Canidates campaignes Obama vs McCain

[Neil D]

Steve Fenn/ABC

Senator John McCain paid visits on Friday “The View,” where Joy Behar, third from right, said two of his advertisements were “lies.”

By MICHAEL COOPER and JIM RUTENBERG

Published: September 12, 2008

Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions.

Mr. Obama has also been accused of distortions, but this week Mr. McCain has found himself under particularly heavy fire for a pair of headline-grabbing attacks. First the McCain campaign twisted Mr. Obama’s words to suggest that he had compared Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to a pig after Mr. Obama said, in questioning Mr. McCain’s claim to be the change agent in the race, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.” (Mr. McCain once used the same expression to describe Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health plan.)

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

Those attacks followed weeks in which Mr. McCain repeatedly, and incorrectly, asserted that Mr. Obama would raise taxes on the middle class, even though analysts say he would cut taxes on the middle class more than Mr. McCain would, and misrepresented Mr. Obama’s positions on energy and health care.

A McCain advertisement called “Fact Check” was itself found to be “less than honest” by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan group. The group complained that the McCain campaign had cited its work debunking various Internet rumors about Ms. Palin and implied in the advertisement that the rumors had originated with Mr. Obama.

In an interview Friday on the NY1 cable news channel, a McCain supporter, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, called “ridiculous” the implication that Mr. Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment was a reference to Ms. Palin, whom he also defended as coming under unfair attack.

“The last month, for sure,” said Don Sipple, a Republican advertising strategist, “I think the predominance of liberty taken with truth and the facts has been more McCain than Obama.”

Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama.

A McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said the campaign had evidence for all its claims. “We stand fully by everything that’s in our ads,” Mr. Rogers said, “and everything that we’ve been saying we provide detailed backup for — everything. And if you and the Obama campaign want to disagree, that’s your call.”

Mr. McCain came into the race promoting himself as a truth teller and has long publicly deplored the kinds of negative tactics that helped sink his candidacy in the Republican primaries in 2000. But his strategy now reflects a calculation advisers made this summer — over the strenuous objections of some longtime hands who helped him build his “Straight Talk” image — to shift the campaign more toward disqualifying Mr. Obama in the eyes of voters.

“I think the McCain folks realize if they can get this thing down in the mud, drag Obama into the mud, that’s where they have the best advantage to win,” said Matthew Dowd, who worked with many top McCain campaign advisers when he was President Bush’s chief strategist in the 2004 campaign, but who has since had a falling out with the White House. “If they stay up at 10,000 feet, they don’t.”

For all the criticism, the offensive seems to be having an impact. It has been widely credited by strategists in both parties with rejuvenating Mr. McCain’s campaign and putting Mr. Obama on the defensive since it began early this summer.

Some who have criticized Mr. McCain have accused him of blatant untruths and of failing to correct himself when errors were pointed out.

On Friday on “The View,” generally friendly territory for politicians, one co-host, Joy Behar, criticized his new advertisements. “We know that those two ads are untrue,” Ms. Behar said. “They are lies. And yet you, at the end of it, say, ‘I approve these messages.’ Do you really approve them?”

“Actually they are not lies,” Mr. McCain said crisply, “and have you seen some of the ads that are running against me?”

Mr. Obama’s hands have not always been clean in this regard. He was called out earlier for saying, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain supported a “hundred-year war” in Iraq after Mr. McCain said in January that he would be fine with a hypothetical 100-year American presence in Iraq, as long as Americans were not being injured or killed there.

More recently, Mr. Obama has been criticized for advertisements that have distorted Mr. McCain’s record on schools financing and incorrectly accused him of not supporting loan guarantees for the auto industry — a hot topic in Michigan. He has also taken Mr. McCain’s repeated comments that American economy is “fundamentally sound” out of context, leaving out the fact that Mr. McCain almost always adds at the same time that he understands that times are tough and “people are hurting.”

But sensing an opening in the mounting criticism of Mr. McCain, the Obama campaign released a withering statement after Mr. McCain’s appearance on “The View.”

“In running the sleaziest campaign since South Carolina in 2000 and standing by completely debunked lies on national television, it’s clear that John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election,” Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said in a statement.

At an event in Dover, N.H., a voter asked Mr. Obama when he would start “fighting back.” Mr. Obama, who began his own confrontational advertising campaign Friday, said, “Our ads have been pretty tough, but I just have a different philosophy that I’m going to respond with the truth.”

“I’m not going to start making up lies about John McCain,” Mr. Obama said.

The McCain advertisements are devised to draw the interest of bloggers and cable news producers — but not necessarily always intended for wide, actual use on television stations — to shift the terms of the debate by questioning Mr. Obama’s character and qualifications.

Mr. Sipple, the Republican strategist, voiced concern that Mr. McCain’s approach could backfire. “Any campaign that is taking liberty with the truth and does it in a serial manner will end up paying for it in the end,” he said. “But it’s very unbecoming to a political figure like John McCain whose flag was planted long ago in ground that was about ‘straight talk’ and integrity.”

The campaign has also been selective in its portrayal of Mr. McCain’s running mate, Ms. Palin. The campaign’s efforts to portray her as the bane of federal earmark spending was complicated by evidence that she had sought a great deal of federal money both as governor of Alaska and as mayor of Wasilla.

Ms. Palin has often told audiences about pulling the plug on the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, an expensive federal project to build a bridge to a sparsely populated Alaskan island that became a symbol of wasteful federal spending. “I told Congress, ‘Thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska,” she said this week in Virginia.

But her position was more like “please” before it became “no thanks.” Ms. Palin supported the bridge project while running for governor, and abandoned it after it became a national scandal and Congress said the state could keep the money for other projects. As a mayor and governor, she hired lobbyists to request millions in federal spending for Alaska. In an ABC News interview on Friday with Charles Gibson, Ms. Palin largely stuck to her version of the events.

Disputed characterizations are not uncommon on the trail. At a campaign stop this week in Missouri, Mr. McCain said that Mr. Obama’s plan would “force small businesses to cut jobs and reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.”

Jonathan B. Oberlander, who teaches health policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said that Mr. Obama’s plan would not force families into a government-run system. “I would say this is an inaccurate and false characterization of the Obama plan,” he said. “I don’t use those words lightly.”

[Dr. Shane]

Both campaigns are guilty of exaggerations. That is not abnormal in Presidential campaigns. I was hoping this year would be different but it is turning out the same. I don't buy into either side's argument that the other side is worse. That is like watching two pigs in the mud and arguing about which pig has more mud on it. Kind of a silly argument - isn't it it?

I will not make my decision who to vote for based on a negative ad. Although those ads can be entertaining. Both tickets have a lot to offer. I feel confident that whoever gets elected will do a good job.

[Neil D]

While I agree that both partys are guilty of exagerations, I must continue to ask why McCain party is has twice the amount that Obama has, and why the quality of McCains attacks are more severe than Obama's...?

If this man, heroic as he may have been, continues these attacks, he is displaying NO DIFFERENCE than Hillery did in her campaign...a sign of a desparate individual who will sacrifice NOTHING to obtain office.... That is the current difference between McCain and Obama ...characterwise....something on that Americans on this board are not weighing in thier evaluations of a President.

And according to bipartisan View, there are a couple of ads that are outright lies. "I am John McCain, and I approved this message."

That negates any sort of characterization, in my mind, of a heroic honorable man...

Sorry, John, but that shoots down one of your points for voting for McCain...that of Character.

[Dr. Shane]

"Your pig has more mud on it than my pig." I think I am a bit beyond that now. When I was younger I would play those games but I am older now and see how silly that argument is.

[Tom Wetmore]

The problem is that its not mud...

[Neil D]

"Your pig has more mud on it than my pig." I think I am a bit beyond that now. When I was younger I would play those games but I am older now and see how silly that argument is.

Oh, you think "one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch."....

Shane, whether you know it or not, it not a matter of contanimation...ie one touch and the object is moved from sterile to just clean ...or maybe down to dirty.

It's more along the lines that not only is your pig muddy, but it also has slime, toxic waste, and a disease coursing thru it's veins....... and you still want to butcher it and eat it. [sans the Adventist proabition against pork].

It's desparation for office anyway one can get it, minus a truely legitament way...competition of ideas...Who has the better idea to repair this country....

And the economy, McCain has no clue. Health care, oh a bit of competion and the market will solve all problems....Tain't that simple and Obama has a better handle on it than McCain..

[Dr. Shane]

I don't buy into the idea that one candidate is a demon and the other is a savior. Nope. I am not buying that bill of goods.

Both candidates are exaggerating and going negative. Both are good candidates and either of them will make a fine President. I ave to decide which would be the better. If I can't decide that I may just have to vote for the one I think deserves it more.

[Dr. Shane]

I will say that I thought O'Reilly was hard on Obama until I saw McCain's interview on The View. Barbra Walters and Whoopi Goldberg really went after McCain. McCain held his own but the reporters that report on these interviews are very selective with the portions of the interviews they show and it can look very bad - for McCain or Obama respectively.

[nuff sed]

Quoted by Shane........"either of them will make a fine President."

You don't REALLY believe that do you?

[John317]

We better hope so because at this point it looks like either one could be elected. Which one would be worse or which would be better all depends on your point of view. I believe McCain would be best, but if Obama is selected by the American people, so be it. He will then be my president and I would support my president and wish him all the very best.

[jasd]

>>...but if Obama is selected by the American people, so be it. He will then be my president and I would support my president and wish him all the very best.<<

It is hoped that the rest of America feels as you. Personally, all I really hope – is that the vote tabulating is

not outsourced...

[jasd]

“What’s the difference between a more hopeful kind of politics and old-fashioned attacks? Lipstick.” –WSJ (no particular friend of McCain’s; witness the staggering difference in the amount of monies Wall Street is donating to Obama versus that donated to McCain)

Fact is that Palin had iconized ‘lipstick’ as her own these past few weeks. ‘bama had been attacking her daily (context) leading up to his indiscretion.

‘bama’s audience knew exactly what he meant by the manner he set up the ‘lipstick’ schtick – and laughed appreciatively. Immediately tandem the ‘lipstick on a pig’ schtick, ‘bama went on with “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper...” Not ‘fish’, as you or I might phrase it – but “old fish”. It seems that ‘bama perceives his opposition ticket as

‘a pig with lipstick and an old fish’.

Talk about a candidate being tone-deaf! Oy! or should I say, “Oink!”

What I presented in the above has legs; so much so that it is still running – elsewhere, other than on rightwing blogs.

[jasd]

Middle class:

'bama's idea of 'middle class' are those in the $50,000 - $68,000 income bracket, give or take a few thousand. [/extemporaneously]

So, throwing around all that "middle class" stuff is moot - for practical tax-reduction dialogue.

[olger]

Quoted by Shane........"either of them will make a fine President."

You don't REALLY believe that do you?

[Dr. Shane]

Obama's "change" is simply contrast to Bush. Obama is a Democrat and Bush is a Republican. If Obama is elected we will have a Democrat in the White House and that will be a change from a Republican. I don't expect any "change" in the way politics is practiced. It will be like it was during the Clinton years with a Democrat in charge. I do expect Obama would be a much better role model for Americans and project a better image for America than Clinton did.

McCain's "change" isn't a change in political parties as he, like Bush, is Republican. His change is in how Washington does business. Bush wanted to make this change and bring a new tone to Washington but he quickly found out that Democrats had no interest in bipartisanship or any new tone. McCain, in contrast, has been in Washington for over 20 years reaching across the aisle and working with Democrats. He has also been making waves in his own party. He is the closest thing to a "third party" we have had since Ross Perot. Voting for McCain is voting to shake things up in Washington.

Yes, I think both candidates are qualified and would do a good job. McCain would do good things that Obama wouldn't do and he would do some bad things Obama wouldn't do. The same can be said of Obama. Neither is perfect. Neither will give us everything we want in our national leader.

[olger]

I would like to see a Reaganesque leader emerge.

Republicans are SUPPOSED to be about cutting waste, cutting spending, fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

Over the last 8 years, they have disappointed me in many regards and there's no reason to believe McCain will do anything different. GOP needs a time out to step back, reevaluate, ask where they lost it and start to get back on track.

I fear that giving Obama a House, a Congress and a majority will result in even worse recoil. His enthusiasm toward man-made Global Warming may be the perfect platform to not only duplicate "Homeland Security" but to surpass it. McCan has also courted it some (presumably to garner votes). Biden is all about it. Palin seems to be the only one of the four who is operating on common sense in the GW issue.

Suggestion. You vote for Ron Paul and I will too. We both live in swing states.

[Dr. Shane]

Well, I don't live in a swing state. A vote for Ron Paul or for any other third party is simply like not voting at all. If one is torn between voting for one of the two candidates or voting for a third party. I would suggest voting for the least of the two evils - McCain or Obama. If they view both McCain and Obama as being equally bad then I would suggest they go ahead and vote for a third party.

[Neil D]

Republicans are SUPPOSED to be about cutting waste, cutting spending, fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

Over the last 8 years, they have disappointed me in many regards and there's no reason to believe McCain will do anything different. GOP needs a time out to step back, reevaluate, ask where they lost it and start to get back on track.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Obama's "change" is simply contrast to Bush. Obama is a Democrat and Bush is a Republican. If Obama is elected we will have a Democrat in the White House and that will be a change from a Republican. I don't expect any "change" in the way politics is practiced. It will be like it was during the Clinton years with a Democrat in charge. I do expect Obama would be a much better role model for Americans and project a better image for America than Clinton did.

"contrast to Bush"???? I thought you said you were middle of the road...? I thought you listened to BOTH sides...

You again give evidence that you are NOT listening...Instead, you favor your myths and support them. And your myths are republican based. What a sham!

You don't even know what Obama is about, do you?

Who was it that said that a middle of the road person is a closet republican but declared liberal and is said that he knows nothing...?

Ooh...never mind... teehe

[olger]

In the last 20 years, Republicans have mostly raised your taxes...

That is patently untrue. I have owned WRI for 24-years now, and our tax burden increased in 92-96. It dropped in 2001 on.. due to George Bush & co. recognizing that small business is the backbone of America and his giving small business larger & larger annual depreciation deductions. That motivated me to invest in more equipment each year, and is good for the economy.

What kind of business do you have?

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

In the last 20 years, Republicans have mostly raised your taxes...

That is patently untrue. I have owned WRI for 24-years now, and our tax burden increased in 92-96. It dropped in 2001 on.. due to George Bush & co. recognizing that small business is the backbone of America and his giving small business larger & larger annual depreciation deductions. That motivated me to invest in more equipment each year, and is good for the economy.

What kind of business do you have?

I said YOUR taxes, not your business...I admit, Republicans are always good for cutting business taxes...but they nearly always stiff the individuals..

I have a bee business on the side...

[Dr. Shane]

When a business pays more taxes the consumers pay more. Here is the dirty little truth most politicians won't tell you. BUSINESSES DON'T PAY TAXES! They always pass them along to the consumer. When the auto industry pays more taxes the price of cars go up. When oil companies pay more taxes the price of gasoline goes up. BUSINESSES DON'T PAY TAXES!

[Dr. Shane]

Our infrastructure is built for defense purposes. It is made to transport military vehicles. It is well capable of handling the truck traffic on it. However, with anything, it only has so long of life. It needs to be maintained and eventually replaced.

[Neil D]

Well, there you have it, Olger. You never paid taxes in your business...According to Shane, you passed those taxes along to the consumer....Very good...

[carolaa]

Well, I don't live in a swing state. A vote for Ron Paul or for any other third party is simply like not voting at all. If one is torn between voting for one of the two candidates or voting for a third party. I would suggest voting for the least of the two evils - McCain or Obama. If they view both McCain and Obama as being equally bad then I would suggest they go ahead and vote for a third party.

But, say, a person wasn't planning to vote at all because they are disgusted with both major parties - if they would go out and vote for a third party, that would help to make a statement.