Say it ain't so

In my last post, I suggested that the Republicans step aside and let President Obama and the Democrats run the economy for a while; part of this suggestion included raising the debt limit - one last time - to $21.5 Trillion.

In the meantime, ‘Puter over at The Gormogons was making a different argument:

Let the Democrats spend whatever the heck they want, so long as they agree to pay for every penny spent in the year the funds are spent.  That's right.  Put the Balanced Budget Amendment or a similar piece of stopgap legislation back on the table. All current fiscal year expenditures must be matched by current fiscal year revenue, with no exceptions.

I think that’s a great idea but don’t see a way to actually do this, via Amendment or otherwise. I can’t imagine that the Senate will pass at all, much less by a two-thirds majority, a resolution calling for such an amendment. I also can’t imagine that two-thirds of the State legislatures will call for a Constitutional convention. Similarly, the Senate Democrats would never pass a piece of legislation enforceably calling for pay-as-we-go and, even if they did, President Obama would never sign it.

Perhaps, however, ‘Puter’s real argument is that putting a Balanced Budget Amendment front and center would force people to realize how much our current government costs and produce a revolt:

There's not enough money among current taxpayers to fund the government's expenditures, even if you took every penny.  Those who currently pay no taxes would have to pony up for their pet programs just like everyone else.

And there's the Democrats Achilles' heel.  Most Americans would refuse to pay the tax rates and amounts required to pay for our government's annual expenditures, and rightly so. Rather, Americans would insist government get rid of unnecessary programs, agencies and departments in favor of preserving the programs that are important.

This seems like a worthwhile exercise but it brings me back to a something I’ve wondered about ever since November: Why isn’t someone - the Republicans, a conservative interest group, the Tea Party - running ads pointing out stuff like this? The Right seems to hang around, being bad-mouthed by the Left, and then once the calendar hits a Presidential election year suddenly start running ads trying to dislodge those quick sound bites that have sunk in (“The rich should pay their fair share”) and replace them with ideas as foreign as Sanskrit (“There aren’t enough millionaires”). Why isn’t some organization spending money to present these ideas all year, every year, instead of waiting until the last minute?

I tend to think of print ads and TV ads (I’m old) which means spending money but of course there are other venues to explore that don’t require a cent. Perhaps a Twitter hashtag of “#88%” would be a nice place to start.

So if ‘Puter’s idea is about pointing out reality, I’m all for it. It would be more than helpful to tell people that the idea that we can get out of the financial hole we’re in by hand-waving and mumbling about the rich doesn’t add up. Someone other than just the rich is going to have to pay for it all the debt we’re racking up and maybe it will be harder for us to happily mortgage our kids future if we can’t keep lying to ourselves about exactly how big the bill will be.

Obama's "Honor"

Barack Obama recently put out an ad called “Honor” which says John McCain is running a dishonorable campaign. The ad does not provide any specific instances of dishonorable activity by the McCain campaign which has left commenters who do not support Obama puzzled as to what the ad means. (Commenters who do support him are sure they know.) Since the ad provides seven quotes to back up its claim of dishonor, I decided to track down those quotes and determine from them what Obama is objecting to.

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.

Afloat on a full sea

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, 218–224

I very much dislike three of the newer McCain ads: “Disrespectful”, “Education”, and “Lipstick”. The first two can be accessed from the McCain video gallery on YouTube. “Lipstick” has been taken down because CBS is claiming copyright infringement. It is no longer on YouTube and I cannot find it on the McCain campaign site, but I did find the script for it:

Script For "Lipstick" (WEB :35)

CHYRON: Sarah Palin On: Sarah Palin

GOVERNOR PALIN: Do you know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull: lipstick.

CHYRON: Barack Obama On: Sarah Palin

BARACK OBAMA: Well, you know, you can, you know you can...put...uh...lipstick on a pig...it's still a pig.

CHYRON: Katie Couric On: The Election

CBS' KATIE COURIC: One of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life.

CHYRON: Ready To Lead? No

Ready To Smear? Yes

I dislike “Lipstick” and “Disrespectful” because the McCain campaign should not be playing the sexism card. (Actually no one should be playing the sexism card, the racism card, or any other ism card.) To the extent that Palin’s appeal rests on the idea that she’s tough enough to stand on her own, anything that makes her look like she’s complaining about her treatment undercuts that appeal. What the campaign should be saying about Palin is not that she’s being beat up but that it doesn’t faze her. There’s a hint of that when “Disrespectful” talks about how Palin is proving them wrong every day but I still don’t like it. You don’t show that attacks don’t bother you by talking about them. As far as I can tell, Palin’s herself has not “whined” about the attacks on her. The campaign should take their cue from her.

The McCain campaign did an excellent job of pushing back on the truly egregious garbage that was thrown at Palin in the 7-10 days after McCain picked her. They shouldn’t squander the cultural capital they gained then by taking offense at statements that could be taken as sexist but could just as easily be taken as simply hard-ball politics.

Equally dangerous, aggrieved identity politics is the Democrats’ home turf. Remember, they’re the ones who managed to see racism in McCain’s ads about Hilton and Moses. They’re professionals in this field; Republicans are amateurs. McCain should not be giving any house room to the idea that being offended by tough attacks is an acceptable political strategy.

I hate the “Education” ad for a different reason. The first part of it, where the voice-over explains that Obama hasn’t done anything significant about educational issues is fine. But the whole riff about how his only accomplishment was a bill that teaches kindergartners about sex before they learn to read goes too far. Whether you agree with Fact Check that both the ad’s facts and its implications are erroneous or with Jim Geraghty that the ad is factually correct, it is - to use a technical term - icky. Even worse, it’s unconvincing. I don’t think any sane person who watches the ad will - however much they despise Obama - actually believe he supports teaching kindergartners about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases. This means McCain is giving away moral stature by launching an arguably duplicitous ad that makes people mildly nauseous and he’s not getting any return from it because no one will buy the message.

I assume “Education” is designed to push back on the repeated claims that Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only sex education. I agree it’s important to push back on that inaccuracy but this ad was a bad way to do it. A less unpleasant way to get the point across would be to let the voice-over read some of the more off-the-wall claims and then run the CSPAN segment where Palin talks about her actual position in the 2006 Alaskan Republican Gubernatorial debate. That makes it clear that she’s not abstinence-only now and that she has not adjusted her thinking to make herself look more palatable because she’s running for Vice-President.

The bottom line on all these ads is that the tide is running in McCain’s favor. His campaign needs to realize they’ve ridden the “don’t slime Sarah” horse about as far as it can go. And they need to be very conscious of the fact that political hyperbole is fine but pushing it too far will backfire. (Talk about mixed metaphors...)

To cleanse the palate, there are two recent McCain ads I do like, both also available via the McCain video gallery on YouTube. One is “Fact Check”. This is the right way to push back on the Obama campaign trying to trash Palin: represent them as predators and point out how that approach by Obama contradicts his message of hope. As a bonus, Palin’s support for culling wolves by any means necessary implies who the victor will be in a matchup between Obama’s mercenaries and Palin.

Finally, I find “Stem Cell” (a radio ad) fascinating because it refers to McCain’s “Congressional allies”. This may be just because the ad is a joint venture of the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee. Or it may be that Congressional Republicans are starting to hope they might not be beaten like a rented mule in November after all.