In the Republican Primaries, both Bush and McCain have argued that the other side is engaging in so-called “negative campaigning”. The most recent controversy is that the Bush campaign didn’t like the phone calls to voters that the McCain campaign made, calling him “an anti-Catholic bigot”. Here is a transcript of the call in question (from foxnews.com:
Now, by my reading of that, there is no accusation that Bush himself is anti-Catholic, merely that he is pandering to people with anti-Catholic views, and refuses to condemn them. The call seems 100% factual, with a little political hyperbole thrown in. The question is: is this sort of thing “below the belt” politics? Is Bush’s criticism of it valid, or is he just whining because he can’t undo the political harm he did himself by starting his South Carolina campaign at Bob Jones University?
There were also calls by Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition which accused former senator Warren Rudman (of the McCain campaign) of anti-Christian bigotry for apparently saying that some of the ‘religious right’ are homophobes, would-be censors, etc. Does anybody have the source material for the basis for this claim (apparently from a book Rudman wrote, perhaps an autobiography)? Bush tried to defuse his Bob Jones appearance in one of the debates by demanding that McCain condemn Rudman for the statements he made, and McCain seemed to have a really lame response (“he’s entitled to his opinions”). Was that because he can’t defend the so-called “vicious bigotry” of Rudman, or because Bush and Robertson are mischarachterizing what Rudman said? Were Robertson’s calls “fair”, or are they “below the belt”?
Yes, it’s negative campaigning. Don’t deny the implications in that message, just because some McCain camp spin-doctor tried to cover them up.
The real issue here is that the day before those phone messages were sent, McCain stated that he was taking the high road and not using any negative campaign tactics. The point isn’t that he’s a nasty politician, the point is that he’s a liar. Anna Quindlen wrote a good column on this in the issue of Newsweek with Bush on the cover (“Hardball”). To hear her tell it, McCain is almost a pathological liar. I’m sure that’s not the case, but she provides enough evidence to make one doubt the validity of some of his statements.
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
All campaigning is negative. If I say that you should vote for me and shouldn’t vote for my opponent because I am pro-choice and he is anti-abortion, I am being “negative.” I don’t think it’s possible to run a completely “positive” campaign, because people don’t just want to know why they should vote for you, but why they shouldn’t vote for the other guy.
Rousseau: “Don’t deny the implications in that message, just because some McCain camp spin-doctor tried to cover them up.”
I don’t deny the implication, but could you please point out any false statements, or actual accusations? The implication would be there whether somebody said it or not, though, because GWB went to Bob Jones and stood silent on these issues. GWB also stood silently by while someone on the stage with him at his political event accused McCain of “abandoning veterans” after he came home from Vietnam. GWB refuses to be criticized for this. It looks like he’s going for “plausable deniability”, he wants to reap the benefits of appearances, but doesn’t think it’s justified to be held accountable for the negatives of appearances. If you refuse to distance yourself from someone, then the implication that you agree with them is a fair one. Bush seems perfectly willing to play that game with Warren Rudman (even though it’s unclear to me what Rudman actually said).
“The real issue here is that the day before those phone messages were sent, McCain stated that he was taking the high road and not using any negative campaign tactics.”
Well then, doesn’t that make the question I posed all the more relevant? Are these “negative campaign tactics”? I would definitely say that the unfounded accusations about McCain fathering illegitimate children are negative campaigning. If they were true, maybe they’d be fair game. I certainly don’t see what’s so “negative” about holding Bush accountable for his associations.
David B: “All campaigning is negative.”
I don’t think that’s what people mean when they talk about “negative campaigning” or “negative politics”. Why would they put a modifier on it if they did? People would say “I don’t like politics” rather than “I don’t like negative politics”. Now, I will grant you that every politician under the sun wants to brand every criticism of them a “negative personal attack”, but my contention is that they are abusing the language when they do that.