08/18/2008 (8:29 am)
The New Politics — of Pettiness
The blog topic at the top of the list this morning is too sickening even to contemplate.
Obama’s minions have apparently launched a whisper campaign to the effect that John McCain cheated in Saturday’s debate at Saddleback Church, by listening to the questions in advance. That’s apparently their excuse for why Obama did not look as good as McCain.
Un. Freaking. Believable.
I’ve heard silly things from candidates before, but this is absolutely the first time I’ve heard a candidate who seriously wants to be President of the United States say “The dog ate my homework.”
The kerfuffle is over the fact that McCain wasn’t in a “Cone of Silence” (shades of Get Smart) during the first six questions Pastor Rick Warren asked Senator Obama. He was running late, and his motorcade didn’t arrive until after the debate started, after which he was ushered into a “green room” where there was no monitor feed. He assured Warren that he had not been tracking the broadcast while in the motorcade, and Warren took his word for it.
Betsy’s Page and American Power both have the appropriate level of disdain and incredulity at this infantile bit of pettiness, and Newsbusters gets in on the act as well. Betsy points out that Andrea Mitchell, who was floating the Cone of Silence rumor around the Sunday talk shows, has actually floated rumors for the Obama campaign before, blaming the Pentagon for Obama’s choice not to visit those American GIs in hospital in Germany. Betsy also notes that the McCain campaign has complained to NBC about the unprofessional behavior of Ms. Mitchell, completely appropriately in my view.
Barry? You’re supposed to be prepared for the questions you know you’ll be asked by a major Evangelical pastor in front of his Evangelical congregation. Here, let me inform your staff off the top of my head: you’re going to be asked about abortion, gay marriage, confronting evil in the world, hate crimes, and restrictions on religious expression. If you’re not ready for those when you walk in the door, you can’t blame the dog, it’s your own damned fault.
I simply can’t believe this infant wants to be President.
Photo from Maxand99.com.
« « The Rick Warren Presidential Debate: Updated | Main | Another Test » »
11 Comments »
Comment by Mont
If that doesn’t scream racism, I don’t know what does. There’s no way, um McCain, uh, you know, like, um well, could uh, like actually, uh, give , um, better answers than the, uh you know, next president. He’s not nuanced enough, uh, you know.
Comment by darkhorse
I was actually surprised that stupid rumors were first passed around on behalf of Obama like this, now that Rove is in deep with the McCain campaign. I fully expected to hear something about a vague homosexual rumor about Obama come out by now.
I truly wish McCain (who I like and think is principled) would have chosen not to shack up with that particular person (who most certainly is not).
Comment by Phil
I fully expected to hear something about a vague homosexual rumor about Obama come out by now.
You do know that the rumors that Karl Rove personally engineered the Spanish Inquisition are not true, right?
I think that perhaps about 130% of the things the left says about Rove are untrue. I have yet to see even the slightest evidence that he’s engineered any slander of note since his college days. If you have hard evidence to the contrary, feel free to send it. If, on the other hand, you have only talk to the contrary, don’t bother.
Actually, Jim, a vague homosexual rumor did come out about Obama. It came from the Clinton campaign, who are the ones who actually deserve the reputation Rove’s been assigned. I’ll hunt down the guy’s name who swears he did coke and traded sexual favors with Obama if you’re interested, but his credibility is pretty near zero (on the negative side.)
Comment by darkhorse
Phil:
“I think that perhaps about 130% of the things the left says about Rove are untrue. ”
Rove is on the right, and the standard of proof for most neo-cons is far higher to get them to believe something bad about one of their own than it is to get them to believe something bad about the left (Same is true of lefties).
If you have hard evidence that Hillary Clinton herself engineered the slander about Obama, bring it on. I am no Hillary fan, but if you can besmirch her by tying something negative said somehow to her “campaign”, it should be just as fair to tie slander about opponents of campaigns that Rove is running to HIM. Make sense?
Comment by darkhorse
Phil,
In other words, if you can tie something negative to Hillary Clinton in the way you are tying this rumor of Obama to her, then it should be an equal standard to tie shady tactics practiced by a campaign that Karl Rove is running to him.
Do you disagree?
Comment by Phil
Jim,
I generally disagree with the whole tenor of what you said, because my analysis of Hillary Clinton is not based on the one incident I named, but rather on a 16-year history of watching the Clintons operate in public life. It became an expected event for private dirt to get turned public during the Clinton years, which explains why the Clintons were so interested in the FBI’s raw research into various political operatives (on both sides of the aisle — if you’re doing blackmail, you don’t just control your enemies, you control your friends as powerfully.) Remember how quickly information about Bob Livingstone became public? About Henry Hyde? Ken Starr they had to slander, because the guy’s a Boy Scout — he’s never done anything wrong in his life, but when the Clintons were done with him, he was Adolph Hitler, and his formerly stellar chances of a Supreme Court nomination were gone. The Clintons were famous for “scorched earth” attacks against political enemies. As George Stephanopolous quoted Bill Clinton to say, “I’m the President of the United States; I reward my friends and I f**k up my enemies.”
In fact, it’s helpful to keep the Clintons in mind when you’re attempting to understand Karl Rove, ’cause if he were anything within 2 light years of what his enemies claimed, do you suppose we might have seen some public smear campaigns against the likes of Henry Waxman, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi? As it is, though, we know nothing about those folks but the truth. For a guy who exercises scorched earth attacks against anyone who dares criticize the President, Karl Rove has been remarkably unsuccessful in even launching, let alone carrying out, attacks against Bush’s critics… unless, of course, the claims about Rove are just, plain false, which would explain why nobody who criticizes President Bush experiences even slight discomfort.
Rove is a fantasy villian for demented critics of the President.
When are you going to learn, Jim? The Left is absolutely delusional. Nothing they’ve said about the President is even remotely correct.
Comment by darkhorse
So you are saying that you don’t need hard evidence of direct involvement of the Clintons on the Obama attack, because of the pattern.
If the claims about Rove and the campaigns he was running were also shown to be a pattern, would that be enough to indict Rove? It didn’t feel as if you answered my question.
Not that the pattern against Rove is at all proven; I’m just pushing for consistency before I offer any examples.
Comment by Phil
So you are saying that you don’t need hard evidence of direct involvement of the Clintons on the Obama attack, because of the pattern.
I don’t know if the “gay Obama” attack actually came from the Clinton campaign; I know only that it was launched when Obama’s opponent was Hillary Clinton, and I know that it was broadcast about by Clinton supporters. I’m not indicting the Clinton campaign on this evidence, despite the pattern of attacks, because I don’t have sufficient evidence to tie it to the Clintons (although I do indict the Clinton campaign on several racist attacks, which did come directly from the campaign); I merely mentioned it because you were expecting such an attack, and it arose when Clinton was Obama’s opponent. But I’m saying that the Clintons as a couple have actually earned the reputation that some many paste on Karl Rove, whereas I can’t see that Rove has earned this reputation.
Not that the pattern against Rove is at all proven; I’m just pushing for consistency before I offer any examples.
I will be consistent in my treatment. Please present your evidence.
Comment by darkhorse
A few examples of Rove’s excessive campaign scruples : )
- In 1973, running for president of the College Republican National Committee, a tape leaks out of Rove boasting of his tactics. Stealing stationary from an opponent in Illinois, he issued an invitation from his opponent for a party offering “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing.” He also instructs on tactics of going through opponents’ trash to find incriminating evidence.
- Rove & Company, Karl Rove’s consulting firm, had its employees documented using Alabama law school students in 1994 as rumor contacts – unwittingly. The democratic candidate had been a victim of an unfounded homosexual whisper campaign, enough to gain the republican a close victory. (Joshua Green, “Karl Rove in a Corner”, Atlantic Monthly, November 2004)
- During Bush’s first campaign for governer of Texas, an untraceable rumor spread that Ann Richards, Bush’s divorced opponent, was a lesbian.
- In presidential campaigns, the dark underside of Rove’s tactics were more subtle. I have always thought the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth idea, attacking Bush’s opponent where he actually had moral high ground over Bush (simply for going into combat), was political mastery.
No, I don’t think Rove is some kind of monster or anything. Karl Rove had a very rough childhood, so his avowed agnosticism leaves him open to tactics that are a step or two below the aims of others in his party (even if more and more of those are not quite making those aims). Some of his election tactics are both legitimate and brilliant. Some, however, are a little less so.
Comment by darkhorse
And by the way, I agree with you that the Clintons are without a lot of principle in the political realm, also. I just don’t see that as an excuse for any action on the part of a republican.
Comment by Phil
I agree with you that the Clintons are without a lot of principle in the political realm, also. I just don’t see that as an excuse for any action on the part of a republican.
No argument here. We agree.
Swiftboat Veterans for Truth idea
Please, Jim, think about this for a moment. John Kerry was the military face of the anti-war movement since 1971. John O’Neill had been pursuing him and trying to prevent him from gaining office for almost 30 years. Given that the nation is still feeling pain over Vietnam, is there any political event more predictable than that there would be veterans objecting to Kerry’s presidential candidacy???
Add to that that the Swifties never ran ads in more than 3 states, and never obtained more than about $500,000 in contributions. Do you suppose that if they’d been an RNC action, they might have been a bit better financed? maybe given an opportunity to advertise in some battleground states?
No, the Swiftboat phenomenon was pretty much entirely the creation of talk radio and of the blogosphere, which was a brand-new phenomenon at the time and not in any politician’s planning. I’m 99.44% sure Rove had nothing to do with it. I’ve never seen the slightest evidence that he had.
untraceable rumor
Hence, we have no way of associating Karl Rove’s name with it.
In 1973, running for president of the College Republican National Committee, a tape leaks out of Rove boasting of his tactics.
This is the only documented Rovian dirty trick about which I know. It was dirty. It was also a college-level campaign, and Rove was a student at the time. Personally, I hope I’m never indicted in my adult life on the basis of what I did as a college student.
It’s possible that this was a harbinger of later activities, but it’s not enough evidence even to suggest that. We need more.
Karl Rove’s consulting firm, had its employees documented using Alabama law school students in 1994 as rumor contacts…
This is the one piece of your comment about which I knew
nothing. I’ll check into it.
Thanks, Jim.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
