Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Attack Misfires

Submitted by Jon Henke on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 00:00
in

Patrick Ruffini quotes Phil Singer arguing that, in order to effectively exploit "the fact that McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush", they can't just assert that McCain = Bush.  They have to "generat[e] some real time examples of McCain hugging Bush" and "force the Republican to choose between opposing the Bush Administration OR adopting the Bush position on an issue playing out in the headlines."

Maybe.  The Obama campaign's counterpunching has been masterful in the past, but it was also more subtle - jujitsui, rather than the harsh and sloppy attacks he's been launching recently.

Attacking McCain and Palin is still a very risky tactic for Obama.  Obama actually is going negative quite often, and his nomination acceptance speech was pretty clearly an attempt to establish the "bar room fighter" credibility with the Democrats who are still anxious to establish some alpha-male bona fides - to assert themselves on the political dominance hierarchy.

And it keeps backfiring.

The Obama campaign's attack on John McCain for his war injuries is a perfect example of poorly considered negativity - of attacking just for the sake of being on the attack.   In fairness, Obama probably didn't know why John McCain didn't use a computer.  Or care enough to find out. 

Side note: Joe Trippi wrote that Howard Dean, netroots hero, was a "self-described technophobe".   The New Yorker reported that  "Dean's staff regarded him as a luddite."

The fact that the Obama campaign hadn't considered either (a) the reason that McCain didn't use a computer, or (b) the potential blowback their attack sets up ("which prepares someone to be commander in chief better, hitting “send” on AOL or fighting a war?") is evidence that they're floundering and a bit desperate. 

The Obama campaign has a narrative - McCain is out of touch, Bush 2.0 - but they're having trouble finding material that resonates.  They are pursuing what Ruffini called the "Attack 1.0" model; they are trying to hit McCain where they want to score points, rather than attacking McCain where he's genuinely vulnerable.

Finally, forcing McCain to choose between opposing or supporting the Bush administration, as Matt Singer suggests, also poses similar risks to the Obama campaign. For instance, upon news that "President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan", Radley Balko says "The Obama campaign should be making a much bigger deal about this."

Does Obama really want to assert that John McCain would be cautious about sending troops to a nuclear-armed country, while Barack Obama would have done what George W. Bush did?   Yeah, I'm guessing we're not going to see that commercial.

UPDATE

I should add: the McCain camp has been doing badly, too. 

  • The absurd, farcical outrage over "lipstick on a pig" was embarrassing - about which, I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of both Tom Bevan and Megan McArdle.   

  • McCain's ad attacking Obama for allegedly supporting "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarten students was egregiously deceptive.   It was also counterproductive.

    • Among independents who reported that they were leaning toward McCain prior to viewing the ad, there was a decrease in support of 8% for McCain. vBefore viewing the ad, 51% of responders who indicated they were leaning toward Obama said they were “definitely” voting for him.  After viewing the ad, 57% of this segment indicated they were definitely voting for Obama.  This suggests that the ad strengthened support for Obama among a segment of independents.

 

2
Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Comments

Ridiculous

Submitted by Sterling on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 01:24.

Check out the usage stats - the majority of people over 50 have trouble with internet technology.  And you know what?  By my standards I expect Obama is a technology illiterate, too.   Most people are. 

I think "absurd". . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 02:51.

. . .and "farcical" are awfully strong words to use in describing the outrage on the right with regard to Obama's use of the "lipstick on a pig" colloquialism in light of a couple of points -- the first of which comes in the Tom Bevan piece you use as an example of your thinking:

Imagine for a moment if John McCain had used a similar shopworn phrase in reference to Barack Obama's policies. Suppose he said, "Obama says he's going to cut your taxes but he's really going to raise them. My friends, it's time for some straight talk about taxes, it's time to call a spade a spade."

Now, it could be that both are absurd, farcical reactions.  Still, both of them are quite predictable, which causes me to think that, at worst, they're knee-jerk or overblown.  I think those are more accurate descriptors in that they don't imply a complete lack of good faith or decency in the people who were offended by the analogy.  That's not to say that no one on the right was acting in bad faith in whipping up the frenzy.  But, I don't think that it's necessarily so that anyone who came to the conclusion that it was a cheap shot was being intellectually dishonest.  Personally, I remain convinced that it was a cheap shot intended to signal the new "get-tough attitude" that the Obama is unveiling at this very moment, and a precursor to the bumbling attempt at degrading McCain for his lack of computer skills.

Secondly, it seems to me that if it's fair to label the right's reaction to the colloquialism/smear in such strong terms, then it seems only fair to heap the same kind of derision on the crowd in attendance, who hooted, unbidden, with delight at the use of a shopworn phrase that would otherwise have been greeted with much less emphatic approval.  After all, if the Obama crowd is to be forgiven for hearing a dog whistle, then the McCain crowd ought to be extended the same benefit of the doubt.

I agree that McCain's surrogates and supporters would have been better off not playing the "girl card" in this instance, and that it was a cynical exercise for many (but not necessarily all) of them to do so.  But, I don't think that necessarily rules out the idea that it was a red meat cheap shot, or that Obama should have been called on it.

Confirmation bias

Submitted by Jon Henke on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 08:18.

I've never been that tolerant of the Left's arguments about Republicans using "code words" - and reading mal-intent into virtually everything Republicans say and do, regardless of how innocuous it really is - and I'm not that eager to see the Right go down the same path. 

I don't doubt that most people genuinely think what they're saying is correct.  I just think it arises from both (a) confirmation bias, and (b) an incentive to rationalize outrage.  They believe this because it benefits them to believe it, not because it's something that would offend them regardless of the identity of the person who said it.

Is there any doubt that, had the shoe been reversed (e.g., McCain said this of a female Democratic VP), the Left would have been outraged and the Right would have been mocking the Left for reading too much into it and feigning outrage? 

There'll never be. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 16:39.

. . .a meeting of the minds on this issue, I suppose.  I think we're coming at this from two completely different perspectives.  You view it as a matter of phony, manufactured uproar generated by accusations of dog whistle sexism.  I see it as an in-your-face shove intended to show Obama's supporters that "he won't be bullied".  I don't think there was any "code word" to it, honestly.  I think it was a line specifically chosen not to literally call Palin a pig, but to make the statement that the gloves are coming off, and perhaps to provoke an intemperate in-kind response from the right.

I also think he succeeded in large part, and that McCain's surrogates would have been better served to call him out on being "Mr. Tough Talk" and ironically congratulating him on coming down from the lofty heights of his empty rhetoric.  The sexism charge struck me as silly from the get-go, even though there are many who sincerely believe it.  But, that doesn't mean it wasn't a very pointed statement.

In essence, I think it's fair to say that just because it wasn't a "sexist" statement, it doesn't necessarily follow that his hands are completely clean.  And, while I agree that the reaction of some of McCain's surrogates was over-the-top, and that "outrage" was precisely the wrong way to react, I don't believe that his choice of analogies wasn't worth responding to in some way.  Personally, I would have chosen to jam a thumb in his eye by pointing out that, now that he's facing a tough female vice presidential nominee, he feels the need to "man up" -- which, I think, clearly is the case.

One thing we must all face...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 13:55.

...is that the dem party is made up largely of pathological liars.  Read this little wiki-answers link and see if it doesn't describe most in the dem party/msm.  We shouldn't be in denial about this.  We can't deal with them as if we were dealing w/sane people.  To think we can apply the Marquess of Queensberry rules here is shows a lack of understanding.  Like bringing a knife to a gun fight.  We must proclaim the truth.  Yes it will cause a supreme eruption because the truth to them can be likened to the daylight shining on Count Dracula.  Ha!  Its not really funny - excuse me. Its really very sad/serious that we have such a prominent political party that has been overrun by sick, confused, wrong-headed individuals.  They're not interested in the preservation of our Nation as we know/love it and they hate our Constitution because it gets in the way of their quest for power and control.

The Truth Shall Set You Free and if we hold back from the Truth, we will eventually follow the dem's down into the abyss.   The GOP still retains some sizeable connection with reality although the more we compromise w/the dems and try to meet them at their level the more we lose a grasp on it. 

We should be prepared 24/7/365 to defend ourselves from the missiles that the dems will throw at us and we should not cower when it comes time to tell the truth about the "them" as long as we can back it up with solid facts.  Darvin Dowdy

Lipstick on a Pig

Submitted by Tom Readmond on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 14:39.

The absurd, farcical outrage over "lipstick on a pig" was embarrassing - about which, I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of both Tom Bevan and Megan McArdle.   

When I first heard this I thought it was definitely some hard reaching on the Right, but Obama also lost two news cycles reacting to it.

It's trivial in isolation, but not in context

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 09/14/2008 - 14:56.

The Mac team is slowly weaving a narrative of Obama being an arrogant, haughty guy. This has to wear on his favorable rating and will erode the credibility of his counterattacks.

Notice that since Minnesota the Obama camp has been unable to sustain any attack on McCain, simply engaged in a slime offensive against Palin.

OTOH, McCain picks up a another endorsement!

Submitted by Jim Glass on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 15:13.

~~~ quote ~~~

...even the jailers who once tortured Sen. McCain are lining up to offer effusive -- if somewhat embarrassing -- endorsements for his presidential candidacy.

"If I had a vote in the U.S., I would choose McCain," beams retired Col. Tran Trong Duyet, the camp's former commander. "I want him in the White House."

This unlikely sentiment is widely shared in this fast-growing country of 85 million.

"The majority of the people in Vietnam know Sen. McCain and feel comfortable about him," says Duong Trung Quoc, a member of Vietnam's National Assembly and secretary-general of the Association of Vietnamese Historians. "Nobody here knows about Obama." ...

[wsj 9/13]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"He bombed our schools and hospitals and we still want him!

"What did Obama ever do?

"Vote McCain !!"
 

 

Duh.

Submitted by ThinkingAhead on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 18:29.

Of course they know McCain in Vietnam. He was their most famous prisoner. Of course they don't know Obama. Of course they endorse McCain. Don't you think they feel a little guilty and a little embarassed as a nation about what they did to him?