Of Real McCains And Obamas
Posted on October 8th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
I did not watch the debate live, and I’m glad that I didn’t bother liveblogging it. It wouldn’t have been hard to rearrange the text from my post on the first debate and pretend that I had covered the second one, so mind-numbingly similar were they. Everyone seems to agree that Obama prevailed, or at best McCain did not and so changed nothing about the overall direction of the race. Some of McCain’s supporters lamented that their candidate did not hit Obama on his associations, while more of his critics noticed that McCain was remarkably gutless to “raise questions” about Obama’s character and his associations on the trail over the weekend and then avoid talking about them on national television in front of Obama. Instead of demonstrating some kind of admirable restraint, refusing to talk about these associations at the debate just drives home how little stock McCain actually puts in their importance. As pure political calculation, this was probably right (Obama is viewed favorably, and persuadable voters don’t like personal attacks on the candidates they like), which is important in what it says about the McCain campaign’s idiotic preoccupation with obviously ineffective tactics. I’ll come back to that in a moment.
First a few words about the bizarre debate over what happened to the “real” McCain, which becomes more relevant as McCain has started asking, “Who is the real Barack Obama?” Even among McCain critics, there are some who still insist on coming up with excuses for the former media darling, and they echo the excuses journalists have made for McCain for years: sure, he’s lying about this or that, but he’s clearly uncomfortable doing it, which proves that he’s actually a good guy. More recently, McCain has seemed angrier and grumpier than usual, prompting the same excuses: he doesn’t enjoy doing this kind of campaigning, and it shows, which somehow makes it better. This has been the strange ethical standard applied to McCain for as long as I can remember. According to this odd view, if someone is not very proficient at lying and smearing his opponents and gives the impression that even he knows what he’s saying is nonsense, that somehow proves that he is honest and decent at heart. The correct view is exactly the opposite–if McCain knows the truth, doesn’t really believe what he’s saying and tells lies unconvincingly, that is evidence of the far deeper corruption of the man. Instead of being badly misguided or misinformed, he willfully says things that he knows have no merit or that he knows are unworthy of anyone in his position. In short, being a bad smear artist does not make someone ethical or honorable; it makes him unethical and incompetent.
The reason why McCain was smart, if gutless, to avoid talking about Obama’s associations last night is that he and his advisors seem finally to have recognized that invoking Ayers is not an effective tactic. This is remarkable because this tactic is incredibly popular among people on the right who think that talking endlessly about the “surge” is a good idea, and McCain still doesn’t understand that the “surge,” like his obsession with earmarks, means little to most voters who want out of Iraq anyway. Even though there is little or no evidence that his obsession with the “surge” works with the general electorate at all, McCain has continued to invoke it every chance he gets. Just as he does not understand that the “surge” represented a change in tactics (it is not a strategy!), he has never grasped that the tactic of hitting Obama on his opposition to the “surge” was achieving nothing. Until last night, it seemed as if his campaign was going to make the same mistake in making Ayers a centerpiece of the last few weeks, when Ayers, like the “surge,” is something that excites and mobilizies only core supporters and no one else.
Naturally, many of those core supporters are upset that he did not launch the attacks that they think are so powerful, but what they might consider is that the fact that McCain deliberately avoided using them should tell you something about how truly weak they are. After all, McCain has shown he has no compunctions about smearing Obama and lying about the records of his opponents; McCain wants to win, and he clearly despises Obama. So if attacking Obama on his associations was an effective tactic, McCain would have done it with the same gusto he showed when belittling Obama’s alleged lack of understanding of foreign affairs. That does not seem to be the lesson that many of his supporters are going to take away from last night. Instead, they are going to adopt something like Vietnam revisionism in which they express certainty that their candidate could have won if he’d just been willing to do whatever was necessary.
Filed under: politics
Along with the Ayers nothing-burger, one thing you hear McCain backers pleading with their candidate to do is to hit Obama with the Community Reinvestment Act, as if that were the crux of the entire mortgage crisis. Arguing about a piece of legislation that is a) 30 years old b) less than 5% of Americans have heard of and is what is taken to be solid strategy from modern conservatives.
Umm, I want you to be right – I find Palin scarier and scarier by the day, to the point that she now scares me more than McCain does, which is saying a lot – but, per the polls, there has been a pretty dramatic tightening of the race over the last two days. A couple of the polls are questionable because of sample size, partisan composition, or both, but Rasmusssen dropped 2 points (from +8 to +6) in one day (which means that yesterday’s sample was most likely only +2 Obama or thereabouts.) Given the nature of 3 day tracking polls, even if things “level out” this could easily be a 2 or 3 point race 48 hours from now.
I have no explanation for this. It’s too soon for it to be related to the debate. While as you know I didn’t feel quite as strongly as you did that McCain’s recent tactics were stupid, I did feel that they were very unlikely to be effective. But what else could be going on?
Be that as it may, it will likely be regarded by the McCain campaign as vindication of the decision to go viciously negative. So we can expect to see much more incitement to violence from Hitler in a dress.
What I find so strange about this line of attack is that the push to increase homeownership has been bipartisan and was one of Bush’s top second-term objectives, and it would not have been possible without the monetary policy implemented by a Fed Chairman I have scarcely ever heard Republicans criticize. You would think partisans would want to deflect blame *away* from policies promoted by the current administration, but by focusing on loans to non-creditworthy borrowers (while simultaneously misdiagnosing the cause of the mortgage crisis) they are helping to remind everyone that providing these loans was an administration goal.
” But what else could be going on?”
The 8 point spread (tracked in Gallup & Ramussen) was, I think, artificially high and simply unsustainable. I don’t think the Ayers bit exactly hurts Obama too badly (although it will keep his numbers down with older voters who remember the Weather Underground), regardless of the very tenuous nature of Obama’s connection to Ayers.
State polling numbers are still tracking upward for Obama, though, according to fivethirtyeight.com. But we still have four weeks left and anything could happen.
I wouldn’t chalk the focus on Ayers and other “ineffective tactics” on anything more than the McCain campaign’s general incompetence. As anyone who, like me, watched the GOP primaries knows, McCain only got the nomination by dint of being the last guy standing not named Huckabee or Paul. Shoot, his campaign first garnered attention last year for going broke! Compare that to Obama, who knocked off his party’s establishment’s preferred candidate in a hard-fought, down-to-the-wire battle.
With the GOP getting so vicious and nasty, enciting violence and hate, I’m beginning to worry that their strategy is “appear incompentent, hire a sniper”. I hope the Secret Service is on the effing ball….
[...] 3.) Larison, as always, is worth a read: [...]
Little mentioned is that McCain, within 20 minutes, urges a new $300 bailout lite AND repeats his insistence on a spending freeze.
On Obama or picking Palin or on his own policies, the end result is the same: An utterly inconsistent vision that’s meant only to win, certainly not to govern.
[...] The Real Obama October 8, 2008, 9:47 am Filed under: media/culture, politics Pretty much everyone is linking to this loony Andy McCarthy post at The Corner, in which he complains about John McCain’s decision not to play the “Obama is a secret terrorist” card in last night’s debate. Here’s the key graf: Memo to McCain Campaign: Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn’t; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he’s qualified for public office. You helped portray Obama as a clealy [sic] qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists. [...]
Thank you, Daniel, for your insightful post.
“But what else could be going on?”
Is it possible that the sudden shift away from the Ayers attack was prompted by the truly frightening response it garnered from the mob…oops, I mean crowd? It’s clear McCain wanted to stir up the base but might he have blanched in the face of a reaction that seemed to veer dangerously close to bloodlust (shouts of “treason” and “kill him”)?
I think the guy has shown himself unfit for the presidency on a number of levels, and believe he will take a well-deserved drubbing. But I find myself clinging to the idea that a politician at his level would draw the line at inciting violence against his rival. Am I naive?
Is is just me, or would Mitt have done much better than McCin on both style and economic knowledge, particularly against Obama’s smooth style which makes McCain look a bit mad at times?
Or perhaps Mitt would have been seen as the Wall Street type that got us into this mess?
“Or perhaps Mitt would have been seen as the Wall Street type that got us into this mess?”
I think running as “multi-millionaire former hedge-fund operator” would have to be the worst possible public personae to have had during the current crisis.
Okay, the polls are all over the place today, after a few days when they were all fairly close to each other. But, for what it’s worth, for those of us (Obama fans or not) who are scared to death by the thought of McCain/Palin, there have been a couple reassuring polls. But I don’t think I’ve seen (this year, anyway, at the national level) a day when the polling data was so inconsistent (a ten point spread between the most extreme daily trackers).
But the biggest sample size trackers are the best for Obama.
In terms of his poll numbers dipping, I think Obama suffers from 2 problems inherent in his candidacy – he does not have much of a public service record and he is black. I think the first is more of a barrier for undecideds to get over; of course I have no real data to base this on, simply my faith in our nation. So despite the fact that he sounds better on the economy, he still suffers from the problem of being “not well known”. And anything that contributes to undecideds’ uneasiness about not knowing him enough can impact their choice. Simply said, these voters are skittish at their gut level about Obama. So to some extent I disagree with Daniel’s assertion that the negative character strategy only appeals to McCain’s base.
I believe the race is going to be close especially if the well publicized signs about deteriorating economic conditions continue.
Ooops – mistake in earlier post – in the last line I meant to say:
“the race is going to be close unless the well publicized signs about deteriorating economic conditions continue. “
It’s worse than that, Adam. They want to blame it on that, so they can blame the mortgage crisis on people who are…..different and not on the market greed of a few loons.
BTW, great post, Mr. Larson
Desperation, thy name is Wingnut.
Daniel, do we still have some weird bet about Ohio? I think we do, but I can’t remember the details.
I believe I am going to owe you seven tacos, and I think I owe Mobius or someone else from Michigan five. I think that was it. Barring some strange turn of events, I will have to arrange some sort of taco gift certificates with both of you.
THAT was it. Finally, a drunken comment pays off, at least if present trends continue.
Incidentally, those are really interesting links in your previous post about the real Obama. The last time I thought I was voting for a messiah was 1980, and I’m not particularly eager to fall for that bit again. These days I just want someone who knows what the hell he’s doing, has some ability to redirect his energies based on new information, and isn’t susceptible to the crap that neoconservatives spew on a daily basis.
Everyone, I agree attacking Obama because of Ayer’s views or past actions is not the way to go. However it is a legitimate question to ask what exactly was the extent of his relationship with Ayers and just how actively Obama agrees with Ayers’ current views, and since Obama has not been forthright and honest in responding we need to highlight the actual extent of that relationship which in my mind tells me a little more about Obama’s true judgement and ideologies for this country.
Quoted from Investor’s Business Daily of October 8th – “At an education forum in Venezuela, Bill Ayers showed the real issue is not his terrorist past. It’s the socialist revolutionary agenda that he and Barck Obama want to impose on the nation’s schools. An idea of what Ayers has in mind for America’s schools was provided in his own words not 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old, but less than two years ago in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez. With Chavez at his side, Ayers voiced his support for “the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . I look forward to seeing how . . . all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane. Ayers told Chavez: “Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion” It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America.
And I quote further below from The Hill:
The records of the administration of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), released last week by the University of Illinois, show that the Ayers-Obama connection was, in fact, an intimate collaboration and that it led to the only executive or administrative experience in Obama’s life.
Even apart from the details of the Obama/Ayers connection, two key points emerge:
a) Obama lied and misled the American people in his description of his relationship with Ayers as casual and arm’s-length; and
b) Obama was consciously guided by Ayers’s radical philosophy, rooted in the teachings of leftist Saul Alinksy, in his distribution of CAC grant funds.
Let’s sum up Obama’s Chicago connections. His chief financial supporter was Tony Rezko, now on his way to federal prison. His spiritual adviser and mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of “God damn America†fame. And the guy who got him his only administrative job and put him in charge of doling out $50 million is William Ayers, a terrorist who was a domestic Osama bin Laden in his youth.
We will want to know what kind of president he would make. The fact that, within the past 10 years, he participated in a radical program of political education conceptualized by an admitted radical terrorist offers no reassurance.
Why did Obama put up with Ayers? Because he got a big job and $50 million of patronage to distribute to his friends and supporters in Chicago. Why did he hang out with Jeremiah Wright? Because he was new in town, having grown up in Hawaii and Indonesia and having been educated at Columbia and Harvard, and needed all the local introductions he could get to jump-start his political career. Why was he so close to Rezko?
Because he funded Obama’s campaigns and helped him buy a house for $300,000 less than he otherwise would have had to pay.
I think these are all legitimate issues that need to be brought to the attention of the American People. After all within the first 5 few days of McCain announcement of Sarah Palin we saw hordes of journalist invading Alaska to dig up everything they could about Gov. Palin yet after almost 2 years in the spot light we are just now beginning to see and understand exactly what Obama’s relationship with Ayers was. I think that is not even handed reporting and it does no service to the American people. We deserve better in order to make educated choices when voting for our leaders. Thank you.
For the record, it should be noted that the above was written in large part by that paragon of even-handed reporting, Dick Morris.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272623111.shtml
‘It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America. ‘
What IS that form? I didn’t see any detail about what a socialist education is or how it differes from a ‘capitalist education’ or even what a ‘capitalist education’ consists of.
One notable difference between the two debates was in how effective Obama’s consistent symbolic reaching-out was. In the first debate it was purely rhetorical. Obama took every opportunity to say “I agree with you John” or “Senator McCain is right” and made a political impact but it didn’t really directly impact the debate. Provoked some commentary after, but was simply part of their turn-based talking point game in the moment.
In the second debate at one point when Obama was seeking the moderator’s approval to rebut McCain, McCain chimed in saying if Obama got time he’d want to rebut too. Until that moment I thought Obama was foolish to seem to ask permission, but then McCain opened the door and Obama immediately closed the deal. The grown ups had taken charge and would speak, they had agreed. And yet the last thing McCain wanted to do was agree with Obama after so clearly avoiding doing so in the first debate.
In this brief exchange Obama achieved a real and multiple victory, small but rare in these things. He got what he wanted, he showed that reaching out could in fact have an effect, he politically out-maneuvered both his elders on their home turf- town hall and television. And most importantly he gave the audience what it actually wanted- confrontation and follow up on both sides. That’s good poltickin’.
I agree with this post from start to finish. So I think does well-known lefty blogger Kevin Drum, who goes on to pivot, as political junkies like to say, to an interesting argument for the future prospects of the GOP:
“If McCain loses, as he’s almost certain to, we’re going to see two reactions. First, Steve Schmidt wasn’t nasty enough. In the future, Republicans need to return to their Lee Atwater roots and really teach Americans what liberal treachery is all about. Second, we told you a RINO couldn’t win. The conservative base will be convinced for years that the big problem with McCain was that he was trying to be a pale shadow of liberal Democrats…This is delusional, but it’s probably good news for Democrats. It means the GOP is going to be riven by factional warfare for years, with moderates unable to get a purchase on the party apparatus because of the McCain albatross hanging around their necks. Eventually, like Britain’s Labor Party in the 80s, they’ll find their Tony Blair, but in the meantime they’re likely to double down on the most strident possible social conservatism, convinced that the heartland will respond if only they regain the true faith. Ronald Reagan, who was more pragmatic about these things than any of them ever give him credit for, will be rolling in his grave. And Democrats, at least for a while, will go from strength to strength.”
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/10/real_conservatism.html#comments
Personally, I continue to believe that real conservatism is linked to conservation and preservation of the planet we inherited, as well as to our human culture. I know others consider this quaint, but I’m sticking to it.
‘Personally, I continue to believe that real conservatism is linked to conservation and preservation of the planet we inherited, as well as to our human culture. I know others consider this quaint, but I’m sticking to it. ‘
Nope. It’s all about the Benjamins. Everything else is a distraction. Plus that kind of assumes liberals feel the opposite right?
Drum may be right, but I remain unconvinced. Partisans on either side are always quick to point to singns of a “crack-up” on the part of their opponents. But a true splitting of either side isn’t going to happen until the electorate depolarizes and/or realigns, and resistance to that has been massive. Had the economy not imploded, I think we’d still be looking at an essentially tied race. The voter status quo had a shock, but I’m not sure anything fundamental has changed. If we somehow muddle through this financial crisis more or less intact, look for more of the same in two and four years. OTOH, if it all goes to you-know-where, well, we’ll all be too busy re-learning small-scale agriculture to care much.
I think we would have had a break in the polls, with or without the financial crisis, because this is the time that the electorate starts paying attention and the hot-button issues of health care, the war, etc. are still points that Barack Obama is winning on, ideologically, with the center.
Health care being a right of all Americans – bang, that sent the CNN rating meter to 100%. Relating how his mother died of cancer while fighting the insurance companies over coverage – powerful stuff. Only increasing taxes on the top 5% and giving the middle class a tax cut. Taking the fight to the central front of Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of Iraq, which we all know is a distraction.
He wins on those points alone, and no amount of McCain showmanship would take it away, Obama would have to trip and fall on his face, and then some.
“I think we would have had a break in the polls, with or without the financial crisis”
Oh, I agree. I’m just not ready to endorse the view that a (still theoretical but apparently likely) Obama victory touches off some kind of philosophical civil war in the GOP that results in a period of Dem dominance. Yes, that could happen, but it would require a fundamental shift among the voters that tosses the Rovian playbook out the window. Absent a continued economic decline (which I should note is all too possible), I’m not sure that happens.