For each backup quote from the ad, I report what the ad says via voiceover and screen, give the source I found for the quote, place the quote in context, and give any additional information I think will be helpful. I keep a running total of what objectionable McCain claims the quotes refer to.
1) The screen says, “one of the sleaziest ads ... ever seen”; Time, Klein, 09/10/08
Apology Not Accepted says:
Now he is responsible for one of the sleaziest ads I've ever seen in presidential politics, so sleazy that I won't abet its spread by linking to it, but here's the McClatchy fact check.
The McClatchy fact check he links to is Out of bounds! McCain misstates Obama sex-ed record. This is a reference to the McCain ad called “Education” which can be viewed here. This ad claims Obama wants to teach kindergartners about sex.
Objectionable McCain claims:
Obama wants to teach sex-ed to kindergartners (1 reference)
2) The screen says, “truly vile”; Washington Post, Dionne, 09/10/08
Does the Truth Matter Anymore? says:
And now comes a truly vile McCain ad accusing Obama of supporting legislation to offer "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners."
Dionne links to the same McClatchy fact check that Klein did about the McCain ad called “Education”.
Although not the source of the “truly vile” comment, the first paragraph of Dionne’s column also refers to two other McCain claims as false:
John McCain and his campaign keep throwing out false charges and making false claims without any qualms. They keep talking about Sarah Palin’s opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere without any embarrassment over the fact that she once supported it. They keep saying that Barack Obama will raise taxes, suggesting he’d raise them on everybody ...
Objectionable McCain claims:
Obama wants to teach sex-ed to kindergartners (2 references)
Palin didn’t really stop the Bridge to Nowhere (1 reference)
Obama will raise taxes on everybody (1 reference)
3) The screen says, “dishonest smears”; The New Republic, Orr, 09/10/08
Animal Farm says:
... an effort by former Massachusetts Governor--and McCain surrogate--Jane Swift to claim Barack Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig when, discussing McCain's "change" message, he used the common phrase, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." [snip]
Still, the bogus charge is further evidence--along with McCain's disgraceful new ad--that he intends to run a campaign that's not fit for rats. Can we expect more dishonest smears like this one? Does a bear shit in the woods?
This is a reference to the McCain ad called “Lipstick” and the controversy that prompted it. The ad has been taken down for copyright reasons but you can read the script for it here. This dustup has several permutations. This article speaks specifically about Obama calling Palin a pig. A more general version is that the Obama comment was a sexist swipe at Palin.
This article also links to another TNR article which references the McCain “Education” ad so I’ve counted that one also.
Objectionable McCain claims:
Obama wants to teach sex-ed to kindergartners (3 references)
Palin didn’t really stop the Bridge to Nowhere (1 reference)
Obama will raise taxes on everyone (1 reference)
Obama was taking a swipe at Palin when he talked about putting lipstick on a pig (1 reference)
4) Voiceover says: “that he repeats even after it’s been”; screen says, “exposed as a lie”; CBS, Benen, 09/08/08
Political Animal: The difference between a lie and a mistake says:
To support its claim about Palin having "stopped" the Bridge to Nowhere, the [McCain] ad cites an article from December in the Anchorage Daily News. When one actually looks at the article, one sees that the Daily News piece doesn't support the claim.
In our reality, Palin supported the bridge project, and campaigned on a pledge to build it. The bridge was scrapped, not by Palin, but when an embarrassed Congress stopped the project. Even then, Palin took the money and spent it on other Alaskan transportation projects. Unless the McCain campaign is prepared to change the meaning of the word "stopped," the ad's claim is obviously not true.
But stepping back, it's not just the ad. McCain and Palin have repeated the same claim, over and over again, in a variety of settings, after it was exposed as a lie.
The reference to the December Anchorage Daily News article leads - via an intermediary - to "Palin flies high as reformer", a 2007 article that chronicles Palin’s accomplishments. It does not credit her with stopping the Bridge to Nowhere but does detail other reforms Palin instituted.
Incidentally, I’ve now explained a discrepancy Althouse points out:
7. "Dishonest smears that he repeats, even after it's been exposed as a lie." "Smears" is plural. What's the antecedent for "it's"? I thought Obama's campaign was largely built on his brilliant speaking ability. You've got to write the adscript in solid English -- especially when you're talking about deception and tearing quotes out of context. Otherwise, you are the one we will be suspicious of.
The voiceover is linking two different stories into one sentence. The “dishonest smears” is a prediction of multiple future trangressions by McCain; the “exposed as a lie” is a judgment about a particular McCain claim about Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere.
Objectionable McCain claims:
Obama wants to teach sex-ed to kindergartners (3 references)
Palin didn’t really stop the Bridge to Nowhere (2 reference)
Obama will raise taxes on everyone (1 reference)
Obama was taking a swipe at Palin when he talked about putting lipstick on a pig (1 reference)
5) The screen says, “the truth be damned”; Chicago Tribune, James, 09/10/08
McCain plays dirty on Obama & sex-ed says:
This is an old-fashioned, unreconstructed politics whose goal, first and foremost, is to get the candidate elected, the truth be damned.
This paragraph follows an extensive quote from the McClatchy fact check that Dionne and Klein referenced about the McCain ad called “Education”.
Objectionable McCain claims:
Obama wants to teach sex-ed to kindergartners (4 references)
Palin didn’t really stop the Bridge to Nowhere (2 reference)
Obama will raise taxes on everyone (1 reference)
Obama was taking a swipe at Palin when he talked about putting lipstick on a pig (1 reference)
6) The screen says, A “disgraceful dishonorable campaign”; Washington Post, 08/28/08
I cannot find this reference. The only “disgraceful, dishonorable campaign” reference I found in the Washington Post is a Dionne column, Tiptoeing Through the Mud , dated September 12, 2008. Right quote, wrong date, not counted.
Objectionable McCain claims:
Obama wants to teach sex-ed to kindergartners (4 references)
Palin didn’t really stop the Bridge to Nowhere (2 reference)
Obama will raise taxes (1 reference)
Obama was taking a swipe at Palin when he talked about putting lipstick on a pig (1 reference)
7) The voice over says, “After voting with Bush 90% of the time, proposing the same disastrous economic polices, it seems deception is all he has left.”; the screen says, “deception”; Washington Post, 08/31/08
One word is not much of a clue but given the reference to economic policies, I believe I've found the article to which the ad is referring: Continuing Deception: Mr. McCain’s ads on taxes are just plain false. The word “deception” appears only in the title but the thrust of the argument can be found in this paragraph:
Instead, the McCain campaign insists on completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama's plan. The ad opens with the Obama-as-celebrity theme -- "Celebrities don't have to worry about family budgets, but we sure do," says the female announcer. "We're paying more for food and gas, making it harder to save for college, retirement." Then she sticks it to him: "Obama's solution? Higher taxes, called 'a recipe for economic disaster.' He's ready to raise your taxes but not ready to lead."
The article cites the Tax Policy Center but provides a link only to their front page not to the articles that provide the numbers the articles cites. The ad the article is talking about is “Higher” and can be viewed here.
Objectionable McCain claims:
Obama wants to teach sex-ed to kindergartners (4 references)
Palin didn’t really stop the Bridge to Nowhere (2 references)
Obama will raise taxes (2 references)
Obama was taking a swipe at Palin when he talked about putting lipstick on a pig (1 reference)
So there are the McCain claims that presumably lie behind Obama's "Honor" ad. I certainly don’t believe that any of these four statements represent the highest form of democratic dialogue. At the same time, I don’t understand why they are being singled out as more sleazy, vile, dishonest, disgraceful, deceitful, and dishonorable than statements made in earlier elections, in the party primaries this year, or by the Obama campaign itself. Each of the four statements can be backed up by an argument - you may agree or disagree with the argument but it can be made in each case. Even more important with regard to the claim that these statements are particularly reprehensible, Obama does not come to this discussion with clean hands.
Here’s my take on each statement.
Obama wants to teach sex-ed to kindergartners: As I said in an earlier post, I don’t like the ad and I wish McCain hadn’t run it. Nonetheless, Byron York makes a case that the McCain ad is accurate based on the wording of the bill itself. Furthermore George Will is unconvinced the McCain ad is untrue or misleading. Will goes on to say:
It is very common across the centuries for parents, not schools, parents to tell their children to be aware of strangers. What's new here and reflects a conservative-liberal difference is the idea, a, it has to be tarted up as sex education to be wary of strangers, and b, parents can't but the schools must in the kindergarten. Now that's a cultural divide and let's vote.
Even if you, unlike York and Will, believe this ad is utterly misleading, how is it any worse than Obama’s oft-repeated charge (via Villainous Company) that McCain wants a hundred-year war?
Palin didn’t really stop the Bridge to Nowhere: I haven’t looked at this closely enough myself to have a firm opinion. To read someone who passionately believes Palin is lying about stopping the bridge, see The Daily Howler. (I link to only one article but he continues to discuss this issue almost every day.) For an alternate interpretation, you can read A Tale of Two Bridges. I haven’t compared the timelines of the two accounts.
Even if you firmly believe Palin deserves absolutely no credit for stopping the Bridge to Nowhere, this is an interesting issue for Obama-Biden to raise. Both men voted for the Bridge to Nowhere which is probably justifiable since I assume it was just one part of a larger appropriations package. Less savory is the fact that both men voted against the Coburn amendment that would have transferred some Bridge to Nowhere money to Katrina relief instead.
Obama will raise taxes on everyone: Again, I haven’t looked at this closely enough to have an opinion. If you want to see how the McCain campaign believes it is justified in making this claim, you can check out their Press Releases page (just do a find on “higher” within the page and you’ll hit a handful of items about Obama’s taxes). I took a quick look at this item and based on a very cursory examination it looks to me like McCain is basing his claims of Obama raising taxes on Obama’s past voting record while those who dispute McCain’s claims are considering Obama’s proposed policy changes. Probably a gross over-simplification but you can judge for yourself.
Even if you believe McCain’s statements about Obama’s tax policy are totally without foundation, consider this. Speaking about the current financial problems, McCain said Monday:
You know that there’s been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street.. And it is, people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong but these are very, very difficult times. And I promise you we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street, we will reform government...
Tuesday, the Obama campaign released an ad called “Fundamentals”. The ad quotes only the “fundamentals of our economy are strong” part of McCain’s remarks and then asks, “How can John McCain fix our economy ... if he doesn’t understand it’s broken?”
I fail to see how this new Obama ad is less misleading than even baseless McCain ads about Obama’s tax policy would be.
Obama was taking a swipe at Palin when he talked about putting lipstick on a pig: It is probably the case that the people who paid any attention to this at all split 50/50 on whether Obama was alluding to Palin’s lipstick comment at the Republican National Convention. It is simply not possible to decide whether this claim is true because we can’t read Obama’s mind.
Even if Obama is totally innocent of thinking about Palin when he made this remark, I am absolutely furious that Obama would consider it “dishonorable” for someone to interpret his remark as an insult. Obama was quite eager to ensure that Hillary Clinton’s remark about RFK and June was interpreted as calling for his assassination. If he encouraged such a hideous interpretation in a far, far more serious matter, he has no room to complain about any misinterpretation of his much less consequentional remark.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment