New York Times columnist David Brooks said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that John McCain isn’t running the campaign he’d hoped to run, but that he and his advisers have decided that Barack Obama is the race. And the anti-Obama ads, though “cheesy,” are working, Brooks said. “When I write about Barack Obama, I get a huge response. When I write about John McCain, it’s like an arrow into the darkness. People love Obama. This is about Obama. Who is this guy? Who is this phenomenon? So McCain people decided, ‘every time we talk we have to talk about Obama. That’s the only way we can get coverage.’”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- CapnAmerica on Let immigrants run
- CapnAmerica on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Rage on Let immigrants run
29 Comments
McCain has to run negative because he can’t run on his support of Bush’s policies.
While this tactic will work for McCain in the short run I think it will backfire in the longer run. It looks to me like he is acknowledging that we have no reason to vote for him; he has nothing positive to run on.
If McCain says anything about Barry it has to be negative because there is nothing good about Barry.
More importantly, Sidney has nothing good to say about himself!
I agree, it will backfire on McCain. I think most Americans have had enough of the politics as usual, negative, BS. McCain is not going to win with promising more of what we’ve endured the last 8 yrs.
jjj..can you be specific? Just what about Obama’s ideas don’t you like?
Obama has also gone negative in his ads.
So why is it that day after day all I see are threads about McCain being negative?
Baised are we?
“If McCain says anything about Barry it has to be negative because there is nothing good about Barry.”
Nice drive by.
Re: jjj
DNFTT
Obama assails McCain as tool of Big Oil in ad
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0230158220080804?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
CHICAGO (Reuters) – U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama attacked Republican rival John McCain as a tool of big oil companies in a television ad released on Monday.
There you have it. Oh my! Obama has gone negative.
Now where are all the threads about it Editors?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain_links_castro_with_obama.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/snubbing_wounded_troops.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_celebrity_cred.html
Clearly, McCain has gone negative in a big way. And most of the negativity is bullsh*t.
But just for Nathan…
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html
Negative is clearly part of Obama’s arsenal as well, and it is not bullsh*t free.
Still, we’re running 3:1 right now.
In mccain’s defense of his 2,000,000 oil contributions, he parries with Obama’s received 500,000, or a fourth of his total.
It’s called covering the bases, to make a token contribution to the other side.
Looks like the numbers I used were incorrect, but the percentages still hold up.
“While this tactic will work for McCain in the short run I think it will backfire in the longer run.”
From your lips to god’s ears Ben. But I’m afraid Crowson, and PT Barnum, are correct.
Candidates go negative for ONE reason.
It works.
When Obama is changing his stance on an issue every week it would be absurd not to go negative on him.
Just last month he says we shouldn’t be using the National Oil reserves and now he is saying we should use them.
This guy makes the flip-flop name on Kerry look trivial and pale in comarison!
If McCain wants negative he will get negative:
http://powwarrior.wordpress.com/2008/02/02/the-measure-of-the-man-why-john-mccain-doesnt-measure-up/
HHVT is likely to savage him.
It’s not “flip flopping” but compromise…it was Bush’s inability to compromise and be objective that has our country in such a crisis….being hard headed, narrow thinking, rigid, and alienating is not condusive to leading the free world. Bush is proof of that.
If we’re going to turn the country around, we HAVE to work together. All this splitting and partisan politics have almost destroyed our country.
LOL
Just last month he said that the reserves should be for a real emergency only and that this was not an emergency.
How is it compromise to now advocate for the reserves to be tapped to bring the price of gas down?
You liberals will believe and make up anything to cover for the obvious flip-flops of your candidate.
Meanwhile, we have had several days of threads going after McCain for being Negative and when Obama does it…. Silence.
Well Editors?
Which brings up another question.
If supply of more oil (drilling) is not the solution, then why is more oil (opening the resernves) a solution?
I thought the liberal argument was that more oil wouldn’t help?
We need to conserve and impliment new technology.
“When Obama is changing his stance on an issue every week it would be absurd not to go negative on him.”
Uhm, it is when you are John McCain. When you are a candidate who also has been changing stances on issues with great regularity (in fact, arguably more than your opponent), the old saying applies:
“He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.”
They’re just throwing a scare at the speculators. Must have worked. Something that would have an immediate impact can do that, something slightly impacting 18 yrs. down the road, not so much.
“When Obama is changing his stance on an issue every week it would be absurd not to go negative on him.
Just last month he says we shouldn’t be using the National Oil reserves and now he is saying we should use them.
This guy makes the flip-flop name on Kerry look trivial and pale in comarison!”
Funny you should mention that because McCain was opposed to offshore oil drilling. But once the campaign checks started flowing in from oil execs he changed his tune.
Obama said he’s willing to compromise on the oil issue, far from a flip-flop.
But on another note. McCain has been comparing Obama to the anti-christ in his “one” ad. If I remember my Christian mythology correctly doesn’t Jesus combat the anti-Christ? That would mean the bigamist, adulterer McCain is saying he’s Jesus. I suppose you could add blasphemer to his list of values. BTW, Jerry Falwell says the anti-christ is supposed to be a male, gay Jew. Good luck matching Obama to that one.
There was an election in Florida where the one opponent claimed the other was, heaven forbid, heterosexual. The one making the claim won, proving, once again, the majority of voters are too stupid to vote.
“Jerry Falwell says the anti-christ is supposed to be a male, gay Jew.”
I didn’t know Falwell was a male gay Jew. I always thought he was neutered.
Wahhh… negative campaigning. Not really even negative. McCain’s campaign has just done a good job of poking fun at the savior Obama. Americans generally don’t appreciate folks who take themselves too seriously. (See Al Gore and John Kerry)
Pat Buchanan pretty much nails the bad week that Obama has had, always one step behind McCain.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/08/05/mr_obama,_welcome_to_the_nfl!?page=full&comments=true
Link that works.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/08/05/mr_obama,_welcome_to_the_nfl!
Or not. Just scroll down the page to find the link if you want to read it. If not, who cares?
Why has Mccain gone negative? Because like a spoiled brat, that can’t get positive attention, he’ll settle for negative attention. At least someone’s noticing him, even if he has nothing meaningful to say.
truly liked coming upon this article.