Is the McCain Campaign Overplaying its Hand?
John McCain clearly had a very successful convention, and his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, while risky, appears to have paid off in the near term. Most surprising to me has been his ability to grab the "change" mantle for himself and breathe new life into his maverick/straight-talker persona from 2000. I think the rehabilitation of this maverick image is largely responsible for the fact that McCain is now tied or leading in nearly every national poll.
If I were running the McCain campaign, I would be very protective of that brand and would be trying very hard to get the press corps to roll with it the way they used to.
But that's not what the McCain campaign is doing. Instead, they seem determined to provoke a reluctant press corps into calling McCain and his new running mate liars. They seem determined to push the bounds of decency to a point where most reporters feel the need to defend Obama from obviously scurrilous attacks and brazen lies.
Today, for instance, on a day where most new outlets felt compelled to engage in a rare second round of debunking in response to Palin's bogus Bridge to Nowhere claim, both McCain and Palin insisted on repeating that lie yet again in their stump speeches. The press corps typically doesn't like to dwell on falsehoods like this and will let campaigns get away with them in small doses (especially if they're Republicans), but the sheer brazenness of the McCain campaign's lying--even after their claims have been widely debunked--is almost forcing the press to continue to call them out on it. They're really flirting with creating their own negative character narrative here. They're all but daring the press to call their bluff and start openly calling them liars.
And tonight the McCain campaign released one of the most nasty and misleading negative ads I've ever seen, accusing Obama of wanting to teach explicit sex ed to kindergartners. In reality, Obama is merely in favor of taking steps to protect children from sexual predators by teaching them to tell an adult if someone is touching them inappropriately. This ad is so cheap and tawdry that it seems designed to squander any remaining good will the press has toward McCain and get them to rally in Obama's defense.
McCain's on a roll right now. Why would he want to risk that by releasing such a desperate and scurrilous ad? McCain clearly eschewed that kind of approach in his convention speech last week--which seems to have been effective. Why concede the high ground so quickly and so completely? I would expect this kind of ad from a candidate who was down 10 points, not one who's up by a few.
It's possible that McCain won't suffer any significant backlash from lying this blatantly and resorting to such despicable attacks, but this strategy seems unnecessarily provocative for a candidate who has enjoyed so much success in the last week. His campaign may be overplaying its hand. I hope so.
If I were running the McCain campaign, I would be very protective of that brand and would be trying very hard to get the press corps to roll with it the way they used to.
But that's not what the McCain campaign is doing. Instead, they seem determined to provoke a reluctant press corps into calling McCain and his new running mate liars. They seem determined to push the bounds of decency to a point where most reporters feel the need to defend Obama from obviously scurrilous attacks and brazen lies.
Today, for instance, on a day where most new outlets felt compelled to engage in a rare second round of debunking in response to Palin's bogus Bridge to Nowhere claim, both McCain and Palin insisted on repeating that lie yet again in their stump speeches. The press corps typically doesn't like to dwell on falsehoods like this and will let campaigns get away with them in small doses (especially if they're Republicans), but the sheer brazenness of the McCain campaign's lying--even after their claims have been widely debunked--is almost forcing the press to continue to call them out on it. They're really flirting with creating their own negative character narrative here. They're all but daring the press to call their bluff and start openly calling them liars.
And tonight the McCain campaign released one of the most nasty and misleading negative ads I've ever seen, accusing Obama of wanting to teach explicit sex ed to kindergartners. In reality, Obama is merely in favor of taking steps to protect children from sexual predators by teaching them to tell an adult if someone is touching them inappropriately. This ad is so cheap and tawdry that it seems designed to squander any remaining good will the press has toward McCain and get them to rally in Obama's defense.
McCain's on a roll right now. Why would he want to risk that by releasing such a desperate and scurrilous ad? McCain clearly eschewed that kind of approach in his convention speech last week--which seems to have been effective. Why concede the high ground so quickly and so completely? I would expect this kind of ad from a candidate who was down 10 points, not one who's up by a few.
It's possible that McCain won't suffer any significant backlash from lying this blatantly and resorting to such despicable attacks, but this strategy seems unnecessarily provocative for a candidate who has enjoyed so much success in the last week. His campaign may be overplaying its hand. I hope so.
UPDATE: Hilzoy reviews the facts of the sexual education bill at issue. Take a look. It's really hard to overstate how inaccurate and dishonorable the McCain ad is.
posted by A.L. at 8:23 PM
28 Comments:
Several members of the press are on the record as saying that the McCain camp is lying or dissing the press. Joe Klein at Swampland, and Jay Carney in a discussion w/ Tavis Smiley (where Elizabeth Bumiller agreed). Even Barbara Walters on the View read Klein's blogpost saying the press should be unafraid to challenge lies.
Then there's Roger Simon's sardonic "confession" that the media should back off. And fellow politico.com reporter Jeanne Cummings who said this on Washington Week in Review 3 days ago:
-------------
John McCain put this woman - and she accepted - in a position to become president of the United States in the next 60 days. We don't have enough time to mess around with this. We need to know a lot more about this woman. And it's our job to find out everything we can about her, so the voters can make an educated decision about whether they want her that close to the presidency. (Applause.)
-------------
The point is that the press knows what's going on (which should always be the case, but these days you can never be certain). The press knows, and yet they don't speak out vigorously against the McCain lies and false narratives (e.g. "liberal press bias").
I think the press is largely silent because of the institutional framework of the corporate media, but there is a chance that their outrage will cause that stance to break. It's a matter of time. The big question is, is there enough time before the election?
(Side rant: We have this endless campaign for president, starting almost 2 years ago. Okay, fine. But why the hell schedule conventions - when the VP pick is announced - so freakin' close to election day? If we need so much time to get to know the presidential candidates, there should be a fairly long time for the VP. Schedule conventions in early July.)
And tonight the McCain campaign released one of the most nasty and misleading negative ads I've ever seen, accusing Obama of wanting to teach explicit sex ed to kindergartners. In reality, Obama is merely in favor of taking steps to protect children from sexual predators by teaching them to tell an adult if someone is touching them inappropriately.
McCain's ad includes the actual bill in the Illinois Senate he is referring to: S.B. 99. Here is a link to the Bill Status (it was permanently tabled on 7/1/2003). Also on that page are links to the Illinois statutes that were to be modified by S.B. 99; one had to do with sex education.
Here is the text of the bill. To read it, the words that are underlined are additional words that are to be added to the statute, while the words with strikes in them are to be taken out.
After reading the bill, there is a lot of information in there about protecting children from sexual predators, inappropriate touching, and so on. But, that isn't all.
Here's what the first subsection of the sex education statute would have looked like after putting in the underlined words from the bill and taking out the ones with strikes in them:
"(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology."
The original statute (linked above) said "grades 6 through 12".
The second subsection:
(b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV when transmitted sexually."
The original statute read "abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy".
Another section of the bill removed the words "the alternative of abortion" as it related to teaching the promotion of aspects of family appropriate to various grade levels, as providing them beginning at the kindergarten level.
This version of the bill passed 7-4 in the committee Obama chaired on the date McCain specified. There is no listing of how the members voted, but there were 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans on that committee, and it's a good bet it went the party line.
A Senate Amendment was introduced that restored the beginning grade level back to 6th grade instead of kindergarten. The amendment was never given a vote in committee. Then the bill died.
Another bill that updated one of the statutes Obama's bill would have modified was passed and signed into law (and is still on the books). There was no mention of kindergarten in the new bill, nor the other changes Obama's bill had. Obama's committee considered it and passed it 9-0; again, it doesn't show the breakdown. The Senate passed it on 5/12/2003. How did Obama vote? NV.
Steve,
Do you have a point somewhere? All the bills allows for is age appropriate sexual eduction. Obviously no rational educator would teach kindergartners about STDs, contraception, etc. For that age group, the curriculum is limited to very basic information about inappropriate touching, etc. Look it up.
I don't see how anyone can think that there's anything wrong with that. Do you? Are you actually defending McCain's ad?
If so, I renew my policy of not acknowledging you.
Do you have a point somewhere?
Nope. Just putting in the information you and Hilzoy didn't. And then let the readers decide for themselves.
Obviously no rational educator would teach kindergartners about STDs, contraception, etc. For that age group, the curriculum is limited to very basic information about inappropriate touching, etc. Look it up.
I'd acknowledge that. But in a comment on another post you said, "Doctors don't in fact kill babies who are born alive. It doesn't happen. It would violate all of their ethical rules. This is a made up issue." I pointed out that there was congressional testimony that contradicted that assertion and led to the federal BAIPA. So you'll forgive me if I don't necessarily take your words at anything other than with a grain of salt.
Steve: you "acknowledge" the point that makes McCain's ad false and then immediately change the subject? Wow. Do you really support a candidate who accuses his opponent of trying to sexualize kindergartners? Can it get any lower than that?
Steve: you "acknowledge" the point that makes McCain's ad false and then immediately change the subject?
No, I acknowledged AL's point about rational educators. I didn't say or imply anything about McCain. I would add that what AL considers a rational educator is different from what I would consider a rational educator. And no, I won't discuss that here.
Hopefully the ridiculous and shameless sex ed ad will be what finally gets people to call him on his actions in this campaign. I think he's gotten too brazen with his lying and smears this time, and it's going to burn him.
He's like the Icarus of absolute, total bullshit.
Clearly, we are at the Swiftboat and Willie Horton moments in this campaign.
I also note McCain's attack today on Obama for using the expression "lipstick on a pig", claiming he's being sexist about Governor Palin. Its seems so stupid (McCain himself has used the words on Hilary Clinton's policies - was he insulting her?) that its seems to me to have a subtle racial undertone: Black people should not say bad things about nice white ladies.
I can't believe (but it may be true) that Obama's campaign did not have a plan B for this development. There are signs that Obama is getting more aggressive in his responses ... there's a lot of advice out there on how to counteract McCain's dirty tactics.
The narrative of this campaign seems to changing again. Obama has to change it to a narrative of McCain's unscrupulous and lying tactics. No delay! Call McCain out on honour and decency in public life!
Thought I'd add a note.
It's most important that people realise what game is being played here, and steveil is playing it to perfection.
If we get drawn into a long discussion about the minutiae of what was in the sex education bill, then most readers will turn off. They will be left with the impression "There must be someting to this if it takes up so much time and passion".
Obama needs no defence about what bills he supported in the Illinois legislature, regarding sex eduation or anything else.
Smears like this cannot be defeated by a rational argument. You need to provoke a response to the fact that it is a smear.
Four years ago, Democrats allowed themselves to get drawn into an argument about what happened on the Mekong river the late 1960's. Most listeners tuned out, but were left with the impression that maybe John Kerry was not the hero he was cracked up to be. It softened them up to vote Republican in the end.
Like the Swiftboats attacked Kerry at his strongest point, this attacks Obama at his strongest point, the fact that he is an attractive, loving husband and father. Its from that old Karl Rove playbook, so don't get fooled again!
This time the discussion has to be about McCain's lying and conniving, and his alliance with Rove, Bush and Cheney. Don't get suckered, change the narrative!
AL- the problem with having a discussion with you is that you will not even consider the possibility that there might be some validity to the other side of the argument, ie, the side that might criticize Obama in any way. For example, you say that “Obviously no rational educator would teach kindergartners about STDs.” Well, that is a very interesting sentiment, but it doesn’t exactly square with the proposed statutory language that steveil noted: “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.” Sounds an awful lot like what no rational educator would do.
Instead of complaining that steveil has brought the actual language of the bill to your attention, maybe you should put some thought or analysis into the subject you are complaining about. No doubt Obama’s intent was to mandate “age-appropriate” sex education. That would be great if everyone agrees what sex education is “age-appropriate” for kindergarten and all “rational educators” understand where the line is. But that is obviously not the case (if it were, presumably no legislation would be needed in the first place). Why shouldn’t parents be concerned about legislative language such as that quoted above?
As far as I can tell, the McCain ad is factual. If you disagree, maybe you could explain why without using the crutches of name-calling and conclusory assertion.
I can't believe (but it may be true) that Obama's campaign did not have a plan B for this development.
Maybe Obama better start thinking about plans C, D, and E since McCain is bound to reference Obama's other "work" with public education: his seemingly close association with unrepentant American terrorist William Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge. Obama has never answered that satisfactorily, referring to Ayers only as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood". Ayers, who never apologized for his crimes, was accused by conservatives for his saying he and his group never did enough back in the 60s based on a quote he made in an article that appeared in the New York Times (coincidentally) on 9/11 (nope, not tying Ayers to 9/11). Ayers tried to rebut that, although it was a lame attempt. And yesterday, Ayers put out something that further reinforces what conservatives are saying about him: "I don't think violent resistance is necessarily the answer, but I do think opposition and refusal is imperative."
Yep. Just a guy who lives in Obama's neighborhood.
I'm going to play MLS's game here and ask what anyone thinks "comprehensive sex education" is, and how that relates to the question at hand. Does anyone think comprehensive sex education is appropriate for kindergarten? And if someone does decide to teach comprehensive sex education to children that young, wouldn't it make sense to teach them about HIV prevention?
Rationality doesn't enter into it for Steveil -- he's still beating the corpse of the horse that Ronald Reagan rode in his first western -- and MLS is nothing but a concern troll who apparently cannot manage simple logic.
Re: mis, steveil,
Within an hour of my last post, these two guys are on with baiting posts to initiate a "discussion".
Think: there is no way these two want to discuss or get to the bottom of any controversy. They want to trap you into an extended exchange you cannot possibly win.
And by having the discussion, they are winning. You'll get the faux innocence "Well, I'm just saying ...", when you point out they are perpetuating blatant smears.
If you are interested, just make it your business to read the legislation and make up your own mind.
Any discussion should be about how a man like John McCain, who wore the uniform of his country with distincton, could degrade himself to the level of a dishonorable, mean-spirited, lying hack.
"Instead, they seem determined to provoke a reluctant press corps into calling McCain and his new running mate liars. They seem determined to push the bounds of decency to a point where most reporters feel the need to defend Obama from obviously scurrilous attacks and brazen lies."
I understand why a reporter might feel compelled to set the record straight, but why would they need to "defend" Obama?
Obama is looking more and more like Dukakis in 1988. McCain is hitting him from the right, hitting him from the left, hitting him from the center and Obama is stunned. Even when he does try to punch back it's blocked and he's punched again (Could lipstick on a pig be his Dukakis in a tank moment?)
Not good for libs. Too bad Hillary wasn't nominated.
mls,
I very much enjoy being lectured to about "open-mindedness" by someone who hasn't bothered to inform themselves about the topic they're spouting off on. Trust me that I do my research before putting a post up. In this case, it was simple because this smear was actually leveled by Mitt Romney many months ago and widely-debunked by new outlets at the time. As Hilzoy points out in the link I provided, the ad is false on many different levels. The bill at issue was never actually voted on and was not Obama's bill (much less his "only accomplishment"). And the bill didn't mandate anything other than that existing sex ed programs be "medically accurate" and "age appropriate." It even had an opt-out clause for parents.
Everything about this ad is false. And the clear implication of the ad, that Obama wants to sexualize our kindergartners is one of the more vile and disgusting insinuations I've ever seen in politics. Even the right wing blogs are condemning this ad.
So please spare me your "I'm so open-minded" hogwash. Sometimes things are indefensible. This is one of those times. If you bothered to look into it enough to know what you're talking about, you'd agree.
"Even when Obama does try to punch back it's blocked and he's punched again"
Yup, that's just about the only thing you fascists are any good at. Hit them, hit them hard, hit them again, lie, smear, fabricate, take words out of context. Doesn't matter if we're telling the truth, winning's all that matters. Doesn't even matter if we can't govern for shit, we socked 'em and we socked 'em good!
I find it ironic that the right in this country portray themselves as the defenders of "small town" values, all that's supposedly good and decent about this country, when at the same time they conduct themselves in a way a that makes a temper-driven three year old look like a picture of maturity.
A disgrace to this country.
A.L.,
I agree strongly with Toby that you are wasting your time debating with certain posters who are obviously badly intentioned. Just like McCain/Palin who want to tie up the press with trivia and lies, these people are sucking you into so much negative discussion that you don't have time to pursue ideas from progressive posters. A few posts back you said you were going to stop responding to Steve, yet you continue.
It's your site and if you want to spend your time dealing with their mooseshit that's up to you. What will happen is that those of us who are trying to make positive suggestions and constructive postings will take them elsewhere. All their negativity is trashing your site to the point it is becoming less enjoyable to read. Which is precisely what they want ... right wingers engage in these dishonest filibusters all over the web.
You need to decide if you want the site to be known as a place where good progressive ideas are examined and expanded, or the place where dishonest right wingers can come to bait you into an argument. You cannot effectively do both.
Why would he want to risk that by releasing such a desperate and scurrilous ad? McCain clearly eschewed that kind of approach in his convention speech last week--which seems to have been effective.
This is easy to explain. 40 million people watched the convention speech. Only hardcore Dems who will never vote for McCain watch Countdown or the Rachel Maddow show and see McCain's latest attacks debunked. The rest of America sees them reported on local news with the usual McCain said/Obama said approach that doesn't evaluate the truth.
Everyone knows fascism is a left-wing movement.
Obama=Dukakis, period. Just like 1988 all over again.
The morning after the election all you guys will be "How could we lose? They must have stolen it!"
Hey.
Somebody has to protect pedophiles. Why shouldn't it be maverick John McCain?
A.L.
You have a great blog site, and you introduced a great discussion topic.
But farrapo is right, I won't be inclined to visit this site to cringe as right-wing provocateurs lure you into lengthy and meaningless discussions. While you are rebutting them point by point, and you certainly are, you are really just feeding the trolls.
Basically, all they want is to generate as many sentences as possible containing the words "Obama", "sex" and "kids". To the casual reader its sounds like Obama actually has something to be defensive about.
I suggest you moderate with a stronger hand... the topic was "Is McCain overplaying his hand?". My opinion is "Only if the Obama campaign has the guts and gumption to point out that he is trying to cheat and lie his way to the Presidency".
Toby, Farrapo,
Point taken, and, for the record, I really don't intend to engage "SteveIL" anymore. As for MLS, while I thought his comment on this thread was insulting and ill-informed, he's made constructive contributions to the comment section in the past. I don't want to "feed the trolls", but I also don't want to turn the comment section into a place where reasonable dissent is unwelcome. I'll play it by ear, but for the time being, I'll continue to respond to MLS if I feel it advances the discussion.
I just want to point out that while it is true that Palin was for the bridge before she was against it - she was the one who did in fact kill it.
Obama and Biden, on the other hand, voted for the bridge. Twice.
...she was the one who did in fact kill it. Obama and Biden, on the other hand, voted for the bridge. Twice.
Do people really get McCain campaign points for wingnut-talking-points regurgitation?
This talking point manages to be misleadingly self-inconsistent in just two sentences. The two sentences are referring to different things, the non-earmark BTN, vs the BTN earmark. Palin, Obama, and Biden were all "in favor" of the earmark BTN. Palin was in favor of it directly. The later two voted for a larger package of earmarks - , eventually signed by GWBush. (Assuming I the found the correct bill - the earmark in the linked bill appears to have been made available to any qualifying project.)
AL,
I'd consider it a tribute to just how sharp and dead-on your observations have been lately that the trolls are working so hard to pile up the bullshit. Lucky for us they have no power to stop you from thinking and writing as you please. Lord knows they would if they could.
AL- thanks for the semi-kind words, but it seems that my posts are too irritating for your main clientele. Accordingly, I pledge not to post further on this site until after the election, as not to cause anyone the emotional distress that apparently results from contact with dissenting opinions or inconvenient facts.
Before I go, indulge me a moment. First, I can assure you that my postings are not part of some right-wing “plot” to derail the Obama juggernaut or to achieve some other nefarious end.
Second, let me say that I think that McCain and Obama are both admirable persons. Each has some exceptional personal qualities and experiences that should stand him in good stead as president; each has flaws that could be a significant problem. I suspect that those of you who admire Jim Webb (as I do) see in him many of the attributes (personal courage, history of service, political independence, leadership ability) that make McCain an attractive candidate. And I also suspect that much of the Palin-mania in the Republican party reflects a hunger for the same kind of magnetism and charisma that has enthralled Obama supporters.
With respect to how McCain and Obama have conducted themselves on the campaign trail, you seem to think that McCain has conducted himself with breathtaking dishonesty and dishonor, while Obama’s only offense has been a saint-like unwillingness to throw a punch. This is the type of cartoonish view of the world that one would expect to hear from a Ministry of Propaganda during wartime. Indeed, if a neo-con put out a similarly bombastic and one-sided denunciation of, say, Iran, you would be the first to demand a calm and factual assessment of what the Iranians had actually said or done, and point out how our own conduct has been less than pristine. For some reason, you are unable to muster any such objectivity when discussing the conduct of McCain or any other Republican.
I am not going to make any further efforts to make you see reason. If it makes you feel better to go on as the mirror image of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, be my guest. (Actually, not even mirror image—they may hate John McCain just as much as you do). But consider this. Whoever wins the presidential election, it will be very close. And the poisonous atmosphere that you are generating now will only make it more difficult for the victor to govern successfully.
So my liberal/progressive/left wing countrymen, I will now bid you adieu. I will go back to living under a bridge, or whatever it is that we trolls do when not posting on the internet.
MLS,
Please spare us the melodrama. You're free to post here whenever you want. Don't think you have a monopoly on honesty or reasonability, though. You can equate me with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter if you wish, but I think it reflects poorly on your own intelligence and ability to distinguish honest opinion from propaganda. Obviously I'm not hiding the fact that I'm supporting Obama in this election. But I certainly don't worship the ground he walks on or think he's perfect. I've criticized him and other Democratic politicians on numerous occasions. And I don't lie or peddle in untruths as Limbaugh and Coulter do. I'm not a propagandist.
And finally, I don't think McCain is evil. I just think he's made a faustian bargain with Rove-style Republicans in order to win an election. I think he's run a deceptive and dishonorable campaign. Much more so than his opponent.
Believe it or not, you don't have to believe in a parity that doesn't exist in order to be a reasonable person. The left and right aren't always mirror images of each other, and frankly, it's rather simple-minded to reflexively believe that to be the case. Drawing false equivalences is the mark of a lazy mind.
If you have a factual issue you want to raise with a post, I encourage you to do so. But spare us the preening and posturing, especially when you're not actually contributing anything substantive or questioning any actual claim that's being made.
cheers.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home