Friday, October 10, 2008
ATWATER ACOLYTES
When it is all said and done, this presidential campaign will likely go down as one of the dirtiest and most negative in history. As any U. S. history scholar will confirm, there have been a lot of dirty campaigns in our past.
Perhaps the first of these was perpetrated by John Adams against Thomas Jefferson. Andrew Jackson suffered insults to himself and his wife, and ended up killing an accuser in a duel. Grover Cleveland was attacked in debate for having fathered an illegitimate child. Some may recall his reply, “My illegitimate son is in Harvard. Where is yours?”
The modern era of dirty politics was ushered in by Richard Nixon. Called “Tricky Dick” for good reason, Nixon’s campaign staff set a pattern for underhanded and unethical campaigns. These were the underpinnings of the Lee Atwater school of smear tactics -- not to be hindered by truth, civility, or ethics. Remember that it was the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate complex that Nixon’s minions targeted for burglary.
George H. W. Bush’s campaign had the guiding hand of Atwater. He was the author of the Willie Horton ads, which blamed Dukakis for a murder committed by a black inmate on humane leave from a state prison. Although Governor Dukakis had nothing to do with the episode, it was portrayed graphically as if it were personally orchestrated by him.
The Jim Inhofe campaign is using a commercial in a similar vein against his opponent, Andrew Rice, in today’s Oklahoma senate campaign. Branding your opponent as soft on crime and gays, or hard on guns, is still a favored republican campaign tactic.
Then came the era of Karl Rove, an acolyte of Lee Atwater. In 2000 he masterminded George W. Bush’s dirty primary campaign against none other than John McCain. At a crucial time in the South Carolina primary, Bush accused McCain of fathering an illegitimate black child. It cost McCain that election, and set Bush on the path to capture the nomination.
Karl Rove also masterminded the dirty campaign against John Kerry, the worst being the privately financed swift-boaters avalanche of TV ads. That was an extremely dirty, smelly, smear tactic.
Rove is still not out of the picture. Even today a professional lobbyist and acolyte of the Rove-Atwater tradition, Rick Davis, is running John McCain’s campaign. Counters report that McCain’s approved ads are running now in excess of 90% negative, while Obama’s are less than 50%.
The McCain camp openly says it is attacking Obama’s “character.” That is, they are attacking the opponent personally rather than proposing constructive ideas for solving the nation’s problems. They have apparently given up winning on merit.
This has been a bad week for McCain/Palin personal negative attacks. They have tried hard to get some mud to stick, but it hasn’t. Negative ads about an opponent’s proposals are one thing, but personal attack ads are another. The McCain camp has been attacking Obama personally, unfortunately stretching truth and using “guilt by association” in the process.
If guilt by association is to be accepted, then McCain and Palin are two of the most guilty. How about the Keating Five and the Alaskan Independence party?
Since McCain is behind now in the race, he is likely to get even more desperate, and the remainder of the campaign may get even dirtier. Observers think so.
“Swift-boat” type ads against Obama are now beginning to emerge, sponsored by private moneyed groups with patriotic sounding names. These are likely to become worse and more frequent, as right-wing billionaire money comes into play.
Fearful of losing not only the presidential election but also seats in the House and Senate, these fringe groups are becoming active.
Remember that it was John McCain’s “Campaign Finance Reform” law that authorized private attack groups to form in anonymity and secrecy and pour money into defeating an opponent without the candidate or his party accepting responsibility. As exemplified by the “Swift-boaters,” these moneyed groups have turned campaigns into latrine pits.
This gives one cause to wonder: “What kind of people support a candidate who engages or suborns such personal mudslinging? Is this the camp of ‘family values,’ God-fearing, and religious folk? Have these people been just grownup schoolyard bullies all the time?
“What kind of candidate incites and condones hate expressions, as practiced this week in republican political rallies? Who among us supports such? Does being a republican require acquiescence to this?”
We might also ask the question: “What do we call those folk who have a slogan ‘country first,’ but engage in unnecessarily hostile, angry, political attack activity which divides that same country?”
We have heard before from a man who promised to “be a uniter and not a divider,” and he led us into eight years as a bitterly fractured nation beset by vicissitudes on all sides. This country has been going in the wrong direction. We need a different style of politics in America, led by a different kind of person.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Perhaps the first of these was perpetrated by John Adams against Thomas Jefferson. Andrew Jackson suffered insults to himself and his wife, and ended up killing an accuser in a duel. Grover Cleveland was attacked in debate for having fathered an illegitimate child. Some may recall his reply, “My illegitimate son is in Harvard. Where is yours?”
The modern era of dirty politics was ushered in by Richard Nixon. Called “Tricky Dick” for good reason, Nixon’s campaign staff set a pattern for underhanded and unethical campaigns. These were the underpinnings of the Lee Atwater school of smear tactics -- not to be hindered by truth, civility, or ethics. Remember that it was the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate complex that Nixon’s minions targeted for burglary.
George H. W. Bush’s campaign had the guiding hand of Atwater. He was the author of the Willie Horton ads, which blamed Dukakis for a murder committed by a black inmate on humane leave from a state prison. Although Governor Dukakis had nothing to do with the episode, it was portrayed graphically as if it were personally orchestrated by him.
The Jim Inhofe campaign is using a commercial in a similar vein against his opponent, Andrew Rice, in today’s Oklahoma senate campaign. Branding your opponent as soft on crime and gays, or hard on guns, is still a favored republican campaign tactic.
Then came the era of Karl Rove, an acolyte of Lee Atwater. In 2000 he masterminded George W. Bush’s dirty primary campaign against none other than John McCain. At a crucial time in the South Carolina primary, Bush accused McCain of fathering an illegitimate black child. It cost McCain that election, and set Bush on the path to capture the nomination.
Karl Rove also masterminded the dirty campaign against John Kerry, the worst being the privately financed swift-boaters avalanche of TV ads. That was an extremely dirty, smelly, smear tactic.
Rove is still not out of the picture. Even today a professional lobbyist and acolyte of the Rove-Atwater tradition, Rick Davis, is running John McCain’s campaign. Counters report that McCain’s approved ads are running now in excess of 90% negative, while Obama’s are less than 50%.
The McCain camp openly says it is attacking Obama’s “character.” That is, they are attacking the opponent personally rather than proposing constructive ideas for solving the nation’s problems. They have apparently given up winning on merit.
This has been a bad week for McCain/Palin personal negative attacks. They have tried hard to get some mud to stick, but it hasn’t. Negative ads about an opponent’s proposals are one thing, but personal attack ads are another. The McCain camp has been attacking Obama personally, unfortunately stretching truth and using “guilt by association” in the process.
If guilt by association is to be accepted, then McCain and Palin are two of the most guilty. How about the Keating Five and the Alaskan Independence party?
Since McCain is behind now in the race, he is likely to get even more desperate, and the remainder of the campaign may get even dirtier. Observers think so.
“Swift-boat” type ads against Obama are now beginning to emerge, sponsored by private moneyed groups with patriotic sounding names. These are likely to become worse and more frequent, as right-wing billionaire money comes into play.
Fearful of losing not only the presidential election but also seats in the House and Senate, these fringe groups are becoming active.
Remember that it was John McCain’s “Campaign Finance Reform” law that authorized private attack groups to form in anonymity and secrecy and pour money into defeating an opponent without the candidate or his party accepting responsibility. As exemplified by the “Swift-boaters,” these moneyed groups have turned campaigns into latrine pits.
This gives one cause to wonder: “What kind of people support a candidate who engages or suborns such personal mudslinging? Is this the camp of ‘family values,’ God-fearing, and religious folk? Have these people been just grownup schoolyard bullies all the time?
“What kind of candidate incites and condones hate expressions, as practiced this week in republican political rallies? Who among us supports such? Does being a republican require acquiescence to this?”
We might also ask the question: “What do we call those folk who have a slogan ‘country first,’ but engage in unnecessarily hostile, angry, political attack activity which divides that same country?”
We have heard before from a man who promised to “be a uniter and not a divider,” and he led us into eight years as a bitterly fractured nation beset by vicissitudes on all sides. This country has been going in the wrong direction. We need a different style of politics in America, led by a different kind of person.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
