's looked at it says that my plan gives you a bigger tax cut than his. Well, two can play at that game. Did you know that under John McCain's economic plan, if you fall behind on a house payment, his staff comes and takes your house away? It's true. I swear. How do you think he got all those other houses?"
Okay, that's enough, hopefully you get the gist. The point of taking this approach is twofold. First, the press would eat it up and play it over and over again. Second, it gets the point across in an effective and memorable way. It turns McCain and Palin's lying into an ongoing joke. And whenever they repeat these lies, they'll be setting themselves up for mockery. It would work. I'm sure of it.
posted by A.L. at 9:59 AM
39 Comments:
Brilliant! I hope you have a connection in Obama's inner circle.
I second the "brilliant" comment. Are you sure you aren't a campaign consultant in real life, AL?
I think you have to consider the target market here.
The GOP spin-meisters would merely scream "He's lying!" -- and it would be picked up and reported as such by the media. The low-information folks would then get the message that Obama had lied.
The folks who have not merely sipped, but guzzled the kool-ade, would not even understand the satire.
If you doubt these assertions, consider the uproar over putting lipstick on a pig.
I suggest instead being quietly consistent, and staying out of the way while the GOP self-destructs. The image slowly forming in the public consciousness (or at least, such of the public that is capable of something that could be considered consciousness) is that the GOP over-reacts to every little thing that Obama says, and is hiding its VP.
I think it's a serious strategic mistake (and one the McCain campaign is continually making) going for the quick punch, the knockout, playing the refs. I think the electorate (and the MSM today) is too fickle these days to make that worthwhile. How many times have we heard that Obama is done? Remember Neutral, last January (where is that guy?)
Better to have a strategy that will wear the opposition down. Slower, but far more certain, because, in point of fact, there isn't a knockout unless the opposing candidate withdraws, and I don't see McCain doing that.
Respectfully- too long- and yet too little. It has to be direct- call a lie a lie, and, it has to position the news media in such a way that the repsonse challenges their comfort zone forcing them from "simply (read simple) reporting" to sustaining the objection. The majority of American voters still their impressions from the MSM; they have to not just "note" Senator Obama's response, they have to partake in it out of a sense of otherwise being used. A carefully contstructed citing key media is one way to do this.
I like it, but doesn't that run the risk of having even more media time focused on jokes and trivia as opposed to real issues? McCain's plan is to distract the news cycles as much as possible to run down the clock on meaningful debate. I guess it would depend on how quickly Obama can pivot the discussions each time after putting down their lies. I do believe your implied thesis is correct ... it's more powerful to make fun of the lies than run on indignation ... and probably more consistent with Obama's psychology.
Andrew Sullivan (Republican and former McCain admirer) just ran a very powerful article on why he's now against McCain:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html
There are many terrific statements in there that bear on this subject.
C2,
I'm a pretty cynical person, but even I don't think the Republicans would respond to this by accusing Obama of claiming he played for the Bulls or that Biden wrestled a bear. And even if they did, all that would happen is that it would prompt the news outlets to play the clip some more and mock Republicans for being humorless morons. It's win-win.
Farrapo,
I think it's fine to have the media focus on trivia so long as the trivia they're focusing on is highly damaging to the McCain/Palin brand. Plus, a few news cycles of this would serve Obama well down the road. It would allow him to pull a Reagan-esque "there he goes again" whenever McCain lies. And voters would instantly know what he was talking about.
Sad thing is we do not know the thinking of Obama's strategists. I think square miles of pixels have been entered of "good advice" for Obama this past week. But its a bit like shouting at the TV. We can hope that some of his staff are trawling these blogs.
They must have discussed the strategy of what to do in the light of a Swiftboat-type attack. After fearing disaster, I am more optimistic.
Obama is hitting right back within the news cycle, and that's good. He was cool and light-hearted on Letterman. Pig-gate has been only a media distraction. No one can say that Obama is "wussy", or takes smears lying down.
I've seen mixed reviews of him on O'Reilly; I think he fought a good draw, when he could have been wiped out (When is McCain or Palin going to talk to Ken Olbermann?)
What is frustrating is that McCain and Palin are a target-rich environment, and I've seen only one half-decent attack ad(the "Mavericks - Whoa!"one), and even that was reactive.
McCain has been exposed as a smear merchant by the sex-education ad. Why not stick it to him? What does McCain have against protecting kids against child molesters? There seems to be umpteen ways to attack him & make good policy points as well.
Obama has been boxing clever and defensively. There are even "good news" stories out there. (See http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/09/08/daily36.html). He has not taken any haymakers. But he's behind on points and needs to start scoring.
From yesterday's USA TODAY, in an article titled "Palin's town used to bill victims for rape kits":
In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence. They quickly passed a law prohibiting the practice.
According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor. When it was signed, Wasilla's police chief expressed displeasure.
"In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," then-chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the local newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."
Now that Palin is the Republican nominee for vice president, Democrats such as former Alaska governor Tony Knowles — who signed the rape-kit bill into law and was defeated by Palin in 2006 — are raising the issue to question Palin's commitment to women's issues and crime victims. Palin appointed Fannon after firing his predecessor shortly after she took office in 1996.
A Palin spokeswoman called this a deliberate misrepresentation.
Knowles criticized Palin to USA TODAY, and again Wednesday in a teleconference organized by Democrats. "It seems like one of those pieces of legislation that you can't imagine it would ever have to be written," he said.
In an earlier part of the piece, former Democratic congressman Eric Croft said:
"In retrospect, I would have asked the female working-mother mayor of that town why her police chief was against this," said Croft, the former Anchorage state representative.
The answer was in the same Frontiersman article cited earlier in the USA TODAY piece:
Fannon told the Frontiersman that the tests would cost the department up to $14,000 per year. He said he would rather force rapists to pay for the tests, not taxpayers.
In the Frontiersman piece referenced in the USA TODAY article, then Gov. Knowles was quoted as saying:
We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence, Knowles said. Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.
I can believe it. They also don't pay to clean up the dust from the fingerprinting. They don't pay for the damage done to property. And they don't pay for any therapy that may be needed by a victim.
Why wouldn't the former Democratic governor and former Democratic congressman not want to have the criminal bear the burden of the costs as part of the punishment? And how did Croft forget the rest of the quote from former Police Chief Fannon?
McClatchy is also reporting on the same story today as USA TODAY did yesterday. The cite the same Frontiersman article as well. What is different is they don't have the part where Chief Fannon wanted the criminals to pay for the rape kits.
(Sullivan's piece was excellent.)
I like what you wrote, A.L. A lot, and I think it has a place in an all-spectrum counter attack - maybe coming from Bill Clinton's or Biden's mouth.
I'm thinking Obama himself should be more direct and less "light."
1. Here is the lie.
(Sarcastically repeat it (sucks, but I guess you have to).)
2. They want you to believe X.
(Efficiently explain the strategy behind the lie, how what they are saying is designed to make the public believe X - this outmaneuvers equivocations available to the Republicans that what is said isn't "technically" untrue - it is the impression being conveyed that counts.)
3. The truth is actually Y, AND EVERY MEDIA OUTLET (brief list) HAS CONFIRMED THIS AND DISCREDITED THIS MCCAIN LIE.
4. Yet the McCain campaign continues to repeat the lie. Why? Carl Rove taught him that if a lie is repeated enough, some people will start believing it.
Does John McCain think we are all fools!? After 8 years of George Bush, America is DESPERATE for an OPEN, HONEST government that TELLS THE TRUTH -- not MORE OF THE SAME. The American people are too smart to reward you for lying. If you have a shred of honor left to your name STOP LYING, JOHN.
---------
"STOP LYING, JOHN." Can be the repeated catchphrase, the Reaganesque "There he goes again."
John McCain can't handle the truth!
I am not sure what approach will work for Obama, but this video by Robert Greenwald will go a very long way toward setting the record straight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk
What I like about the approach A.L. suggested here is that it is novel and non-inflamatory. Almost all other advice, including from Huffington today, is to go intensely negative and accusatory. This is a different way to make lying the issue - and it must be the central issue now because it binds him so tightly to Bush-Cheney.
The more I think about this may be the better road for Obama himself and let Biden and others hammer the lies straight on. Yes, a bit of news cycle to set up the "there he goes again" potential is probably worth it. And it sets him up for some great laughs in the debates.
And I wonder if Larry Craig ever said "thanks but no thanks" to wearing lipstick. Or does that imply he's a pig?
I don't think that's a good idea. In addition to the reality that, as a black candidate, showing anger is a risky proposition, such a display would only reinforce the current Republican narrative that Palin has "gotten under Obama's skin" and he's "starting to lose it."
Are you saying black candidates need to mind their "P's" and "Q's" as opposed to white candidates? Are you trying to say he's different somehow, because he is a black candidate?
I look at him as an American candidate. I wouldn't vote for him because he's an extreme liberal, but he is still an American candidate.
Wow.
Let's just say McCain has a "wide stance" at the moment. And a "wide stance", as Larry Craig found out, leaves you vulnerable.
Obama has been cool and controlled, not showing temper, not getting mad, just getting even.
I think (touch wood) the tide is turning in his favour.
Today's time-out gives him a breather to regroup and go back to the attack. Just saw him on TV after his lunch with Bill Clinton - Bubba is heading out on the campaign trail. Both men were relaxed and jovial, not a hint of tension.
Even Bill O'Reilly could not stomache the pig-gate smear, and said so. He said that no fair-minded person could really believe that Obama had compared Gov. Palin to a pig. "There are plenty of others things to attack Barack Obama about", was his adivce.
So why has McCain not done so? Because he knows he will lose on the issues.
Obama cannot afford to let the McCain campaign keep him off message. He has to stick to the issues. He has to be the grown up while McCain continues to show his inner third grader.
The level of debate has been brought down to the playground level of making somebody say "under where?" Voters who are actually trying to understand the candidates' positions are turned off by this.
Obama has to walk a fine line where he is mature and reasonable without being condescending (elitist), weak (cut and run), or dull (see Al Gore). I think his appearance on Letterman showed that he is walking that line pretty well.
His surrogates are going to have to point at McCain and repeat the "Liar!" sound bite over and over without feeding any gaffes to the playground full of kool-aid drinkers.
I highly advise against irony and sarcasm. Third graders tend to be literal and oblivious to anything that requires as much thought and attention as you suggest. You cannot give them a chance to slap their hands over their ears and yell la-la-la. Any humor has to be a zinger and an easy to highlight sound bite.
Re: Governor Palin, Troopergate & sexist.
Just saw a piece on ABC about Women's Groups in Alaska who are critcal of the Governor.
They showed Palin at a conference, where she pledged her support against Violence to Women, and as a token of her support offered ... State Police Chief Monigan, the same man she fired three months later for "budgetary disagreements" (was it?).
Apparently, Monigan was a bit of a hero to the women fighing spousal abuse, and they were bitterly disappointed when he was fired. They have not forgiven Palin.
The report said that Alaska leads the country in spousal abuse and murders of women.
I doubt if Charlie Gibson will be asking Governor Palin about this topic. It's a pity; she introduced herself as a "pitbull with lipstick" - why she should not be able to handle tough questions? is she more lipstick than pit bull?
And, by the way, isn't McCain a sexist old fuddy-duddy, with his old-fashioned sense of chivalry, to leap to her defence when Obama even looks in her direction? Surely the lady can stand up for herself. Someone's out of touch.
I wonder if he should augment his message to include one more word in addition to change (as that message has been inexplicably co-opted and even my repub friends talk about John McCain as an agent of change).
His new word to adopt: "Enough." It would play something like this in my mind:
"Enough of the smears, enough of the lies, enough of the distraction. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"
This has the implicit meaning that there IS a pattern of deception & distraction (lipstick stuff, bridge to nowhere claims, fiscal responsibility, silly season politics), and that it's come to a point where the buck must stop.
"We as American's have had ENOUGH of this partisan blockade without solutions, ENOUGH uninformed media commentary, ENOUGH half-truths about voting records, ENOUGH chain emails, ENOUGH doubts about patriotism, ENOUGH guilt by association. It's time for a change. Enough is enough!"
Anyone else feeling this at all?
Don't forget... "Eight is ENOUGH!"
I like ENOUGH. And Truth. We want a government that tells us the truth. John McCain wants you to believe X Y and Z. Is that the truth? Are you going to elect someone who is willing to fool you into voting for them?
Not sure. "Enough" might be too negative, at least for a general campaign slogan. It should definitely be part of Obama's core message though.
Topic: Lies
I was just watching a video on MSNBC where McCain is talking about service to our country being the lasting commemoration of 9/11.
Wasn't his running mate just making fun of service to our country last week at the republican convention? So, Judy Woodruff sits there nodding and looking all serious and says nothing about this latest line of b.s.
I just want to scream.
On another topic, always remember: Nemesis follows hubris.
Nicely done.
Of course, they'd just play ads of Obama calling himself a basketballer and repeat "Barack Obama is a liar" before and after it. "Brack Obama doesn't take this election seriously".
"Barack Obama thinks lying is a joke".
The target audience, which is idiot conservatives who hate the newsmedia and avoid it like the plague, might lap that up.
Hilarious. But Sarah Palin can beat the bear claim. She has seen bears in Alaska, which means that she's also a zoologist.
such a display would only reinforce the current Republican narrative that Palin has "gotten under Obama's skin" and he's "starting to lose it."
Thank you for saying this! I've been thinking this very thing each time I read Huffpo or some other "strategist" claiming Obama needs to get angry.
I believe the reason that Obama should probably not show anger is not that, as a black man, he should mind his P's and Q's, but that so many of the white idiots out there expect him to be violent and angry, for the simple reason that he is a black man. This is ignorant thinking, yes, but it is what it is. Btw, I myself am white, I just hate stupid people and Liars, so I will be voting for Obama.
AL, I keep agreeing with you! Are you sure you're not me?
Anyway, yes, mockery is the way to go. Your proposed script is rough, but something like it would work okay. Remember how Limbaugh destroyed Gore by mocking the true claim that he helped create the internet?
This is totally hilarious! the funniest thing i've read all week. i'm going to pass this around to as many people as I can.
Congratulations... maybe SNL will use this for their script.
AL, brilliant post. I've gone ahead and linked your blog to mine, ostensibly a travel writing blog (what I get paid to do) but more recently a quasi political/shout in the dark hoping Obama will pilfer an idea or two. Anyway, a moment of clarity today, a bright spot in the recent gloom: What if Obama is channeling Muhammad Ali's Rope a Dope strategy? Wrote about it more extensively at http://josambro.blogspot.com/
Yes, I think your monologue would be brilliant for SNL, but Barack has decided to pull out of the show due to the hurricane.
I think it's a great idea. Barack could also disclose that he was part of the Apollo 13 crew and that Tom Hanks was actually playing his part. He could share his "McCain/Palin moments". Fight their lies with satire. It will confuse the crap out of them because everyone knows that Conservatives don't have any sense of humor.
The three biggest lies in America: the check is in the mail; it's only a cold sore; and (McCain) "I will run a decent and honorable campaign".
i agree 10,000,000%. Humor, sarcasm and ridicule are the best means to show these liars for what they are.
I would also like to see some ads debunking the lies with the attitude of someone who has to explain (for the 100th time) the rude noises or rants of their senile grandfather. I mean, if it's a lie, and he says it anyway, then maybe he isn't evil or immoral, just old and senile. He deserves our pity. The campaign can't say that, but you can. "John McCain: It's too bad, really, what he has become."
I absolutely agree with you about mocking the lies. My brother and I were talking the other day about how annoying the "thanks but no thanks" line is. I would like to see some Sarah Palin dolls with pull strings on the back with here signature lines like the one above and the jet on ebay.
Obama would need to come clean about his background and his intentions before calling McCain a liar. The Democratic attack machine is alive and well supported by the major media. Why does Obama and his machine put up such resistance to anyone trying to do background research on him but spends countless man-hours and dollars on researching McCain and Paulin?
A Harvard Law graduate should have written a few legal papers in his career but there does not seem to be any.
A state senator for 8 years should have at least authored one bill that was passed.
A US senator who has spent the past 19 months of his terming running for office really does not have much of a record to stand on.
What were his ties and associations with a confessed terrorist?
How did a B student get in to Harvard Law? Who paid for his education?
Why can't such accomplished servant of the people speak without a teleprompter? The Uhs and and and Uh really don't inspire confidence of a persons ability to reason.
It appears to me that Obama is running as a Socialist and Marxist so why not just come out of the closet and say that is his direction he plans to lead this country if elected.
In my humble opinion Obama and Bidden are poster boys for liars.
This post has been removed by the author.
I frickin' love it. Which I should not admit, what with being Pope and all. Did I mention that? Did it in my spare time.
This whole thing, where the media is slowly starting to point out the lies, but the polls still keep going down, is like waiting for the Bush DOJ to investigate itself.... and then actually DO something about it.
Could it be that people, for whatever reason, simply don't care any more?
I agree, your suggestion is perfectly brilliant, but I can't visualize Obama following through with it. Biden, however...
Very funny! I love it! Of course, the people still waiting for the WMD to be found might not get it.
I was thinking about the very same thing and came to a similar conclusion, which I wrote on my blog at If You Say Something Enough, It's True (So I Do).
The main difference is that I am endorsing the promulgation of lies aimed at McCain through the simple act of repeating any given lie enough times.
But that's just throwing gasoline on a fire whereas your approach fights fire with fire. Both seem to be exactly the right thing to do and one would expect them to be highly effective.
(Just joking, of course ... I hope)
Tom Harrison
I agree that laughter--loud, raucous laughter--is an effective way to bring down liars and demagogues. The trouble is that the lies take your breath away. Once you get it back, though, by all means--laugh!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home