Most polls tell us that Americans have a tremendous aversion to negative campaigns. What these polls fail to explain is how Americans define “negative.” It probably goes something like this: any ugly or disparaging truth about my candidate.
So until those running for office begin to voluntarily divulge their own misdeeds, bad votes, devious dealings and shady alliances, negative ads remain advantageous for voters.
As the economic news — fairly or not — has provided Barack Obama the momentum this past month, John McCain has decided to bring the Illinois senator’s shady associations to the forefront. This promises to be spectacularly “negative” — and even somewhat true. But will it matter?
Former President Bill Clinton was recently asked by Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren: “What is the difference between an association with someone like David Duke and someone like Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright?” Clinton, as suave as they come, fumbled for a several moments, before he finally stating that “we don’t have to go there” and moved on to more comfortable environs.
The answer, of course, is, that anyone linked to Duke would never have been running for national office in the first place.
But Van Susteren could have asked an even more pertinent question: If McCain had a 20-year relationship with a disreputable character, would the Obama campaign make hay of the situation? Of course it would.
Associations — and in some cases political affiliations — are valid subjects for voters to chew on. Bringing it up is not a “smear,” nor is it a “distraction,” nor is it racist (though a few pundits have contorted themselves trying to prove it so). Your acquaintances speak to your judgment and character.
A terrifying thought, isn’t it?
It was The New York Times that recently explored the relationship between onetime terrorist Bill Ayers, Obama and their time at the Woods Foundation and Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $160 million “philanthropic” venture for city public schools. Yet, The Times was soft on the specifics.
It was the Manhattan Institute’s Sol Stern who summed up Ayers’ philosophy best: “Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is a bit like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer.” Worse, Ayers, a grisly caricature of ’60s fanaticism, has shown no remorse for his violent activities. “Guilty as hell, free as a bird — America is a great country,” he once famously gloated.
Would you sit on a board with Ayers? It’s a fair question. Obama first claimed that Ayers was a simply a guy in his neighborhood. Yet, this week CNN reported that “the relationship between Obama and Ayers went much deeper, ran much longer, and was much more political than Obama said.”
No worries. When Obama sees a distraction, he dispatches it, tout de suite.
On Tony Rezko, a convicted felon and political ally: “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew.” On the infamous Rev. Wright: “The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago.” On Ayers, Obama’s top political adviser says the candidate “didn’t know” about the terrorism thing. (Later, they acknowledged the two served on a board after Obama knew.)
Even with his soaring intellect and transcendent abilities, Obama sure can be clueless. Why not just lay it out, honestly? “You know, I came up in Chicago politics. The place is lousy with crooks and radicals. I did what I had to. You would, too.”
OK, I dream.
Though it’s fair game, as a political tactic (or is it strategy?), McCain’s late-game offensive won’t be enough to make up the ground he’s lost.
After all, Obama doesn’t sound or act like Ayers or Wright. And if a candidate remains ideologically and politically aligned with our worldview, we are apt to forgive plenty: unseemly associations, Oval Office peccadilloes, deficits, incompetence and even some negative campaigning.
Contact David Harsanyi at 303-954-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
