TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 3:55 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:45 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:06 PM

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

November 20, 2008 | 2:15 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:52 PM
November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
06.10.2008
Will McCain Go Where Dole Wouldn't?

Sarah Palin touches Bill Kristol's erogenous zone by telling him that McCain should "take the gloves off" in tomorrow night's debate. (A quibble: Wouldn't a real hockey mom recommend that McCain "drop the gloves"?) 

The McCain campaign has obviously decided to take the gloves off in its other campaign venues, such as stump speeches and ads. But it'll be interesting to see if McCain goes after Obama in such a fashion when he's actually seeing him in person (although, of course, not looking him in the eye, which McCain is apparently unwilling to do).

The situation reminds me of the one Bob Dole faced in 1996, when Republicans were trying to make an issue of Bill Clinton's character--or lack thereof--but Dole refused to take that line when he debated Clinton. Dole later talked about his decision in an interview with Jim Lehrer:

SEN. BOB DOLE: My view was that, and again, you know, there was how far should we go, you know, there was even then should we get into the character thing, and I decided not to do that, even though I was being pushed by some. I said well, you get into that, I think everybody loses. That was my view.

JIM LEHRER: I was going to ask you about that because you were asked. I asked you toward the end of the debate whether or not there was anything of a personal nature about President Clinton that was relevant and you said no. He had no regrets about having done that.

Sen. DoleSEN. BOB DOLE: No, in the last few days of the campaign I talked about "Where is the outrage?" because this was after the Buddhist temple, and there were stories coming about campaign finance, and we had been-- first we had to put up with Forbes, who had a big bank account, and Clinton didn't have an opponent, so he had a great -- and you can't fault Clinton for not having the opponents -- he had a lot of money left over and I was broke, and we were pretty well beaten up the time we got around to the debates, but I concluded that once you cross that line, I mean, you know, then I think the campaign goes downhill.

JIM LEHRER: In retrospect, do you think it would have mattered any in terms of the outcome, if you had gone after him hot and heavy on the character issue?

SEN. BOB DOLE: As I understand it, I don't know that we did pick up a few points the last ten days of the campaign with this "Where is the outrage", "Where is the outrage." We did get people to focus on it. But then we also had our 96 hour marathon where we think people focused maybe a little bit on the campaign. But I don't think it would have made much of a difference. It would have reinforced this image that some people have that, you know, Bob Dole is mean and nasty, and now he's picking on President Clinton personally, and I'm not. I don't think I'm mean and nasty, and I didn't want to reinforce that view that some people may have had.

Given how much the McCain campaign hates analogies to Dole's, I think McCain will probably heed Palin's (and Kristol's) advice tomorrow night.

--Jason Zengerle

Posted: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:43 AM with 7 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!

icarusr said:

I now have a newfound respect for Dole.  Thanks for this.

And I think you're right, becaue POWPOW is an angry, unhinged old coot.  Of course, Obama's tack has always been - I believe - to untether McCain, to put him on display as the erratic loose cannon he is, much like Patricia Neal unmasked Andy Griffith in "A Face in the Crowd".  We also know that POWPOW has neither honour nor decency; he would have used the N word if he thought it would get him to the White House.

As for signs of what's coming, here is the ad:

"Dubbed "Dangerous," the spot -- which the McCain camp says is running nationally -- takes an ill-considered remark by Barack Obama out of context to imply that he slandered U.S. troops.

"Who is Barack Obama?" the narrator asks. "He says our troops in Afghanistan are 'just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.' How dishonorable.""

To the question, with the Republicans sink any further, the answer can only be, depends on how much shit there is at the bottom of the cesspool in which they wade.

October 6, 2008 10:27 AM

miceelf said:

Isn't this debate a townhall setting? Won't the crazy aggressiveness seem especially dissonant in that setting?

October 6, 2008 10:31 AM

Bukharin said:

Buddhist Temple?  The one the Taliban defaced?

October 6, 2008 11:32 AM

woland said:

I agree with miceelf.  McCain cannot get all crazy aggressive in a townhall setting.  Townhall settings are tailor-made for calm and rational discourse and not for attacks.  If McCain is smart he will use the this next debate to put forward a calm and rationale manner and leave the savage attacks to Palin and the ad campaign.

It's going to be hard for McCain to keep his temper in check during this next debate.  His staff is no doubt instructing him that this time he has to look Obama in the face.  If McCain once again acts like Obama is not in the room the MSM will savage him on this point and the election will be over.  It will be fascinating to see if McCain will be able to hide his obvious contempt for Obama while actually having to look at Obama when McCain is talking to him.   Just take a close look at the beginning of the last debate when they shook hands.  McCain look away from Obama during the handshake and avoided direct eye contact by staring right past Obama.  This debate will be fun, fun, fun!

October 6, 2008 12:22 PM

GSpinks said:

I have to echo icarusr's sentiment on new found respect for Dole. Not going the character route was a remarkably decent thing to do. It would seem the Republicans have since tried to learn from this "mistake", but kudos to Dole anyway.

I don't know about throwing away the election of McCain goes batshit during the next debate; he would have to scare away one or both of the actual undecideds and those who are opting for McCain over Obama. Given as much as they (should have) seen thus far, I'm not sure going batshit will hurt McCain at all; the undecideds probably aren't going to be phased and voters will usually put up with just about anything not related to their core issues once they are won over.

It will be interesting to see how many times McCain will attempt to associate the various issues with Ayers, Wright and Rezko. I can imagine the FP line now, War on Terror, terrorists are all Muslims, Muslims hate America, the Nation is Muslim, Wright and Farrakhan are butt-buddies, they hate America, Obama is their love child, therefore Obama hates America and is currently conspiring with Ayers to blow up the white house if elected, then hire Rezko to build a new low-income housing project via a no-bid contract that is loaded with kick-backs and pork barrel spending and inviting Osama bin Laden, who is third cousing twice removed on his Muslim father's side, as the guest of honor at the inaugral ball.

October 6, 2008 1:09 PM

colablease said:

I disagree with GSpinks.  The new DemocracyCorps poll indicates pretty strongly that McCain's performance in Debate I was likely the most important factor in pushing voters toward Obama--an even-worse performance would give a stronger push.  McCain will have a really delicate tightrope to walk in this one, while Obama will need to stick to what got him here and maintain his discipline.  Much will depend on what the audience does.  With luck, I'll be outside the arena at some point; it's just four blocks from my house.

October 6, 2008 2:27 PM

The Plank said:

I think Noam's right that McCain needs to do something dramatic and mavericky in tonight's debate

October 7, 2008 10:32 AM