The presidential election is turning (very) ugly, and there is probably no turning back. The McCain campaign wasted no time releasing a response to Obama’s ad on McCain’s eight (not seven) houses, and it did so in dramatic fashion. The RNC’s memo this morning suggested that this would be their response, and the GOP went all out, tying Barack Obama to Tony Resko as directly as possible:
“This is a housing problem,” says the ad, using the now-familiar image of Obama with that light brown background to suggest that this is the real Obama. The ad accuses Obama of having paid for his $1 million home thanks to Resko’s help in exchange of “political favors” and “$14 million of taxpayer money.” The ad goes on to note Rezko is now convicted and behind bars.
The ad is phrased as a direct response to Obama, but it could also function on its own, so it is still unclear if the McCain campaign is planning to launch this into the full network TV ad circuit or just place the ad on national cable (as Obama did). Either case, this puts the Rezko issue back on the table for the press to chew on, even though they already had one go at it in January when Hillary Clinton mentioned Rezko’s name (in much less dramatic terms) at a South Carolina debate. Had she not done that, this would likely have been the first time the press would have had to cover Rezko, making this a more perilous exercise for Obama.
But the Rezko ad pales in comparison to the 1-minute ad released by the “American Issues Project” that ties Obama to William Ayers. “What does he really believe,” asks the ad?
After describing the Weather Underground and William Ayers, the ad continues: “Barack Obama is friends with Ayers, defending him as, quote, ‘Respectable’ and ‘Mainstream. Obama’s political career was launched in Ayers’ home. And the two served together on a left-wing board. Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it? Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?”
The ad’s goal could not be more explicit, and this is the clearest attempt yet to define Obama as a Manchurian Candidate. It strokes voters’ perception of Obama as a mystery that is simply too dangerous to go for, a mystery so huge that Obama could in fact be an anarchist terrorist looking to get in power to bomb to destroy the Capitol. (The moderators of the ABC debate in April had already raised the Ayers connection.) The Washington Post fact-checking division provides some details as to the Obama-Ayers relationship, which it describes as a “tenuous” one.
I would not necessarily link to this ad if the group that is airing it had not indicated that it has some serious money to put behind it. This doesn’t seem to be simply intended for news shows, but the group says it will put $2.8 million behind it in Ohio and in Michigan. That’s a very significant sum - and if the ad buy is indeed that big (that figure could just be a declaration of intent) it should ensure that many voters see the ad many times.
We knew the Ayers and Rezko attacks were bound to come out, but perhaps not this early, this directly (especially Ayers) and on the same day. All that is missing is Reverend Wright, and Obama will be fighting the same accusations he addressed throughout the spring. These ads are the logical continuation of McCain’s “celebrity” attacks, and they are the core of McCain’s current argument: Obama speaks so well and has so much charisma that voters are not noticing what lies beneath, whether it is the inexperience or the radical politics. This strategy did not work for Hillary Clinton, but she conducted a much tamer version and her focus was the lack of substance rather than the extremism. The latter is sure to make more of an impact.
Both ads are exploiting the fact that Obama has been introduced only recently, and that his image is thus more easily malleable. What does hope represent, what is Obama’s religion, did he salute the troops, where was he born…? All these questions have gained traction partly because of Obama’s race and partly because he just got on the national stage a few years ago. It is easier to get voters to think “Oh, well, I thought he was a better guy but I guess I am wrong” than with a more established figure of whom voters have had a long-lasting impression.
At the same time, these two ads are going after two very different (and somewhat contradicting) portrayals of Obama. The Ayers connection seeks to paint him as a mysterious and extremist Manchurian candidate who could destroy America. The Rezko connection seeks to paint him as an all-too-familiar figure, the corruptible, ambitious politician who simply wants to gain power to gain money and influence. These two narratives don’t necessarily go together - but the GOP is looking to see which sticks.
Next to the Rezko and Ayers ads, Obama’s “seven houses” spot and his ads hitting McCain on the economy seem remarkably tame - though the Bush connection could be just as devastating than anything the GOP can say about Rezko, Ayers and Wright. Will the electorate think McCain is crossing the line? Or will these negatives ads do what negative ads are designed to - not care if the electorate thinks they are ugly, because they will still be influenced by their content? And how strongly should the Obama campaign push back? All these questions are surely being debated in Chicago right now.
Update: Two late addendum to the Rezko and Ayers stories:
- The Ayers ad might not run as is after all, as networks might be open to be sued for slander since there is no evidence that Ayers was involved in the Capitol bombing. Fox News of all channels has refused to run the spot.
- A federal judge has postponed Rezko’s sentencing from September 3rd to October 28th. Depending what success McCain has resurrecting the story now and what sentence Rezko receives, this could emerge as a problem for Obama one week from the election.
Really, the GOP is going to have to come up with some fresh material involving Ayers & Rezko in order to make it stick this time around…
The McCain ad is too late since Obama scored a direct hit on the house issue. Now the news cycle will move tomorrow to the VP pick, then Saturday to the first joint appearance, then Monday to the convention. McCain has “wasted” the Rezko issue (which as Taniel points out has been investigated earlier) and to try and reuse it later in September will get less reaction because it will no longer be new.
I agree that Rezko, Ayers, and (eventually) Wright are going to be used against Obama, but how effective it will be is uncertain. Its possible that the group doing the Ayers ad is attempting to become the Swift Boaters of 2008. One thing that makes it easier is that Obama is much less well known and therefore easier to attack on character issues, while McCain has his whole military thing and familiarity to innoloacte himself from character attacks (althrough it would be even more effect if Obama uses this during the Convention. The Hillary supporters whom he is still failing to attract could be swayed by Obama’s new aggressive tactics of calling McCain an elitist. Maybe his image will be tarnished, but its looking like the price that needs to be paid.
Let me ask everyone a question: What’s worse, being associated with Wright/Resko/Ayers or being in bed with Exxon/Chevron/BP/Texaco/Shell? McCain has some bloody hands, and that blood was at the expense of the middle class taxpayers.
Jim W,
People don’t like the oil companies, but they haven’t killed us (yet). Wright and Ayers in particular scare people greatly. They play to and add to the fears people already have about Obama. Although much of the Ayers ad is false or exaggerated, just the idea of it makes for the possibility to devestate Obama’s campaign.
However, many people already know about the alleged Ayers connection, so Obama can survive this, but he cannot let the ad go unanswered.
Joe from NC,
Very good point. My thoughts are that McCain’s ties to oil is much worse than some simple relationship between Obama and and a flawed person.
When it comes to crunch time, people vote by their wallet. Just look at McCain’s voting record as Senator.
“When it comes to crunch time, people vote by their wallet.”
- #1. If that was true, Kerry would be president. People vote with their gut, not their wallet.
- #2. McCain already leads Obama on the gas/oil price issue by advocating the opening of off-shore drilling, which the public supports in huge numbers.
TJ,
You missed the point. McCain has “personally profited” from big oil. People are paying $4 a gallon for gas, and they have guys like McCain to thank.
Your point #1 really doesn’t apply to my argument. Back in 2004, we did not have the inflationary pressures we have now. Big difference between 2004 and 2008.
“- #1. If that was true, Kerry would be president. People vote with their gut, not their wallet.”
The economy was in good shape in 2004–low unemployment, low inflation, etc. In 2008, everything has gone to hell. Your point is unclear.
“McCain has “personally profited” from big oil.”
- How has “big oil” effected McCain’s personal finances? That’s a pretty serious accusation. Please cite sources.
“The economy was in good shape in 2004–low unemployment, low inflation, etc. ”
- You wouldn’t have know that from listening to Democrats back in ‘04. That aside, enery prices seem to be a leading economic concern among voters now, and McCain is doing well there.
TJ,
If you don’t believe that McCain profited from big oil, you are either naive or a Republican. Probably both.
No sources cited. Just like I expected. Go back to Daily Kos. Thanks.
TJ,
Daily Kos? That’s an intelligent comment. Obviously you have a problem about the truth–McCain has taken money from big oil. Want evidence? Why don’t you “listen” to McCain. He’s admitted to it.
Please cite your source, like a link to a news report or video clip where he “admitted to it”. You typing words onto a blog comment does not constitute “truth”.
TJ–I have nothing to prove to you. Enjoy Minnesota in September.
“I have nothing to prove to you. ”
- Because you can’t prove a lie. Thanks, AL.
TJ,
First thing–you don’t know me. If you did, you sure as hell would not call me a liar. The truth of the matter is that you are flat out wrong. The truth of the matter is that you may have more problem with Obama’s skin color than you do his politics. Elvis has left the building.
“The truth of the matter is that you are flat out wrong. ”
- Yet, you’ve still provided no evidence to support that.
“The truth of the matter is that you may have more problem with Obama’s skin color than you do his politics.”
- Backed into a corner, you pull out the faux-racist card. How sad for you, Al.
“Elvis has left the building.”
- Along with your credibility.
Have a great day!!!
I am apalled that the US is even considering electing a man who sat in church for 20 years without knowing his pastor was anti american, is married to a woman who was never prouid to be an american, has the remotest contact with a professed communist and head of an organization which at any point was committes to overthrowing our government, throw that in with being financed in his bid for congress by a criminal and former bomber of govenment buildings and we can kiss our government good bye.