|
||
Distract and Detract: Team McCain Follows Form In Crisis
John McCain's new TV ad, amidst an epic global financial crisis, does not discuss the crisis but posits Barack Obama as product of "the corrupt Chicago political machine."
In the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the 1930s, John McCain's campaign wants to talk about the Chicago political machine, the New York Times, Bill Ayers (who?), and Hugo Chavez.
On a day that saw the biggest upward oil spike in history and an overall retreat to commodities including the old standby gold, with Barack Obama holding a steady lead in most of the daily tracking polls, Team McCain tried its true to form technique ... "Distract and Detract." Which I've outlined for months in a number of columns, including this one. Maybe I should get that column title trademarked.
This is the pattern. In a political crisis, Team McCain moves to change the subject, to stay away from what may be unfriendly issues ground and switch back to a negative focus on Obama's personality and image. In the midst this time, as it happens, of the biggest global financial crisis since the 1930s.
Their conference call this morning focused on the Chicago Mob, er, Machine, the lack of any journalistic relevance for the New York Times, and Bill Ayers, the funder at the start of Barack Obama's career. On a day in which most American voters, not to mention the global markets, were looking for leadership on America's financial crisis.
John McCain's campaign director, Steve Schmidt, who I know well from his brilliant management of Arnold Schwarzenegger's landslide 2006 re-election as California governor, and profiled here on Huffington Post in early July, attacked on several fronts. First, on the new anti-Obama ad seen above, claiming Obama is nothing more than a product of "Chicago's corrupt political machine." Then, with an attention-getting slashing of the New York Times, calling it "not by any standard a journalistic organization." Okay then. Supposedly just another element in the Hobbesian media universe, as I discussed in this Friday piece. And then on Bill Ayers, the ex-Weather Underground terrorist-turned-university professor, claiming that Obama launched his political career with a fundraiser at Ayer's home.
Actually, he didn't. I looked into this well over a year ago when, as an Obama skeptic at the time, I scouted Obama. Ayers' was one of several houses near Obama's that the then nascent legislative candidate visited for neighborhood meet-and-greets when he first ran for state senate. As I recall, not only was it not a fundraiser, Ayers didn't contribute money to Obama's first campaign. He later gave him a whopping couple hundred bucks.
What do these things all have in common? They're not about the financial crisis.
Of course, Obama has developed a consistent if still small lead in the daily national tracking polls. And most voters are blaming Republicans for the financial crisis.
Obama has moved up some in the polls on the strength of economic crisis, and McCain's faltering response to it. Not that Obama has been a beacon of light on the issue. Though he has been a beacon of calm. The slight frontrunner has been cautious in his pronouncements, calling for more detail from federal bailout leaders, criticizing McCain for his longtime deregulationist stance, and demanding more oversight. And now joining with other Democratic leaders in insisting on mortgage relief for Americans, not just a bailout of the big firms involved, and limits on executive compensation.
But if Obama has been far less than incisive, McCain has been a portrait in confusion and contradiction. Just a week ago today, he said America's economic fundamentals are "strong." A few hours later he was backpedaling on what he meant by that, defining "fundamentals" as "workers." After his first inclination, a punt to a "9/11-type commission" to study the matter failed to launch from the carrier deck, he began alternating between blaming Obama for the crisis and launching angry populist attacks on Wall Street.
The problem with blaming Obama is that McCain's entire campaign has been geared to the proposition that Obama has no experience. That is to say, it was geared that way until the very late decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate. If Obama has no experience, how can he be responsible for the crisis? Er, because he'd received advice and some donations from the former heads of the Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac housing finance entities. Casualties the week before, which McCain didn't delve into then since he was profiting from Sarah Palin's sense of victimization and the question of whether it is sexist to use the old phrase, "lipstick on a pig."
But the problem is, obviously, much deeper than Fannie and Freddie. And, in any event, it turns out McCain's longtime campaign manager Rick Davis made $2 million heading up a PR effort for ... Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The problem with angry populist attacks on Wall Street comes when you are a longtime advocate of financial deregulation.
This is what happens when you are in scramble mode, with a candidate who has touted his chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee and has long stated that he is for financial deregulation.
Not that Obama will be confused with Huey Long. In reality, he has raised more money from Wall Street than McCain. Of course, he's raised more money from everywhere, at least outside the Deep South, than McCain.
By Sunday night, McCain was hugging close to Obama's policy positioning, while attacking him constantly on taxes and a variety of things. Including the Chicago political machine.
Another new McCain attack ad ties Obama to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. It is not a parody.
And this ad just above, tying Obama to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his incendiary rhetoric -- which naturally takes up the entire ad -- because Obama is open to talking with the head of one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world.
Incidentally, appearing with someone does not necessarily constitute a publicity plus for the other person. I've been on a number of shows which did not turn out well for others.
Of course, the McCain guys know this very well. They're very smart. They're relying on the ADD media culture for arguments like this to work.
They're operating out of an obvious strategic imperative. If they run a positive campaign, in this political environment, they lose. Simple as that.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama's image and personality are fine by me as well as his economic plans to fix the Repub. chicanery we've had to endure for 8 loong years.
McCain/Palin? Their personalities and images are vote-repellent to me. They have no speaking points except lipstick, lying about Obama and aping his campaign slogans.
See William Bradley's Profile
This column isn't really about virture, per se ...
See William Bradley's Profile
... That would be "virtue," as distinguished from "virture" ...
I think that this analysis is spot on, but the question is how effective can McCain's efforts to distract be given the current economic crisis? His strategy worked well when the only major event in the news cycle was Iraq. But this current news environment has a lot of drama associated with people's money. Anyone who has a 401K plan and is watching it melt away is interested. Plus, McCain efforts at distraction have become laughable; he's really jumped the shark on some of these ads. My guess is that McCain is going to have to come up with something else besides error filled personal attacks to generate attention over the next 40 days. The only problem is that he doesn't have anything else to use. Every time the election turns to issues, he's in trouble. McCain has to hope for some October surprise that's out of his control; something like Osama being caught would help both Republicans and him a great deal.
What if they pass the bailout?
Then, I think, we take to the streets
See William Bradley's Profile
True. But the crisis may subside.
I don't think that latter ad will affect swing voters. Most who aren't a die hard neo con believe we should talk to Iran and Venezuela. I don't get the Republican xenophobe mentality. Don't bother talking to nations which disagree with us, just go to war with them? I guess if we talk about our problems we might clear up misunderstandings or come to peaceful solutions and then we couldn't go to war. We don't want that.
The Venezuela ad is a total joke.
See William Bradley's Profile
The latter ad is, of course, preposterous.
"Won't get fooled again/" ? It is already too late for America regardless of the outcome of this election. The fact that these criminals in the GOP could even still be in this election tells you what you need to know about our country and the vapidness of our leading citizens. We'll be dancing with the stars while our financial system is pillaged by the thugs that created the equivelent of a nucler meltdown for us all. For the millions of decent ,solid Americans, the party is over. For the pricks doing anything to retain power and the status quo, it will be business as usual, all they will need to do is keep us in the kennel.
They're going to saddle Obama, if he gets in, with a trillion dollar deficit. The money is going to their contributor class.
See William Bradley's Profile
That would be one way to stop Obama's changes ...
See William Bradley's Profile
That was the classic Who song ...
forget the 'October' surprise! The administration has just unleashed 'September' surprise - do as we say NOW or there will be WAR!
It is over for John McCain. He has no honor, if he ever had any. He and his slimy staff should move to Iraq since the surge worked and he is for more interested in Iraq's future than America's future.
To understand why this is working for McCain and his pseudo-intellectual thugs (after all, he is at an amazing 44% and holding steady), you have to take a look at his "base".
At the top of the pyramid is that much-talked-about 2% who own some ungodly percentage of the nations wealth. They want their boy (did I say boy!) in there to continue the Republican tradition of rape and pillage of the working classes (the reverse Robin Hood syndrome).
Next in line is the great middle class (shrinking as I write but steady in their convictions) Republicans composed of rabid Evangelicals and other "Christians" who still view McCain, Bush & Cheney as sharing their "moral" values; whatever theses guys do to bring about Armageddon is OK with them just as long as they remain church-going. To round out this group, you've got those who have "always voted Republican" and can't tell you why.
At the bottom of this triangular heap are the Snuffy Smith types. These are the folks I deal with everyday at the diner, overhearing conversations centered around Palin's toughness, McCain's military history and Obama's--shall we say--unacceptable skin color.
And you wondered why we're in the mess we're in?
Ulster Scots. See Jim Webb's Born Fighting. He talks about their reliance on "Great Captains" but they have to be proven in combat as fighters and leaders. (Not sure how Bush qualified for that?)
Webb's book is a great book. I wish he was running with Obama.
Snuffy Smith?! I love it!
See William Bradley's Profile
I don't think that's the "great middle class."
>Next in line is the great middle class (shrinking as I write but steady in their convictions) Republicans composed of rabid Evangelicals and other "Christians" who still view McCain, Bush & Cheney as sharing their "moral" values; whatever theses guys do to bring about Armageddon is OK with them just as long as they remain church-going.
See William Bradley's Profile
Well, if we look at the polls today, it's not really working ...
I found it very interesting that media figures sympathetic to McCain keep saying (with a bit of disdain) "Well Obama doesn't offer any plan for the economy". Even after the 1st day. Like oh yea.. WTF? He hasn't come up with a plan to fix the economy and save the free world? He should get up there and shoot off his mouth like Gen John. Fire Ready Aim.
I keep thinking that if your making a military analogy to the campaigns, you might compare Obama to Eisenhower in WW2 and Schmidt and Rove to The Blitzkrieg. Im still working on this one. Obama is pretty methodical, plodding even. 50 state strategy. Organization. Slower responding but trying to bring overwhelming force to bear. Hampered by trying to manage an unwieldy alliance with some allies intent on saving old empires. yuk yuk. Rove and Schmidt tactically brilliant and seemingly unhampered by any ethical restraints. ( I have a low opinion of their final objective) Hampered by a volatile and unstable leader. Fire Ready Aim. Supported by a hard core believing base who will accept any thing they are told.
Obama needs a Patton to counter Guderian and Rommel. Bill has made it clear he is not willing to play Patton or even Marshall. Biden is doing a good job of playing Bradley. Slogging away making headway in some places.
Well Im having fun with this even if its not a 100% correlation.
Bill is Monty
Hillary is Monty.
what's the Russian front? Is all that Spanish-speaking-nation-bashing neo-con achilles heel the Russian front?
The Russian Front hasn't stabilized yet. The Blitzkrieg has been attacking their heretofore allies. They have been mumbling in confusion with some punitive expeditions. I expect they will form their lines somewhere in front of Moscow and Stalingrad and strike back. Guess who they are?
or is Bill the DeGaulle?
Chris Dodd is making a run at being Patton
See William Bradley's Profile
Very interesting metaphor!
Why isn't the DNC or the Obama campaign blitzing the media about voter caging and electronic voting machine hacking?
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37:irfan-husain&catid=16:asia&Itemid=33
See William Bradley's Profile
According to Bobby Kennedy, Jr., this is a very big problem. if he is right, I don't get it.
The US gets more of its oil from Canada than it does from Venezuela. Venezuela produces more, but the US gets a larger % of its consumption from Canada. Most of us feel the same way about Bush doctrine as Chavez does. He's a belligerent and antagonistic blowhard when he's talking to his base, but so are your conservative politicians. He can score big points as a 'controversial' figure going up against Yankke-aggression, but really, internationally speaking Bush-doctrine is as 'controversial' as rape: I mean, who's really for it? Oh, that's right.
That Ad doesn't make any sense its lame..with friends like that Obama isn't ready to lead who came up with that
See William Bradley's Profile
Well, that is not a TV ad I would claim.
Not Don Draper material ...
I think I was most amused by your line "I've been on a number of shows which did not turn out well for others."
Could this be a completely different sort of "Bradley Effect"?
See William Bradley's Profile
We aim to entertain ...
and the only south american president McCain visited was Alvaro Uribe from Colombia., which everyone knows is the biggest (?) drug export country in south america. so, using faulty logic, McCain was looking for cheap drugs there? no he wasn't.
Chavez gets too hyped on his speeches and everyone knows he can't stand george bush but if another president were to engage in diplomacy with him, he would listen. everyone gets benefits from dealing oil with venezuela, my country's biggest oil imports come from venezuela for a cheap price.
ps: watch McCain tie Obama to Ahmadinejad based on the premise he insisted to engage in diplomacy with him to try to talk about the nuclear program. the problem with McCain and bush is that they think being diplomatic is being sissies and declaring war on the world makes them better...
That was weird when McCain went to Columbia. He did it to push a free trade agreement. While trying to win the Rust Belt states. Weird.
What is really disturbing is that some Americans will believe this crap that McCain is spewing and what's worst is the Americans are just ignoring the fact that the REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION IS RESPONSBILE FOR THIS CRAP. They have been in charge for 7 years and the DEMS really only had control for the entire year of 2007 by 2 seats. This of course, causes alot of philibustering by the REPUBS>.........not only that, Bush vetos anything that he doesn't agree with the DEMS on...no matter what bill they sent up.....Bush has the power to veto. He has vetoed more bills than any President in history, 152 times out of 153................................Now REPUBS want to claim that the DEMS have done nothing while in power and what did the REPUBS do for other 6 and half years.
Lest we forget Zip-Zero-Zilch when the Cons held the Majority.
See William Bradley's Profile
Obama needs to keep the focus on who's in charge.
Fear and Division is all they have left. There's 'nothing there' on either the Rezko or Ayers 'charges'. As for the other politicians that the Repubs are trying to tie Obama to, I haven't looked. I doubt that there is anything there either. I heard someone in the media say that the McCain campaign 'doesn't care anymore'. They don't care how racist or slimy their ads are. They just don't CARE! They're playing 'hit and run', hoping that something sticks. So far, nothing HAS. However, I also heard someone say that the McCain campaign staffers are reflecting the temperament of their 'leader'. So-since THEY DON'T CARE, we can safely assume that THEIR LEADER DOESN'T CARE EITHER!
See William Bradley's Profile
Keating is far more damaging than Rezko.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
