McCain's new low [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

JeffL

09-09-2008, 07:43 PM

His latest ad takes Obama's vote for legislation to create programs that teach kindergarteners what to do if they are victims of a sexual predator and recasts it as a vote for "sex education" for five year-olds. In other words, Obama wants to show your baby pictures of erect penises and will greatly enjoy it.

I really can't believe he's gone this far from the ideals of the service academies and the honor code. It doesn't only diminish him, it diminishes all academy grads.

Ugh. Haven't seen that ad here in Missouri yet. That is slimy.

extarbags

09-09-2008, 07:45 PM

Looking forward to seeing the right-wingers' defense of this.

jerri blank

09-09-2008, 08:05 PM

They won't even try to defend it - they're tickled pink. Remember - these are the people who trot Tundra Barbie out every day to repeat that lie about the Bridge to Nowhere. Do you think they give a flying fuck about the truth?

This is how they win elections. Democrats bring a spork to a gunfight.

jfletch

09-09-2008, 08:06 PM

I don't get too many of these ads (New Jersey), but yea, I remember reading about ads like this from Republicans quite a bit in 2006. It worked quite well for them, if I remember.

dashingly

09-09-2008, 08:55 PM

So that's what my favorite blogger was rambling about (http://community.mccainspace.com/kickapps/_mr-obama-please-stay-away-from-my-kids/blog/99177/41158.html).

MikeSofaer

09-09-2008, 09:07 PM

So why no counter-ad? "John McCain wants your children to be defenseless against sexual predators"

Lorini

09-09-2008, 09:10 PM

So why no counter-ad? "John McCain wants your children to be defenseless against sexual predators"

Because Dems won't stoop that low, they'd rather be kicked in the ass and go tumbling backwards.

Funkula

09-09-2008, 09:11 PM

So that's what my favorite blogger was rambling about (http://community.mccainspace.com/kickapps/_mr-obama-please-stay-away-from-my-kids/blog/99177/41158.html).

Oh wow.

just remeber 911 remeber the cole remeber the hostages in iran in the 80 s than think Iraq is bigger than you think it is a fight for fanactis who wants us all dead because we fight so the liberals can believe that we are wrong they are the ones that take freedoms to the extremes but yet let man and mothers in uniforms fight for them to have the right to not believe in god our so they dont have to wear a hood over their face woman want to run around have naked well remeber if muslim radicals had it theri way you would be shot for wearing a bikini or for having unmarred sex or for talking to a man in public on second thought maybe we should let the libs live in Iran for a day than see what thier oppinions are

Holy shit this guy is practically my neighbor :(

jerri blank

09-09-2008, 09:14 PM

I am assuming he's not for real.

dashingly

09-09-2008, 09:16 PM

I am assuming he's not for real.What makes you doubt the authenticity of him?

jerri blank

09-09-2008, 09:36 PM

Just a feeling I have. Perhaps I'm giving him too much credit, guessing he's a brilliant satirist when actually he's a semi-literate Republican knuckle-dragger.

I'll let others here be the judge:

Obama as part of his education reform wants to start teaching sex ed in kindnergarding this is the truth , i take this to heart cause my daughter just started kindergarding this year and i have a 2 year old son that will go there in 3 years if he does win and anyone trys to teach my kids about sex or talk to them about religion i will sue the govt i take my kids to church every sunday my daughter is in awana , i will teach them abouit sex and i will teach them to wait , i know how i am a freak i have been told this when man was talking about the different partners they i said i have one partner she is my wife i was 26 my first time because i follow the word of God . my wonderful wife was not taught this but she believes it , she is a born again christain because i told her about Jesus and as for me and my household we serve the lord Jesus as for you Mr Obama if you want to teach your kids go on but you and your agenda better keep far away from my kids .

wildpokerman

09-09-2008, 09:39 PM

Funkula

09-09-2008, 09:43 PM

My first thought was that it was a troll, but the evidence is slight.

1. He doesn't have any real tells. It would be hard to resist using some of the more amusing memes from this election (arugula and terrorist fist jabs come to mind) but he doesn't go for any of the guaranteed laugh lines. I think the most suspicious thing is his spelling of "christaininty" but I know there really are people who mash the keyboard with their hammy fingers and regard the idea of correcting typos with repugnance.
2. He's claiming to be from Garland. Anyone with little knowledge of the region would just say Dallas, anyone from outside the region but politically knowledgeable would pick Farmers Branch (because of the "renting to illegals" flap a couple years ago), and anyone from around here would probably pick Mesquite (although this category could maybe go for Garland).

If he's faking, he's very good at avoiding the easy jokes. My bullshit detector is inclined toward The Real Deal.

ydejin

09-09-2008, 10:16 PM

This is how they win elections. Democrats bring a spork to a gunfight.
Sad but true.

MattKeil

09-09-2008, 10:48 PM

Obama as part of his education reform wants to start teaching sex ed in kindnergarding this is the truth

Clearly he should be revamping spelling education first.

TomChick

09-09-2008, 10:50 PM

these are the people who trot Tundra Barbie out every day to repeat that lie about the Bridge to Nowhere

You're doing it wrong! It's Caribou Barbie!

-Tom

Athryn

09-10-2008, 01:19 AM

You're doing it wrong! It's Caribou Barbie!

-Tom

Indeed! :P

http://www.herobuilders.com/images/1%20Palin%20School%20Girl.jpg (http://www.herobuilders.com/08.htm)

bago

09-10-2008, 04:13 AM

Is thiss Psycheout with his whole BLoggers4Brownback bit?

Bahimiron

09-10-2008, 04:25 AM

Indeed! :P

Looks like someone's ready for the next season of Robot Chicken.

Midnight Son

09-10-2008, 04:40 AM

Hey Dems! It's time to stoop. The high road leads to Loserville.

Lorini

09-10-2008, 06:20 AM

Do any of you believe that guy would vote for Obama anyway? C'mon.

John Many Jars

09-10-2008, 09:47 AM

Hey, Bristol Palin didn't need any sex education! Just a mother who cares about her.

BlueJackalope

09-10-2008, 10:00 AM

TNR has some background about the man behind the "new low" ad -

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/10/steve-schmidt-s-not-so-new-low.aspx

Schmidt's candidate--an Indiana state senator named Joe Zakas--was trailing in the polls when, one week before election day, Schmidt seized on Roemer's vote for a July 1991 amendment to produce a mailer labeled "Tim Roemer's Sex Survey." (One of the 60,000 Indiana 3rd congressional district voters who received the mailer described it as "two pictures of Roemer, two gays embracing, a cover of the current Playboy and--between the gays and the Playmate--a cover of the Bible. Something bad about his values, I guess.") That amendment was overwhelmingly approved in the House, and the questions that Zakas would not say aloud at a press conference because of their "graphic sexual nature" had to pass both an ethics review board and a peer review board before they could be included in what were, after all, health surveys.

McCain '08!

Marged

09-10-2008, 11:29 AM

I am absolutely incoherent with rage about this right now. I've tried to compose some thoughts and I just... can't.

MarchHare

09-10-2008, 12:26 PM

Can someone please post a link to the actual ad?

Quaro

09-10-2008, 12:32 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVLQhRiEXZs

There's a possible counter where Obama could paint McCain as coddling pedophiles or something I guess.

extarbags

09-10-2008, 12:36 PM

You know, that's just pathetic. I wish I could honestly say that I didn't think anyone was dumb enough to buy it, but I can't.

Funkula

09-10-2008, 12:48 PM

So that's what my favorite blogger was rambling about (http://community.mccainspace.com/kickapps/_mr-obama-please-stay-away-from-my-kids/blog/99177/41158.html).

It occurred to me, while reading several entries from this blog aloud to my amused roommates, that this is the political blog equivalent of Full Life Consequences.

Lum

09-10-2008, 12:56 PM

With this plus the "Lipstick on a pig" drama, the media is starting to come to the conclusion McCain's campaign shows that he is literally unsuited to hold office.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/215224.php
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/apology_not_accepted.html

You can draw one of two (or both!) conclusions here:

1) They're right
2) The media is turning on McCain with a vengeance

Dirt

09-10-2008, 12:58 PM

The 4th Estate has issues.

jeffd

09-10-2008, 01:00 PM

Lum: Don't overstate things. Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan are not part of the group we usually refer to as "The Media"

Joe Klein's been down on McCain for a while now.

I'd love to believe the media is coming around and is going to finally present a narrative that coincides with the truth, but I'll believe it when I see the headline on MSNBC is "McCain lies again."

BlueJackalope

09-10-2008, 01:11 PM

McCain has had the benefit of the doubt, from the media, since 2000 when it was perceived that he was slimed by W's campaign in South Carolina (would it effect your vote if you knew he had a black daughter!?) .

Its pretty clear that McCain has decided to try and do the same thing to Obama (have you heard he has a black daughter!?) I don't think its impossible that the media will start making him and his gimmick of a VP start answering substantive questions and start telling a different narrative. I don't think McCain is cut out to be a front runner and it wont be long before he makes a gaffe (though his team has been sitting on him pretty hard these days).

Look for the narrative to change against McCain in the next few days.

Bahimiron

09-10-2008, 01:18 PM

I heard a rumor that Obama has a black daughter.

extarbags

09-10-2008, 01:20 PM

I heard a rumor that Obama has a black daughter.

This is fucking with my opinion of him.

bago

09-10-2008, 06:46 PM

I heard he has 2 black daughters!

Rob Beschizza

09-10-2008, 08:30 PM

His latest ad takes Obama's vote for legislation to create programs that teach kindergarteners what to do if they are victims of a sexual predator and recasts it as a vote for "sex education" for five year-olds. In other words, Obama wants to show your baby pictures of erect penises and will greatly enjoy it.

I really can't believe he's gone this far from the ideals of the service academies and the honor code. It doesn't only diminish him, it diminishes all academy grads.

As a somewhat bemused foreigner here in the states, let me say that this is the best example of something McCain can do that Obama can not. It is, in a single neat package, why Obama is going to lose.

Angie Gallant

09-11-2008, 10:19 PM

Planned Parenthood hits back. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Planned_Parenthood_defends_Obama_attacks_McCain.ht ml?showall)

Eric T Cheng

09-11-2008, 11:53 PM

Talisker

09-12-2008, 12:03 AM

The St. Petersburg Times' PolitFact has a feature called Truth-O-Meter (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/), that checks out the validity of the Democratic presidential and VP candidate's statements and even chain emails (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/chain-email/).
Er, you might want to take some of the totals with a grain of salt -- for example, this is one of the "Pants on Fire" level lies:

"The president is brain-dead."

Joe Biden on Wednesday, July 4th, 2007 in Des Moines, Iowa.

Irresponsible claim (and wrong medical diagnosis)

During a campaign stop in Iowa on July 4, the six-term senator declared, “This guy is brain-dead.”
It’s an extreme charge, since brain death is defined as “irreversible unconciousness with complete loss of brain function” (Encyclopedia of Death and Dying).

Needless to say, we find the charge ridiculous. There’s no evidence Biden performed the necessary medical tests to make such a diagnosis. We would have accepted the results of a cerebral blood flow study or proof that Biden had examined Bush to see if he had an oculocephalic reflex.

Indeed, even people who disagree with the president about Iraq and assorted other issues will acknowledge that the president has spontaneous respiration and is responding to stimuli.

Machfive

09-12-2008, 06:10 AM

Er, you might want to take some of the totals with a grain of salt -- for example, this is one of the "Pants on Fire" level lies:

Hahahahhaha. That's awesome. I think someone's got their tongue firmly planted in cheek, dude. Seems more like them poking fun than seriously being obtuse.

Also, McCain = fucking slimeball now. He is showing he hasn't a shred of decency left with ads like this. That Planned Parenthood counter was good, but not good enough, and I doubt it'll get enough play to matter.

Bahimiron

09-12-2008, 06:13 AM

Indeed, even people who disagree with the president about Iraq and assorted other issues will acknowledge that the president has spontaneous respiration and is responding to stimuli.

Man, I donno about that one...

Talisker

09-12-2008, 07:44 AM

Hahahahhaha. That's awesome. I think someone's got their tongue firmly planted in cheek, dude. Seems more like them poking fun than seriously being obtuse.
Well, duh. But they are counting it in Biden's "Pants on fire" lie total, vs. (for example) McCain's claim that Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners.

Ranulf

09-12-2008, 07:47 AM

Jon Rowe

09-12-2008, 07:48 AM

Because Dems won't stoop that low, they'd rather be kicked in the ass and go tumbling backwards.

And that is why they lost the 2004 election.

Dems need to grow a sack.

Gordon Cameron

09-12-2008, 07:54 AM

What does growing a sack actually mean, though? Misreading McCain's legislation and posting ads about how he wants to teach sex to kindergarteners?

Lum

09-12-2008, 08:17 AM

The St. Petersburg Times' PolitFact has a feature called Truth-O-Meter (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/)

Wow. Since I last saw that they actually had to add a new icon for some of McCain's worst statements:

http://www.politifact.com/media/img/tom-pantsonfire.gif

Banzai

09-12-2008, 08:27 AM

Wow. Since I last saw that they actually had to add a new icon for some of McCain's worst statements:

http://www.politifact.com/media/img/tom-pantsonfire.gif

That's awesome.

Eric T Cheng

09-13-2008, 08:32 AM

Paul Reiser has an interesting editorial (http://www.236.com/blog/w/paul_reiser/yeah_you_and_whose_army_8905.php) on Senators McCain and Obama's presidential election.

So everyone's talking about the nasty spike of nastiness in the presidential race--a spike brilliantly orchestrated by the Republican machinery--and Republican John McCain takes a moment to point out that even this is Barack Obama's fault.

Y'see, all the crap being thrown at Obama--the fear-mongering, the half-truths, the full lies--all the character assassination hurling Obama's way, is in fact, his own doing.

"I think the tone of this whole campaign would have been very different if Senator Obama had accepted my request for us to appear in town hall meetings all over America," the Senator from Arizona tells us.

Am I just losing my friggin' mind? Seriously. I keep looking around the room to see if I'm living in some suddenly altered state where everything we know is now called the opposite, and nobody notices. Or can stop it.

"I wish I didn't have to take your lunch money, but you shouldn't of hadda brung it."

We're in the 3rd grade again. The skinny, smart kid who just moved in to the neighborhood is getting roughed-up by the asshole bully. The kid who hits you in the head with your hand and says, "Why're you hitting yourself? Why're you hitting yourself?"

"Um, actually I'm not. You're hitting me."

"Um, actually I'm not. You're hitting me."

"You calling me a liar?"

"No, I'm just pointing out that..." SMACK!

"Why're you hitting yourself?"

And there seems to be no one to appeal to. There're no grown-ups around when you need 'em. No one to step in and say, "Alright, that's enough now. We don't do that here, fella." And in the absence of any authority, the asshole gets to keep doing it.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-13-2008, 02:51 PM

The St. Petersburg Times' PolitFact

SUCKS (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1430261&postcount=12) BALLS (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1430262&postcount=13)

Andrew Mayer

09-13-2008, 11:46 PM

Looks like the MSM is starting to report on the serial and unrepentant lies coming out of the McCain campaign (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/13/1393986.aspx).

We'll see how far it goes, but it's going to be hard for them to wish away this narrative since reporters may be getting tired of being willing dupes in the name of "balance".

Anti-Bunny

09-14-2008, 12:04 AM

Wow. Since I last saw that they actually had to add a new icon for some of McCain's worst statements:

http://www.politifact.com/media/img/tom-pantsonfire.gif

They've been using it for a while actually..
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/

Cosmic Hippo

09-15-2008, 11:03 AM

Newest Obama ad (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1786848892) striking back. LOTS of quotes from articles and editorials decrying the McCain campaign, which is good. All of the quotes appear to be very well-attributed and aren't taken out-of-context, so they aren't stooped to the level that the McCain camp has. Hopefully it will be effective.

However, they are using some sneaky imagery. For example, a McCain pic next to "The truth be damned" in huge letters, when of course the "Truth be damned" quote was from an editorial used to describe McCain's approach.

That is of course attack ad 101 stuff and nowhere near outside of what has been considered normal for a while now, but we should still recognize it for what it is.

CheesyPoof

09-15-2008, 11:28 AM

Eric T Cheng

09-15-2008, 11:35 AM

Telefrog

09-15-2008, 12:10 PM

Huh. Tucker Bounds can't even find a haven over at Fox News.

Fox News Megyn Kelly grills (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/foxs-megyn-kelly-works-ov_n_126473.html) Sen. McCain's rep, Tucker Bounds, over Sen. McCain's attack ads.

Once you've lost Karl Rove over the matter (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/14/rove-some-mccain-ads-dont-pass-100-percent-truth-test/), it pretty much becomes open season on the lies.

Fooey

09-15-2008, 12:20 PM

jerri blank

09-15-2008, 12:28 PM

"They're being mean to me!!" is not going to be an effective response strategy.

You should tell that to your BFFs in the McCain campaign. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/mccain_disrespectful.html)

Anaxagoras

09-15-2008, 12:30 PM

Fooey

09-15-2008, 12:41 PM

You should tell that to your BFFs in the McCain campaign. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/mccain_disrespectful.html)

That was whiny and they moved off it pretty quickly, while Obama now seems to be talking about focusing his campaign on responding to McCain's attacks.

ydejin

09-15-2008, 12:50 PM

I don't know if this is new or not, but this is the first ad that I noticed that has the 'I approved this message' at the beginning of the ad. In a sleaze campaign it removes a bit of mindshare that the candidate is being a dick.

That's been pretty standard. I've seen quite a few with the "I approve this message" at the start. I haven't tracked it that closely, but I do think that ads with the "I approve" at the start tend to be attack ads.

ydejin

09-15-2008, 12:52 PM

That was whiny and they moved off it pretty quickly, while Obama now seems to be talking about focusing his campaign on responding to McCain's attacks.

I think this is a no win situation for Obama. Either he doesn't respond and ends up Swiftboated ala Kerry or he wastes energy responding. Of course the correct response would be for the American public to actually pay attention do some research, learn when ads are bullshit and don't vote for candidates who put up this kind of stuff. However, as we've seen over and over in fact negative campaigning works at least in the short term.

Podunk

09-15-2008, 02:41 PM

I disagree. McCain and Palin have recently demonstrated a pattern of either making grossly misleading statements or bald faced lies in public appearances as well as campaign ads.

What the Obama campaign is doing here is not complaining that McCain is being mean. They're pointing out that McCain, supposedly a man of unassailable honor and integrity, is blatantly acting without honor and integrity as he campaigns. These aren't "stop being mean to me" ads. These are "look what those motherfucking hypocrites are up to now" ads.

Cosmic Hippo

09-15-2008, 03:08 PM

"They're being mean to me!!" is not going to be an effective response strategy. How well did that work for Kerry or Dukakis when they started focusing their campaigns on that. When you're spending all your time responding to what the other guy's saying about you, you lose.
Fooey, I'm going to respond to this, but do you think you can level with me? You're one of the proud McCain supporters in here and I haven't really seen clear thoughts from you on what McCain is doing. Surely you realize he's outright, knowingly lying in these ads, particularly the "sex ed" one, and banking that if he repeats it enough it won't matter how many people actually call him on it. It's a tactic the Bush administration was fond of, though it obviously goes back farther than that. Now, the Obama campaign has been caught exaggerating before (I'm addicted to factcheck.org) but this is objectively well beyond anything either campaign has done so far, and honestly something I thought McCain would manage to avoid doing, particularly since he was a victim of it in 2000. Are you disappointed in him at all? Or do you want a conservative in office badly enough that you think it's worth it? Do you consider it all part of the game? Again, I'm not trying to do P&R battle with you here, I'd rather cut through all that and get your honest opinion.

Now as for actually responding to your post, which mostly discusses strategy:
Complaining that the other guy is attacking too much often fails, true, but it also sometimes works. Negative campaigning is a double-edged sword, which is why most campaigns only resort to it when they're losing. If your opponent does it you can try to ignore it and keep your lead if you have enough of an advantage (Obama tried it, didn't work), you can strike back with negativity of your own, or you can try and maximize the damage the aggressor does to his own image instigating it in the first place. Obama is trying a combination of the last two - you're right that it might not work, but it's part of the playbook. Kerry failed completely to respond to the attacks last time around for a number of reasons which include not being charismatic enough (not a problem Obama shares), not being able to differentiate himself enough from Bush (voted for the war, etc, plus they nailed him pretty hard with the flip-flopping image), and "dancing to the middle." But past campaigns and conventional wisdom show that "striking back" is neither the only way to respond to attack ads, nor is it always the most effective one.

All this coming from some campaign management training I've taken a few times, experience as an organizer, and as a volunteer. When I refer to "the playbook" I'm almost being literal. ;-)

Fooey

09-15-2008, 03:44 PM

Creole Ned

09-15-2008, 03:46 PM

The bar is not merely set low, it is rolling about on the ground.

Talisker

09-15-2008, 03:53 PM

The Obama people took this campaign into the gutter with the vicious personal attacks on Palin that were almost entirely either lies or based on elitist snobbery.
I don't recall any Obama ads or official statements from the campaign that were vicious personal attacks or outright lies about Palin. The dailykos crowd, yeah, but that's like blaming McCain for freeper stupidity.

Qenan

09-15-2008, 04:01 PM

Hey, Bristol Palin didn't need any sex education! Just a mother who cares about her.
She learned about it the old-fashioned way...

Angie Gallant

09-15-2008, 04:08 PM

It all makes sense if you ignore that the nasty ads started before Palin was nominated and that Obama's campaign didn't make any nasty personal attacks on Palin at all!

Qenan

09-15-2008, 04:17 PM

He needs to take off the gloves and throw some sucker punches.

quatoria

09-15-2008, 04:31 PM

I don't recall any Obama ads or official statements from the campaign that were vicious personal attacks or outright lies about Palin. The dailykos crowd, yeah, but that's like blaming McCain for freeper stupidity.

Anything said by any liberal with a computer is coming directly from The Obama Campaign, and is their fault. McCain is only responsible for things he is seen saying directly on camera, and maybe not even then. And it's probably someone else's fault, anyway. These are the rules in Fooeyland.

Drastic

09-15-2008, 05:14 PM

The Obama people took this campaign into the gutter with the vicious personal attacks on Palin that were almost entirely either lies or based on elitist snobbery.
For an interesting counterpoint to the "lying negative campaign is more than okay because the other guys started it!" notion, some other conservative on the board once said (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1456122&postcount=496):

I gave a couple hundred bucks to the McCain campaign during the primaries and then got disillusioned and gave up on him (as I've remarked on here) when he went negative. I've dumped $750 on McCain in three separate $250 chunks the past couple days after watching that speech and am seriously fired back up now. There are many, many people on my side of the aisle who were feeling lukewarm towards McCain or were disillusioned that a hero like him was running such a nasty campaign who are fully on board now and ready to go all out for November.

ETA: Notice, there was not one mention of Obama by either McCain or Palin. They've ditched the negative bullshit and are running on a positive platform of maverick reform, and there was not a candidate McCain could have chosen who would have better complemented on him on that than Sarah Palin. Thank God the negative ant-Obama focused campaign is over and the McCain we supported all along is back.

I don't remember off the top of my head who said that, though--goes by Louie or something like that--but I bet he's not too happy that the negative bullshit never went away after all. That'd be some cognitive dissonance to square away, whoever that guy is.

malphigian

09-15-2008, 05:28 PM

The Obama people took this campaign into the gutter with the vicious personal attacks on Palin that were almost entirely either lies or based on elitist snobbery. If that's where you guys want to fight this out, we'll fight it out there.

1. The Obama campaign did no such thing to Palin. Arguably part of the main stream media did. Certainly some of the left wing blogs did, but if we're going to start including blogs in this, does that mean we can also bring up Obama Waffles (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNafTsdlgbSZ8YMoFRDSgrVlEwGwD936205O0)? You really want the gutters on both sides attributed to the campaigns, because I'm pretty sure your side loses that one with the racist waffles alone.

2. This was not even close the first "dirty" campaigning. McCain's lying ad about Obama not visiting wounded troops because he couldn't bring the media was way back in July. Not to mention the celebrity ads, which while not nearly as bad as the kid-sex-ed thing, were definitely slimy.

You're claim that this is about Sarah Palin is post-hoc justification.

That said, I do agree with your analysis that this isn't much of a good tactic for the Obama campaign. I doubt they'll hold on to it very long, they are just capitalizing on the recent media attention.

Fooey

09-15-2008, 05:48 PM

This is too funny. Things never change:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Its_remarkable.html

Adree

09-15-2008, 06:04 PM

This is too funny. Things never change:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Its_remarkable.html

Yep the republicans are still liars running the country into the ground.

NoWayJose

09-15-2008, 06:40 PM

That said, I do agree with your analysis that this isn't much of a good tactic for the Obama campaign. I doubt they'll hold on to it very long, they are just capitalizing on the recent media attention.
I think it runs deeper than that. I think Obama has heard the democratic establishment whispering that he's not tough enough to take on McCain (and now Palin), and he's over-reacting, letting all the worst dogs out. It's disappointing but it's not the end of the world and if it means getting him into office and MAYBE getting the war in Iraq over a little bit earlier than McCain (a long shot, but who knows), then I guess calling McCain old or Palin clueless or whatever is probably worth it.

jeffd

09-15-2008, 07:36 PM

Cosmic Hippo

09-15-2008, 07:42 PM

The Obama people took this campaign into the gutter with the vicious personal attacks on Palin that were almost entirely either lies or based on elitist snobbery. If that's where you guys want to fight this out, we'll fight it out there. The gloves are off now from here until November. You chose to have this type of campaign, and you'll probably lose it -- in a year that should be your easiest win since 1964 -- because the people running your campaign don't know how to fight that kind of election and we do. This isn't the campaign McCain wanted to run, but he is definitely pissed off enough now about the Palin slurs that he's ready to let Steve Schmidt, who Karl Rove thinks is too tough, do his worst.
Okay, I see where you're coming from. However, and this won't surprise you, I also believe that you're mistaken, and that the Obama camp had nothing to do with those idiotic Palin rumors. I would like you to check out the following at factcheck.org, which is a very well-respected non-partisan site that is often quoted (and sometimes misquoted) by both sides. This one isn't necessary to my argument, but here is their report debunking the anti-Palin rumors (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html) in the first place.

McCain (or his people, I guess) later accused the Obama camp of attacking Palin with those rumors - he even quoted factcheck to do it - but factcheck called him on it, as well as on misquoting their earlier article. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html)

A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama's attacks on Palin "completely false" and "misleading." That's what we said, but it wasn't about Obama.

Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.

All of their source references and methodology is available in-depth at the bottom for you to verify if you want. Could you tell me what you think after reading that? I will of course do the same if you have a source that disagrees.

I suppose you could suspect the Obama camp of anonymously spreading those rumors in the first place, but without any sort of sign or evidence, by that logic you would also have to blame the McCain camp for a lot of the idiotic Obama rumors out there (muslim, terrorist ties, the Koran, not actually being born in America, radical extremist wife, etc).

And I want to reiterate, since this is P&R, that I'm not trying to beat you in an argument; I actually do want to have a straightforward exchange of ideas.

Talisker

09-15-2008, 07:49 PM

And I want to reiterate, since this is P&R, that I'm not trying to beat you in an argument; I actually do want to have a straightforward exchange of ideas.
Good luck with that.

John Reynolds

09-15-2008, 07:59 PM

jeffd

09-15-2008, 08:08 PM

On a sidenote - it's interesting the (entirely disconnected from reality) post-hoc justification Fooey's applying here. Specifically: "The Obama people took this campaign into the gutter with the vicious personal attacks on Palin that were almost entirely either lies or based on elitist snobbery."

Anyone who's read Nixonland will recognize this what it is. A lot of right-wing motivation is based on aggrieved outrage - the idea that the "elites" are attacking "my guy" (or gal, in this case) and thus we need to rally around her. It's kind of neat to see an example of this template right in front of our faces - forty years after Nixon helped create it, it's still going strong.

Anaxagoras

09-15-2008, 08:46 PM

The Obama people took this campaign into the gutter with the vicious personal attacks on Palin that were almost entirely either lies or based on elitist snobbery.
What is he talking about? Hell... cite blogs if you have to, but I honestly have no idea what he's talking about here.

You chose to have this type of campaign, and you'll probably lose it -- in a year that should be your easiest win since 1964 -- because the people running your campaign don't know how to fight that kind of election and we do.
No Fooey.... the Democrats will probably lose this election because the good people of America are, by and large, scum. And they are attracted to their own.

arctangent

09-16-2008, 07:01 AM

What is he talking about? Hell... cite blogs if you have to, but I honestly have no idea what he's talking about here.

No Fooey.... the Democrats will probably lose this election because the good people of America are, by and large, scum. And they are attracted to their own.

"Scum" is harsh; mentally lazy and ignorant, childish and simple-minded, okay, but not scum.

I would reserve the word "scum" for the asswipes taking advantage of the American people's naive yet good-hearted nature to push their own greedy elitist agendas.

Gordon Cameron

09-16-2008, 07:21 AM

I think this is a no win situation for Obama. Either he doesn't respond and ends up Swiftboated ala Kerry or he wastes energy responding. Of course the correct response would be for the American public to actually pay attention do some research, learn when ads are bullshit and don't vote for candidates who put up this kind of stuff. However, as we've seen over and over in fact negative campaigning works at least in the short term.

These sorts of thing always seem to be no-win situations for the Democrat.

Jason McMaster

09-16-2008, 07:30 AM

Democrats are absolutely right. Republicans absolutely wrong.

Is that about right? Democrats never do anything wrong?

Just checking.

Note: I won't be voting for McCain, I just think this kind of thing is funny.

Fooey

09-16-2008, 09:01 AM

Okay, I see where you're coming from. However, and this won't surprise you, I also believe that you're mistaken, and that the Obama camp had nothing to do with those idiotic Palin rumors. I would like you to check out the following at factcheck.org, which is a very well-respected non-partisan site that is often quoted (and sometimes misquoted) by both sides. This one isn't necessary to my argument, but here is their report debunking the anti-Palin rumors (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html) in the first place.

McCain (or his people, I guess) later accused the Obama camp of attacking Palin with those rumors - he even quoted factcheck to do it - but factcheck called him on it, as well as on misquoting their earlier article. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html)

All of their source references and methodology is available in-depth at the bottom for you to verify if you want. Could you tell me what you think after reading that? I will of course do the same if you have a source that disagrees.

I suppose you could suspect the Obama camp of anonymously spreading those rumors in the first place, but without any sort of sign or evidence, by that logic you would also have to blame the McCain camp for a lot of the idiotic Obama rumors out there (muslim, terrorist ties, the Koran, not actually being born in America, radical extremist wife, etc).

And I want to reiterate, since this is P&R, that I'm not trying to beat you in an argument; I actually do want to have a straightforward exchange of ideas.

I just don't really care whether the attacks came directly by order of Obama or Axelrod or just happened to be spewed en masse by an army of their supporters. I was ready to go down to honorable defeat before, but now I'm mad and want to beat Obama. Not just beat him, but embarrass him and turn him into an historical joke like Kerry or Dukakis. He would actually be worse than them, since he would have lost an all but unloseable election.

ydejin

09-16-2008, 09:07 AM

He would actually be worse than them, since he would have lost an all but unloseable election.

Electing an African-American was a pretty long shot to start with. If it wasn't for Bush's disastrous eight years and America's subsequent poor opinion of Republicans an African-American would stand no chance at all. So yeah, I agree this would have been an unloseable election for a white male candidate. As it stands, I'm still pretty skeptical that there isn't still a large part of the population which is going to vote against Obama strictly based on race.

Jason McMaster

09-16-2008, 09:09 AM

Electing an African-American was a pretty long shot to start with. If it wasn't for Bush's disastrous eight years and America's subsequent poor opinion of Republicans and African-American would stand no chance at all. So yeah, I agree this would have been an unloseable election for a white male candidate. As it stands, I'm still pretty skeptical that there isn't still a large part of the population which is going to vote against Obama strictly based on race.

Nah, I think Obama has it this time but it's going to be closer than what people think.

Soapyfrog

09-16-2008, 09:14 AM

I just don't really care
I don't think you needed to type anything after this. You're A-OK with rumours that say Obama is a secret Muslim, or that he swore on the Koran in the senate or some such thing, but GOD FORBID rumours might circulate disparaging your favoured candidate! Death to Obama *fires AK47 wildly in the air*

WarrenM

09-16-2008, 09:14 AM

As it stands, I'm still pretty skeptical that there isn't still a large part of the population which is going to vote against Obama strictly based on race.
Oh yeah, no doubt about that. Basically, the South. But I'm hoping there are enough people living in the current century that we can pull this off.

Jason McMaster

09-16-2008, 09:16 AM

Oh yeah, no doubt about that. Basically, the South. But I'm hoping there are enough people living in the current century that we can pull this off.

You know, being from the South, this never gets old.

JeffL

09-16-2008, 02:30 PM

Oh yeah, no doubt about that. Basically, the South. But I'm hoping there are enough people living in the current century that we can pull this off.

Actually more like Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Talisker

09-16-2008, 02:58 PM

Actually more like Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Firearm deer season isn't until a week after the election -- so don't ignore Michigan racists.

quatoria

09-16-2008, 03:55 PM

You know, being from the South, this never gets old.

You know, being from the south, you're living in a fucking dream world if you don't think there's a hell of a lot of racists here who'd sooner get punched in the balls then vote for a black man. I grew up surrounded by them.

Qenan

09-16-2008, 04:22 PM

Sure, but the south is a lost cause to the Democrats, so it's irrelevant to the election.

Jason McMaster

09-16-2008, 05:15 PM

You know, being from the south, you're living in a fucking dream world if you don't think there's a hell of a lot of racists here who'd sooner get punched in the balls then vote for a black man. I grew up surrounded by them.

You know what, cool.

JeffL

09-16-2008, 06:02 PM

Firearm deer season isn't until a week after the election -- so don't ignore Michigan racists.

Yeah, I used to live in the Tricities area of MI. Always amazed me when the highways were so jammed with everyone heading "up north" for deer season.

And yeah, I saw the redneck MI racists, but I think Ohio really has them beat.

Talisker

09-16-2008, 07:37 PM

And yeah, I saw the redneck MI racists, but I think Ohio really has them beat.
Well yeah, it's an entire state of hillbillies. Ask anyone from Detroit, they know :)

JeffL

09-17-2008, 10:38 AM

Well yeah, it's an entire state of hillbillies. Ask anyone from Detroit, they know :)

LOL! Well, I have the "advantage" of having family in the deep south as well as in Ohio, so I'm in both places a lot.

What I have seen all over the country is that there are pretty big pockets in most parts of the country in which you have fairly undisguised racism. And pockets in which you have just as much racism, but hidden much more effectively.

BlueJackalope

09-19-2008, 04:07 PM

Interesting Article on McCain's campaign of prevarication and why he might feel he has to do it. (Spoiler: to save the country).

The rational part of this is out of the witer's ass, but it is an interesting summation of McCain's woppers, and why his base doesn't care.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=71756e51-a09c-4b7d-b270-c6327191b341

Considered froma purely amoral point of view, McCain's strategy has much to recommend it. His opponent is a narrow target. Obama has two principal political weaknesses: his race and his lack of experience. McCain, to his credit, has shied away from race-based attacks, and he has de-emphasized experience since selecting Palin. On the policy front, McCain faces even more of a disadvantage. He's defending a set of proposals nearly indistinguishable from those of an incumbent with the highest disapproval ratings in the history of polling. McCain got some traction attacking Obama for supporting a timetable for withdrawal, until the Iraqi prime minister endorsed essentially the same idea. Obama, like Bill Clinton, has taken few positions that might hurt him in the election. On taxes, for instance, Obama favors larger rate cuts for the vast majority of Americans, leaving McCain in the unenviable position of defending (vis-à-vis his opponent) higher taxes for the middle class and vastly lower taxes for the very rich. McCain, in short, stands little chance running against Obama. Running against a pretend Obama who favors broad tax hikes and opposes any new energy sources naturally seems more promising.

Angie Gallant

09-19-2008, 04:39 PM

It has been 37 days since McCain last held a press conference and took unscripted questions from the media.

Eric T Cheng

09-19-2008, 04:49 PM

It has been 37 days since McCain last held a press conference and took unscripted questions from the media.

Maybe he's still waiting for respect and deference from the press?

Lorini

09-19-2008, 05:20 PM

What's he going to do in the debates? Have someone there to whisper in his ear?

Jason Cross

09-19-2008, 05:29 PM

What's he going to do in the debates? Have someone there to whisper in his ear?

The same thing they always do (they = politicians in debates). You have a set of rehearsed talking points for a couple dozen topics/scenarios. And when a question comes up, you spend your first two sentences forming a bridge between the question and its nearest prepared answer. Then you deliver your talking points.

I mean, they don't know what the questions will be ahead of time, precisely. But they know what all the issues are and what's in the news, so they can still prepare answers. The moderators almost never get so specific to make that impossible, nor do they follow-up hard when the candidate shifts away from the subject.

Bush was extraordinarily good at this in his debates, especially in 2004 where they would ask about anything and he'd find a way to talk about terrorists and the war.

arctangent

09-19-2008, 05:30 PM

Maybe he'll send Sarah Barracuda to debate for him.

Andrew Mayer

09-19-2008, 06:25 PM

The same thing they always do (they = politicians in debates). You have a set of rehearsed talking points for a couple dozen topics/scenarios. And when a question comes up, you spend your first two sentences forming a bridge between the question and its nearest prepared answer. Then you deliver your talking points.

That's not going to work so well this time.

Amazingly enough, this last week has transformed this into an issues election. I'm not sure how McCain reacts to that.

Eric T Cheng

09-19-2008, 06:28 PM

Amazingly enough, this last week has transformed this into an issues election. I'm not sure how McCain reacts to that.

Noun. Verb. PoW?

Eric T Cheng

09-19-2008, 06:39 PM

From Paul Krugman of The New York Times (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/):

Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Machfive

09-19-2008, 07:28 PM

Well yeah, it's an entire state of hillbillies. Ask anyone from Detroit, they know :)

Even as our city is tearing itself down, I feel like I live in the only civilized part of the state. ;)

Talisker

09-19-2008, 07:32 PM

Even as our city is tearing itself down, I feel like I live in the only civilized part of the state. ;)
Hey, I was talking about Ohio!

(But yeah, Ottawa county is pretty much a Sarah Palin paradise, just without the oil wells and helicopter moose hunting).

Angie Gallant

09-19-2008, 09:53 PM

From Paul Krugman of The New York Times (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/):

Obama could pretty much ride that one home. I know he probably said it before this week, but holy cow.

ydejin

09-19-2008, 11:52 PM

Obama could pretty much ride that one home. I know he probably said it before this week, but holy cow.

It was published pretty darn close to this week. McCain's article is in the Sep/Oct 2008 issue of the Actuaries Academy journal. While I'm sure he probably wrote it months and months ago that's probably still way to close for McCain to do much ducking. Plus most people would naturally focus that it's in an article published this month rather than the actual date it was written.

wisefool

09-20-2008, 07:23 AM

From Paul Krugman of The New York Times (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/):

Someone tell McCain that the "Medicare Advantage" plans the Republican party loves so much creates a more fragmented market with their own special set of rules (more bureaucracy and paperwork), and waste as the administration cost in a typical private insurance plan is 20%-30% (marketing, etc) compared to the health and human services' 3%.

I think they should either nationalize or create a two or three companies. While they are at it, they should enforce existing rules - there's dinky little crappy plans in this neighborhood that run around hoodwinking senior citizens into HMO plans which they only find out when they need an angiogram and find nobody takes that insurance. Bastards. I hates them.

To get both universal coverage and lower costs you're gonna have to "decrease medical benefits". This means something like 10% of the people who complain of back pain get to do MRIs and the other 74% should take two aspirin and call back in the morning. It has its own problems as anyone from Canada/UK can attest.

While I'm here on my soapbox complaining, I also want to tell McCain and all the other senators to shut up about health IT. It's good for huge practices and hospitals, not useful at all for anyone else. I like my kindle, but paper requires no batteries, works in the bathtub, is cheaper, and easy to train people to learn to use.

I think both parties are just too scared a kind white man in a white coat from the AMA will go on TV and tell the people those mean people want them to die of cancer. The one good bit I see in McCain's plan is a it will give the individuals a higher sense of the cost of medical services - This is a backhanded way to attack medical costs without attacking doctors. Clever.

JeffL

09-20-2008, 07:29 AM

wrt the debate, a few exchanges will be pretty predictible:

Obama will accuse McCain of having a staff full of lobbyists and question how he can stand for change, and throw in voting along with Bush 95% of the time.

McCain will respond by accusing Obama of having the man who led Fannie Mae and made $100 Million from it as an economic advisor, point out that Biden voted with Bush a majority of the time, and somehow toss in there that Obama has never done anything to challenge or take on his party (and maybe something like "and at least I voted! Senator Obama voted present on most bills of import!")

Both, when asked what they think should be done about the economy, will give vague answers dressed up to sound good. Obama will state the problems are the result of Bush's failed economic policies. McCain will point out that Democrats have headed the oversight committees for the last couple of years and done nothing and rejected Bush's 2003 effort to set up an oversight committee to watch over Fannie Mae's budgeting and activities.

Obama will answer questions with relatively intelligent but a bit lengthy and sometimes wandering answers. McCain will answer in short sound bytes that will sound good but not answer the question. Ask Obama what time it is, he will tell you how to build a watch and why watches are so important. Ask McCain what time it is, and he will reply that he didn't have a watch in a POW camp.

People who support McCain will insist that he blew Obama away, people who support Obama will insist that he wiped the floor with McCain. Undecideds will still struggle over whatever makes them undecided at this point.

Moore

09-20-2008, 07:32 AM

Angie Gallant

09-20-2008, 09:13 AM

With supporters like these.... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/talkingamerica/2008/09/the_sound_of_ranchera_and.html)

On the other side of the Fair, however, Fernando de Baca, 70, told a different story. The chairman of Bernalillo County Republicans argued that the Latino emphasis on hard work and family values, plus the Catholic church's opposition to abortion, made the community naturally conservative.

He offered another, blunter, reason why he believed John McCain would do well in New Mexico.

"The truth is that Hispanics came here as conquerors," he said. "African-Americans came here as slaves.

"Hispanics consider themselves above blacks. They won't vote for a black president."

I wasn't sure about this, though. Virtually all of the Hispanic voters I spoke to told me they were supporting Obama.

Tankero

09-20-2008, 09:28 AM

Most latinos emphasize their indigenous "heritage" (even if they really have no historical claim to it) rather than their "Conquistador" aspect.

So yeah, he's full of shit and a half.

Andrew Mayer

09-20-2008, 09:42 AM

McCain will respond by accusing Obama of having the man who led Fannie Mae and made $100 Million from it as an economic advisor,

It'll be interesting if he does, because it's a lie based on the flimsiest of evidence (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html). McCain can lie to the press and in ads, but it'll be interesting to see what happens if he tries to do it in the debates.

Hawkeye Fierce

09-20-2008, 09:47 AM

Well, Jeff was saying that the debate responses will be predictable. I'll add my agreement that, yes, it is predictable that McCain will lie in the debates.

Eric T Cheng

09-20-2008, 09:51 AM

Take a drink every time Sen. McCain says: "My friends..."

Take a drink every time Sen. Obama stammers a word.

Andrew Mayer

09-20-2008, 09:59 AM

Everytime we have debates the press starts talking about "knockout blows" and "winners", but the truth is that it's all part of the ongoing tapestry. Occasionally you get something juicy like Quayle vs. Bentsen, but normally it's more spin than win.

JeffL

09-20-2008, 10:12 AM

It'll be interesting if he does, because it's a lie based on the flimsiest of evidence (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html). McCain can lie to the press and in ads, but it'll be interesting to see what happens if he tries to do it in the debates.

Yeah, but based on what I've seen recently, that won't stop him. Who cares if the Sunday morning shows, etc. expose that as a lie (or whatever euphanism we were using when Hillary was lying?) The damage will be done for those watching the debate, the vast majority of which will not read the detailed articles refuting it? It will put Obama on the defensive, and even just denying it puts Obama on his heels? From a pure wargaming POV, McCain could do a lot of damage by connecting Obama with this guy, the radical bomber dude (oh - double or triple attack!!!! If they were REALLY good, McCain would have a line about that guy receiving his medal from the North Vietnamese, in Canada, made from metal taken from shot down aircraft over NV - "Senator Obama associated with people like (what's his name), who was given a medal by the North Vietnamese made from the metal of aircraft they shot down during the war, potentially a medal made from the wreckage of my downed aircraft that led to my 5 years of imprisonment and torture by the very people awarding Senator's Obama's buddies.") The part about the medal and what it was made from appears to be true, so that one could really put him in "I don't really know that guy that well" mode.

Stuff like that, throw in Rezko, Wright, etc. Keep Obama in denying mode. Challenge him on when he has taken on his own party. Etc. McCain could do a lot of damage. My only hope is that his campaign people aren't "good" enough to come up with this stuff in any kind of effective manner.

Eric T Cheng

09-20-2008, 01:46 PM

Keith Olbermann talks about Sen. McCain's confusion about the Spanish Prime Minister (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7Hbt4wVu1I), including an audio clip of the radio interview.

Sol Invictus

09-20-2008, 03:23 PM

McCain seriously worries me. Is this guy senile or is he simply a reckless twit and so-called 'maverick' with no regard for international politics? Given that he has lipstick-on-a-pig former Mayor of Northern Exposure as his running mate, I'm willing to bet that it's the latter.

Eric T Cheng

09-21-2008, 12:30 PM

Here's the Sen. McCain interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WItI9It_Swc) on Radio Caracol Miami, where the Senator appears to have dissed the Spanish Prime Minister.

Adree

09-21-2008, 01:49 PM

Here's the Sen. McCain interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WItI9It_Swc) on Radio Caracol Miami, where the Senator appears to have dissed the Spanish Prime Minister.

Keep us posted on this breaking development.

Hanzii

09-21-2008, 01:51 PM

You couldn't have said that with a picture?

Angie Gallant

09-21-2008, 01:57 PM

http://truemeaningoflife.com/images/sayitingif.jpg

jerri blank

09-21-2008, 02:23 PM

Challenge him on when he has taken on his own party.

Here's what Obama's response to that oughtta be:

"I don't NEED to take on my own party, because THE DEMOCRATS HAVEN'T BEEN WRONG ABOUT EVERY FUCKING THING FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS."

Mavericity is for when you need to run from your past and your party affiliation.

JeffL

09-21-2008, 03:01 PM

Here's what Obama's response to that oughtta be:

"I don't NEED to take on my own party, because THE DEMOCRATS HAVEN'T BEEN WRONG ABOUT EVERY FUCKING THING FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS."

Mavericity is for when you need to run from your past and your party affiliation.

Yeah, that'll work well. "I'll just go along with the party, you know, the one that has such great approval ratings in Congress."

People are sick of Washington, not just the Republicans, and Obama took advantage of that to beat Hillary.

Jason McCullough

09-21-2008, 04:35 PM

I guess the previous discussion of how Congress's approval ratings are never very good had no effect.

Telefrog

09-21-2008, 04:36 PM

How many cars does McCain own? Thirteen (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/21/dems-seize-on-mccains-13-cars/)! Various makes and models.

How many does Obama own? One. A Ford Hybrid.

russellmz00

09-21-2008, 04:39 PM

I guess the previous discussion of how Congress's approval ratings are never very good had no effect.

you keep using logic and facts to counter hypothetical debate arguments. that kind of thinking will cause you to lose a debate. quips, comebacks, 'oh snap!' inducing remarks: those are what are needed. see jerri blank's comeback.

Andrew Mayer

09-21-2008, 04:41 PM

How many cars does McCain own? Thirteen (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/21/dems-seize-on-mccains-13-cars/)! Various makes and models.

How many does Obama own? One. A Ford Hybrid.

Which would probably be another pointless gotcha story if it didn't turn out that McCain was lying about only buying American cars (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/21/13_cars_for_the_mccains--and_n.html).

But the ones getting him into trouble are the foreign-made cars. According to the magazine, the McCains own a Honda sedan and a Volkswagen convertible -- despite having once claimed to always buy American-made cars.

In an interview with Detroit station WXYZ-TV, McCain bragged that "I've bought American literally all my life and I'm proud." That was after explaining to the anchor that his daughter, Meghan, bought her own Toyota Prius.

And the story about his daughter was also most probably a lie as well.

CheesyPoof

09-21-2008, 04:51 PM

Keep us posted on this breaking development.

Welcome to the Eric Zone.

Qenan

09-21-2008, 04:59 PM

JeffL

09-21-2008, 05:06 PM

I guess the previous discussion of how Congress's approval ratings are never very good had no effect.

I guess historic low ratings (Rasmussen, Gallup, etc. - hell, it was recently at 9% on the Rasmussen poll) has no effect? Lowest in 30 years? How can 9% or 13% approval be "oh, that doesn't mean anything?"

Obama's success was based on separating himself from "Washington" as usual and taking advantage of how historically unhappy America is with Washington.

Rightbug

09-21-2008, 05:53 PM

"I don't NEED to take on my own party, because THE DEMOCRATS HAVEN'T BEEN WRONG ABOUT EVERY FUCKING THING FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS."

Mavericity is for when you need to run from your past and your party affiliation.

As an aside, John Sununu's ads here in NH are entirely devoted to explaining how different he is from all of the other Republicans. Running against himself and his own party like that, you think he wouldn't have a shot in hell but, the bottom line is that somewhere between 48-52% of the voters who turn up will vote for him and the other 48-52% will vote for his Democratic opponant so it's still a toss up. (Amusingly, the other ad I've seen for him was entirely devoted to explaining how young and healthy he is. As his opponant is neither old nor unhealthy, I guess he's trying to appear Obama-like?)

Jason McCullough

09-21-2008, 07:14 PM

I guess historic low ratings (Rasmussen, Gallup, etc. - hell, it was recently at 9% on the Rasmussen poll) has no effect? Lowest in 30 years? How can 9% or 13% approval be "oh, that doesn't mean anything?"

Obama's success was based on separating himself from "Washington" as usual and taking advantage of how historically unhappy America is with Washington.

The right is unhappy because the left is in charge, the left is unhappy because the Democrats can't get shit done, and the independents are mostly mad at Bush. I have no idea how you think this means "America doesn't like the Democratic party right now".

Don't confuse your personal interpretation of public sentiment for reality. You're taking a single poll and using it as a catchall. See here (http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm) for more details - as of the beginning of this year, it was 2/1 of the public wanting Congress to take the lead, a partisan dead-even breakdown on whether the Democratic majority is better or worse than the GOP previous majority, 2/1 that it's the GOP+Bush's fault, etc.

Omniscia

09-21-2008, 07:16 PM

As an aside, John Sununu's ads here in NH are entirely devoted to explaining how different he is from all of the other Republicans. Running against himself and his own party like that, you think he wouldn't have a shot in hell but, the bottom line is that somewhere between 48-52% of the voters who turn up will vote for him and the other 48-52% will vote for his Democratic opponant so it's still a toss up. (Amusingly, the other ad I've seen for him was entirely devoted to explaining how young and healthy he is. As his opponant is neither old nor unhealthy, I guess he's trying to appear Obama-like?)

Damn it, I hate those Sununu ads. He's not even running in this state, and we still have to put up with them, because of broadcast market spillover.

Eric T Cheng

09-22-2008, 12:39 AM

From ThinkProgress.org (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/21/mccain-deregulation/):

Q: In 1999, you were one of the senators who helped pass deregulation of Wall Street. Do you regret that now?

McCAIN: No. I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.

ydejin

09-22-2008, 02:04 AM

While McCain has been hammering on Obama for his connections with Fannie Mae turns out he has a doozy in his own staff. McCain's own Campaign Manager (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26831560/):

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

I have no idea what a typical lobbyist gets paid, or if the advocacy group was his only client but wow $360,000 a year sounds pretty nice. How can I get one of those jobs!

foogla

09-22-2008, 05:26 AM

How can I get one of those jobs!

be corrupt as hell!

magnet

09-22-2008, 06:25 AM

Yeah, that'll work well. "I'll just go along with the party, you know, the one that has such great approval ratings in Congress."

People are sick of Washington, not just the Republicans, and Obama took advantage of that to beat Hillary.

As others have pointed out, you are not looking at Congressional approval ratings in the right context.

Here is something to consider: generic congressional ballot polls over the last week give Democrats anywhere from a +6 to a +20 advantage (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/). That is much greater than Obama's advantage over McCain. In other words, there are a lot more people willing to vote for a Democratic congress than a Democratic president. On that basis alone, I think it's pretty clear that Obama has little reason to run away from his party.

jerri blank

09-22-2008, 06:54 AM

you keep using logic and facts to counter hypothetical debate arguments. that kind of thinking will cause you to lose a debate. quips, comebacks, 'oh snap!' inducing remarks: those are what are needed. see jerri blank's comeback.

Fuck you. My comment wasn't a snappy comeback - it's a political reality. It's the REPUBLICAN brand that's ailing these days, not the Dem brand. There have been eight years of an unfettered Republican executive, and two years of a largely ineffectual Dem majority in Congress doesn't change that. The Congressional approval ratings just MIGHT have to do with the fact that the Dems haven't done enough to rein Bush in. That's certainly why I think they suck.

malphigian

09-22-2008, 10:47 AM

While were discussing new lows, Heart goes really, really low:
http://www.cbsundstrom.com/fuckyoujohnmccain.jpg

I really could have done without the vivid imagery. *shudder*.

Jason McMaster

09-22-2008, 10:50 AM

Does anyone, at all, care what Heart has to say?

snowcrash22

09-22-2008, 11:01 AM

Bill Engvall deserves better than this

J. Matthew Zoss

09-22-2008, 11:01 AM

Does anyone, at all, care what Heart has to say?No, probably not. But I thought it was funny, even if it is pointless.

Pogue Mahone

09-22-2008, 11:11 AM

While I haven't read the latest issue yet, the format of that column looks exactly like similar articles (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=675232&c=hp&hp) in The Stranger, a Seattle free weekly. They have a habit of, well let's say 'ghostwriting' articles on behalf of famous people. You can find an archive at the link.

malphigian

09-22-2008, 11:25 AM

Yeah, I had a feeling it was a joke (although who knows what those two are on). I blame Digg.

JeffL

09-22-2008, 11:37 AM

The right is unhappy because the left is in charge, the left is unhappy because the Democrats can't get shit done, and the independents are mostly mad at Bush. I have no idea how you think this means "America doesn't like the Democratic party right now".

Don't confuse your personal interpretation of public sentiment for reality.

Yeah, that there data stuff is HARD!! LOL!

About 9 out of 10 Americans think Congress is doing a poor job. Obama took advantage of America's disillusionment with Washington to say, hey, you want change, you don't like how Washington is operating, we need to fix it, Democrat and Republican alike. I doubt seriously he would agree that saying, in a debate, hey, I don't need to disagree with the Democrats because they're doing a great job would be the correct answer to the debate question that was the origin of this line of discussion.

America is saying they don't like Washington right now. Wanna lose another election? Insist that they think the Democrats are just peachy keen.

Andrew Mayer

09-22-2008, 11:43 AM

America is saying they don't like Washington right now. Wanna lose another election? Insist that they think the Democrats are just peachy keen.

Dems have lost plenty of elections by not unpacking the data.

Maybe it's time to try something different.

Adree

09-22-2008, 11:46 AM

While were discussing new lows, Heart goes really, really low:
http://www.cbsundstrom.com/fuckyoujohnmccain.jpg

I really could have done without the vivid imagery. *shudder*.

Excuse me good sir but the depiction of the vilest word in all of wordsdom in that image has GREATLY offended my snapewife, I demand you take it down posthaste.

JeffL

09-22-2008, 11:54 AM

Dems have lost plenty of elections by not unpacking the data.

Maybe it's time to try something different.

But ya see, I think Obama is where he is because he DID try something different. For example, Kerry should have mopped up on Bush, but his campaign was pretty much "I'm not Bush. Bush sucks." There was never any real reason to get inspired at the thought of Kerry in the White House, people were voting for him just to vote against Bush.

Obama has managed to get a lot of people enthused about him in the White House; he has the capability to actually get people to vote FOR him, as opposed to just against McCain. Democrats have lost some elections because they look down at Republicans so much that they assume everyone who isn't stupid will automatically vote for Democrats. They don't have to do anything, or give you a reason to vote for them, other than the "Not Republican" vote. That actually worked pretty well in getting Congress back, but it doesn't work so well in the presidential campaigns. Even here you see that - the mere suggestion that 9% Congressional approval might mean a lot of people aren't loving the Democrats is met with immediate rationale as to how that can't be true rather than thinking about why people may not be loving the Dems and that maybe there IS some room for significant improvement.

Obama's best chance is to convince people that they actually want him leading the nation, that he is the person they want to look to when times are tough (now,) that this is someone who might can change Washington. To convince people to vote for him as opposed to just voting against McCain. To be sure, he needs to return all McCain volleys, in a firm, leader-like manner. But he has to convince people to vote for him. Kerry couldn't have ever done that - Obama absolutely can.

Sebmojo

09-22-2008, 12:25 PM

Obama's best chance is to convince people that they actually want him leading the nation, that he is the person they want to look to when times are tough (now,) that this is someone who might can change Washington. To convince people to vote for him as opposed to just voting against McCain. To be sure, he needs to return all McCain volleys, in a firm, leader-like manner. But he has to convince people to vote for him. Kerry couldn't have ever done that - Obama absolutely can.

Well put.

TomChick

09-22-2008, 01:08 PM

Excuse me good sir but the depiction of the vilest word in all of wordsdom in that image has GREATLY offended my snapewife, I demand you take it down posthaste.

What's with the passive-aggressive bullshit aimed at Dave Markell? I'm the one who runs the forum and I'm the one who's uncomfortable with you splashing the c-word up in a giant jpg. If you want to try to be funny about how you should be able to do whatever you want on my forum, at least make your stupid jokes about me.

-Tom

Jason McMaster

09-22-2008, 01:13 PM

What's with the passive-aggressive bullshit aimed at Dave Markell? I'm the one who runs the forum and I'm the one who's uncomfortable with you splashing the c-word up in a giant jpg. If you want to try to be funny about how you should be able to do whatever you want on my forum, at least make your stupid jokes about me.

-Tom

Tom is a jerk and really likes Deus Ex. He said it was fun. I DO WHAT I WANT

Angie Gallant

09-22-2008, 01:55 PM

McCain Campaign: "Hey guys, stop calling us liars! BTW, here is a list of lies we would like you to report plzkthx." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13747.html)

Jason McCullough

09-22-2008, 02:22 PM

Yeah, that there data stuff is HARD!! LOL!

About 9 out of 10 Americans think Congress is doing a poor job. Obama took advantage of America's disillusionment with Washington to say, hey, you want change, you don't like how Washington is operating, we need to fix it, Democrat and Republican alike. I doubt seriously he would agree that saying, in a debate, hey, I don't need to disagree with the Democrats because they're doing a great job would be the correct answer to the debate question that was the origin of this line of discussion.

America is saying they don't like Washington right now. Wanna lose another election? Insist that they think the Democrats are just peachy keen.

My point was that the congressional disapproval number is composed of people disapproving of congress for entirely different reasons, so you should be careful about extrapolating from that.

The Democrats aren't exactly covering themselves in glory brand-wise; they're just doing ok, so Obama talking about the Congressional Democrats neither helps him or hurts him. By contrast, the GOP brand is, err, subprime at the moment.

About a third of the country disapproves of the Democratic congress because they're not doing so successful at Democratic stuff, a third, wishes the GOP was in charge because they're Republicans, and then you have a mix of reasons for the independents.

russellmz00

09-22-2008, 03:14 PM

Fuck you. My comment wasn't a snappy comeback - it's a political reality.

jeez, take the bayonet off the flamethrower. i liked your comment because it was a good comeback to jeff's hypothetical mccain attack and political reality.

magnet

09-22-2008, 03:25 PM

Lum

09-22-2008, 04:27 PM

If they want to stop being called liars, a good first step would be to stop lying. However, that seems to be too hard for the McCain camp to fathom. Factual errors in their call aside (which Politico had fun with), their entire message was "The media should stop calling us liars? Why? Uh.... Look! Biden's kid is a lobbyist!"

I thought you stopped doing that when you were four.

JeffL

09-23-2008, 10:53 AM

Jeff, the days when a Democratic candidate could advance his standing by throwing fellow Democrats under the bus are long gone. Thank God. The DLC and their triangulation strategy were a gift to the GOP. When Democrats start talking about a third way, voters like me start thinking about Nader. That's because the third way is usually warmed-over conservatism.

Change Washington? Sure.. start by getting rid of Republican policies. Like many people, I'm not upset at Congress because they are pushing Democratic policies. I am upset because they won't work harder against the GOP. That's why a fighter like Tester won his election, and a capitulator like Ford lost.

Magnet, when's the last time a Democratic Presidential candidate was successful (got the nomination) by throwing other Democrats under the bus? (OK - they ALL get there by throwing the other Democrats running under the bus, but we're talking throwing Democrats in general under the bus.)

And yeah, are you happy with Democrats in Congress? Do you think they're doing what you hired them to do? Do you think there are some fundamental reasons beyond the evil Republicans that they aren't walking the talk?

But fundamentally, from a wargaming point of view, Obama doesn't need to get your vote. He's got it. If you voted for Kerry (unless you're one of an apparently significant group of racists Democrats) you're probably going to vote for Obama. He needs to get the votes of a significant number of people who did NOT vote for Kerry. And those people are likely to not be so willing to give the Democrats in Washington the benefit of the doubt.

magnet

09-23-2008, 11:07 AM

Magnet, when's the last time a Democratic Presidential candidate was successful (got the nomination) by throwing other Democrats under the bus?

You mean the original Sister Souljah moment?

And yeah, are you happy with Democrats in Congress? Do you think they're doing what you hired them to do? Do you think there are some fundamental reasons beyond the evil Republicans that they aren't walking the talk?

I hired them to shut down the Republicans. I don't understand why you think Democrats need to separate themselves from their party. That's the exact opposite of what I want them to do. If they keep doing that, I will start voting third-party. Why waste my vote on cowards?

But fundamentally, from a wargaming point of view, Obama doesn't need to get your vote. He's got it. If you voted for Kerry (unless you're one of an apparently significant group of racists Democrats) you're probably going to vote for Obama.

That's the kind of reasoning that convinced Gore to tack right, which led voters to believe that Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20001016/ealterman) and consequently threw part of Gore's base to Nader. Thus losing him the election.

He needs to get the votes of a significant number of people who did NOT vote for Kerry. And those people are likely to not be so willing to give the Democrats in Washington the benefit of the doubt.

You're right that he needs voters that were skeptical of Kerry, but not all of those voters are in the center.

Jason McCullough

09-23-2008, 11:12 AM

But fundamentally, from a wargaming point of view, Obama doesn't need to get your vote. He's got it. If you voted for Kerry (unless you're one of an apparently significant group of racists Democrats) you're probably going to vote for Obama. He needs to get the votes of a significant number of people who did NOT vote for Kerry. And those people are likely to not be so willing to give the Democrats in Washington the benefit of the doubt.

You know, you could just cough up the poll that supports your point. Where is this pile of convinceable independents who in your opinion basically don't like Congressional Democrats?

JeffL

09-23-2008, 11:25 AM

You know, you could just cough up the poll that supports your point. Where is this pile of convinceable independents who in your opinion basically don't like Congressional Democrats?

I would guess they are in that 92% who are dissaproving of how Congress is working. The ones who aren't hardcore Democrats can do no wrong (1/3 according to your numbers) and aren't wishing the Republicans were back in charge (1/3 according to your numbers) and thus are probably in the 33% who dissaprove for "a mix of reasons."

I'm sure that if I spent the time to find a poll that supports my analysis (and you know you can find a poll to support just about any opinion) we'd be arguiing the validity of polls.

Look, Jason, when about 90% of America says that think Congress is doing a rotten job, it's not the huge reach you think it is to believe a good number of independants aren't happy with Congress and not just because they are ALL Democrats. And even DEMOCRATS aren't happy with the Democrats! Many are pissed because they feel that Democrats are sitting back fat and happy now that they've got the majority and all the perks that go with it and aren't willing to take the risks and the initiative to DO something to change things.

Andrew Mayer

09-23-2008, 11:27 AM

[QUOTE=jeff lackey;1483314Many are pissed because they feel that Democrats are sitting back fat and happy now that they've got the majority and all the perks that go with it and aren't willing to take the risks and the initiative to DO something to change things.[/QUOTE]

That's not the prevailing wisdom at all, I think. It has far more to do with them still acting like the minority and refusing to grab the reigns of power.

A smaller percentage are also aware that the Republicans have been gumming up the system at every opportunity, although letting them get away with that is really a symptom of the first problem.

JeffL

09-23-2008, 11:37 AM

You're right that he needs voters that were skeptical of Kerry, but not all of those voters are in the center.

You're making a fundamental mistake of assumption. I never said anything about "center." Not once. Never said anything about moving right or left.

I said "different."

Republicans - we know all the problems. Democrats: nothing but excuses since they got in office, none of the things they said they would deliver. Sure, "oh, but if we do that we get blamed, it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't from a PR point of view." Almost a literal quote of Jason's as to why Democrats haven't done more in certain areas. "Oh, but if we try to make THAT change the Republicans will just filibuster and stop us." So, dammit? Stand up and show America where you stand and MAKE them filibuster you, on issue after issue after issue. Don't just sit in your fancy Washington Senate office and enjoy the view and the perks. Find out how to be effective. When one of my folks in R&D says "Oh, we can't do that, even though it's the right thing to do, Joe the production plant manager will just find ways to obstruct us" the challenge is, OK - you know you have an obstacle, but you're paid to be effective - let's figure out how to get it done in spite of Joe. Sometimes we're successful and sometimes we're not. But what is NOT acceptable is inaction with excuses.

That's what America is pissed at. They know that Washington is accomplishing nothing. And they are tired of excuses. I'm not saying anything about left or right. I'm more "right" than Obama. I disliked Bush in 2004 but I also intensely disliked the idea of Kerry being the leader of this nation. But I am very optimistic - hopeful- that if Obama can get the White House he can make some things happen and actually accomplish some things that need to be done for the nation. I'm not voting for him and giving him money because he's a Democrat. Duh.

The mere fact that people automatically think "more right" or "more left" when someone talks about a need for "more effective" is telling.

JeffL

09-23-2008, 11:41 AM

That's not the prevailing wisdom at all, I think. It has far more to do with them still acting like the minority and refusing to grab the reigns of power.

Hmm. But Andrew, I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. You're talking about what they are doing (or not doing) while I'm talking about the same thing but perhaps with an added "why are they not doing anything." They've grabbed the reigns of power, in all the committee chairmanships and control of what bills will be allowed a vote, etc. They've grabbed the power - they just are reluctant to be bold enough to try to do anything for the country's good. Other than indignant hearings on steroids in baseball, PR hearings where they pull the oil execs in and make sure they pose for TV while they lecture them (with no action following, of course,) etc.

magnet

09-23-2008, 11:45 AM

Ok, that's a fair point jeff. The thing is, when Democrats bucked against their party line, they have nearly always tended towards a compromise with the Republicans. But you're right that there are exceptions, including Obama's criticism of the Iraq War in the face of Democratic spinelessness. Dodd's rebellion on FISA is another good example. If that's what you're talking about - a coherent and principled stand, rather than clawing your way to a muddled middle - then by all means, let's see more of that.

Lum

09-23-2008, 02:27 PM

This just in:

http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/43920/136694-john-mccain.jpg

Jason McCullough

09-23-2008, 02:42 PM

I would guess they are in that 92% who are dissaproving of how Congress is working. The ones who aren't hardcore Democrats can do no wrong (1/3 according to your numbers) and aren't wishing the Republicans were back in charge (1/3 according to your numbers) and thus are probably in the 33% who dissaprove for "a mix of reasons."

How do you know what those reasons are? It's a serious question, I haven't seen a detailed crosstab breakdown of why independents are enh about the Democratic congress. "I think this is why" doesn't make it so. Maybe you're correct, but what on earth is the evidence?

wildpokerman

09-23-2008, 05:30 PM

But fundamentally, from a wargaming point of view, Obama doesn't need to get your vote. He's got it. If you voted for Kerry (unless you're one of an apparently significant group of racists Democrats) you're probably going to vote for Obama. He needs to get the votes of a significant number of people who did NOT vote for Kerry. And those people are likely to not be so willing to give the Democrats in Washington the benefit of the doubt.

No he actually just needs the record number of people who turned out to vote for Bush to stay home because they aren't excited about the Republican candidate, are ashamed of what their vote did, or aren't in fear for their lives and under the mistaken belief that the Republican party gives a fuck about them.