The McCain campaign, via surrogate in chief Sarah Palin, is attacking Obama's patriotism, judgement and character by raising back into the public discussion his association with Bill Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground and the Weatherman (why this seemed like a cool name for some radicals, I have no idea). Everyone is clear about the rationale for these attacks now, which is that the McCain campaign is behind. They have pulled out of Michigan and appear to be playing defense in a number of states Bush won and which are now considered toss ups.
In what is clearly a pre-planned response, the Obama campaign has replied with guilt by association attacks of their own, raising McCain's prior association and involvement with Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).
As I have argued to my fellow readers at Race42008, carry the logic of McCain's attack all the way out and the question to be asked is what are we selling? That Obama is a terrorist who hates America? The GOP base might be willing to believe that, but moderates and independents who are looking for leadership at a time when the country is engaged in two wars and the economy is melting down are not going to buy that.
McCain in his debate with Obama demonstrated a superior depth of experience in foreign affairs. But the public thought Obama won the debate. Why? In part because of the cognitive dissonance created by a McCain campaign that posited an Obama clueless on foreign affairs, an image belied by his performance during the debate.
Since 9/11, we’re very clear about terrorists as an evil, soulless sub species of human. Obama has been before the American people for two years now, and with a scant 30 days to go, we’re going to try to make the case that he is a terrorist, this species of sub human? That is the end logic of pressing the Ayer’s connection. Independents and moderates are unlikely to buy this premise.
On the other side, Obama may well blunt his own momentum with this heavy duty push to fight smear with smear by trying to counterpunch with the Keating Five scandal that McCain got himself embroiled in many years ago. The official senate investigation into the mess exonerated McCain and most credible historical recaps seem clear that McCain only remained apart of the investigation because the others under scrutiny were democratic lawmakers. After a lengthy investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, John McCain was cleared of having acted improperly but was criticized for having exercised "poor judgment", something which I think he even admits characterized his what appears to be peripheral involvement.
Robert S. Bennett, a democrat and special outside counsel to the committee tasked with investigating McCain, was on POTUS 08 this very morning and stated clearly that McCain was innocent and that there was little to see here. So the McCain campaign has the virtue of truth in their defense to the Keating Five smear and this means they can counterpunch and pivot in response to this attack with tremendous energy and ruthlessness. Obama, enjoying massive favorable treatment in the media, won't get much help in that quarter since McCain's exoneration is well documented and easily researched by press and average joe alike. So I think the Keating Five attack does not add much value, and if braced about it during the debate (which if I were McCain, I would definitely get in Obama's face on it), Obama won't be able to deflect an accusation that he is engaging in obvious smear tactics.
McCain hypothesis (to be tested by the American public): Obama thinks that there is nothing wrong with what Ayers did
ReplyDeleteSo far, the Obama campaign has done nothing to falsify this hypothesis. This alone would tend to indicate that the hypothesis is true. Obama's defense so far has been, "well, that happened a long time ago and he seems like an OK guy now." I don't think that defense will work with this.
So far, Obama's main advantage is that he hasn't really been challenged on it by the media (in their slow-motion "vetting" of him) so no one other than news/blog junkies know about it. When the McCain camp makes it known through ads, I think that Obama is going to have a hard time.
Keating 5? Not so much. McCain was cleared on it. That's really all he'll have to say.
I think you're incorrect relative to Obama's response on Ayers. He has made statements repudiating the man's actions taken during the 1970's. I'll take it as a given that part of the political maturation of Obama has been an evolution from very left wing thinking to where he is now.
ReplyDeleteThe effectiveness (or not) of this attack hinges on the fact that you can't prove a negative. I still say it may prove damaging, but its probably still not quite enough to convince people that Obama is okay with bombing other Americans in advance of political aims. You're still really trying to make the underlying argument that he is a terrorist when you assert that he didn't think what Ayers did was wrong. Saying he agreed with Ayers's actions is essentially saying he is a terrorist.
McCain can go with that argument for the next 29 days, but its a risk. His last couple of risks have not played out so well (Palin, campaign suspension). This gambit may turn out little different.
The pot calling the kettle black...... Ayers was never convicted and is now a well respected educator with 600 plus and growing fellow educators signing a joint declaration in defense of Ayers.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast those in the Keating 5 was convicted and if I am not mistaken McCain was reprimanded by the senate ethics committee.
Well, lets not play like Ayers is an innocent. He did set bombs, which he admits to. Thankfully no one died in any of his escapades. He committed his crimes back when our understanding of the term "terrorist" was substantially different and we now see his crimes in a very different light than we might have pre-911. 600 educators notwithstanding, in the current climate there is little to be gained by making an argument in his defense and in truth, very little that can be defended. Violence in pursuit of political aims is anathema to the American way of life. It doesn't help that there appears to be no definitive statement from him of remorse or regret for his reckless use of violence. They could have killed some innocent smuck, destroyed someone's family. In fact, this was the very fate suffered by some of his colleagues in the Weatherman, who blew themselves up constructing a bomb, leaving a child behind.
ReplyDeleteDefending this association is not the hill Obama wants to die on.