Outrage at McCain's "lies" is a total loser strategy.

[metta 0]

Outrage at McCain's "lies" is a total loser strategy.

By Mickey Kaus

Updated Monday, Sept. 15, 2008, at 2:52 AM ET

Mark Halperin's three pieces of advice for Obama seem sound. (They are 1. Ignore Palin; 2. Get in McCain's head the way McCain's getting in Obama's; and 3. Refocus on the economy in an accessible way.) ... To which I'd add:

4. It's a good week for point 3!

5. The current lib blog-MSM-campaign tack--getting outraged by McCain's "lies"--is a total loser strategy. Why?

a)

MSM outrage doesn't sway voters anymore. It didn't even back in 1988, when the press tried to make a stink about George H.W. Bush's use of "flag factories," etc. After this year's

failed MSM Palin assault

, it certainly won't work;

B)

When Dems get outraged at unfairness they look weak. How can they stand up to Putin if they start whining when confronted with Steve Schmidt? McCain's camp can fake umbrage all it wants--the latest is that

an

Atlantic

photographer took some nasty photos that the mag

didn't

run!

--and nobody will accuse MCain of being weak. That's so unfair. A double standard. Dems can learn to live with it or complain about the unfairness for another 4 years. Their choice.

c)

It's almost always impossible to prove that a Republican attack is a 100% lie. Either there's a germ of truth (Kerry did hype his wartime heroism at least a bit) or the truth is indeterminate (i.e., there's no way of knowing what Obama meant by "lipstick"--just because he and McCain used the word earlier doesn't mean he didn't think using it

now

, after Palin's speech, didn't add a witty resonance).

d)

Lecturing the public on what's 'true" and what's a "lie" (when the truth isn't 100% clear) plays into some of the worst stereotypes about liberals--that they are

preachy know-it-alls hiding their political motives behind a veneer of objectivity

and respectability.

e)

Inevitably the people being outraged on Obama's behalf will phrase their arguments in ways well-designed to appeal to their friends--and turn off the unconverted. ('This is just what they did to John Kerry and Michael Dukakis!' As if the public yearns for the lost Kerry and Dukakis Presidencies. 'Today's kindergarteners

need

some

sex education

. Just because Republicans are old fashioned ...' etc. Or 'These are Karl Rove tactics,' which signifies little to non-Dem voters except a partisan rancor they'd like to put behind them.)

Lots of people like

bad Disney movies

, and don't like the kind of people who sneer at bad Disney movies.

6. There must be some way to disillusion the conservative base with McCain, at least a bit. I know the CW--Palin has locked in the base, freeing McCain to move left. But jeez, McCain isn't moving to the left just on immigration, and he isn't moving subtly. Listen to this new radio ad, which might as well be titled "Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research." That's how often the phrase is repeated. How much more Screw-You-I'm-Taking-You-for-Granted can McCain get? Are conservatives complete suckers?

7. McCain's made great progress with independents by going against his party. Obama can do the same thing. Obvious areas of potential anti-Dem apostasy: Charter schools, firing incompetent teachers, class-based affirmative action, welfare. At least express some doubts about liberal legalism or the headlong rush to immigrant semi-amnesty. Last Tuesday Obama may have tried to make waves by talking about "schools filled with poor teachers"--a Dem no-no if there ever was one. It got buried by the lipstick pig. So don't complain. Say it again! ...

'The Lying King' Exposes Media's Palin Attacks

Edited September 15, 2008 by metta

[AlHayatZween 2]

It is true... since this campaign is just going to get uglier and uglier...

i really wish they would start flinging mud about the things that really matter, i.e., the economy, Iraq, health care...

All this hype is just a distraction and sheer nonsense, on both sides.

[symbiosis 0]

yeah, after 8 years of Bush-Voldemort, we're so used to be lied to that it's become part of our "ethics"

after all, pointing out that the Iraq war was based on a lie is unpatriotic.

[symbiosis 0]

Since July, John McCain and his campaign have made 11 political claims that are barely true (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/statements/byruling/barely-true/), eight that are categorically false (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/statements/byruling/false/), and three that you'd have to call pants-on-fire lies (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/statements/byruling/pants-fire/)—a total of 22 clearly deceptive statements (many of them made repeatedly in ads and stump speeches).

http://www.slate.com/id/2199923/

also, Factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/

Edited September 15, 2008 by symbiosis

[alienlovechild 75]

after all, pointing out that the Iraq war was based on a lie is unpatriotic.

What lie are you babbling about? If it's WMDs you better have a good explanation how the they were all disposed of and all the accompanying documentation with as they did in Ukraine and South Africa.

What was going on in Iraq for the 3 years UN weapons inspectors were kicked out and why was everyone wanting more time for weapons inspections?

I already know your answer- I can't question you because it's unAmerican, nothing matters because Bush lied and people died and you have no idea what was going on with Iraq prior to 2003.

[symbiosis 0]

after all, pointing out that the Iraq war was based on a lie is unpatriotic.

What lie are you babbling about? If it's WMDs you better have a good explanation how the they were all disposed of and all the accompanying documentation with as they did in Ukraine and South Africa.

What was going on in Iraq for the 3 years UN weapons inspectors were kicked out and why was everyone wanting more time for weapons inspections?

I already know your answer- I can't question you because it's unAmerican, nothing matters because Bush lied and people died and you have no idea what was going on with Iraq prior to 2003.

no, I think YOU better have the explanation. so, what is it?

[metta 0]

yeah, after 8 years of Bush-Voldemort, we're so used to be lied to that it's become part of our "ethics"

after all, pointing out that the Iraq war was based on a lie is unpatriotic.

You can blame Bush for all you want but the MSM was in bed with the Bush administration all along, cheerleading the Iraq war.

Media and Iraq

In December 2001, a few months after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Solomon noted, "the overwhelming bulk of news stations are already serving as amplification systems for Washington's warriors in times of crisis."

Critics agree the role of the press in the war against Iraq has been to deter dissenting opinions and to be "cheerleaders" for the ongoing battle. Any attempt at objectivity was abandoned once the bombs started dropping and was replaced with one-sided and overly patriotic sentiments, which closely resemble the administration's stance on the war.

"Transfixed with tactical maneuvers and overall strategies inside Iraq, media outlets rarely mention that this entire war by the U.S. government and its British accomplice is a flagrant violation of international law," says Solomon.

Now, the MSM has gone 360 degree denouncing the War and has apparently decided to anoint Obama as President no matter what.

The arrogance and hypocrisy of the American MSM is astonishing.

[IAMX 3,055]

yeah, after 8 years of Bush-Voldemort, we're so used to be lied to that it's become part of our "ethics"

after all, pointing out that the Iraq war was based on a lie is unpatriotic.

You can blame Bush for all you want but the MSM was in bed with the Bush administration all along, cheerleading the Iraq war.

Media and Iraq

In December 2001, a few months after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Solomon noted, "the overwhelming bulk of news stations are already serving as amplification systems for Washington's warriors in times of crisis."

Critics agree the role of the press in the war against Iraq has been to deter dissenting opinions and to be "cheerleaders" for the ongoing battle. Any attempt at objectivity was abandoned once the bombs started dropping and was replaced with one-sided and overly patriotic sentiments, which closely resemble the administration's stance on the war.

"Transfixed with tactical maneuvers and overall strategies inside Iraq, media outlets rarely mention that this entire war by the U.S. government and its British accomplice is a flagrant violation of international law," says Solomon.

Now, the MSM has gone 360 degree denouncing the War and has apparently decided to anoint Obama as President no matter what.

The arrogance and hypocrisy of the American MSM is astonishing.

The media indeed does have an obligation (for integrity's sake) to be upfront to the American people and should, but far, far more than them, the President has undoubtedly the largest responsibility of being upfront to the American people. He was not, and should be impeached and removed, and I don't care if he's a lame duck. The list of ####### this guy has done that has flied in the face of the Constitution is what would be called back in the founding fathers day "treasonous", and would usually come with the death penalty. Good thing people are stupid.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[symbiosis 0]

yeah, after 8 years of Bush-Voldemort, we're so used to be lied to that it's become part of our "ethics"

after all, pointing out that the Iraq war was based on a lie is unpatriotic.

You can blame Bush for all you want but the MSM was in bed with the Bush administration all along, cheerleading the Iraq war.

Media and Iraq

In December 2001, a few months after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Solomon noted, "the overwhelming bulk of news stations are already serving as amplification systems for Washington's warriors in times of crisis."

Critics agree the role of the press in the war against Iraq has been to deter dissenting opinions and to be "cheerleaders" for the ongoing battle. Any attempt at objectivity was abandoned once the bombs started dropping and was replaced with one-sided and overly patriotic sentiments, which closely resemble the administration's stance on the war.

"Transfixed with tactical maneuvers and overall strategies inside Iraq, media outlets rarely mention that this entire war by the U.S. government and its British accomplice is a flagrant violation of international law," says Solomon.

Now, the MSM has gone 360 degree denouncing the War and has apparently decided to anoint Obama as President no matter what.

The arrogance and hypocrisy of the American MSM is astonishing.

Firstly, what's the MSM? If you're talking about the Dems in Congress, the Bush administration was feeding them bogus intel for frak sake!

Point of order: if you do a "360" you are back to where you started. Check a compass.

[alienlovechild 75]

no, I think YOU better have the explanation. so, what is it?

The "lie" explanation is a lot easier to sell because it's simple and one-sided.

The U.S. has been relying on technology means like satellites and wire intercepts to check weapon's development but it's far from foolproof. The Clinton adminstration had no idea Pakistan was nuke capable until they exploded a couple of them in 1998 (?). The same is true for North Korea and Iran the experts are guessing at the state of development. The U.S. lacks humint to get detailed info and Saddam ran a good police that eliminated domestic oppostion so the U.S. was stuck with Iraqi exiles who may not have the most up to date info or may lie to for there own ends.

The Ritter interview is pretty good because he gives his opinion and what was going on in the 90s. He was a big Bush critic but he talks about the issues surrounding the inspections.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/0...cnna/index.html

Even he wanted the inspectors back in Iraq to reasssure the U.S. that there were no WMDs and that Iraq hadn't started new production during the 5 year period on non-inspection but Iraq didn't agree until the invasion was imminent.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now, the MSM has gone 360 degree denouncing the War...

Point of order: if you do a "360" you are back to where you started. Check a compass.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Even he wanted the inspectors back in Iraq to reasssure the U.S. that there were no WMDs and that Iraq hadn't started new production during the 5 year period on non-inspection but Iraq didn't agree until the invasion was imminent.

Newsflash: The inspectors were in Iraq conducting unfettered inspections until some Yahoo called the UN from 1600 Penn Ave telling them to pull the inspectors out. Don't sit there pretending that Bush wanted the inspections complete. There's nothing on the books that supports any such thing. Bush wanted to go in. The inspections were progressing nicely and, hence, had to be stopped as the completion of them would have destroyed Bush's made up case to go in.

[GaryC 7]

Even he wanted the inspectors back in Iraq to reasssure the U.S. that there were no WMDs and that Iraq hadn't started new production during the 5 year period on non-inspection but Iraq didn't agree until the invasion was imminent.

Newsflash: The inspectors were in Iraq conducting unfettered inspections until some Yahoo called the UN from 1600 Penn Ave telling them to pull the inspectors out. Don't sit there pretending that Bush wanted the inspections complete. There's nothing on the books that supports any such thing. Bush wanted to go in. The inspections were progressing nicely and, hence, had to be stopped as the completion of them would have destroyed Bush's made up case to go in.

Sure, after Saddam had 5 years to hide and move them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...only Hillary can save us...vote Hillary 2012.