Today’s political Quote of the Day comes from MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Carrie Dann, writing on First Read about two key political stories yesterday involving the campaign of Republican Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain:
Those pigs didn’t oink: Notice how the McCain campaign tried to change the subject yesterday? It cut its first Tony Rezko ad, which tied Obama to the “corrupt Chicago machine”; it angrily denounced the New York Times on a conference call with reporters; and it brought up Obama’s tenuous ties to ‘60s radical William Ayers on that same conference call. But unlike two weeks ago, when the McCain camp’s “lipstick on a pig” and “sex-ed for kindergartners” TV ad dominated the political discussion, those weapons of mass distraction got very little attention yesterday. The economy and the current Wall Street crisis have become THE story, and nothing right now is going to stop that. All the cable outlets will be covering the Paulson/Bernanke hearings as big news today — making subject-changing efforts much more difficult.
Is that what it was — or wasn’t it?
The journalistic phrase “tried to change the subject” is one of the more grating phrases around. It usually indicates reporters taking a candidate or his/her camp to task for trying to set the discussion agenda, rather than let the press set it. That’s not always the same thing as changing the subject. It’s a “war” over who controls the discussion agenda.
In this case, rather than simply trying to change the subject, it’s more likely that this is what happened:
1. The McCain campaign’s experience is that when it goes on the offensive, even if it’s denounced for it, McCain’s numbers go up. There’s obviously concern about his sagging numbers in light of the Wall Street financial meltdown.
2. The McCain camp was truly angry at the New York Times and lambasting it was less calculation than lashing out, and figuring there could be some political benefit in doing so.
3. The ad could have been a way to try and change the subject but it also fit in with a guilt-by-association tactic that both campaigns are indulging in right now. The Democrats have the advantage in this tactic, since Bush’s approval numbers are low and seemingly going lower.
Where First Read is 100 percent correct is that the economy and Wall Street changed the subject for the McCain campaign…again showing how external events (domestic and foreign) can scuttle the best plans of strategists — even strategists who were seemingly on a roll.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.