Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Michael Barone has studied at both Harvard and Yale, where he was editor for publications from both colleges. He has also served as an editor for ...
Read more about Michael Barone.
Michael Barone has studied at both Harvard and Yale, where he was editor for publications from both colleges. He has also served as an editor for ...
Read more about Michael Barone.
Outrageous Vulnerabilities
Michael Barone
As this is written, with a deadline looming, I have not heard Barack
Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field and have not learned who is
John McCain's choice for vice president.
You know more about these things than I do. So I will write about something I may know more about, and which has been the subject of some concern at the Democratic National Convention: the Democrats' charge that Republicans make illegitimate attacks on their candidates, attacks that imply that they are far out of the American mainstream. The two examples they cite are the "Willie Horton" ads against Michael Dukakis in 1988 and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads against John Kerry in 2004.
But both attacks were well within the bounds of fair political comment. Dukakis supported for 11 years a policy of granting weekend furloughs for prisoners sentenced to life without parole. Willie Horton, one of those furloughed, fled and committed another violent crime.
There's a reasonable argument for granting weekend furloughs to prisoners scheduled to be released in six months or so. Voters may not agree, but few will consider the policy outrageous. But there is no rational argument for letting loose a prisoner who is supposed to stay behind bars the rest of his life. Democrats now criticize Dukakis for not fighting back. But what argument could he have made?
As for Kerry, I listened respectfully to the majority of his boatmates who said that he acted heroically and to the majority of the larger squadron who said that he did not. They were talking about events that happened long ago, in sudden violence, and I found myself unable to say those on either side were lying.
But I also saw Kerry's campaign abandon his claim -- that he said on the Senate floor in 1986 was "seared, seared" in his memory -- that he was in Cambodia at Christmastime 1968. And I never heard him repudiate his 1971 Senate Foreign Relations testimony -- featured in the ads -- that our soldiers committed "crimes ... on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
I used to be a Democratic campaign consultant. In that capacity, I would have advised the Dukakis campaign to admit early on that the furlough policy was a mistake. I would have advised the Kerry campaign to go before a veterans' group early on and apologize for the Foreign Relations testimony. Voters understand that candidates sometimes make mistakes and that young men say outrageous things that in time they come to regret.
Which brings us to Barack Obama. He has three major vulnerabilities here as I see it. One is his 20-year relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Polls suggest he has sustained some damage on this, and it's not clear whether video clips of Wright saying "God damn America" will inflict more in the fall despite the candidate's repudiation of those comments.
Another problem is Obama's relationship with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist bomber William Ayers. In an April debate, Obama portrayed Ayers as a casual acquaintance. But Ayers was co-founder of the $49 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge education program and Obama its chairman of the board. The Obama campaign has sued to take off the air ads highlighting the Ayers relationship and tried to intimidate a radio station for hosting a conservative who is examining the Annenberg documents in the Richard J. Daley Library.
Finally, there is Obama's 2003 vote against a bill, "virtually identical" as the Obama campaign admits, to one that passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, banning the killing of fetuses who have survived abortions.
Liberals like Obama tend to go over the line between positions and associations that most voters find reasonable (though they may not agree) and those they find outrageous. They assume, usually correctly, that mainstream media will be reluctant to report on the latter, as has been the case in all those mentioned above. Conservatives take more care to separate themselves from the outrageous because they know mainstream media will pounce on them if they don't.
On Ayers, the Obama campaign has tried to suppress discussion. But it will likely fail. The emergence of new media and the First Amendment mean that is like stopping the Mississippi River from flowing to the sea. If I were advising Obama, I would tell him to confess error, as he arguably has on Wright, on both Ayers and the Born Alive Protection Act, lest they cause his campaign as much damage as the furlough ads caused Michael Dukakis and the Swift Boat ads caused John Kerry.
========
To read more political analysis by Michael Barone, visit www.usnews.com/baroneblog. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.
This news arrived on: 08/30/2008
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
09-01-2008 21:16
Sunshine49 wrote:
To Vslay
I was very happy to hear that you will keep an open mind on the candidates. I wish more people will do the same. McCain will not be another Bush. If you check out his record, you will see that he disagreed with Bush on many issues. McCain is against government (pork barrel) spending. I voted for Bush, but then he started acting more like a Democrat than a Republican. Clinton did very well with the economy, but he had a Republican House, Senate and Congress holding the purse strings. Since the Democrats took back control 19 months ago -- the economy has gone to hell. The Dems are loading up every bill with $billions in pork and it's killing this country. We have $trillions in national debt. The government is borrowing $4 billion a day to keep all the give away programs going that the Dems started. We now have $trillions in trade deficit. But they will try to tell you that it's all Bush's fault because of the war. Don't just listen to the politicians. Check out the financial news and other sources to get your infomation. You'll hear more truth there.
09-01-2008 02:14
vslay wrote:
Revolution
Sunshine49
We seem to agree on alot. Except our choice of candidates. I will watch the Republican Convention and there are two sides to a story and I am open minded. You sound very liberal as you know I am. I don't want a Socialist/Marxist Country either, but your description sounds just like what we are in now and that is exactly why we need Change, or a Revolution. My fear is that McCain will again cater to the rich (you know the story). We need fresh ideas and if you did listen to the Democratic Convention, you would understand what those ideas curtail. Our Country is very regulated and complexed. We can only hope who wins this election will pull through for the people. It will be an all nighter, thats for sure.
We seem to agree on alot. Except our choice of candidates. I will watch the Republican Convention and there are two sides to a story and I am open minded. You sound very liberal as you know I am. I don't want a Socialist/Marxist Country either, but your description sounds just like what we are in now and that is exactly why we need Change, or a Revolution. My fear is that McCain will again cater to the rich (you know the story). We need fresh ideas and if you did listen to the Democratic Convention, you would understand what those ideas curtail. Our Country is very regulated and complexed. We can only hope who wins this election will pull through for the people. It will be an all nighter, thats for sure.
09-01-2008 00:47
Sunshine49 wrote:
vslay
A very good reply. We agree on what kind of country and government we want. I disagree with you on the candidates. Obama can only accomplish what he talks about by turning us into a totally Socialist/Marxist country, where the government takes everything and gives us back some of our own money if we're lucky. Did you know that we are the most regulated people in the world. The government has over 60,000 pages of regulations for the American people. The Democrats probably wrote 40,000 of them. Laugh! What we really need is another Revolution to get back to the Constitution and the way this country is supposed to function. Voting for Obama will not fix this problem.
God Bless you too!
God Bless you too!
08-31-2008 21:27
vslay wrote:
To: Sunshine 49
The changes I want is a government that abides by the constitution and a government run by the people,for the people, and not big money. This should not be a wish. I want a Country not hated by every Country in the World, but respected like our Country used to be. I would like our fears to be rested on our shores and our military to get the best medical/mental, benefits due them when they need the help. I don't want socialistic government. I appreciate your comments Sunshine 49 and may the best team win to govern us all. God Bless!
08-31-2008 01:41
Sunshine49 wrote:
To Pittbull
Your "discussion" with Texas Katie brings to mind something I read. It was "Don't argue with idiots -- They will only bring you down to their level"
It seems that your question to Texas Katie about partial birth abortion will go unanswered. She believes that waterboarding (which kills no one) is a terrible crime, but to murder a viable baby is fine since it goes under the heading of a woman's right to choose. I wonder where this "right to choose" will stop. What if a women decides she doesn't want her baby after it's a few weeks old, or a few months, or a few years. Does that give her the "right" to kill the child because she choses not to keep it? I will never understand how people, who are horrified when a woman kills her small child, can think that partial birth abortion is fine because of a Supreme Court ruling. I guess they just want to be "politically correct" It's a shame that the ethics and morals of this country have gone to hell under the guise of being politically correct.
It seems that your question to Texas Katie about partial birth abortion will go unanswered. She believes that waterboarding (which kills no one) is a terrible crime, but to murder a viable baby is fine since it goes under the heading of a woman's right to choose. I wonder where this "right to choose" will stop. What if a women decides she doesn't want her baby after it's a few weeks old, or a few months, or a few years. Does that give her the "right" to kill the child because she choses not to keep it? I will never understand how people, who are horrified when a woman kills her small child, can think that partial birth abortion is fine because of a Supreme Court ruling. I guess they just want to be "politically correct" It's a shame that the ethics and morals of this country have gone to hell under the guise of being politically correct.
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
View Michael Barone ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
Body Mass
