Visiting the Troops

I caught some of MSNBC's coverage yesterday afternoon and David Shuster was being shockingly forthright in pointing out that the McCain campaign's accusations about the cancellation of Barack Obama's visit to see some wounded troops in Germany were totally baseless. It seems Andrea Mitchell's got the bug too:

Unfortunately, my understanding of the research is that a thorough debunking of a bogus charge only very partially undoes the damage of making it. That's not to say that everyone's incentive is to say crazy lies all the time, but unless this creates a backlash against McCain that goes beyond this issue and builds a larger negative attitude about McCain being unprincipled and dishonest, the mere fact that the press is shooting down his allegations doesn't mean this can't help him at the end of the day.

Comments

Pssst, pass it along, John McCain fucks chickens behind the barn.

Posted by steve duncan | July 29, 2008 9:30 AM

I don't think any political rule applies all the time, but there's definitely something to the idea that desperation breeds extreme tactics. McCain seems to be very desperate these days. How else do you explain him lying through his teeth about reversals of his own positions in a matter of hours and essentially accusing Obama of being a traitor in July? Shouldn't these tactics wait until September? MY, I have to ask, do you, like me, suspect that the McCain campaign is seeing some internal data that looks pretty bad?

Posted by Brian | July 29, 2008 9:31 AM

unless this creates a backlash against McCain that goes beyond this issue and builds a larger negative attitude about McCain being unprincipled and dishonest, the mere fact that the press is shooting down his allegations doesn't mean this can't help him at the end of the day.

We're getting there, one step at a time.

If they have to say, once, that McCain's saying completely baseless things, then they're more open to saying it again the next time it happens.

If they have to say it a second time, he'll stop getting the automatic benefit of the doubt, which means they'll actually start fact-checking his statements. If they say it a few times, it'll change how they think of him. And from there, it's a short step to changing the narrative.

It's still July, and of course McCain was largely off the radar while Obama and Hillary were duking it out from February through early June. I'd say that in terms of breaking the McCain narrative, things are moving along fast enough, so long as they keep moving.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | July 29, 2008 9:33 AM

Not the first time I've seen Shuster so forthright.

Posted by Fr33d0m | July 29, 2008 9:34 AM

I'd turn the order of content in Matt's post entirely around. It is true these episodes only hurt McCain if they become part of an overall pattern. But I think the press is increasingly starting to actually report on these things (you've got this case of people reporting the truth on the cancelled visit, George S. pinning McCain down on timetables, Viera going after McCain on Afghanistan, Phil Gramm, and other issues, Blitzer pinning a surrogate down on the lack of economic differences, and so on). So I think the press is gradually moving to no longer covering up for McCain, and it is creating the pattern Matt suggested would be necessary.

Posted by DTM | July 29, 2008 9:43 AM

As readers here know, I have virtually no respect for the American voters, so McCain's despicable tactics may well work.

However, there DOES seem to be some research to suggest that, while lies about a candidate from surrogates are very effective, voters don't really like it when the lies spring from a candidate himself. If Bush had himself personally joined in on the swift boating, we may have had a president Kerry.

I think the take away here is that Obama should start using surrogates to lie about McCain - though it's kind of sad that the facts aren't enough. The fact that slightly upwards of 40% of the voting population supports a dishonest, senile, psychopathic warmongering advocate of genocide is proof enough that Americans are the worst people in the world.

Posted by voice of reason | July 29, 2008 9:44 AM

Well Cheeto Joe and his side kicks Wet Willie and Pat the Plumber are still trying to push this vile shit down our thoats. Cheeto Joe even added that Obama offended some soldiers by not shaking their hands.
They know it's a lie, they don't care, they say it anyway. And this is MSNBC, you know it's worse on Fox.

Posted by bjd | July 29, 2008 9:47 AM

McCain is losing his "base" - if there's one area where these attacks will backfire, it's amongst the media folk who previously loved McCain.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 29, 2008 10:04 AM

Well, in McCain's defense, it's unclear if he's a lying sack of shit or merely senile.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 29, 2008 10:05 AM

voice of reason, I live in a major city that graduates less than a third of high school students. That's a rate that's common elsewhere and has been for a decade or more. A large portion of the electorate hasn't read a non-fiction book cover to cover EVER. These same dunces streaming into society would get maybe 20 out of 100 elementary questions correct testing knowledge of politics, government, current events (non-entertainment/celebrity), world geography, economics or law. Deep down on a very visceral level they like McCain because they feel he can be depended upon to kill foreigners and make life miserable for hippies. That's it in a nutshell.

Posted by steve duncan | July 29, 2008 10:12 AM

There is another way to look at this, and DMT hints at it. We all know that Republican slime machine would lie 24/7 about the Democratic nominee. That's a given. But:

(1) The fact that the doddering senile fool McCain doesn't realize that this shit is best left to surrogates works against the effectiveness of the attacks. And:

(2) The press maybe finally getting over their man crush on McCain, as the evidence of his senility and dishonesty mounts ever higher. Long term, that means much more than that they will debunk one particular lie which, let's face it, isn't going to have much salience in 3 plus months anyway. If the press reports honestly on McCain, he is toast.

I also wonder if, at some point, the real powers in this country - which, as Hack has correctly stated, have decided to back McCain - may start having buyer's remorse. After all, Obama, from their perspective, is a perfectly acceptable candidate, completely supportive of the hegomonic project and unwilling to really challenge the status quo in a meaningful way.

Posted by voice of reason | July 29, 2008 10:14 AM

Steve Duncan, to my observation, the sorts of people you mention tend to vote for liberals who promise them lots of government handouts.

Posted by resposne to steve duncan | July 29, 2008 10:26 AM

The press is starting to recognize that the numbers show McCain is going to lose. A few members of the beltway elite simply have decided to start buttering their bread on Obama's side.

Posted by lobstakilla | July 29, 2008 10:35 AM

Better than nothing. But the Rovean strategy that McCain's campaign is adopting is getting the value of putting the false statement out there far outweighs the counterclaim that it's a lie. And the McCain camp is just warming up. For instance, one McCain surrogate said yesterday that "Obama's economic plan would cause a greater depression than the 1930s" while Obama was meeting with Buffet, Volker, Tyson, Rubin, Summers et all, an obvious bunch of Bolsevicks. Try that one out. Be. Very. Afraid.

Posted by EL | July 29, 2008 10:40 AM

Again, as with your "game changer" stuff a week or so back, I WISH you were right, Matt, but (1) you are still only talking MSNBC; (2) and even on MSNBC the truth-telling re "the snub" is limited - - as another poster noted above, Cheeto Joe et al are still playing up the snub & (3) as is Fox & Fiends, etc. Last nite Olbermann asked a Barack flack if O's response to the troop-snub smear had been vigorous enough, and he gave the kind of 'the snub does not deserve too vigorous of a response" answer that helped doom Kerry. Despite whatever debunking of the snub that makes you hopeful, IMHO it hasn't been met squarey enough by the O campaign. They shoulda had an ad or whatever featuring refutation & Hagel's dismay & maybe even suggesting the Pentagon set him up. But then again, I'm old and gloomy when it comes to the ReThugs.

Posted by mofo | July 29, 2008 10:42 AM

Steve Duncan, to my observation, the sorts of people you mention tend to vote for liberals who promise them lots of government handouts.

Posted by resposne to steve duncan | July 29, 2008 10:26 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Always nice to see a post that succinctly and eloquently illustrates my point.

Posted by steve duncan | July 29, 2008 10:43 AM

Better than nothing. But the Rovean strategy that McCain's campaign is adopting is: the value of putting a false statement out there for the public to hear first far outweighs the later counterclaim that it's a lie. And the McCain camp is just warming up. For instance, one McCain surrogate said yesterday that "Obama's economic plan would cause a greater depression than the 1930s" while Obama was meeting with Buffet, Volker, Tyson, Rubin, Summers et all, an obvious bunch of Bolsevicks. Be. Very. Afraid. That's the message.

Posted by EL | July 29, 2008 10:45 AM

Sorry for the double post, but my computer hung up on the first post and didn't show it had gone through. Again, sorry.

Posted by EL | July 29, 2008 10:50 AM

I also agree with lobstakilla, by the way. It isn't so much McCain's behavior that is turning off the press, but rather what that behavior signifies--a campaign which has been ineffective to date in overcoming the structural issues the Republicans face this election, and which is becoming increasingly desperate as a result. And nobody likes a loser, so the press is wavering between trying to keep hope alive for McCain and not wanting to be the last rat on the ship.

Posted by DTM | July 29, 2008 10:53 AM

I'd really like to know if McCain's lying is part of how he's briefed or if he just says made-up crap off-the-cuff. Reagan's lies were scripted out for him on his famous 3x5 cards, but McCain looks like he's just making stuff up as he goes along.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 29, 2008 11:02 AM

McCain telling a blatant and explicit lie about his opponent should be no surprise to anyone. Remember his primary flap with Romney? When the guy's down, he lies.

Posted by mark f | July 29, 2008 11:04 AM

McCain can't concede any point gracefully. Obama had a successful trip that McCain himself pushed him to take. Instead of realizing that he f***ed up, taking it like a man, and moving on, he tells lies and whines like a little bitch.

McCain is an emotional child. (Just ask his wife Cindy, the c***.) His lack of maturity shows in his campaign. It's one more reason that he's so much like Bush.

Posted by LFC | July 29, 2008 11:33 AM

"The press maybe finally getting over their man crush on McCain,"

I think everybody knew that the press were going to get over their crush on McCain once it was McCain vs a Democrat, instead of McCain vs other Republicans.

Anyway, "totally" baseless? From what I understand of the situation, (Obama could have made the visit if he'd left his campaign staff behind while doing it.) they're about 50% baseless, tops.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | July 29, 2008 11:41 AM

Anyway, "totally" baseless? From what I understand of the situation, (Obama could have made the visit if he'd left his campaign staff behind while doing it.) they're about 50% baseless, tops.

How about the fact that Obama DID visit wounded troops, just not those exact wounded troops?

And note that the McCain campaign reiterated that Obama's visit "was canceled after it became clear that campaign staff, and the traveling press corps, would not be allowed to accompany Senator Obama." Obama has visited wounded troops before, did so on this trip, and never did it with reporters. He knew reporters weren't allowed, and people there have reported such. That means that McCain's statement is a lie, period.

Trying to dress up a blatant lie with "facts" that don't matter, like the fact that Obama goes to the gym every day, doesn't make it 50% accurate. The entire point to the ad was to spread a lie. Repeat that to yourself. McCain lied.

Posted by LFC | July 29, 2008 11:52 AM

This is evidence of desperation amongst the media backers of Obama. They can no longer play it safe and expect their man to make it in, so they are increasingly going after McCain as if they are partisan hacks in the pay of Obama.
The journalists of MSNBC in particular are emotionally committed to Barack. MSNBC has tried to copy the FOX style, but have done it worse, with way less balance.
This is more propaganda, and if Obama continues to struggle in the polls, you will see this again and again.

Posted by juan | July 29, 2008 12:41 PM

Senator Obama's trip abroad was divided into two segments. He went to the Middle East as part of a Congressional Delegation, and to Europe as part of a campaign.

DoD policy, if I remember correctly, is that politicians are not allowed to make campaign stops at military installations, but are perfectly welcome if on official business. The CoDel to the Middle East was official business, hence the meeting with troops. The Europe swing was more explicitly a campaign trip, hence the not-meeting with troops.

Obama tried to schedule the Germany base trip in advance (WITHOUT CAMERAS, mind you), but one of those who was to accompany him wasn't on his Senate Staff, and was a military man who had endorsed him. DoD thought it was too campaign-ey, and Obama feared that it would look too campaign-ey, so it was cancelled.

That's the story, as far as I've heard.

Posted by TZiese | July 29, 2008 1:22 PM

Oh, and a quick rebuttal-in-advance for those who say that Obama's trip to the Middle East was also not entirely unrelated to the campaign. I agree! But Senator McCain's "official" trips to the region aren't exactly unrelated to the campaign either.

Posted by TZiese | July 29, 2008 1:26 PM