Contrasting Through Falsehood

Marc Ambinder writes about the prospects for an elite backlash against the McCain campaign's new strategy of making stuff up:

"I will defend every single word in every single ad," a senior McCain campaign adviser told me last week. "But you can't really blame Obama for gas prices," I responded. "As they say, if you're not part of the solution," and here the adviser paused and smiled, "you're part of the problem."

Concerns about whether McCain is coming off too mean, they say, are irrelevant. The media, they believe, has created double standard that allows them to view Obama's contempt for McCain as in-bounds and McCain's attempts to draw contrasts with Obama as out-of-bounds.

But look, the issue here isn't that there's something out of bounds about drawing a "contrast" with Barack Obama. The issue is that, as Marc's source admits, the charge that Obama is responsible for the high price of gasoline is false. Similarly, attacking Obama for refusing to meet with injured soldiers because he was told he couldn't bring press cameras would be a perfectly fair attack except for the fact that it isn't true. So called "negative advertising" has gotten a bad reputation, but there's really nothing wrong with being mean about your opponent. But campaigns should be expected to stay within some kind of bounds of accuracy.

Comments

Not only is your colleague Ambinder a joke of a journalist, he's also a terrible writer. Please parse for me the last sentence of that block quote. Who is "them"? Which "double standard" allows? Why the hell does anyone pay attention to this incompetent shitbag?

Posted by xx | July 29, 2008 10:41 AM

"But you can't really blame Obama for gas prices," I responded. "As they say, if you're not part of the solution," and here the adviser paused and smiled, "you're part of the problem."

I don't get it.

Posted by James Gary | July 29, 2008 10:42 AM

Matt, your colleague Marc has become increasingly frustrating. In this very post, he refers sarcastically in German to Obama as "The One," and in the section you quoted, he talked about Obama's contempt for McCain. What contempt for McCain?

But overall, Marc's reporting has become highly suspect. I don't think he's "biased" per se, but I think he's trying to prove his "objective" reporting credentials to such a degree that he almost only slams Obama and apologizes constantly for McCain.

Yesterday, he twisted himself into a pretzel defending McCain's "strategy" (which assumes he has one), that even a GOP strategist wrote him to tell him he was being ridiculous.

Just saying - I like Ambinder's scoops, but his analysis is almost always wrong.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 29, 2008 10:44 AM

Since we are all Kevetching here, I would like to ask why the hell I am banned from posting on Meagan McArdel's page? I can post everywhere else at the Atlantic. Do I make too good an anti libertarian argument to be allowed to stay?

Posted by Northern Observer | July 29, 2008 10:49 AM

ambinder is a typical member of the press corps; this means that he's good for collecting tidbits and bad for articulating thoughts.

James Gary, presumably the mccain asswipe who was quoted means "obama hasn't endorsed offshore drilling, which every rightwinger in the land will assure you will solve our problems, so since he isn't part of the solution, he must be at fault altogether."

Posted by howard | July 29, 2008 10:49 AM

Even worse, the McCain ad attacks Obama for not meeting with the troops, by using footage of Obama meeting with the troops.

This ignorant crap is aimed at the trailer park and that's about it, so I'm guessing that an elite backlash is already underway (cf., Mrs. Alan Greenspan).

We had soccer moms, then NASCAR dads. Now, McCain is betting the farm on "meth-lab brother/cousins."
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 29, 2008 10:57 AM

This is simply McCain testing his boundaries. My guess is that it's early enough, and he feels that he's got enough support among the Beltway media that any stain from getting hit with the false ad charge now will abate by November. That is, if anyone really bothers to call him out on it. Right now, he's testing what he can and cannot get away with brazenly saying about Obama without losing his media support. So far, there's been remarkably little journalistic pushback for what has been a string of demonstrably false ads and scurrilous attacks coming from McCain himself. If that holds, than all bets are off come October. We might be in for some truly shocking and disgusting stuff coming from the McCain camp and their surrogates not to mention 527's.

McCain can't win without ridiculously friendly media coverage. He also needs to slime Obama relentlessly to keep him from running away with this thing regardless of the MSM's take on McCain. This is a test to see how much he can do one without losing the other.

And as much as I've been disappointed at times with Joe Klein, you've got to give him credit for being one of the first off the McCain-train in a very public way when he saw where it was going to end up.

Posted by dannity | July 29, 2008 10:58 AM

except for the fact that it isn't true

Hehe. It's hilarious to see the Obama campaign surrogates like Matthew howl about this. It must be a pretty effective ad to see how much they are complaining about it.

And, to be sure, people like Matthew surely know perfectly well that the ad is true. They choose to lie because they know that the ad really hurts Obama.

Posted by Al | July 29, 2008 11:01 AM

I always get a kick out people who are way way way richer and more powerful than me calling *me* an elitist.

I also note their willingness to engage in the very same assignment of collective guilt that they purport to oppose when it comes to issues like taxation.

Posted by Bob Loblaw | July 29, 2008 11:12 AM

And, to be sure, people like Matthew surely know perfectly well that the ad is true.

Speak of the devil! Mention the trailer park morons, the only people in America dumb enough to fall for this bullshit, and here comes one of them now!

Tell me what they told you to say, dipshit! I really wanna know.

(It's not like you can think for yourself.)
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 29, 2008 11:12 AM

Can we have the old Al back? Seriously who starts a comment with "Hehe"?

Posted by Tootat | July 29, 2008 11:12 AM

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

Posted by croatoan | July 29, 2008 11:13 AM

The liberal media bias crap gives conservatives license to ignore facts and use any underhanded tactic.

Posted by Doug | July 29, 2008 11:24 AM

I hear McCain had Obama surgically removed from his face yesterday.

This is good news for John McCain.

Posted by lampwick | July 29, 2008 11:25 AM

Wait, I found the source!

Now we don't need Al for anything. We already know what he's been told to say.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 29, 2008 11:28 AM

I don't think that 'true' or 'false' is the issue here-- the issue is resentment.

McCain's message is resentment-- resentment of the aging alpha-male for the cool, eloquent, smart black kid who hasn't suffered and who makes it look easy. It might work-- it will find a response with a lot of resentment out there, a lot of people will feel empathy, at least at first.

But it's not a foregone conclusion, either. McCain's not a nice guy, and the prolonged exposure that his faults are going to get in the next few months aren't going to help him.

Posted by MattF | July 29, 2008 11:31 AM

Yeah, this Al is a pale imitation. The old one was a pretty bright guy.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 29, 2008 11:31 AM

If it were up to me, every single person associated with the McCain campaign in any manner whatsoever would (after a fair trial, of course), be lined up against a wall and shot dead. Except McCain himself, who would be hanged by the neck until dead as a war criminal.

But hey, that's just me.

Posted by voice of reason | July 29, 2008 11:32 AM

Since I can't comment on Marc's blog because it seems to be in tech meltdown...

McCain's attack ads, nasty in tone and grounded in dubious or demonstrably false assertions, damage his reputation for high-road integrity, which had been his biggest asset.

They also give the Obama campaign the opening to ask, "What has happened to John McCain?" That rhetorical question invites pundits and voters to fill in various negative blanks - flip-flopping, fact-mangling, obsession with the past, volatile temper, verbal muddle, rigidity, age.

Posted by allbetsareoff | July 29, 2008 11:34 AM

You say "Marc's source admits" the charge is false? That itself is actually not true.

"As they say, if you're not part of the solution," and here the adviser paused and smiled, "you're part of the problem."

This is not admitting a false attack. This is defending the position that Obama IS responsible for high gas prices, with the most moronic sort of "truism" that Republicans everywhere are using to underpin their "strategy." He's saying that since Obama doesn't support more drilling, and he hasn't proposed an alternative "pro-active solution" to magically fix the crisis, then yes, Obama is literally "part of the problem." It makes zero sense, but people will believe it.

Posted by along | July 29, 2008 11:35 AM

It's great to see libs writhe under my +1 Dagger of Obfuscation!

Posted by Al | July 29, 2008 11:42 AM

"voice of reason" is giving reason a bad name. We don't have to execute McCain. We just have to avoid voting for him.

Posted by Rum raisin | July 29, 2008 11:43 AM

You say "Marc's source admits" the charge is false? That itself is actually not true.

This fixation on 'truth' and 'falsity' is out of step with the inexorable march of History.

The various McCain campaign statements, because they advance the interests of the Party, in its role as vanguard of the Glorious Revolution, possess revolutionary truth, which soars above the dialectically opposed 'truth' and 'falsity' of the dead past.

All correctly oriented cadres know that.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | July 29, 2008 11:57 AM

run raisan,

You people make me laugh (and vomit, but mainly laugh. Ohhh!!! Please don't talk about violence sir. We live in a democracy - we can bring about change at the ballot box!

Yeah, right. The sick, genocidal monsters that run this demented excuse of a country aren't going to be swept from power at the ballot box. My god, look at the lengths they are going to to stop Obama, merely because his support of our genocidal hegemonic ambitions, while deep and sincere, isn't quite as full throated as the madman McCain's support is.

The only hope for this country is the complete elimination of the political and media classes. And since they are unlikely to commit mass suicide, or voluntarily emigrate ... well, what does that leave?

Posted by voice of reason | July 29, 2008 12:02 PM

It's great to see libs writhe under my +1 Dagger of Obfuscation!

Now, come on. "Libs"? Really??? Is there any indication that I ever called liberals "libs"?

Hehe is, BTW, fairly close to the Instapundit staple "heh".

Still, nobody has ever disputed the essential truth of the Landstuhl story: Obama's visit was all scheduled, and he cancelled once informed that his campaign staff and reporters couldn't accompany him. (Indeed, it has been confirmed that the military was all prepared to have the campaign staffers and press hang out at the airport while waiting for the Senator to go visit the troops.) No serious explanation has ever been given as to why Obama didn't simply go meet the wounded troops and leave his campaign staff behind at the airport, where the military was prepared to host them.

Posted by Al | July 29, 2008 12:06 PM

Al falsely said... Still, nobody has ever disputed the essential truth of the Landstuhl story: Obama's visit was all scheduled, and he cancelled once informed that his campaign staff and reporters couldn't accompany him.

Wrong again, wingnut. Take a look at this video where Andrea Mitchell, who was there, said "that literally is not true". To quote her further:

The point is that Obama had no intention of bringing any cameras with him. I was there. I can vouch for that.

McCain is a liar, running a dishonest and slimy campaign. Game, set, match.

Posted by LFC | July 29, 2008 12:15 PM

so let's see, Al: your "serious" explanation is to suggest right-wing platitudes that obama must hate the troops or something stupid along those lines.

in fact, everyone has disputed the "essential" truth of the story: Obama never had reporters accompanying him. he had one aide, a retired general, who was to accompany him.

he was sandbagged, pure and simple, and no one has ever disputed this essential truth (except right-wing propaganda robots, of course).

Posted by howard | July 29, 2008 12:17 PM

The American public expects Truth from thier politicians who are running to take over the highest office in the land. You cannot honorably lead with lies and deception. That won't take you or us where we need to go. Your word is your bond! We need to get back to moral principals and ethics in this country.

Posted by angellight | July 29, 2008 12:23 PM

this Al is a pale imitation. The old one was a pretty bright guy.

It's not a real guy at all--it's a RNC computer program. The clue is the name--"Al"="AI". As the McCain campaign progresses, the RNC computer of course comes across as stupider--it's a reflection of the campaign that sponsors it.

nobody has ever disputed the essential truth of the Landstuhl story: Obama's visit was all scheduled, and he cancelled once informed that his campaign staff and reporters couldn't accompany him

Well, of course, that's not true:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/andrea-mitchell.html

"Literally not true"--Andrea Mitchell

Posted by rea | July 29, 2008 12:25 PM

The clue is the name--"Al"="AI".

I disagree with your conclusion, but only because the "I" in "AI" stands for "intelligence".

Posted by LFC | July 29, 2008 12:28 PM

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."

Posted by dbomp | July 29, 2008 12:31 PM

Al, to put it in terms you can understand, when you've lost Ambinder, you've lost the argument.

The problem for McCain here might be that this attack on Obama was also an attack on the press: he was accusing the press of trying to accompany Obama to the hospital and turn the event into a circus. The press, obviously, is going to be much more sensitive to things when they're attacked personally and are going to be much more agressive about correcting the record when the falsehoods from the McCain campaign are directed at them, rather than just at Obama.

Posted by Tyro | July 29, 2008 12:31 PM

You cannot honorably lead with lies and deception.

Yeah, but you can win elections.

I'm surprised the GOP haven't pushed to have Al Davis put on Mount Rushmore.

There's a limit to how you campaign if you care about being able to govern if you win. But if you don't intend to govern, in any meaningful sense of the word, if you win, then the sky's the limit.

If your purpose in winning elections is basically asset-stripping -- that and keeping one step ahead of the grand jury and the ICC -- it doesn't matter what damage to the polity you may inflict by the methods used in the campaign.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | July 29, 2008 12:38 PM

Davis X. Machina,

The Republicans can not put Al Davis on Mount Rushmore because Alex Spanos, the owner of the San Diego Chargers, donates more money to the Republican party.

Besides, in the country, we have a seperation between church and state. Al Davis is God. And our God can not be put on some secular monument.

Posted by Fighting Words | July 29, 2008 1:10 PM

McCain's message is resentment-- resentment of the aging alpha-male for the cool, eloquent, smart black kid who hasn't suffered and who makes it look easy

That's exactly where he needs to hit. But I'm not sure he can get enough of those angry voters to make a difference-- Dems haven't won white males for decades.

I too would dearly love to know where Obama has shown any contempt for McCain. Disagreeing with someone's judgement or accusing them of making bad decisions /= contempt.

Posted by Persia | July 29, 2008 1:20 PM

if you're not part of the solution," and here the adviser paused and smiled, "you're part of the problem.
Good to see McCain's advisers quoting Eldridge Cleaver.

Posted by fuyura | July 29, 2008 1:35 PM

If keeps this up, karma may bite back big at the debates.

For the time being, I don't see the Obama campaign fighting back in ads. Unlike McCain, he will keep his promise of keeping to the high road.

In debate, though, I expect the lame-brain media to raise some of McCain's false statements (a/k/a lies). As Obama addresses each, McCain will literally and figuratively look very small.

Posted by Judy | July 29, 2008 1:40 PM

In debate, though, I expect the lame-brain media to raise some of McCain's false statements

Judy, Judy, Judy

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 29, 2008 1:45 PM

You're right, guys. Guess I got taken for a ride, hehe?

Posted by Al | July 30, 2008 12:47 AM