Senator McCain has been contacted by the non-partisan FactCheck.org about the unusual string of lies his campaign has put out only to be told he's sticking to what he's said, according to a report on NPR. Worse, he's trying to make it look as though Obama's sliming him by putting FactCheck's words in Obama's mouth. Republicans in a discussion of the campaign in another talk show said they found the lying to be at great variance from the person they "knew" John McCain to be and very disturbing.
The New York Times describes the media's reaction to the new McCain.
"... In recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama."
The campaign tries to throw the blame back on the media and Obama.
"A McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said the campaign had evidence for all its claims. 'We stand fully by everything that’s in our ads,' Mr. Rogers said, 'and everything that we’ve been saying we provide detailed backup for — everything. And if you and the Obama campaign want to disagree, that’s your call.'"
It's a strategy the campaign isn't letting go of because it's working. It's discrediting both the critical media and the opponent. The lies are hurting the Obama campaign. "It has been widely credited by strategists in both parties with rejuvenating Mr. McCain’s campaign and putting Mr. Obama on the defensive since it began early this summer," the Times reports. It's all the more effective because of McCain's reputation as a straight shooter -- a reputation which is now in tatters for most of us.
"... His strategy now reflects a calculation advisers made this summer — over the strenuous objections of some longtime hands who helped him build his 'Straight Talk' image — to shift the campaign more toward disqualifying Mr. Obama in the eyes of voters.
"'I think the McCain folks realize if they can get this thing down in the mud, drag Obama into the mud, that’s where they have the best advantage to win,' said Matthew Dowd, who worked with many top McCain campaign advisers when he was President Bush’s chief strategist in the 2004 campaign, but who has since had a falling out with the White House. 'If they stay up at 10,000 feet, they don’t.'"
McCain's spiteful anger and his campaign's ruthless calculations are a reminder of Dick Cheney, the affable, open former member of Congress as well as a key man in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations, the kind of person liberal reporters used to praise as a man of right wing views but notable decency. With his brutal partner in crime, David Addingon, Cheney has done serious damage to the presidency and the country. You'll remember that Brent Scowcroft, one of Cheney's old friends, political allies, and admirers, said in an interview a couple of years ago that he could no longer recognize the man. Much the same is being said of John McCain now by his colleagues.
The bottom line is not whether both McCain and Cheney have been infected by handlers or the victims of some genetic Republican disorder, but whether either of these men should ever have been allowed anywhere near the White House. There really is something wrong with both of them, whether it's a matter of character, temperament or disorder. Often when a friend or family member gets tetchy, angry and even brutal, we find out later that it was the brain tumor we couldn't have known about, or the onset of Alzheimers, or another awful physical or mental condition which explains everything. That's bad enough in families or among friends, but when we're talking about "3 a.m." and "the red telephone" or "WMD's" -- or (dare I mention this) Sarah Palin -- we're talking about setting up deckchairs on the Titanic.
Comments