TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 11:17 AM
January 08, 2009 | 10:31 AM
January 08, 2009 | 9:38 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 10:50 AM
January 08, 2009 | 10:49 AM
January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 10:36 AM
January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
15.09.2008
What Happened to McCain's Honor?

Mike made a nice catch last week when he linked to this McCain ad from the 2000 campaign that lambasted Bush for making the same sort of dishonest attacks McCain's making now:

The funny thing about that ad, though, is that a number of people who worked on the McCain 2000 campaign later viewed it as a terrible mistake. Indeed, whenever I've tried to engage a McCain person in the past year about the despicable campaign Bush ran against their guy in South Carolina in 2000, they've almost always acknowledged it, but then faulted themselves for losing their cool in the face of those attacks; McCain's defeat, they'd say, had less to do with Bush's attacks than McCain's response to them. The recent Texas Monthly profile of John Weaver got at this thusly:

Looking back on it, however, Weaver does not blame Rove for McCain’s defeat. “Our mistake was that we made emotional decisions,” he said. “We stopped talking about our reform agenda and started talking about process, what Bush was saying about us.”

Which sort of makes you wonder whether the low-road campaign McCain is waging now is the natural outgrowth of the high-road one he tried to wage in 2000. In fact, if you look back at the GOP primaries, it wasn't as if McCain was being that high-minded back then, either. He was just blessed with a target in Mitt Romney whom no one could feel all that much sympathy for.

It also makes you wonder whether, however many years from now, Obama people will celebrate their ad (finally) responding to McCain's low-road attacks as a smart counterpoint; or whether they'll regret it as an instance where (to borrow a phrase) they stopped talking about their reform agenda and started talking about process, what McCain was saying about them.

--Jason Zengerle

Posted: Monday, September 15, 2008 2:09 PM with 9 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

The Ignorant Populist said:

Invest in Social Security and reduce the debt?!

Jesus, this guy has done a 360 in 8 short years. Kinda reminds you as well that there was a suplus and there was an opportunity to do the above.

September 15, 2008 2:30 PM

davisbanimal said:

It depends on whether he wins or loses.  Obama loses, the ad was horrific mistake.  He wins?  The ad was a genius shot at McCain's core strength, his honor.

Both answers will be wrong, and this one ad will have nothing whatsoever to do with the outcome of the election.  But that's how we'll talk about it.

September 15, 2008 2:36 PM

mattnewman said:

The difference could be that this ad might get under McCain's skin. I don't get the feeling he likes having his honor questioned. [Whereas Bush couldn't have cared less.] If this ad makes McCain overreact, then it'll be worth it. If not, Obama can (and should) move on, perhaps now to taking shots on the economy.

September 15, 2008 3:00 PM

dbhuff said:

See, this ad makes the cardinal sin, it whines that 'Gov Bush' is being mean. What Obama does some of, but I wish he did more explicitly is not whine about McCain's lies, but instead explain how his lies hurt America. "Now, McCain is telling us he's going to x, but given how he's running his campaign, do we even know this is what he believes? And once in office, do we think he's going remember? And will he tell us the truth then? Haven't we had enough with the last 8 years of BushRoveMcCain politics and false witness?"  I'm sure they can do better, but it CANT look like Obama is whining.

September 15, 2008 3:17 PM

michael said:

mattnewman  wrote, "The difference could be that this ad might get under McCain's skin. I don't get the feeling he likes having his honor questioned."

McCain can connect how his imported cabal of assassins provides a causal link to his exit to the road to perdition. He's even been allowed immunity when the most objective critics invent excuses to wall off the honor in his DNA from the shameful campaign. He may not like it but he's paying good money for it. Besides, he may admit it is like his father's drinking...years of sobriety only to fall off the wagon.

He does know honor is no different from other types of respect and one can't bank it & draw upon it while auditioning for the role of Hamlet or Audie Murphy.

Don't cry for me Arizona...

September 15, 2008 3:37 PM

jacobt1 said:

"In fact, if you look back at the GOP primaries, it wasn't as if McCain was being that high-minded back then, either."

Why didn't you notice?

BTW,

In fact, if you look back at the Democratic  primaries, it wasn't as if Clinton was being that high-minded back then, either.

In fact, if you look back at the Democratic primaries, it wasn't as if Obama was being that high-minded back then, either.

In fact, if you look back it wasn't as if FDR, JFK, RFK, Ted Kennedy, Carter, Washington, ,Lincoln,  Jesus, Mose, Buddha,  and  Jason Zengerle were being that high-minded back then, either.  

September 15, 2008 4:02 PM

fbacon2 said:

"McCain's defeat, they'd say, had less to do with Bush's attacks than McCain's response to them."

As I recall, the "mistake" McCain made was not in responding, but in the way he responded.  Specifically, McCain compared Bush to Clinton--a breach of etiquette in a Republican primary, which the Bush camp seized on and threw back at McCain during a very conservative South Carolina primary.  If anything, the post-impeachment Clinton reference was the emotional overreach that did them in.

And Jason, I suppose if Obama had just kept silent in the face of massive, false, and racially-tinged attacks, he could just keep talking about "change" without looking weak?  Would you have praised him for restraint if he hadn't responded?  Not like anyone at TNR is prone to hand-wringing or second-guessing.

September 15, 2008 4:04 PM

a_long said:

uh, no. the Obama campaign for weeks has been talking about process, about what McCain is saying about him. they were just doing it badly. this new ad is the right way to do it: hammer him hard with the truth, create a bit of space to work in, and then keep articulating the positive message for change.

September 15, 2008 4:31 PM

LDuncan said:

There's a big difference, in that Obama is calling McCain dishonest, which is itself an attack on something that matters to voters.  

September 15, 2008 9:08 PM