There was a time when Democrats wanted this campaign to be a referendum on George W. Bush, and Republicans wanted this campaign to be a referendum on Barack Obama.
I guess you could say the Republicans got what they wanted.
Now that McCain’s vice-presidential nominee has accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists,” this election is only about one thing: whether or not Barack Obama is a terrorist sympathizer. When Palin launched that line of attack, she created a media monster that will completely dominate the campaign from now until election day.
Let me give you an example: No matter what, this “palling around with terrorists” line will utterly consume coverage of the third and final presidential debate.
This is true for two reasons: First, when McCain failed to raise this “issue” during the second debate Tuesday night, the Senator was slammed by many on the right for not doing so. I’ll steal an example from Lee’s blog below quoting right-winger Andy McCarthy:
Memo to McCain Campaign: Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn’t; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he’s qualified for public office. You helped portray Obama as a clealy qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists.
If that’s what the public thinks, good luck trying to win this thing.
McCarthy is right: When Palin accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists,” she effectively accused him of being the moral equivalent of a child molester — and you can’t publicly call a man a child molester and then completely ignore the issue during a debate. (For one thing, it makes you look like you’re happy to debate a child molester, which raises questions about you.) Setting aside the child molester metaphor, McCain’s unwillingness to address the issue during a debate gives the impression that either (a) McCain doesn’t really think Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, but is only saying that to get elected, or (b) McCain does really think Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, but doesn’t have the guts to say it to Obama’s face.
Which brings us to the second reason why the “palling around with terrorists” issue will dominate media coverage and analysis of the third debate: Barack Obama has now gone on national television and questioned why McCain wouldn’t speak these “over-the-top” attacks “to my face.” And Biden has practically dared McCain to do so, saying that “in my neighborhood, when you’ve got something to say to somebody, you look him in the eyes when you say it.”
And the right-wing whackos are desperate to hear their candidate give a Senator’s voice to their hysterical pananoia. Check out this recent report from a McCain rally, as conveyed by Politico:
Working to dampen the angry crowd meme, McCain tells his Minnesota rally to take it easy, Amie Parnes reports:
At a town hall in Minnesota, McCain tried to tone down a week of raucus, angry crowds after one man stood up and said: “We want you to fight.”
“The people here in Minnesota want to see a real fight. We want a strong president to lead us through the next four years.”
“I think I got my marching orders,” McCain said. But then he shifted tones.
“I am enthusiastic and encouraged by the enthusiasm and I think it’s really good,” McCain said. “We have to fight and i will fight but we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments and I want to be respectful.
“I dont mean that you have to lose your ferocity. I just mean you have to be respectful.”
A moment later, another woman stood up and urged McCain to speak up so voters “really have an understanding of who the candidates are.”
“There’s a difference between rhetoric and record,” McCain said, adding that Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times. “He has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate, even more liberal than Bernie Sanders.”
Once again, McCain repeated, “I want all of you to tell your neighbors about the difference between rhetoric and record, but let’s do it respectfully.”
Later in the event, man in the audience stood up and told McCain he’s “scared” of an Obama presidency and who he’d select for the Supreme Court.
“I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States,” McCain said as the crowd booed and shouted “Come on, John!”
“If I didn’t think I’d be a heck of a lot better, I wouldn’t be running for President of the United States.”
If it’s not the Times editorial board jeering him, it’s his own crowd.
It is no longer acceptable in Republican politics to say Obama is a decent man that “you don’t have to be scared of.”
So this is High Noon time. This is the sort of pissing contest that cable network news execs salivate over. In the second debate, McCain launched a bold new plan to have the federal government buy hundreds of billions of mortgages as a big loss — but nobody cares, because Palin’s “palling around with terrorists” line is just so much easier to understand and exciting to think about. The big soap opera question now on the minds of all Americans who look to politics for high drama is this: Will McCain take-the-bait/have-the-guts/be-stupid-enough to raise the question of Obama’s association with former Weatherman Bill Ayers during the third debate?
If McCain does indeed raise the issue and Obama responds, all media coverage will focus on that exchange almost exclusively for at least several days and probably longer. In that case, the exchange will be so dramatic, so exciting, that the decision over whether to obsess over it will be a no-brainer for TV execs looking to draw an audience.
If McCain doesn’t raise the issue, then McCain’s critics on the right and Obama’s allies on the left (strange bedfellows) will spend the next three days asking the same question: Why? Why would Senator John “Straight Talk” McCain’s campaign throw out the highly inflammatory suggestion that Obama likes “palling around with terrorists” — which sounds highly dangerous and treasonous — and then muffle it?
Is it because McCain was scared of Obama? Is it because McCain doesn’t really think Obama is a terrorist sympathizer? Either way, McCain is either a sleaze-ball or a coward, or both. (Bingo!)
And then, from then until election day, coverage and analysis on the left and the right will continue to focus on the same questions: Will McCain continue to push the terrorist sympathizer charge? Or will McCain try to dial it back? And as answers to these questions present themselves, analysts on both sides will speculate about why.
Americans already trust Obama to handle our economy, our foreign policy, and just about everything else better than McCain. They’ve seen McCain pick a vice-presidential candidate who makes a fool of herself on television, pretend to suspend a campaign only to sheepishly return to it, and say the “fundamentals of our economy are strong” a few hours before the biggest economic crisis this country has faced since the depression.
The American people are ready to pick Obama to be the next president.
There’s only one question left on their minds. Is McCain right? Is Sarah Palin right? Is Obama the sort of guy who “palls around” with people who like to bomb government buildings? Is Obama the sort of guy who identifies with terrorists?
I guess we’ll find out what the American people think on Election Day.
Now there is evena debate on the exchange.
Comment by John — October 11, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
You think John McCain is a coward? That is an interesting choice of words for someone that is considered an American Hero. You can call him a sleazeball all you want, and maybe rightfully so, but calling him a coward is a serious accusation for someone who has put his life on the line for our country. I think before you go making such an accusation you should really consider what it is that you are saying. John McCain is certainly no saint, and has many downfalls, but by calling him a coward you are no better than he is. A man that has given as much to our country as he has does not deserve to be called a coward.
Comment by rbates — October 11, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Dear rbates. Welcome to History is Happening Now!
Regarding your comment: if we’re debating whether it’s more appropriate to call John McCain a sleazeball or a coward, and you’re coming down on the side of sleazeball, but arguing against coward, then the McCain campaign has indeed declined from its supposedly noble origins, though some argue that what we’re seeing now is “the real McCain.”
Whatever the truth is, I agree with you that McCain should be respected and honored for his service to the country. Then again, I also tend not to like attributing personal/emotional attributes to politicians–like cowardice, nobility, bravery, etc. (For example, I never understood the personal hatred many on my side of the political spectrum directed to Bush as opposed to his policies and his administration, but that’s a separate issue.)
But, let’s put that all aside for the moment, and discuss the meaning of cowardice. Would you agree that it’s possible for someone who was brave to change? Is it possible that someone who did something courageous in the past to do something cowardly later in life? Is it possible to be courageous in one area of your life but a coward in another area of your life?
If cowardice is the inability to do something for fear of it, is Ian wrong to say that McCain is “afraid” of accusing Obama of “paling around” with terrorists to his face? On this score, like Ian, I agree with McCarthy. You’re either a pal of terrorists or you’re not. If you are, well, then you definitely don’t deserve to be president. If Obama is a pal — i.e. a supporter of — terrorists and terrorism, he should not become our next president. Same goes for McCain.
Does McCain think that Obama is a pal of terrorists? If he does think that’s true — and isn’t just saying so for cynical political reasons — then why hasn’t he confronted Obama with this accusation at the debates? What’s the explanation?
McCain’s previous service to this country just isn’t relevant to the conversation, unless you believe that doing one right thing neutralizes any bad things you’ve subsequently done or that courage is an all or nothing affair, that a courageous military man can’t be a coward in other sectors of his life.
Anyway, that’s my two cents on the issue. Again, welcome to the site!
Comment by Lee — October 11, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
rbates: McCain is a coward because he doesn’t have the courage to tell the truth to the American people.
Like Lee, I absolutely honor McCain service. He is a legitimate American hero — but that was more than 30 years ago.
McCain has repeatedly said he is NOT questioning Obama’s patriotism in this campaign, but merely Obama’s character. But McCain is clearly saying Obama doesn’t “see” this country in a patriotic way. So let McCain have the courage to admit to what he’s doing.
If McCain is so desperate to win an election that he’s willing to drag an honorable man’s reputation through the mud with pathetic assertions, he will incur my wrath. He’s dragging down our politics which is bad for the country.
Jeremiah Wright is a Marine Corps veteran who would have given his life for his country gladly — only to be crucified on television years later for saying controversial things. I’m sick of McCain supporters pulling out the veteran card whenever it suits them and ignoring it when it doesn’t.
Comment by Ian — October 11, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
Lee, you make some good points with respect to my agrument, and I agree with most of what you say. That said, I am still not comfortable calling John McCain a coward. I don’t think McCain is afraid to bring up Bill Ayers to Obama’s face; I think he believes that he would be hammered by the media by bringing up the subject during a debate. Maybe that makes him a coward, but I don’t think so. It would have been difficult to fit that into an answer to a question on the economy.
Either way, I think this whole argument about Obama being friendly with Bill Ayers, and Reverand Wright is a complete waste of time. No one cares. In case the McCain campagin hasn’t noticed, the economy is what is going to decide this election. Obama doesn’t have to say anything more to win this election. McCain is being blamed for the Bush administration’s faling and the fact that the country just wants to throw out any Republicans in charge. If it were up to me, I would replace every sitting member of Congress this November becuase they have failed the American people.
Comment by rbates — October 11, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
rbates: I think we can agree on a lot, including the fact that the economy is going to decide this election.
I share your frustration with Congress, though I also think that there are no easy or obvious solutions to the financial crisis. Based on what I understand about the crisis, I believe the root problem is a lack of regulation, and the evolution over the last thirty years of a interlinked global financial system — with various hypercomplex derivatives and instruments — that is incredibly hard to understand, let alone regulate effectively.
Compounding matters, we have a genuinely global financial system with a hodgepodge patchwork of national regulatory frameworks. We’re going to have to decide if we want a truly global finance system — which will require, I think, a truly global regulatory apparatus — or a patchwork of national, unlinked financial systems, the better to prevent global, system-wide catastrophe.
These are hard problems — which I wish I knew more about, frankly — and talk of courage, cowardice, and related matters seems quite beside the point to me.
Except to say that the tone of some of McCain’s recent rallies, and his apparent sanctioning of that tone, threatens to validate some ugly tendencies in this country. Not that those tendencies didn’t already exist or won’t continue to exist, but that giving them official sanction and legitimacy is very problematic. I applaud McCain’s recent attempts to clamp down on these negative tendencies. Let’s hope the presidential debate remains focused on the candidates’ respective stance on the issues that matter to Americans. Though I don’t think either candidate offers anything like a silver bullet for our enormous economic problems, which have been frankly decades in the making. At least we don’t live in Iceland!
Comment by Lee — October 11, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
To rbates: I sense from your comments that you are reluctant to call McCain a coward because you are a decent person and you don’t like to see war heroes publicly criticized in such over-the-top ways. If only that sense of decency held sway in these elections!
The fact is, it wouldn’t occur to me to call McCain a coward if I weren’t furious with McCain and his campaign for suggesting that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, which is comparable to being a child molester.
Obama has said he won’t throw the first punch, but he’ll throw the last one — a reasonable position for anyone to take. Patriotic Americans like Obama aren’t going to be bullied by liars. Obama and Biden have repeatedly said how much they respect McCain (even love him), and honor his service.
You say — and I agree with you — that nobody cares about the “palling around with terrorists” accusation. Is that because nobody cares that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer? Or is that because nobody believes that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer?
Comment by Ian — October 11, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
Ian: I concur! Throwing around such accusations as ‘terrorist sympathizer’ is over-the-top.
It sounds like, as of Oct. 11th, McCain is starting to feel uncomfortable (gasp! a twinge of conscience!) with the tone that his campaign and more-overzealous-supporters have employed:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95638914
I imagine that he realizes that the whole William Ayers thing is not getting traction, hopefully because he knows that it’s false. He’s taken on a logical contradiction: McCain is saying Obama is a good Man but, we don’t know everything about his relationship with Ayers.
Well, if he’s a good Man that we don’t have to fear what’s Ayers got to do with it in the first place?
I think his supporters realize their cause is in its death throws,
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/on-road-st-louis-county-missouri.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/#data
and they’re getting increasingly desperate, and more kooks are scurrying out of the woodwork to speak into the microphone.
My sincere hope is that, whereas Bill Clinton was so self-possessed and narcissistic that he ended up feeding his craziest critics, Obama will be cool, sane, and grounded and these kooks will eventually marginalize themselves, similar to FDR’s most strident critics in the decades after his administration.
Comment by aaron — October 11, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
Ian, I believe that no one cares about the “palling around with terrorists” accusation becuase it doesn’t matter. Americans want someone to fix this economy and lead the country back to what it used to be. I personally find it hard to understand why Obama would have spent time with both Ayers and Wright, but it doesn’t matter to me because there are far more important things to deal with these days. I am not an Obama supporter, but if he can turn things around I will certainly be a fan of him. Right now, neither man inspires confidence in me that they know how to fix the economy. And maybe that is unfair, because it doesn’t seem that anyone really knows for sure.
Comment by rbates — October 12, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
Obama spent time with Wright because Wright is a compelling and intellectually stimulating preacher with a clear commitment to the well-being of his community, and because his church provided a community that Obama thought was positive for him and his family. People who see a few clips of Wright’s most controversial statements think those clips somehow represent what Obama saw in the church when he joined it — or what Obama saw in Wright — but that’s why the anti-Wright campaign is so misleading, because it gives the false impression that Obama was comfortable with the craziest things Wright said. It’s important to recall that Obama was NOT in the church when Wright said “God damn America” or “US of KKKA.”
As for Ayers, Obama spent time with Ayers because Ayers was a big part of the political landscape: For example, the board on which Obama and Ayers served also featured the managing editor of the Chicago Tribune as one of its members, and it was effectively created by Walter Annenberg, a big McCain donor. Like the newspaper editor and the McCain donor, Obama worked with Ayers because Ayers was moving in those circles — Ayers is, after all, a college professor.
So that, in my view, is why Obama spent time with those people. Obama wasn’t attracted to these people because of their anti-American views — he was attracted to other things about them. (And his relationship with Ayers has been blown completely out of proportion by the right-wing spin machine.) I ask sincerely: Is that explanation something you can swallow?
You say the accusation that Obama “palls around with terrorists” doesn’t matter. I absolutely disagree with you. If I thought Obama was consciously choosing to “pall around” with people who advocate terrorism against the country that I love, then there’s no way I could support Obama in a million years. The American people must be able to trust their president that he or she will make protecting American citizens his or her first priority, period. Here’s a question: What percentage of voters are willing to believe Obama has sympathy for people who want to kill innocent Americans — but are willing to vote for him anyway? If you think the percentage is high, then you have a very different view of the American public than I have.
It’s not that the accusation doesn’t matter — it’s that people simply don’t buy it. Like me, most people assume McCain is just saying silly stuff to get elected.
You say Obama doesn’t inspire confidence that he knows how to fix the economy. He inspires confidence in me that he will make the right decisions because I believe he is incredibly smart, will be highly motivated as president to improve the economy, is surrounded by some of the most impressive minds in economics and finance (Paul Volker, Warren Buffet, etc.), and espouses ideas that really do make sense, such as cutting taxes for the middle class and investing in infrastructure, alternative energy, and education in ways that will create jobs, softening the blow of the downturn and providing for greater prosperity and stability long-term.
Comment by Ian — October 12, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
Aaron, I’m excited at the prospect that your comparison to FDR could end up being apt.
I’ve been comparing Obama to Ronald Reagan, thinking he may have an opportunity — if his first term is seen as a success — to fundamentally change the map of American politics. Polls in places like Virginia and North Carolina show Obama has the capacity to upend the old politics, which seems all the more plausible now that the fundamental weaknesses of our economy have been exposed.
But people now look back at Ronald Reagan and think he sowed the seeds of our current economic disaster — whereas most of what FDR stands for seems to still evoke strong support from most Americans, more than 75 years later.
Comment by Ian — October 12, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
How do you know he is going to make the right decisions on the economy? Does he have a strong economic bachground that we have not heard about? Of course he is going to be motivated to improve the economy – what President hasn’t been motivated to do that?
He says he is going to cut taxes for 95% of American working families, but only one problem there – 40% of Americans do not even pay taxes. How do you cut something that doesn’t even exist? I imagine he will do that by taking money from people who pay taxes and writing out a check to those who do not.
Comment by rbates — October 12, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Has Obama proposed writing checks to those who currently don’t pay taxes? I’ve never heard him make this proposal or anyone accuse him of proposing to do so. I assume the 95% figure refers to the fact that 95% of the population of the country won’t have its taxes raised, which presumably includes people who don’t pay any taxes at all. Which is not logically equal to the statement that 95% of the population will have its taxes lowered. I’ll start digging around on Obama’s website for more information.
Comment by Lee — October 12, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
Lee, I could be wrong about this, but I believe Obama has said that he would “cut” taxes for 95% of workers and their families. Maybe I misunderstood what he said.
Comment by rbates — October 12, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
OK, here is the relevant text from Obama’s tax plan:
“A $1,000 ‘Making Work Pay’ Tax Credit. For 95 percent of workers and their families—150 million workers overall—the “Making Work Pay” credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or
$1,000 for working couples. This credit will benefit over 15 million self employed workers and for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes.”
If I understand this correctly, then your original claim is correct, rbates. Lots of families will receive a tax credit under the Obama plan.
Do you think this is a bad idea?
Comment by Lee — October 12, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
I am all for cutting taxes and giving people their money back, but I don’t see how it’s fair for people to go out, work, and pay their taxes, only to have some of that money go to people who have not paid any taxes. Its as if I pay my taxes and the government gives me some of my money back, and at the same time takes some of my money and gives it to someone who never paid a cent of taxes. Essentially I am working for them as well. That part doesn’t sit so well with me.
Do you like this plan?
Comment by rbates — October 12, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
I don’t know enough about this specific plan or tax policy in general to say for sure — it’s not 100% clear to me from the text that the tax credits are going to people who are otherwise not paying taxes. I assume someone who doesn’t file a tax return cannot by definition get a tax credit. The whole concept of tax credits is to use the tax system as a mechanism for crediting accounts.
Based on what I’ve read so far — I’m still researching — lots of respected economists don’t see anything horrible, any kind of historical aberration or radically new here. We already give tax credits to people for a host of reasons.
To get away from this specific plan, but to speak in principle: I’m not against social welfare states or re-distributionist policies. In a sense, all social and infrastructure spending is inherently redistributionist: if the top 1% of income-earners pay 50% of the costs of building a freeway system, that’s in a sense a transfer of wealth, but a justified transfer of wealth — the top 1% earner didn’t get his money through magic or without the help of the already existing massive social infrastructure, public education system, military expenditure, etc.
Which is to say we transfer wealth all the time. The question is — is the form of redistribution fair? Does it do what we want it to? Can we live with the particular spread of distribution. In principle the tax credit for the non-worker is not different in kind from the tax reduction of the worker. The revenue shortfall for each is paid by the top 2% of earners, unless we’re willing to live with increased deficit spending.
So if it turned out that this plan does what you have described and economists think that it’s a sound plan that’ll do what it sets out to do and work as Obama describes — I’m OK with that. Then again, I’ll benefit from the tax cuts he’s proposing so maybe I’m biased!
Comment by Lee — October 12, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
I don’t know enough about tax policies myself to say with any certainty whether or not this will be beneficial. And the unfortunate part about this election (as well as elections in the past) is that there doesn’t seem to be any place to get a REAL objective opinion. It seems as though everyone is so in the bag for either candidate that you don’t get any impartial analysis of the issues.
The WSJ hammers Obama’s plans, while the NYT hammers McCain’s. To me, that is the biggest tragedy that has come from the advent of cable news and talk radio; it has polorized the entire country. It feels as if people are forgetting that we are all trying (hopefully) to do what is best for the country. But, instead Republicans and Democrats view eachother as enemies and disagree with eachother on every little thing. And the worst part about all of this is that I don’t see that stopping any time in the future.
Comment by rbates — October 12, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
So often, it seems to me, people start by talking about the economy and end by talking about moral issues, such as whether it’s fair for people to get money from the government.
It would be nice if the economy worked in such a way that we could do what’s best for the economy and also do what’s “fair”, but the truth is that these are two separate questions and a “fair” economy that sucks is sucky for everyone.
You write: “I imagine he will do that by taking money from people who pay taxes and writing out a check to those who do not.” I think you are basically correct about Obama’s tax plan and I respect your point — but it’s a moral point, not an economic point. And the fact is that a strong economy ideally benefits everyone — rich, poor, middle-class, etc.
If you look at what’s been going on in this country over the past couple of decades, costs for the middle class have been rising across the board, whether it’s gas, food, heating oil, health care, college tuition, etc. Meanwhile, income for middle class Americans has remained stagnant, while income for the super-rich has gone up like crazy. The super-rich have been benefiting from our economy much more than the middle class — and that’s why I’m willing to accept Obama’s tax plan from a moral standpoint. As Ted Kennedy has said, “a rising tide should lift all boats.”
But setting aside the moral issues (that is, the fairness issues), doesn’t it make sense that it would help our economy to put money in the pockets of the hundreds of millions of Americans who buy consumer goods, provide American labor, etc?
Comment by Ian — October 12, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
Ian, I think you hit the nail on the head. The issue isn’t as much economic as fairness. But what is fair? You can ask what is fair for the individual or what is fair for society?
Another point is that both arguments have economic merit. If you hand out money to poorer workers then they have more to spend, therefore boosting the economy. However, if the richer workers are taxed less they are more likely to invest and providing national savings.
Comment by John — October 13, 2008 @ 7:54 am
I completely agree with rbates about the rise of partisan media. Maybe these things move in cycles. I must say, though, that I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with the New York Times’s coverage of the election. From my point of view, the tragedy is that even if the Times is doing an excellent job covering the election, people consider the Times less and less trustworthy.
To John: I agree that the economic argument isn’t clear-cut. Economists have honestly argued for trickle-down tax policies.
Comment by Ian — October 13, 2008 @ 8:52 am
That’s basically my point Ian. NYT may be doing an excellent job covering the issues of this election, but someone like me who is not an economics expert, doesn’t know if they’re just supporting their candidate at all costs or actually believe what they are writing. To me, there is definitley room in this discussion to have a debate becuase there are very smart people arguing both sides.
Comment by rbates — October 13, 2008 @ 3:26 pm