The Note: Will McCain’s Attacks Backfire?

When the attacks are as silly and petty as involving Britney and Paris, then yes, they’re bound to backfire.

McCain is disgusting.
I used to think that he was an American hero but he is now an old and ugly man.

I could have sworn that John McCain said earlier this year that his campaign was going to take the high road……..what has happened to change his approach? In fact, I thought that he said that the American people wanted, and deserved, better……what has happened to change his approach? Simple put: I guess that John McCain has nothing positive to say. In fact, he has NOTHING TO SAY about how he’s going to move our country forward. How sad…….McCain…….more of the same old politics as usual!

Howard – he did say that. McCain said people are hungry for a high-road campaign that debated issues, and he’d rather lose the election than give people anything less.
I guess he’s re-evaluated that equation. Now it seems like he’ll say anything to win.
I kind of puts his “Obama would rather lose the war than lose the election” statement in context, huh?

Have John McCain’s attacks been racist? No, but they are designed, in part, to take advantage of racist perceptions of Barack Obama.
Why should we interpret Obama’s trip, a demonstration of Obama skills on the world stage (and suggested by none other than John McCain) as evidence that he is “arrogant”? Because he is black. And why do some people insist that Obama is Muslim, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding? Because he is black.
But let me reiterate, McCain has not been overtly racist in his small minded attacks. But he does want to take advantage of the prejudices of others.
I would like to see Obama go after McCain’s policy weaknesses, beyond the colossal misjudgment to go to war in Iraq. McCain has advocated removing the tax break that benefits employers to provide health insurance. McCain believes that health insurance companies should be regulated by the state of their own choosing, by simply reincorporating in a friendly state.
McCain supported the filibuster of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair pay act. McCain’s economic speech this spring made it clear that rather than criticizing regulators for sleeping on the job during the run up to the housing/credit crisis, he wants then to take the next 4 years off.
He opposed full college tuition for vets returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And most importantly, McCain opposed higher fuel efficiency standards that would have led to the U.S. importing 20% less oil than we currently do.

John’s conscience – that’s what I was trying to say, but you said it better.

foutsc – isn’t that what a news blog and message board is supposed to do? They get the talking points out so that people (us) can discuss them.
Lord knows we’ve seen enough McCain talking points on these message boards.
So all in all, I’d say the blogs are doing their jobs. The bad part is McCain’s talking points (which are all about Obama) seem to dominant the main (non-blog) news.
And then, the funniest thing is Republicans complain the news is all about Obama, even when that coverage is more negative than positive, and even when that coverage seems to be using McCain’s talking points as an outline.

Obama’s the one who keeps bringing up he’s “black”. He certainly didin’t like it when “sexism” was brought up when it came to Hillary. What a winer! I don’t care if he’s purple with green polka dots, he’s NOT qualified to be president, and voting or not voting for him because of his color is really stupid. He can’t get ahead in the polls with all the glitz and glamour, money and “great” speeches. He’s not fooling everyone…MOST everyone!

Daunte – let’s look at the whole context of McCain’s tax flip flop.
The thing he said he was open to raising taxes for was Social Security. Yet he previously said the program was disgraceful because its funded by younger workers – which it always has been.
If he’s so opposed to tax increases, why is he willing to increase taxes to save a disgraceful program? Where’s the logic in that?
And then, of course, there’s the humorous aspect of McCain’s campaign saying the candidate may not have been speaking on behalf of the campaign.

I disagree, Samantha. I think picking Clinton is the sure way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I realize there’s different dynamics at play because she’s a woman, but conventional wisdom is that the first rule in picking a running mate is do no harm. She brings high negatives. And the things she claims as positives aren’t universally accepted. I don’t think most independents see her as experienced, and instead see her claims that she is as further indication of a disingenuous disposition.

geevil – are you saying there aren’t other presidents on currency?
Is that typical of McCain supporters? They don’t know most of those guys on our paper money were presidents?

Paul, we shall see. His “bounce” is draining away at a steady pace. You can run on air and sugar for just so long. Seems to be losing momentum which is what happens when there is not any substance to begin with. Obama needs a jolt and any VP choice other than HRC is not going to give it to him.

McCain is erratic, childish, and unreliable.
He talks about Obama being a Celeb, but complains that he can’t get any press. So he attacks the press, and that doesn’t work, so He attacks Obama, next he will attack the public he trying to reach.
he is weak, defensive, surly, and unfit for office.

Sure, there isn’t any real substance to them,
…
and McCain should know better after Rovian tactics like smearing him with lies about a “black love child” helped tank his last campaign,
…
and the content of the McCain ads have been demonstrably false on several occasions,
…
and even Andrea Mitchell has as much as called them lies,
…
and former McCain supporters are distancing themselves from his utterly reprehensible tactics,
…
and the “Straight Talk Express” has gone weeks without straight talk on anything,
…
but really, at this point, what else can McCain do? His own party hates him, practically all of his possible VP picks have been rejected by the far right, and it appears he couldn’t attract 1000 homeless people to hear him read off the teleprompter if he promised them a free meal.
Sleazy attacks are really all he has left. Sad, really, for a once-proud man.

suggest that comments by the MSM are hardly momentum for true voter backlash – but nice try .
Posted by: few | Jul 31, 2008 9:03:17 AM
Exactly! No one care if obuma cries and sobs over coments about his apparent god impersonation, he hears voices too!
I can not wait till voters are paying attention and obuma is dethroned by a good swift kick in the chops!

Are any of the McCain supporters going to manage to say anything that actually, you know, _supports_ their candidate?
The reason I ask is that (ironically enough, given the subject of the original post) most of their comments above seem to be in the same vein as McCain’s ads: long on personal attacks on Obama, but short on anything of substance to say in favor of McCain. There are plenty of references to race, some attempts at humor (through misspellings of Obama), some name-calling (e.g., “moron” – funny for a professor of Constitutional law running against someone who ranked 894 of 899 students at the Naval Academy), but… not much in the way of positive statements about their candidate.
Don’t any of you who are planning to vote for McCain have _anything_ positive to say?
Beuler? Beuler?? Anyone??? ;-)

Yes, yes, we get it. McCain supporters don’t like Obama.
But haven’t you anything positive to say about your candidate? Not even one thing? Do you still wonder about why no one seems worked up about his candidacy if all he (and you) can do is go negative on his opponent?
Look, I don’t even care much for Obama myself, but this is a fact: many Americans are completely bored with McCain’s style of politics.

You’ll see the extent of how big of a BACKFIRE this Britney-Paris flop is going to show up next week. A MAJOR mcCain campaign “restucturing” and anyone who’s fingerprints are on this crazy ad will be joining phil Graham and Hagee in Republican Limbo.
Neither Britney or Paris were asked permission to use their image…Cindy McBigBucks crack open your Gucci purse, Gramps just opened you up for a HUGE law suit.

Britney, Paris, and Obama: A Trio Locked in History!
In a few short days the 2008 Presidential race will finally be finished… over… done… complete! That is when the Monday- morning-quarterbacking will commence as high paid analysts and brainiac historians will studiously pore over each detail of the General election: the good, the bad, and the ugly to determine just how the winner won and the loser lost.
Should Senator John McCain be fortunate enough to pull a win out of the bag, history will reveal that the game changing moment… that one moment (it happens by the way in all campaigns) which turned Obama’s world upside-down, is this new “Britney, Paris, and Obama” ad. Indeed, on the surface, the ad appears nonsensical and juvenile, both in worth and presentation. Aw… but therein is the mastery of this ad. And, whoever designed it will be lauded for years-to-come for the ad’s long term effectiveness!
Now, the first outcome of the ‘ad’ was to cause a national raucous to be raised. Bait-takers, such as the Huffington Post, who called the ad ‘racist’… and MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski and the likes, could be depended on to raise-the-racism trumpet and create that ‘noise’. True to form, the ‘noise’ has been raised, and by design, has caused many to focus on the age-old “Mandingo slave stereotype” or… young blonde, white woman and good looking black man parody. Consequently, many will spend the next 90-days of the election stewing over that… while the real message of the ad lingers in the air.
Then, there are others who are interpreting the ad as meaning Obama, Paris, and Britney are superfluous media creations––void of substance or any other attributable or meaningful contribution to society, to date. For sure… those following that particular vein of thought are also being diverted (for the time being) from grasping the true essence of… and genious of this ‘ad’.
Even Senator Obama allowed himself to fall into that “well-set” trap door, as he, by responding to the ad… demonstrated his irritation with its substance. Here are his comments on the ad during a recent campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa:
“…you’d think we could have a serious debate,” Obama said. “But so far, all we’ve been hearing about is Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. I mean, I do have to ask my opponent, is that the best you can come up with? Is that really what this election is about? Is that what is worthy of the American people?”
And right there… in Obama’s comments… is the point-driving essence of that ‘ad’. It’s not about the racial aspect… and forget about its painting Obama/ Britney/Paris as ‘air-heads’. What this ad really does is shrewdly remind the American public of what Obama so blatantly spoke: how sick, and tired, and weary, and worn-out, and exhausted, and burnt-out they are of hearing about Britney, Paris, and Obama–– all the time.
The media’s overblown coverage of those three have made their very names nauseating to the general public. People don’t want to hear their names, see their faces or hear about any more of their previous or future escapades… let alone ‘any’ further information about them. Period! Truth be told, every time that ‘ad’ plays (and it is sure to play non-stop from now until November) Senator Obama will understand the art-of-that-ad… as his poll numbers will be par to those of Britney and Paris by then.
So, if McCain should win… let the history books reflect that it was the media and the media pundits’ attempt to ram Obama down the throats of Internet savvy Americans… that killed the presidency of Barack Obama.