An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

John McCain’s Metamorphosis From Smear Politics Victim To Smear Politics Perpetrator

01aaaobama_trooppss.jpeg

OBAMA IS NOT REALLY MEETING WITH TROOPS IN THIS PHOTO

The great thing about using smear tactics is that even when the smear is proven to be untrue the damage has been done.

This helps explain why in their latest effort to portray Barack Obama as unpatriotic, John McCain and his surrogates are accusing him in a TV commercial and elsewhere of canceling a visit to wounded troops at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a military hospital in Germany, because he was not allowed to take reporters and camera crews with him.

That does not explain why the McCain campaign continues to push the smear five days after it was debunked by the Pentagon and reporters and vigorously denied by the Obama campaign.

The answer is that the presumptive Republican nominee and his handlers know they can’t win the old-fashioned way. That is, by convincing voters that he is the best candidate in a one-on-one matchup. McCain is having a hard time getting his message out without stepping on his own lines or being confronted with having multiple positions on the same issue, so he and his handlers have resorted to throwing everything against the wall when it comes to Obama no matter how unseemly or untrue in the hope that something sticks.

And so not only do they continue to use the Landstuhl smear, but claim that the Pentagon doesn’t know what it’s talking about in stating that the Army itself put the kibosh on the hospital visit because of concerns that it would be inappropriate since it was part of a trip paid for by the Obama campaign, while reporters and the campaign say that he never intended to take a press entourage with him.

McCain’s people have no intention of backing down from the smear and instead are piling on.

The candidate himself fulminated on CNN’s “Larry King Live” that “I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers,” while his campaign released a statement from retired Army NCO who once worked at the hospital who blustered that “If Senator Obama isn’t comfortable meeting wounded American troops without his entourage, perhaps he does not have the experience necessary to serve as commander in chief.”

Ironically, the McCain TV ad shows Obama meeting with troops, specifically shooting hoops at a gym in Kuwait before he ventured into Iraq and then on to Germany. The footage was supplied by the Pentagon. And there has been little mention of a bedside visit that Obama made to wounded soldiers in Baghdad or another in Washington. Without reporters and camera crews.

More ironic still, McCain knows firsthand the damage that a well-aimed smear can do.

His 2000 presidential run was nearly scuttled after a whispering campaign in South Carolina cooked up by George Bush consigliere Karl Rove that he had fathered an illegitimate black child. McCain at the time was stumping with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, age 8, who was adopted from a Mother Teresa orphanage in Bangladesh.

Even more ironic, Bridget McCain, now 16, is said to have discovered the slander while Googling herself, summoned her father’s aides and got them to swear that they would never allow her daddy’s campaign to engage in such tactics.

McCain said after the South Carolina incident that there “must be a special place in Hell” reserved for Rove and his co-smearers, but in the intervening years he has come to realize that the kind of crusading maverick that he once proudly presented himself as being is unwelcome in a hidebound, change averse Republican Party.

Indeed, McCain has morphed into an angry Bush hugger who is contemptuously ignorant of the rule of law, the plight of the middle class and the power of diplomacy who finds much to admire in Rove. He now say he “always respected [Rove] . . . as one of the great political minds I think in American politics,” adding that he would welcome his advice, which he most certainly has been getting, however indirectly, through the likes of Steve Schmidt.

Schmidt is a Rove disciple and veteran of Bush’s 2004 campaign where he specialized in attack ads against that traitorous windsurfing girlie boy, John Kerry. He was brought on board to give the McCain message the hard edge that campaign manager Rick Davis was said to not be delivering on.

Then there is the accumulated wisdom of GOP operative Terry Nelson, the mastermind of the racially charged 2006 TV commercial that not so subtly linked black Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford to a white bimbo. Nelson’s grubby hands are all over the latest McCain TV ad that seeks to link Obama to . . . a couple of white bimbos by the name of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton by backhanding him as “the biggest celebrity in the world.” Amazing, no? And how much further can these slime-meisters lower the bar? Just wait and see.

All of this begs a question: Where do you suppose Bridget McCain’s daddy’s special place will be?

Photograph from U.S. military via The Associated Press

  • superdestroyer
    Once again Shaun spends his time worrying about a man who has zero chance of being president.

    Of course, writing about the evil Republicans keeps Shaun from writing about the liberal progressives who after five years of repeating the ChickenHawk meme now fully support Senator Obama's plan to double down in Afghanistan as long as they do not have to go themselves. Of course everyone fully recognizes that Senator Obama is just using Afghanistan as a excuse to abandon Iraq and that his administration will Afghanistan was the first convenient moment.

    Or shaun could write about the idiotic idea of maintain an embassy in Baghdad while guarding it with just a few Marines. I wonder if the Obama Administration will be able to find some twenty somethings will to support change enough to take on such a stupid idea.

    However, since it is now snowing in Hell today, I know that no progressive blogger is going to spend a second actually writing about the policy proposals of the next president. Nitpicking incompetent Republican candidates who have zero chance to win is more fun, I guess.
  • vix
    Did they beat all the ethics out of him. First Keating five and now he lays an egg on his honor. The man is hedging his bets and talking out of both sides of his mouth. A bono fide American WAR HERO has nothing to run on so he must slander his opponet. Good choice Republicans, but what's sad is it continues to work for them because they target as Smirkonish says "dumb voters" and cheat to steal elections, if that sounds elitist well it won't hurt my feelings when you call me it.
  • Marlowecan
    Shaun said: "That does not explain why the McCain campaign continues to push the smear five days after it was debunked by the Pentagon and reporters and vigorously denied by the Obama campaign."

    Probably for the same reason that Obama (and Shaun Mullen) continued to describe McCain as wanting the US War in Iraq to go on for another century . . . the neverending war, as Shaun and other liberals have tried to pin it . . . even after Obama was criticized for this in press conferences by reporters, and after FactCheck.org and even Frank Rick of the NYT have denounced it as a smear that takes McCain's words out of context, and fundamentally misrepresents what he said.

    McCain wants to define Obama as anti-military (standard GOP ploy). . . just as Shaun and Obama seek to define McCain as an angry and senile old man who wants to put generations of young American soldiers through an Iraqi meat grinder.

    Defining your opponent is good politics.

    SD said: "the liberal progressives who after five years of repeating the ChickenHawk meme now fully support Senator Obama's plan to double down in Afghanistan as long as they do not have to go themselves."

    Hahahahahaha...yes, that was a flip-flop there. I recall the MoveOn petition against the Afghanistan War (now consigned to the memory hole . . . except for the Wayback Machine...curse that evil conservative archive tool).
  • Neocon
    Absolutely

    Lets double down in Afghanistan and kill stuff and blow stuff up because we can. Its the perfect cover for a far left agenda that has wanted to roll socialism into the United States for 60 years.

    The most blatantly obscene flip flop in American History........End the war in Afghanistan has now become............ESCALATE the war in Afghanistan.

    FLIP............FLOP.............Hes even got his follwers doing the flip flop shuffle.
  • confundus22
    DUH..........who was the party in charge when we WENT to Afghanistan and let Bin Laden escape?? Who was the party that was in charge when we left a token force in Afghanistan and let Al Queda build up their forces so that Afghanistan is now more violent than Iraq. Oh yes, the "Surge" was a wonderful thing to "stabilize" Iraq and now that they are asking us to leave who said we might be there another 100 years if necessary? If you want to see some flip flops, look at McCain before the election and the comments he is making now. Oh and I forgot Obama who opposed going into Iraq..........guess all those "weapons of mass deception" we didn't find justify all the troop injuries, deaths and family breakups caused by those long and repeated deployments to "bring democracy to Iraq" which is the fallback when the deceptive devices were never found.............but they still might be hiding out there in the desert perhaps.
  • superdestroyer
    confundus,

    Considering that the Republicans will be totally out of power in January 2009, the only thing relevant to talk about is how the Democrats will handle the situation.

    Will the Obama Administration really double down in Afghanistan while abandoning Iraq? Is there anyway to reconcile those two positions into some sort coherent of foreign policy doctrine? How will the netroots who have been screaming ChickenHawk reconcile themselves to the double down in Afghanistan and will they volunteer to service in the military in an Obama Administration? How will the Obama Administration reconcile out allies desire to abandon Afghanistan to his desire to double down? How will the Obama Administration define victory in Afghanistan and what is their exit strategy?

    I guess whining about pointless Republican attacks ads is more fun for progressive liberals than actually thinking about the issues. While reading Obsidian wings the other day, there were nine posts in a row on Senator McCain and a total lack of posts about the coming Obama Administration.

    I doubt that the netroots/progressive liberals will be able to abandon their natural inclination to nitpick and actually start talking about issues when Senator Obama in inaugurated. They are as partisan as Monica Goodling and will be as hard to change.
  • Neocon
    No one cares about McCain. He's not going to be president. Obama is.

    Obama and his flip flopping crowd now want to escalate the war in Afghanistan. I bet if Obama decided that Corporations were good we would hear the minions spouting how great corporations are.

    If Obama said that turds float, his crowd would all be crapping in their swimming pools to prove him right.

    Obama wants to fight a war. and By God he will have his war.

    And the crowds cheer him on.
  • shaun
    By superdestroyer's impaired calculus, the Allied advance across Europe and up the Pacific was not worthy of media attention because everyone knew that the Germans and Japanese would lose.
  • runasim
    You're absolutely right, Shaun.

    McCain's metamorphosis from victim to victimizer is horrific to behold.
    I was especially repelled by his ability to look people questioning him about it straight in the eye,and appear perfectly happy and comfortable as he lies, lies, lies. No one but his loyalists believes anything Bush says anymore, but it took awhile for the disbelief to fully set in. With McCain, it's beginning long before he gets anywhere near the WH.
  • superdestroyer
    Shaun,

    It is not worth nitpicking the actions of the McCain campaign since he is not going to win. Worrying about McCain's policy proposals, running mate, or campaign ads at this stage is like worrying about the long term impacts of the policy proposals of Nazi German or or Imperial Japan while the Allies were overrunning Europe or taking back the Philippines. There was no point.

    Instead of taking about the combat, maybe we should think about this election in terms of planning for post-war Europe even while the fighting was still going on. However, I doubt that the left wing partisans are capable of doing it. Nitpicking others is more fun that actually thinking about policy proposals. The left is probably so adverse to being nitpicked that they love to avoid policy discussions.
  • Neocon
    as he lies, lies, lies.

    Smear.

    However, I doubt that the left wing partisans are capable of doing it.

    The left wing only has a socialist agenda that they have tried unsuccessfully for 60 years to implement. They must lie, cheat, distort and deflect all light from their Marxist intentions to get their man in the White House.

    Democracy will be saved by Obama. Yes. The hope by me at least is that he really is a moderate and will not try to force on America a socialist agenda with a cloture proof congress in tow..........Lord help us.
  • RememberNovember
    McNasty does not have the fire in the belly he had 8 years ago. He should be the next Batman villian, ie "Two Face" for all his coin-flipping decisions.
  • Marlowecan
    SD said: "Will the Obama Administration really double down in Afghanistan while abandoning Iraq? Is there anyway to reconcile those two positions into some sort coherent of foreign policy doctrine?"

    Obama's approach is not coherent or even rational.

    Iraq is at the centre of the Arab world, and is sitting on top of a sea of oil (much of which is unmapped). Afghanistan is remote, and largely without strategic significance value.

    The British . . . the imperial power with the best record in Afghanistan . . . ended up deciding the country was full of murderous lunatics, so after a couple of pointless wars they appointed a homicidal maniac to rule and buggered out. He promptly gained the respect of the Afghanistan people by torturing and slaughtering his opponents, while protecting the Raj's northwest frontier.

    So Obama is bugging out of a central theatre of critical importance to the United States . . . and sending more US troops into a country that has been the breaker of empires going back to Alexander.

    Will Obama invade Pakistan to go after Osama? What is the "end point" for victory in the Afghan?

    Who cares? Obama will lead the way . . .flip, flop or fly.
  • McCain: Flip-flopper
    Obama: Flip-flopper

    Under the conditions of either person's supporter, flip-flopping is a cardinal sin, which means neither is fit to be president.

    Obvious solution? Vote for neither one.
  • confundus22
    Superdestroyer:

    I truly hope you are right about the Republicans retiring to the funny farm after the incredible hole they have dug for the next president to try and fill. However, don't be too sure that the masses of the "people" won't believe all the stuff McCain and his cronies are putting out in attack ads (including the newly accepted Carl Rove...who McCain has given a reprieve from Hell in order to try and win). What makes you so sure that Obama won's be given the "swift boat" lie treatment or worse to make those previously mentioned masses doubt if Obama has the experience, stature, and necessary whiteness/blackness depending on the individual (m)ass who will be deciding how to vote??
  • superdestroyer
    It does not matter if Senator Obama is given the Swiftboat treatment. He will still get 98% of the black vote, 80% of the Hispanic vote, 90% of the Jewish vote, about 60% of the upper middle class white vote.

    As I have said before unless Senator Obama is caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, he cannot lose the election.

    On the flip side, if John McCain has to spend a single dollar of his limited funds in Georgia, North Carolina, or Virginia, he has no chance of winning. McCain has no chance of actually picking up any state that Kerry won in 2004, yet, Senator Obama should be able to easily pick up Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, and Virginia.
  • Notice that Obama doesn't have to rely on attacks on John McCain's character.
  • DLS
    "McCain wants to define Obama as anti-military (standard GOP ploy)"

    And what kind of people are anti-military and upset if Obama shows any resolve against our enemies, including in Iraq? Among the nutroots and elsewhere? Hint: "BETRAYAL!"

    * * *

    "I bet if Obama decided that Corporations were good we would hear the minions spouting how great corporations are."

    Well, provided they are maternalistic-paternalistic and otherwise "socially responsible," of course. Who would be aghast at pro-corporation statements of any kind? Among the nutroots and elsewhere? Hint: "BETRAYAL!"

    * * *

    "Will the Obama Administration really double down in Afghanistan while abandoning Iraq?"

    Probably not. Once the troops are removed from Iraq, it'll be too tempting to send them home instead. It would not surprise me if bringing them back home (then to release them and many others and raid the military for social-spending funds) is already the plan, just not -- ahem -- quite accurately or honestly said to be the plan.

    * * *

    "So Obama is bugging out of a central theatre of critical importance to the United States . . . and sending more US troops into a country that has been the breaker of empires going back to Alexander."

    Never mind the British, M. The wackiest of the wacky who want us out of Afghanistan will accuse us of being not only like, but worse than, the Soviet Union.
  • DLS
    "Obama's approach is not coherent or even rational."

    It is rational in the sense that he has seized a pretext for getting troops out of Iraq without looking like a coward and insisting on not only a retreat but effective surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, and to Iran (and to Syria), and to aid this, a rationalization, taking the fight instead to where bin Laden had been and to those who are still there who sponsored or at least hosted him (though he is likely to fail to follow through on this and bring the troops home instead, as would Clinton).
  • confundus22
    DLS:

    What is your reason that we ever went to Iraq in the first place with the job in Afghanistan only 1/4 done and Bin Laden (a la 9/11 fame) still on the loose?? I would like you or anyone else on the Blog to define what is "winning" in Iraq. What is victory? Is that when we say we are now victorious so goodbye? What about the Iraqi request and fervent desire of their people for us "invaders" to leave....what if they insist....then is that victory?
  • Interesting discussion over here! the end result of this discussion is Obama our president!!
  • You are damn right Chris!
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC