TheAgitator.com
Obama Smears Back
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008McCain lurched to the right on immigration during the primary, and for that he deserves some criticism. But it’s patently unfair and pretty cheap to link him to Rush Limbaugh. McCain has been sensible on this issue for most of his career.
And it’s even worse to use a quote from Limbaugh that was taken wholly out of context to do it.
There are so many legitimate reasons for each candidate to criticize the other, it’s difficult to understand this urge to just make stuff up. The difference between the two campaigns thus far has been that when Obama has been presented with evidence that one of his ads or campaign talking points is untruthful or unfair, he has generally corrected himself or pulled the ad. McCain doesn’t seem to care.
It’ll be interesting to see if Obama pulls this ad. He should.
Patently unfair?
I respect you and your work Radley, and I don’t care for this type of add either. But you have infrequently talked about the smears from the other side. Share and share alike they say.
You have an A+ site and I look forward to meeting you sometime in the future.
What are you talking about Nick?
Radley’s talked about McCain’s smears more than Obama’s. And that’s because Obama has only just started going negative.
This is such a g.d. nutty election. Obama’s best arguments are exposing how little McCain and ‘conservatism’ have in common, and yet he uses weak-sauce ads like this…and occassionally stepping the honesty boundary (not that it matters anymore after McCain…he’s set the precedent so far, and his legacy is totally and utterly tarnished b/c of this and Palin).
Obama would probably benefit more by exposing this dogcrap record of McCain when it comes to domestic security and border control, than he would be doing these types of ads.
Amidst a conversation today with a partner at my firm on this very topic, I found that the best arguments against mccain are made by conservatives, while liberals are going for the fickle and easy kill.
Nick, as Robert points out, Radley has been on McCain like stink on a campaign spokesperson. Check his posts over the last two weeks.
Believe me all. I have read Radley for more than a few months.
He is spot on with most all he writes about. Nobody including myself is perfect. What I am asking is that if he has the time (and no one would or possibly should), show all of the smears that adds from the McCain camp are killing our brain cells with. Perhaps I ask too much.
Radley should be proud of all who jump to defend him even if somebody like myself means him no harm.
Nuff said.
I must say that Radley has been plenty aggressive in going after McCain. So much so that friends have asked me if I am getting my information from sites like DailyKos, which, frankly, give me a break.
So, I don’t really see much merit in any implication (by Nick G. or others) that TheAgitator is going after Obama with intensity and treating McCain with kid gloves. If anything, this site has been morning wood (early and hard) on the sliminess of the McCain machine. Radley has been after McCain since he and Palin started soaking up a lot of media attention after the GOP convention. The Dem convention was a yawner and didn’t generate much to go after, as far as what the candidates said.
I personally am glad that, when Obama makes deceptive claims, I can come here and see that Radley has given him the sort of dressing down that McCain did. A good commentator will call a lie a lie, even if he favors the guy who said it.
And, the larger point is that anyone dumb enough to think that one camp is running a campaign of lies and smears while the other is all truth and light is being very naive. Grow up and realize that neither campaign has a consistent policy of 1) only making fair and honest criticisms of its opponents or 2) addressing tough issues head-on and with candor (and, yes, I am still looking for either camp’s honest approach to entitlement reform).
If a voter declares “I won’t vote for a candidate who deceives the people on important issues to win votes”, then that voter is not voting for Obama or McCain. Good on him/her.
While perhaps sorely provoked, this smear by Obama is deeply offensive. You simply cannot accuse people of racism without evidence, and it is clear here that there’s no evidence at all, except what the Obama campaign made up. Limbaugh (who I cannot stand) did not call Mexicans stupid and unskilled, at least not in the quote provided. Nor did he tell Mexicans to shut up or go home. And even if he did, what does any of that have to do with McCain?
This may not be a deal-breaker. But it’s awfully close to one. It’s racial demagoguery at its worst.
I don’t care one way or the other regarding the smear tactics. Let’s face it, neither Obama or McCain are going to run a campaign where they truthfully tell you what they believe. But for ANYONE to read this site and believe that Radley is unfairly attacking the Obama camp- you just aren’t paying attention, or you’re an Obama supporter- which is fine, but that is truly the only way you could possibly think that this site has been favoring McCain/Palin.
What really makes me want to commit seppuku this election season is the fact that each candidate’s smears seem to go after the few issues I actually agree with. McCain is sensible on immigration so Obama goes after that. Obama is sensible on foreign policy (at least with respect to diplomacy before military action) so McCain goes after him as an appeaser. Unfortunately, the areas where they agree (like not giving a flying f*ck about our national debt or federal expansion) are the areas I’m most concerned about, and they’re both dead wrong. The two-party system does it again.
I don’t know if anyone watched Larry King last night, but he had Ben Stein and an Obama Economic adviser named Robert Reich. I hate to say this, but the Reich and Stein agreed with a lot of policy commentary put out by Cato and Reason. Basically, influx of cheap cash from low interest rates caused this mess, we fix by raising capital requirements for financial institutions and create greater transparency. McCain…he kinda doesn’t advocate any of that. At least not that I see.
Also, why is when people have an opinion or have a conversation with someone, they suddenly think that it is the ultimate indicator of how the other 300 million Americans feel? “I feel Palin is this so everyone is realizing it too” or “I talked to my friends and the statements we made must be an obvious reflection of everyone else.” That’s just not how the world works. Polls go up and down because pollsters are not very good at their jobs and the pool of people they poll are to small to be accurate. Most people change their minds based on candidates based on a multitude of factors, not one sound bite here and there.
It seems to me that it’s no longer about who has the biggest dick but who can be the biggest one.
It’s making me ill.
Fuck them both.
I hate the false equivalency that tends to occur with regards to the ads, which is why I like Radley’s coverage. “Candidate X stretched the truth and slightly distorted Candidate Y’s tax plan to make it sound more sinister. Candidate Y said Candidate X skull-fucks puppies he just sacrificed to Satan while doing lines of coke. We should condemn both candidates for their playing fast and loose with the truth.”
Those aren’t equal. Yes, Candidate X deserves criticism, but to make it seem like they’re deserving of equal criticism is dishonest in and of itself. Radley’s done a good job of criticising when it’s due and not when it isn’t, and I congratulate him for it.
And yes, the ad is a cheap shot by the Obama campaign. In an ideal world I’d advocate to have it pulled post-haste, but as a liberal I’m tired of seeing the candidates I support act like whipped dogs slinking away at the first sign of controversy while the Republican candidates continue to keep stirring the pot. McCain is the first time I’ve seen the overreach coming back to bite a candidate in the ass since I’ve been of legal voting age.
j.d. writes: “Obama’s best arguments are exposing how little McCain and ‘conservatism’ have in common”
That’s not really an argument Obama’s positioned to make. He’s not a conservative and doesn’t pretend to be a conservative. Even if a critique on those points would be accurate, it’d ring false coming from Obama.
Obama can’t possibly win a “who is more conservative” fight with McCain, that’s a feature and not a bug, and engaging McCain on such ground would be a strategic blunder.
Finally, the token criticism of Obama, to be “fair and balanced.”
Radley accused people who disagree with him about immigration being racist back on March 16.
Given the partisan tilt of this site over the past couple of months — and Radley’s denials of it — I no longer trust this site.
Do you know anybody else who is doing similar work investigating and reporting on the Criminal Injustice system?