Not like the Obama campaign had to go scratching for some dirt all of a sudden. Keating-5 was waiting in the drawer ready to be dusted off at an opportune moment. McCain gave them the pretext and the Obama campaign was ready for it.
Apparently you missed the Palin speech in which she accuses Obama of “palling around with terrorists”? He doesn’t need to wait for any ad campaign. McCain started it, now Obama can finish it.
We all know politics is about perception. McCain & Co. wants to paint Obama as a terrorist because he had a marginal association with Ayers. No one is buying it except those already in the bag for McCain.
The Keating-5 thing will hurt McCain more. Nevermind if it has about as much merit as the Ayers bit…it will resonate more because: A) It is a new thing for the Obama camp to throw while McCain has been beating the Ayers drum to little effect for a long time now (not to mention it being used in the primaries) and B) It is more relevant to the public because it smacks of the problems currently facing and scaring the shit out of everyone.
I have no doubt the Dems have been working on Keating related campaign material since the minute it became obvious that McCain would be the GOP nominee (on preview, what wack-a-mole said). But, as you say, Obama has an image as someone campaigning on the issues, and so they couldn’t really release them till McCain gave them an excuse. And McCain gave them as about a clear excuse as anything I’ve ever seen. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a campaign blatantly declare “we’re about to start using nonsense character attacks, starting next Monday” before. Especially when they know there opponent is sitting on a pretty effective retaliation.
Keating wasn’t merely McCain’s “constituent”. He was a significant campaign contributor and close associate. McCain vacationed at Keating’s place in the Bahamas, fer chrissake.
This wasn’t just a case of Joe Constituent phoning up his hard-working elected representative and saying “Um, hello, Senator? My name’s Charles Keating and I’m from your state, and there are some gummint guys from the regulatory agency coming around asking me questions, and could you tell me if they’re maybe out of line here?” and the hard-working senator replying “Sure thing, Mr., um, Keeling, I’ll look into that right away and make sure the investigation process is fair!”
This is why the Senate Ethics Committee concluded that McCain’s behavior in intervening with the regulators who were investigating Keating showed “poor judgment”. You don’t poke your nose into a criminal investigation involving one of your political buddies, or try to persuade regulators to back off of him, even if what you’re doing is not actually illegal.
Sure, I completely agree that McCain was acquitted of actually violating US law or Senate rules, and therefore should not be treated like a criminal on this account. However, I have no problem at all with the Obama campaign reminding the American public that McCain’s record of poor judgment goes back a long way.
Hmm, so it’s okay for losers to sully their reputations with negative campaigning, but not for winners? Or is it that it’s okay for Republicans, but not for Democrats?
I’m all for civility and taking the high road in political contests, but I don’t think the McCain campaign has a leg to stand on if they start whining about Obama being mean to them. Pot, meet Kettle.
So, in your own mind, you are OK with Obama running negative ads?
Of course they weren’t. When McCain announced that he was going hard negative and personal today, he might as well have announced that the sun would come up today, too. Obama’s camp didn’t have to wonder if McCain would start pushing the Ayers/Rezco/Wright crapola again; it was just a matter of when.
They’ve been sitting on this until the gloves really needed to come off.
Or about as damning as, say, a bunch of UIC records regarding Ayers, Obama and the Annenberg Challenge, eh?
Perhaps an attempt at a “gotcha”? i.e. “We didn’t actually do the negative attacks, we just said we might, and look how willing Obama is to go negative!”
Oh sweet Obama, why do you sully your reputation built on a history of doing more negative campaigning?
Sinaijon, I hope that Obama can find it in his heart to listen to you, the dispassionate observer.
The Keating-5 thing (which I agree, is substantively pretty weak stuff) also hurts McCain more then Ayers hurts Obama because McCain himself admitted that it was “the worst mistake of my life”. It’s hard for him to brush it off as a silly non-issue with that quote floating around, even if his actual wrongdoing was pretty minor.
But Obama is ahead in the polls and pulling away! All indications are that he will win easily. He didn’t need to drudge this up.
Did you read that article? Your summary of it is basically the opposite of what it says.
So for months, Obama has been less negative, except for one particular week right after the GOP convention. Your summary “Obama has been airing a higher percent of negative ads than McCain” is not correct.
So he should take McCain’s attacks until he’s got a one point lead and there’s five days left until Nov. 4th?
I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t be ok with this after McCain came right out and said he was going to get dirty. I would have been pretty ok with it even if McCain had run the cleanest campaign ever to be honest, but i don’t see why anyone at all would have objections at this point.
Maybe, maybe not. We learned from the Kerry campaign that staying “above” the fray was a losing strategy. The Reps have refined the politics of smear…and they have the balls to whine when the Dems finally grow a pair and hit back with the same tactics?
If i dont misremember, MCain and a number of other Senators went together to see a regulator who was doing things Keating did not like and asked him about it, such a move was NOT common, the man has to have felt intimidated, was it ilegal? nope, unethical as hell? <sarah palin>you betcha!</sp>
Obama may have lost the high ground, but only after McCain-Palin got out their shovels and dug their way to an even lower ground.
The worst things the Obama campaign has said about McCain simply don’t compare to the worst things the McCain campaign has said about Obama.
Once again: are you arguing that negative campaigning is acceptable, as long as the candidate who goes negative is losing?
After all the savage Republican attack campaigns we’ve seen in Presidential elections in the last couple of decades, I’m having a hard time mustering up sympathy for Republicans or Republican supporters who are shocked and distressed that their candidate is being attacked.
Yes, I do indeed deplore the cheapening of political discourse that all this mudslinging produces. But if Republicans don’t like it, to a large extent they have themselves to thank for it. Their credibility as advocates of civility and respect in political conflict is by this time completely shot to hell.
Well there is this new Rolling Stone article, Make Believe Maverick: