PDA

View Full Version : Elections What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know


VAChief
07-31-2008, 07:38 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2008/07/the_new_normal.html

If this is true...so much for running a clean campaign. An excerpt below:

What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props. So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that’s political hardball. But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents—a lie.

penchief
07-31-2008, 07:47 PM
Naw, I can't believe that they'd do that.

Direckshun
07-31-2008, 07:55 PM
Yeah this was up a day or two ago.

This is hardly the first time this practice has happened. It's a well known trick campaigns use, trying to pick a situation in which you could literally construe any action as wrong, and then launching it to the SHTSPRAYER's of the world.

penchief
07-31-2008, 07:56 PM
Yeah this was up a day or two ago.

This is hardly the first time this practice has happened. It's a well known trick campaigns use, trying to pick a situation in which you could literally construe any action as wrong, and then launching it to the SHTSPRAYER's of the world.

Obama must be taking the high road.

patteeu
07-31-2008, 09:13 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2008/07/the_new_normal.html

If this is true...so much for running a clean campaign. An excerpt below:

What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props. So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that’s political hardball. But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents—a lie.

Please. Are there any liberals out there who understand what the word "lie" means?

All Obama had to do to avoid this devilish trap was to go visit the wounded troops without allowing it to become a publicized event and McCain would have been left holding two useless attack ad scripts. If Obama's goal was to visit the wounded troops and wish them well, this would have been enough for him. If his goal was to maximize his political benefit or minimize the political damage, his calculation would be different, as it obviously was.

VAChief
07-31-2008, 10:03 PM
Please. Are there any liberals out there who understand what the word "lie" means?

All Obama had to do to avoid this devilish trap was to go visit the wounded troops without allowing it to become a publicized event and McCain would have been left holding two useless attack ad scripts. If Obama's goal was to visit the wounded troops and wish them well, this would have been enough for him. If his goal was to maximize his political benefit or minimize the political damage, his calculation would be different, as it obviously was.

I wouldn't characterize having two stories ready ahead of time as a lie...however if it doesn't hurt McCain's image, it certainly lessens the impact of the attack on Obama.

jAZ
07-31-2008, 10:06 PM
All Obama had to do to avoid this devilish trap was to go visit the wounded troops without allowing it to become a publicized event and McCain would have been left holding two useless attack ad scripts.
Not true.

Pitt Gorilla
07-31-2008, 10:12 PM
Not true.Obama must be afraid to travel abroad. WHAT IS HE HIDING!?!

mlyonsd
08-01-2008, 08:17 AM
Not true.

Sure it is. If Obama would have gone without journalists or campaign photographers it could never have been used against him.

SBK
08-01-2008, 08:21 AM
Obama wanted to tell the troops injured by IED that they'd have been fine if their Humvee's would have had their tires filled correctly.

jAZ
08-01-2008, 08:22 AM
Sure it is. If Obama would have gone without journalists or campaign photographers it could never have been used against him.
That's just not true. And the evidence to support me is that the McCain campaign clearly believed it worth their effort to invest scarce resources in preparing for it.

They valued attacking him for it.

Your's and pat's claim that the attacks are worthless comes as someone at best wouldn't care about being wrong on this issue. It's a baseless claim for you to make. As I said, I have evidence that someone smarter and more in-tune than I (Karl Rove) thought the "exploiting our troops" meme would be valueable as part of an overall theme.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 08:33 AM
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2008/07/the_new_normal.html

If this is true...so much for running a clean campaign. An excerpt below:

What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props. So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that’s political hardball. But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents—a lie.

If the McCain camp alleged that in an ad, using troops as props, then I'd think that would backfire on McCain with the general public. Only the hard-core war folks would fall for an ad like that.

SBK
08-01-2008, 08:34 AM
If the McCain camp alleged that in an ad, using troops as props, then I'd think that would backfire on McCain with the general public. Only the hard-core war folks would fall for an ad like that.

Stop using your brain, this is a thread about Obama, brain use is not allowed.

whatsmynameagain
08-01-2008, 08:50 AM
Yeah this was up a day or two ago.

This is hardly the first time this practice has happened. It's a well known trick campaigns use, trying to pick a situation in which you could literally construe any action as wrong, and then launching it to the RETARD's of the world.

FYP


Posted via Mobile Device

mlyonsd
08-01-2008, 09:17 AM
That's just not true. And the evidence to support me is that the McCain campaign clearly believed it worth their effort to invest scarce resources in preparing for it.

They valued attacking him for it.

Your's and pat's claim that the attacks are worthless comes as someone at best wouldn't care about being wrong on this issue. It's a baseless claim for you to make. As I said, I have evidence that someone smarter and more in-tune than I (Karl Rove) thought the "exploiting our troops" meme would be valueable as part of an overall theme.

Oh for the love of. The one baseless claim I see here is from an "unnamed GOP strategist". If you can come up with proof of an ad that didn't run I'll retract that.

"Clearly" to you is muddy to others.

mlyonsd
08-01-2008, 09:17 AM
If the McCain camp alleged that in an ad, using troops as props, then I'd think that would backfire on McCain with the general public. Only the hard-core war folks would fall for an ad like that.

Bingo. BEP gets it.

Alton deFlat
08-01-2008, 09:48 AM
GOP strategist

An oxymoron if I ever heard one........ but having two stories ready to go wouldn't surprise me one bit.

mlyonsd
08-01-2008, 10:34 AM
An oxymoron if I ever heard one........ but having two stories ready to go wouldn't surprise me one bit.

It wouldn't me either. Especially after the moronic Brittany/Paris ad. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it, just that Obama could have worked it to his advantage but didn't.

***SPRAYER
08-01-2008, 10:40 AM
It wouldn't me either. Especially after the moronic Brittany/Paris ad. I'm not saying they wouldn't do it, just that Obama could have worked it to his advantage but didn't.


I think the add was inspired by something B.O. said...


"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse." . . .

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 11:05 AM
I think the add was inspired by something B.O. said...


"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse." . . .

Are you referring to attention deficit disorder?

You might be. I dunno? I mean if Obama is so overexposed then that may explain your post. :D

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 11:07 AM
An oxymoron if I ever heard one........ but having two stories ready to go wouldn't surprise me one bit.

I don't really have a problem with the idea of having two stories to go aspect of this....just in case. Afterall, before a team wins a championship both teams have a bunch of tee shirts and misc printed so they are ready to seize the opportunity at the right moment. That's just smart marketing. I just think the message would have backfired.

patteeu
08-01-2008, 01:30 PM
Not true.

LMAO Good argument. Very compelling.

***SPRAYER
08-01-2008, 01:43 PM
Are you referring to attention deficit disorder?

You might be. I dunno? I mean if Obama is so overexposed then that may explain your post. :D

I say ad-vert-iss-ment and you say ad-ver-TIZE-ment.

patteeu
08-01-2008, 01:48 PM
That's just not true. And the evidence to support me is that the McCain campaign clearly believed it worth their effort to invest scarce resources in preparing for it.

They valued attacking him for it.

Your's and pat's claim that the attacks are worthless comes as someone at best wouldn't care about being wrong on this issue. It's a baseless claim for you to make. As I said, I have evidence that someone smarter and more in-tune than I (Karl Rove) thought the "exploiting our troops" meme would be valueable as part of an overall theme.

You apparently don't understand my argument because yours makes no sense if you do. If McCain were poised to attack Obama for trying to use publicity over a visit with wounded troops for political advantage, it would have been worthless if Obama had visited the wounded troops without any publicity. Obama has shown us that he knows how to give the media the slip if he wants to. He did so when he met with Hillary Clinton in DC shortly after she dropped out of the race.

But that's all academic since there apparently was never really a second ad contemplated to begin with (hat tip to the anonymous source who knows who he is):

"No Conversations" About Troop Ad: McCain Camp.--BND's Further Thoughts (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/)
Posted by: David Kiley on July 31

Given the McCain campaign’s vehement denials about ever discussing an ad/messaging strategy that would have bashed Sen. Barack Obama for visiting wounded troops in Germany this month [The New Normal: McCain’s Desperate Ad Hours], I thought it fair to hear in detail the McCain campaign’s explanation, and to go back to my original source for elaboration. I also sought, unsuccessfully, to find secondary sources to back up my original source.

I spent quite a while on the phone with Taylor Griffin, a spokesman for the McCain campaign.

The McCain campaign insists that no conversations took place about ads or campaign communication that would have cast Senator Obama in a bad light for visiting the troops while on a campaign trip about which the McCain campaign has been highly critical.

Griffin cites the following reasons why this couldn’t and wouldn’t be true.

1. The McCain campaign was not aware of the Obama visit to the troops in Germany beforehand, and neither was the traveling press with Obama. Therefore, the campaign could not have prepared a strategy around the trip. By the time they were reacting to his skipped visit of the troops, there was no reason to have talked about any other scenario.

2. Barack Obama has frequently visited the troops, including wounded troops at Walter Reade Hospital, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sen.. McCain has always praised him for doing so. The campaign has said that there is never a reason not to visit the wounded troops, which is why it reacted so strongly to his decision not to see the troops in Germany.

3. John McCain visited the same hospital in Germany during his last trip to Europe, so it would have been crazy to criticize Sen. Obama for doing so. [It is worth noting here that Sen. McCain, according to his spokesman, was on a Senatorial trip, not spending campaign funds as Sen. Obama was. The rules for visiting troops are different when spending campaign funds.]

I went back to my original source with whom I spoke last weekend to make sure I had understood what he was saying. He clarified that he’d heard about discussions of a possible ad, not literally that a script was in place. It may be worth noting that I originally called this source, an experienced GOP lobbyist and strategist, to ask him his viewpoint about the sharp turn the McCain campaign had taken in much more negative attacks on Obama. The information was not fed to me deliberately or proactively. However, I have not been able to find a secondary source to back up the original source. Subsequent calls to a couple of other sources today were greeted with a much greater sense of nervousness because of the intense scrutiny around this issue inside the McCain campaign.

This leaves me with little ammunition to buttress the original assertion, especially in the face of the fierce denials by the McCain campaign.

There is a huge amount of smoke being blown by both campaigns, each trying to define the other in the most negative terms possible. Indeed, my original blog-post enumerated some of the examples of other media outlets and www.factcheck.org citing the McCain campaign in recent days for broadcasting ads that just don't hold up to even basic scrutiny. The Obama campaign has at times also drawn fire from media outlets and www.factcheck.org.

But I do admit that my source’s original assertion should have been backed up by reliable secondary and tertiary sources, especially since it hit close to the bone for the McCain campaign.

mlyonsd
08-01-2008, 01:50 PM
But that's all academic since there apparently was never really a second ad contemplated to begin with (hat tip to the anonymous source who knows who he is):

But it was so clear.

VAChief
08-01-2008, 01:53 PM
It also could have been avoided by not making it an issue one way or the other.

patteeu
08-01-2008, 02:30 PM
It also could have been avoided by not making it an issue one way or the other.

Criticism of Obama is just plain mean, isn't it, VA?

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 02:58 PM
I say ad-vert-iss-ment and you say ad-ver-TIZE-ment.

No I say and spell, ad-vert-ise-ment. :D

I never heard of advertissing. ( two consonants make the preceding vowel a short vowel)

VAChief
08-01-2008, 03:03 PM
Criticism of Obama is just plain mean, isn't it, VA?

No, not at all...I would prefer none of this bs was engaged by either candidate. I frankly am more surprised by McCain's stance in this area. It was one of his strengths, something he stood out for in past elections and I am disappointed that Obama engages it at all.

Baby Lee
08-01-2008, 04:17 PM
But that's all academic since there apparently was never really a second ad contemplated to begin with (hat tip to the anonymous source who knows who he is):

Geez, that's the kind of sober probing fact gathering usually only accomplished by the likes of an UltraPeanut.
Thanks for sharing, but you failed to deliver on UP's endearing bonus of a fervent unbraiding for our demogoguing sheepish ways.

Taco John
08-01-2008, 04:47 PM
Sure it is. If Obama would have gone without journalists or campaign photographers it could never have been used against him.


Yeah right... The ad was already made. You think McCain wouldn't have run it?

***SPRAYER
08-01-2008, 04:47 PM
No I say and spell, ad-vert-ise-ment. :D

I never heard of advertissing. ( two consonants make the preceding vowel a short vowel)


Hmmmmmmm.... interesting (pronounced intristing).

Baby Lee
08-01-2008, 05:30 PM
Yeah right... The ad was already made. You think McCain wouldn't have run it?

1. The Ad was NOT already made.
2. What's the use to saying Obama went for a campaign photo-op if he went without his campaign or photographers? Some sort of reverse psychology to make McCain look as bad as possible while making Obama look as good as possible.

BucEyedPea
08-01-2008, 05:50 PM
Hmmmmmmm.... interesting (pronounced intrysting).

naughty, naughty:D

patteeu
08-01-2008, 07:23 PM
No, not at all...I would prefer none of this bs was engaged by either candidate. I frankly am more surprised by McCain's stance in this area. It was one of his strengths, something he stood out for in past elections and I am disappointed that Obama engages it at all.

I submit that it was just less annoying to many left-leaning folks when McCain was spinning negatives (often with an underhanded curve) at people you guys liked even less than the Maverick like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, or fellow Republicans in general. I don't think this is so much a change for him as it is a change of target.

VAChief
08-01-2008, 07:44 PM
I submit that it was just less annoying to many left-leaning folks when McCain was spinning negatives (often with an underhanded curve) at people you guys liked even less than the Maverick like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, or fellow Republicans in general. I don't think this is so much a change for him as it is a change of target.

I don't think I am alone in noticing this change, I have seen it mentioned by people on both sides. I have voted Republican before, and honestly I would consider voting for McCain earlier. I would have voted for him over Gore, I thought we needed a change, it is healthy for our often dysfunctional two party system in my opinion.

Ari Chi3fs
08-01-2008, 08:58 PM
come on people.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mcclain/campaignobamabashing.asp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI)

Taco John
08-01-2008, 08:59 PM
1. The Ad was NOT already made.
2. What's the use to saying Obama went for a campaign photo-op if he went without his campaign or photographers? Some sort of reverse psychology to make McCain look as bad as possible while making Obama look as good as possible.

Oh, excuse me... they had an "ad script" already made. They were going to attack him either way. That's the entire campaign: attack Obama.

Taco John
08-01-2008, 08:59 PM
come on people.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mcclain/campaignobamabashing.asp (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2b1D5w82yU)


Worst rick roll ever...

beer bacon
08-01-2008, 09:00 PM
come on people.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mcclain/campaignobamabashing.asp (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2b1D5w82yU)

Link doesn't work.

Ari Chi3fs
08-01-2008, 11:15 PM
damn. I actually meant this one. Oh well, link is fixed now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI

my new rick roll. You heard it here... FIRST.

Baby Lee
08-02-2008, 07:14 AM
Oh, excuse me... they had an "ad script" already made. They were going to attack him either way. That's the entire campaign: attack Obama.

Jesus, can you even read?

The author of the original article alleging has clarified that one unsubstantiated source mentioned hearing talk, secondhand, of the possibility of some sort of discussion of an ad, and even that hearsay source hadn't heard anything about a script.

whoman69
08-03-2008, 12:54 AM
Sure it is. If Obama would have gone without journalists or campaign photographers it could never have been used against him.

What's to stop them from following him. There was no way that he could go without the media. It was a Catch-22 for him all the way. The only way he could have won out was to never have the event planned, and he probably would have lost out on that one as well.

Smed1065
08-03-2008, 01:35 AM
Obama wanted to tell the troops injured by IED that they'd have been fine if their Humvee's would have had their tires filled correctly.

Or the proper armor needed for the situation for humvees.

My cousin married an owner of a factory who produces some of the said armor. It took 2 years to worry about it because we had to rush the war to make sure it only lasted 6 months.

Casualties are only Americans. They volunteered for it so why be concerned. It did not affect the war starter families.

***SPRAYER
08-31-2008, 06:13 PM
Oh for the love of. The one baseless claim I see here is from an "unnamed GOP strategist". If you can come up with proof of an ad that didn't run I'll retract that.

"Clearly" to you is muddy to others.

ROFL