The DNC this week sent out a largely misleading message attacking the presumed GOP nominee Sen. McCain, probably in an effort to energize Democratic Party donors. I assume the RNC will use the same kind of misleading arguments as soon as Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton are the Democratic Party nominee. I also assume that many of these types of misleading attacks will become swift boat like campaign advertisements once we get into general election prime time.
Your thoughts?
Your thoughts?
February 8, 2008
11 Comments:
Why do you post on this blog? And in the future, a simple link would do. It's inconsiderate to take up the whole page.
David,
I don't have the time to address all of your points right at the moment but in general I agree with you. I think the Democratic Party leaders are scared. They have every reason to be, the Republicans have chosen a very popular candidate, one who is very appealing to moderate and independent voters. The Democrats will be fighting a drawn out primary battle for what could easily be several months yet. This is probably the worst case scenario for Howard Dean and I think he is trying to do whatever he can to save the Democrats.
Worst case scenario. The Democratic nomination battle goes to the convention. Clinton beats Obama for the nomination either through the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates or through the support of Superdelegates. This leaves the legions of enthusiastic Obama supporters with a sour taste for politics and the Democratic party. The Democratic party comes out of the convention with a divided base and a candidate who can unite the conservatives like no other. Howard Dean sees this possibility and is going to do whatever he can to prevent it.
Let's be honest distorting the records of your opponent is a key part of the political process. Negative advertisements work, as much as people complain they let themselves be influenced by these ads. If my worst case scenario outlined above ends up happening perhaps the only chance the Democrats have is to bash McCain into oblivion...
I could go on at much greater length about this but there is some homework staring me down. If the comments get lively or I have more time expect to hear more from me later!
Also, thanks for a great post!
I agree that the lobbyist thing is kind of unfair, and the "you take more lobbyist money than i do" argument doesn't seem to me to be particularly effective. But is it unfair to attack his war comment? Not so much.
I have never heard John McCain say when he'd ever be willing to cut our losses in Iraq and get out. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, he wants to wait for Iraq to become "a stable democracy that can be an ally in the war on terror," just like Bushie. That is never going to happen. There might be more or less violence depending on the month, but the underlying political divisions are not reconcilable by us. Therefore, it will never obtain the type of democracy that South Korea has while under our occupation. There will be at least some elements in Iraq attacking our troops until we withdrawal. If you take all those things together I don't know how you can say McCain doesn't support endless war.
Side note: John Edwards was the only candidate who legitimately did not take lobbyist money and supported removing ALL combat troops in the first year (the second part at least was true for Bill Richardson as well). The DNC would have been on much stronger ground making this attack if he was the nominee. Clear distinctions are important.
"Why do you post on this blog? And in the future, a simple link would do. It's inconsiderate to take up the whole page."
I enjoy posting here, that is why. There are many insightful contributors on this blog and I like hearing their feedback and arguments, especially when I disagree with them.
You are right about the long post. I apologize, that was very inconsiderate of me. I will change it to just a link instead.
Andrew and Ryan, good comments. I will respond later today, I have to go get some work done beforehand.
This post has been removed by the author.
Anonymous, David is one of the brilliant undergraduate political minds at Madison. I'd hope that any blog -- left, right, or center -- would be happy to have him.
Okay, I'm going to say something unpopular. Funny that, eh?
There are a lot of Democrats, it appears, for whom running against John McCain seems like running against George W. Bush again. Only problem is, you need to really dumb down John McCain to compare his foreign policy positions to George W. Bush. Yes, McCain thinks the American military has a responsibility to stabilize Iraq. (In our private, non-blogging moments, many of us probably agree.) The reference to a 100-year occupation was unfortunate for his candidacy, but the comment never implied that he wants "endless war" in Iraq. This is a much different position than the President's -- which is to say, McCain's is an actual thoughtful and researched issue position. Just when U.S. public opinion against the war peaks, along comes John McCain suggesting we can stabilize the country after all, defeat AQM, win the war, support the Iraqi government in its revolutionary changes, and never wonder whether anybody died in vain. We may disagree, but there's no denying this is an extremely sophisticated resurrection of a temporarily-discredited argument. And we cannot be cynical about McCain's integrity -- something Clinton has been guiltier of than Obama.
McCain also has massive anti-Bush credentials, remember. He has been the chief Republican antagonist during the Bush years, opposing Bush on torture, on the Rumsfeld strategy, on the entire conduct of the war in Iraq. His hero is General Petraeus (who he gives exclusive credit for the decline of AQM in Iraq), not President Bush. Like Obama and Clinton, he is running to clean up George W. Bush's mess -- he simply has a more hawkish way of doing so.
Do not doubt the resiliency of this message among voters extremely dissatisfied with the President. Public support for the war in Iraq did not decline because people everywhere absorbed a complex intellectual argument against unilateralism and occupation; it declined because the President was incompetent and we were losing the war. The emergence of John McCain could, potentially, generate increased support for the war in Iraq -- especially if McCain distances himself from the President, as he has done.
Both of our candidates could beat McCain today -- Obama, admittedly, by a lot more. But both Clinton and Obama could get cut to ribbons during the debates if they come across as undermining McCain's foreign policy credentials or appear dismissive and flippant about the future of Iraq post-troop-withdrawal. We are talking about an opposition with a tremendous amount of moral clout, which we'll need to meet (as David suggests) in an ethical and intelligent way. That starts with knowing who we're running against and who we're not.
Haha, c'mon Eric, just send us his talking points next time. He opposed the "rumsfeld strategy." The only part you missed was "waving the white flag of retreat."
Jack -- Fair enough, but I think I provided a more sophisticated expression of McCain's views than a laundry list of talking points. But one of McCain's talking points indeed is that he is not George W. Bush and has a different philosophy of foreign policy than George W. Bush. And to that extent, I think he's absolutely correct. The debate over what to do in Iraq has only ancillary connection to the debate over whether the Iraq invasion was justified.
After reading the entire DNC email from Howard Dean, I agree with David -- it gets the Democratic campaign against John McCain off to a really stupid start. Reciting your opponents' talking points isn't a bad idea -- especially when it makes you realize that you have none, yet. A one-note anti-incumbent symphony does not a successful election effort make.
Eric
K. Some responses:
Andrew, Negative ads do work and they happen every cycle. Misleading negative ads also do work and they happen every cycle. I just have a feeling all stops are gonna be pulled out this time to the point of absurdity, for a variety of reasons. It won't be so much from the candidates as from their partisan surrogates (RNC, DNC, etc.)...
Ryan, I don't care about the lobbyist money issue, I don't see lobbyists as inherently evil and their money as untouchable, but your point about Edwards is true nonetheless. McCain is obviously for staying longer than either Democrat candidate, but it is dishonest hyperbole to say he wants to be in Iraq forever as an occupying casualty taking power.
"Anonymous, David is one of the brilliant undergraduate political minds at Madison. I'd hope that any blog -- left, right, or center -- would be happy to have him."
I don't think I deserve this praise, but I appreciate the compliment, thanks Eric. You, Andrew, and Ryan are very smart guys yourselves, don't shaft yourselves on getting credit.
Eric, I think your point is: Dems don't underestimate McCain, as is epitomized in these attacks against him. Even though this is likely a Democrat year, even though McCain has to tap dance between uniting the GOP and being centrist for the general, he is not as bad as these misleading attacks imply. In fact, he is decent enough, when this BS is taken out, that if the Dems farkup by being arrogant they could lose another general.
I will just say that I of course agree McCain doesn't "want" us to be occupying Iraq and taking casualties forever. I certainly hope no American citizen wants that. But, if McCain's position is that we can't leave until something that is never going to happen happens (we find a pony and liberal democracy magically takes root in Iraq), then endless war is ESSENTIALLY his policy position. I'm not saying he WANTS endless war for fascist reasons, but I don't think thats what the DNC was saying either.
Post a Comment
<< Home