July 23, 2008

7/23: Another Foreign Policy Gaffe?

Liberal bloggers are hammering John McCain for incorrectly asserting that the Iraq troop surge "began the Anbar Awakening" (in reality, the Anbar Awakening began months before the surge strategy was implemented). Liberal bloggers are describing McCain's statement as a "breathtaking" mistake that "disqualifies him from being president". They're also tying McCain's remark to his other Iraq-related misstatements -- such as confusing Shiites and Sunnis and making an incorrect statement about troop levels -- and arguing that the presumptive GOP nominee is ignorant of basic facts about Iraq.

The Politico noted yesterday that McCain's misstatements "have been concentrated in what should be his area of expertise: foreign affairs." It's a testament to how much credibility McCain possesses on matters of foreign affairs (deservedly or undeservedly, depending on your perspective) that these gaffes haven't appeared to hurt his campaign in any significant way. Given that Barack Obama does not have McCain's years of political and military experience, these sorts of mistakes would likely do considerable damage to the Dem candidate's presidential hopes.

MCCAIN: All In The Timing

Liberal bloggers are criticizing McCain for incorrectly asserting that the surge strategy "began the Anbar Awakening," in which Sunni sheiks revolted against al-Qaida in Anbar province. In reality, the Anbar Awakening "got under way before President [George W.] Bush announced in January 2007 his decision to flood Iraq with tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops":

"'I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened,' McCain told 'CBS Evening News,' adding that Col. Sean MacFarland was contacted by a major Sunni sheik.

'Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening,' McCain said, referring to the U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Anbar province. 'I mean, that's just a matter of history.'

The problem with McCain's statement -- as Obama's campaign quickly noted -- was that the awakening got under way before President Bush announced in January 2007 his decision to flood Iraq with tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to help combat violence."

• TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "John McCain has been caught in a big foreign policy slip, saying during his interview with CBS Evening News that the surge was responsible for the Anbar Awakening, an event that first happened before the surge."
• Firedoglake's Spencer Ackerman: "For McCain to say that the Anbar Awakening is the product of the surge is either a lie or professional malpractice for a presidential candidate who is staking his election on his allegedly superior Iraq judgment."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "Note to self: if I ever run for President and decide to stake everything on my understanding of one thing, I should familiarize myself with the basic facts about it."
• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "It's simply breathtaking. When it comes to his signature issue, McCain is little more than a fool. He's spouting obvious and demonstrable nonsense with the kind of confidence that only comes with abject stupidity."
• Democracy Arsenal's Ilan Goldenberg: "John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as I'm concerned, disqualifies him from being president. It is so appalling and so factually wrong that I'm actually sitting here wondering who McCain's advisers are. This isn't some gaffe where he talks about the Iraq-Pakistan border. It's a real misunderstanding of what has happened in Iraq over the past year. It is even more disturbing because according to John McCain, Iraq is the central front in the 'war on terror.' If we are going to have an Iraq-centric policy, he should at least understand what he is talking about."
• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "This specific timing issue aside, we can see here the larger point that McCain doesn't actually seem to know what the surge was. But the surge troops were overwhelmingly sent to increase the level of manpower in Baghdad (i.e., not where the Anbar Awakening happened) and almost certainly (along with a tactical shift to more of a population protection mission) deserves credit for reducing the bloodshed in Baghdad by stabilizing the borders between now-segregated neighborhoods. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that it had nothing to do what happened in Anbar, but it wasn't a major factor, and certainly didn't make anything happen in September 2006."

The Huffington Post's Seth Colter Walls notes that McCain hasn't always been wrong about the timing of the Anbar Awakening: "Especially notable is that McCain himself was not always confused as to the start date of the Awakening, and whether or not it was caused by the surge. Fresh off one of his much-touted trips to Iraq, McCain delivered remarks to the conservative American Enterprise Institute on January 5, 2007. Alongside fellow Senator Joe Lieberman, McCain specifically advocated for the newly proposed surge, and cited the already-in-progress turning of Sunni sheiks as a reason to send more troops."

MCCAIN II: A Total Collapse?

Liberal bloggers are portraying the events of the past few days (specifically, the Iraqi government's announcement that it shares Obama's desire to have U.S. troops leave Iraq by 2010) as a significant blow to McCain's chances:

• The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "[McCain had] spent several weeks with the main theme of his campaign being, quite literally, to criticize Barack Obama for not having been physically present in Iraq recently. This (of course) got Obama to go to Iraq, thus setting up a dilemma. Either Obama would survey the 'progress' in Iraq and change his position, thus making him a flip-flopper, or else he would refuse to change his position, thus making him obstinate and out of touch with reality. But instead of either of those things happening, Obama went to Iraq and Iraqi leaders said he'd been right all along! That's about as close to 'game, set, match' as you get in terms of real world events influencing your political campaign. What's more, given the domestic situation and John McCain's inability to talk about domestic issues persuasively, he can't afford to play for a draw on Iraq."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "Josh [Marshall] and I were discussing a little while ago just how complete the Republican collapse on foreign policy has been in the short span of just a few weeks. It's remarkable and hard to think of any recent historical parallels. The implications for John McCain are hard to overstate."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Between John McCain's adoption of Obama's Afghanistan policy and now Iraq's endorsement of Obama's Iraq policy, there's a subtext that underpins Obama's entire trip to the Middle East: Obama was right, John McCain was wrong. [...] The beauty of this message is that it reinforces one of the central themes of Obama's campaign, which is that judgment is more important than experience and as Obama's slam dunk of a trip coincides with even more McCain stumbles (umm, what Iraq-Pakistan border, exactly?) McCain is aiding and abetting the destruction of the only thing he had left in this election."

MCCAIN III: Taking The Gloves Off

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing McCain for telling a NH audience, "It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." Bloggers are arguing that McCain's attack on Obama is "outrageous" and that it contradicts his earlier promise to "run a respectful campaign focused on the issues":

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "Yep, because nothing says 'respectful campaign' like accusing your rival of hoping America loses a war in order to serve his personal ambition."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "McCain accuses the Democratic nominee for President of wanting to 'lose the war.' Not a surrogate, not a 527 -- John McCain said that. [...] It's a truly classy, relentlessly positive, issue-focused campaign they're running over there."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "John McCain basically just accused Barack Obama of treason. Had we done that to McCain, just imagine the fireworks. Will the media report how outrageous and desperate McCain has become, or will they do their usual he-said-she-said and present McCain's 'argument' as something worthy of honest debate?"
• digby: "Whatever you do, don't impugn this man's character. He did something worthy 40 years ago which allows him to say any nasty thing he pleases and then lead the entire political establishment in a group whine if anyone calls him on it."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Does anyone still doubt [McCain] is any different from the current occupants of the executive branch? This was inevitable when he got folks like [Michael] Goldfarb and [Karl] Rove apparatchiks running [his] campaign."

Time's Joe Klein calls McCain's statement "shockingly unpresidential": "This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad."

MCCAIN IV: Pot, Meet Kettle

After the McCain camp launched a web video alleging that the media is "in love" with Obama, liberal bloggers are pushing back, arguing that McCain is the last person on earth who should complain about unfair media coverage:

• Benen: "Well, I've finally seen everything. John McCain, who enjoys more media affection than any political figure in recent memory, has taken to complaining that reporters are overly fond of Barack Obama. [...] Honestly, hearing the McCain campaign whine about someone getting fawning media coverage is a bit like hearing Barry Bonds accuse someone getting an unfair advantage by abusing steroids."
• Ackerman: "Is there anything more stupid or transparently cynical than John 'media creation' McCain accusing the media of biased coverage?"
• The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins: "Senator John McCain is running a pair of ads that say -- get this -- that the media is 'in love' with Barack Obama. I know, I know...take a moment to cradle your poor head tenderly in your hands and note the attendant irony of the candidate best known for courting the press, straight up, as his 'base,' complaining bitterly about this. The press' great affinity for John McCain is well-known. There's a book about it. Even an RSS feed."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "As you may know, the McCain campaign has just put out a web video called 'Obama Love' a mash-up of clips of various TV commentators gushing over Obama. But let's remember we've all seen the McCain Love video. It's called watching the last dozen years of political television. Indeed, the political press's reckless and giddy love for McCain is so universally acknowledged that McCain himself has often joked about the press as his 'base.' So what do we have here but a candidate who can't brook the idea of not campaigning on a wave of press adulation? And now he's framing his whole candidacy around a campaign of strategic whining about the claim that the political press is treating his younger opponent like he's been treated for over a decade. He's got the preening and envy of a sore losing runner-up for prom queen."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Yes, Obama is getting some great coverage on the trip that McCain pushed and pushed. But, lest we forget, it was McCain who got the Dunkin Donuts with sprinkles (his favorites) from AP's Liz Sidoti and Ron Fournier. That incident alone negates any complaining by McCain -- ever."

Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin also accuses McCain of hypocrisy: "I agree with the message [of the videos], of course. And the vids are well-executed. But doesn't anyone at McCain Central feel the least bit silly mocking the same suck-up media that McCain himself basked in so warmly until just very recently and spent his entire career wooing? Free piece of advice to the lovelorn Maverick: Perhaps McCain should leave the media mockery to others who haven't had their lips planted on the MSM's backside for decades."

OBAMA: A Propaganda Show?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the media's coverage of Obama's foreign trip and arguing that the media is trying to help Obama win:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Throughout Obama's Middle East and European trip, the media has willingly participated in a show and orchestration of propaganda, passing out staged and orchestrated images of Barack Obama attempting to boost his image. [...] The media has become the self-appointed propaganda master for Barack Obama's campaign. The media has become Leni Riefenstahl. Therein lies the danger. By becoming Obama's propaganda master, the media is failing to ask the tough questions in its quest to do their candidate no harm. And that is a disservice to the public. Of course the public already knows it. And that is the Achilles heel John McCain can exploit."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post proclaims that Obama has, by virtue of his trip to the Middle East, demonstrated his 'gravitas.' [...] Obama's lack of experience in foreign affairs is exceeded only by his cynicism and inconstancy. Both have been on display throughout Obama's current trip, most grotesquely in his admission that he places concern over 'the political debate' ahead of implementing the policy that helped us avert defeat in Iraq. Obama's inexperience, cynicism, and inconstancy represent the major, and perhaps the only, barrier to his quest for the presidency. So it's not surprising when reporters like Cillizza attempt to create a different narrative, even when they have only the candidate's platitudes to rely on."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Andrea Mitchell is not, of course, a tool for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. That doesn't prevent her from properly pointing out that Barack Obama's world tour is the Potemkin Publicity Stunt To End All Potemkin Publicity Stunts. The thing that interests me is whether at some point in time, other journalists will remember what it is like to be prideful of their profession and skeptical of the latest messianic political campaign to come down the pike. It is obvious that the Obama campaign is manipulating the media -- indeed, the campaign is being utterly open and notorious about doing so. It will perhaps stop doing so and start treating the media -- and through the media, the voting public -- with more respect and decency once the media calls the Obama campaign on its shenanigans. I await the moment when people join Andrea Mitchell in doing just that."

NRO's Lisa Schiffren writes a post about "the media's anti-substance bias and what John McCain should do about it": "Can John McCain ever manage to compete with Barack Obama in a news media culture which is driven by the standards of commercial entertainment, not the gravitas that, at important moments such as a presidential race, should be the tone? To ask is to answer, as they say. McCain will win this race -- if he does -- based on the considered alternative he offers to empty dazzle and the 'change' mantra. But, for that message to be heard, my inner speechwriter says that McCain desperately needs to punch up his style and not be afraid of a little controversy and polarization of the electorate. I like his calm, controlled tone, and the wry humor. But irony doesn't go over well with crowds. And the straight-forward, informational presentation only works with people who want real information. (Sigh.) It looks dull next to a well-lighted, highly staged rhetorical rock concert. A speech coach should be on the campaign plane, helping broaden the range of inflection the candidate uses to present his ideas. (Hillary [Clinton] learned. Get her coach.)"

OBAMA II: Germans Can't Vote For You, Barack!

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the Obama camp for designing German-language flyers for Thursday's event in Berlin:

• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "This is pretty extraordinary. A candidate for the American Presidency is using flyers printed in German to turn people out for his campaign rally in Berlin on Thursday. [...] This isn't just some sober, high-minded foreign policy speech, part of a foreign trip occurring under the auspices of his official Senate office. It is a campaign rally occuring on foreign soil. They are using the same tactics to turn out Germans to an event as they would to any rally right here in America. [...] The sea of Germans drummed up by the Obama campaign will be used as props to tell us Americans how to vote, and the campaign isn't trying to pretend otherwise. That's breathtakingly arrogant, and par for the course for Barack Obama."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Team Obama insists the Berlin speech is not a campaign rally. Yesterday, they had advisers giving background briefings insisting, 'it's not going to be a political speech.' Makes one wonder why Obama for America is printing up flyers in German to turn people out."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Is Obama running for president of the United States or the world?"
• Glenn Reynolds answers Lopez's question: "He's not running for President of the United States, he's running for President of Earth."

Townhall's Matt Lewis sees an inconsistency: "Obama requires attendees of all rallies in the US to get tickets, and there have obviously been suggestions that that means that people who are not fervent Obama supporters are excluded. But he's OK with letting anyone (literally, any random dude off the street) into his rally in Germany? [...] Does that suggest he's more concerned with openness and transparency with Germans than he is Americans?"

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey thinks the Obama camp is "amazingly tone-deaf": "The Obama campaign wants to hold a political rally in Berlin, apparently to impress upon American voters how popular Obama is among Europeans. [...] Their political ear [is] amazingly tone-deaf. If they think a massive campaign rally in Berlin will convince anyone but the most ardent Leftists in America to vote for Obama, they really need a shake-up in their campaign staff."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Media Attention Cuts Both Ways

The Politico's Ben Smith responds to the McCain camp's claim that the press favors Obama (h/t Patrick Appel):

"In truth, and while there are other dynamics going on, the central issue is just sheer volume. There's vastly more public interest in, and coverage of, Obama. His rise is a better, newer, story. That means that McCain's message has been muted; but his missteps are too. He's been able, in particular, to make it this far with a domestic policy agenda whose sheer vagueness wouldn't have made it through the Democratic primary.

The same dynamic holds for Obama: The interest in him has allowed him to turn this week, for instance, into an extended television show about his travels. But his errors are also magnified. And so the stakes were far higher for today's press conference -- which he aced -- than for any event of McCain's.

It isn't clear to me that this is a dynamic that entirely favors Obama, though it is one he has learned to work. On one hand, these are situations he largely controls, and on his turf. On the other, there's a risk of the election becoming a referendum on the challenger, rather than the extremely unpopular incumbent party."

LEST WE FORGET: Sometimes Honesty's Not The Best Policy

From Overheard in the Office:

Supervisor: "This was supposed to be done hours ago, what is taking so long?"
Employee: "I was too busy working on my resume so I can get a better job."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at July 23, 2008 01:52 PM