Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Marc Armbinder reports on a study that shows that the McCain campaign is showing nothing but negative attack ads on Obama now:
According to the latest figures from Ken Goldstein and the Wisconsin Advertising Project, the presidential campaigns are spending nearly $29 million a week to persuade YOU on television that the other guy is bad. All of McCain's advertising is of the contrast or negative variety; about a third of Obama's is.
How does John McCain feel about that? Let's ask the John McCain who appeared on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer in Feb. 2000:
"I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."
I'm guessing he hopes now it will be later rather than sooner.
Politics
Comments
Palin on the tenor of the campaign
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 13, 2008 9:37 AM
Ok people - a quick poll.
Based on the quote posted above, is Sarah Palin drunk or delusional? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 13, 2008 9:52 AM
@ DJ: can I vote "YES" to both?
Posted by: Umlud | October 13, 2008 10:08 AM
I vote c) knows she can say any bullshit no matter how obviously false and the loyal Republicans will either believe it or go along with pretending to believe it.
Posted by: jpf | October 13, 2008 10:09 AM
I vote drunk. Joe Sixpack drinks Miller Lite while watching baseball with his family around the kitchen table, dontcha know?
Posted by: Kaydon | October 13, 2008 10:10 AM
I vote delusional. Can you maintain a drunken state for 5+ weeks?
Posted by: Odie | October 13, 2008 10:13 AM
@Henrod:
Ah, that's quite in-line with recent McCain ads that blame "liberal congressional Democrats" for the current banking crisis. Blind ambition? Deregulation? Uh-huh, yeah ...
Whenever I see a political ad, negative ads especially, everything they accuse the other guy of being or doing can be ascribed to the guy running the ad.
It's the old joke: How do you know a politician is lying?
Posted by: John H. | October 13, 2008 10:15 AM
To all - Yes, ANY response is acceptable. Just a long as is has: a) an amusement factor & b) A reasoned thought behind it.
Odie - Hell yeah! How else can you explain the McCain Campaign? ;)
John H - Check to see their still breathing! -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 13, 2008 10:27 AM
Right about now the imPalinator is sounding like an emphysemic Puffing-Billy. Maybe she'll hyperventilate and pass-out soon. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 13, 2008 10:34 AM
Regarding the Palin quote, if this is the high road I'd hate too see how low the low road goes. I'm thinking it would include Photoshop and some barnyard animals. "Obama, wrong for your sheep, wrong for America."
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 13, 2008 10:39 AM
Yes. In fact, it's not all that difficult. Um, so I hear. Anyway, it's fairly simple, the McCain campaign only runs Positive arrack ads.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 13, 2008 11:00 AM
I think this may be what FactCheck was talking about when it said the report doesn't conclude that all the ads are negative, just almost all.
While that appears at first to be an unimportant difference, it was enough for the negative ad claim to be labelled false, giving the McCain group an out.
Posted by: JuliaL | October 13, 2008 11:01 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 13, 2008 11:08 AM
Herod - guess Sarah's the running-mate of that rogue Senator from Arizona! :D -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 13, 2008 11:22 AM
Ooo, here's an idea for a new Obama ad. What do you think of, "Obama, 64% more substance than McCain" after showing this report? ;-)
(Yes I know math doesn't really work like that. But since you can't divide by zero, I figure it's good enough.)
Posted by: Abby Normal | October 13, 2008 11:39 AM
That's the eternal question about Palin: is she lying, or is she too stupid to realize that she's lying?
Maybe she'll get back to us on that. Right after she gets back to Couric on the regulations thingy.
Posted by: Coriolis | October 13, 2008 11:58 AM
Refusal to fight dirty might cost Obama the election. Negative campaigning *works*. Even lying works.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | October 13, 2008 1:24 PM
All of McCain's advertising is of the contrast or negative variety; about a third of Obama's is.
And of course even this is false equivalence. Obama's ads typically highlight McCain's actual record and actions, while McCain's ads typically highlight falsehoods about Obama.
Posted by: QrazyQat | October 13, 2008 1:56 PM
More antics at McKlan rally:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9b6_1223842936
Posted by: Deepsix | October 13, 2008 1:59 PM
Suricou said:
"Refusal to fight dirty might cost Obama the election. Negative campaigning *works*. Even lying works."
I know - it's amazing, isn't it? I keep waiting for the polls to tighten up - because negative ads DO work - but so far they still seem to be widening.
Will this be the first time in living memory that big scale negative ads don't work?
And if they don't work in this election, why not?
Herod - amazing link there! NOW I see what Heddle sees in her. ;D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 13, 2008 3:50 PM
Maybe the attack ads would work if they were done better...
ifyouseesomething
BTW - This site used to be alienlovespredator. Friends for people who have friends.
Posted by: eddie | October 13, 2008 4:15 PM
PS - Don't let heddle see this...
Sarah Palin's Secret Blog
He'll go apeshit to top the batshit he already got.
HT - http://www.therealterrorists.com
Posted by: eddie | October 13, 2008 4:33 PM
Sorry. Broken link above ought to be;
Sarah Palin's Secret Blog
Posted by: eddie | October 13, 2008 4:46 PM
It would really, really help if they were something anyone with an IQ over room temperature couldn't dismiss.
Really, some of those ads were just LAAAAAAMMMMME.
Posted by: gwangung | October 13, 2008 5:22 PM
Which in turn would help if any of the target audience had an IQ over room temperature.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 13, 2008 6:38 PM
"Regarding the Palin quote, if this is the high road I'd hate too see how low the low road goes. I'm thinking it would include Photoshop and some barnyard animals. "Obama, wrong for your sheep, wrong for America."
Abby Normal:
I'm thinking "ObaMandingo--The Movie" will be "greenlighted" before the weekend.
Posted by: democommie | October 13, 2008 8:49 PM
I'm guessing he hopes now it will be later rather than sooner.
I dunno. I could accuse him of hypocrisy there. But in this case, given how well that approach worked for him in 2000, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and presume the experience simply changed his mind about the "good judgment of the voters."
Posted by: Nobody Important | October 14, 2008 12:05 AM
Over on 538, it was noted that McCain's attack ads reduced the "Obama favourables" by around 1%, but they lowered the "McCain favorables" by around 2%.
A dozen or so more these "victories" and McCain won't even manage to get his mother to vote for him. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 14, 2008 1:29 AM
One reason the attack ads aren't working is because they don't fit with narratives people are willing to believe; a lot of them are only plausible if you buy that a wide swathe of people are evil - but the people willing to believe that are already voting Republican.
Another reason is that attack ads are best used on an opponent who isn't firmly defined in the public's mind already; but after the first debate, Obama was pretty well defined in the mind of most of the voters who care.
Yet another reason is that the main way negative ads work is by driving independents away from BOTH sides; if you're stronger with your base, that's a winning tactic. However, Obama and McCain are both doing about the same among their parties ... and Dems have a significant registration advantage. Obama wins if it's a base election.
Yet ANOTHER reason is that negative ads only work for so long - and Obama's been being attacked since, oh, February, and the attacks have been shifting over time.
And one more reason they're not working; people are too focused on the economy to care about the culture war crap that negative ads are aimed at.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | October 14, 2008 5:27 AM
All these explanations are good. Andrew Sullivan came up with another possibility here:
http://tinyurl.com/3nwtqk
In brief, Sullivan's point is this: Obama knows that keeping quiet about negative campaign ads will cost him a few points at the polls in the short term. What he's counting on is that his opponents will become so frustrated by his refusal to take the bait that they'll OK nastier and nastier negative ads until they turn voters off. It worked with Hillary Clinton, and now it's working with McCain and Palin.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | October 14, 2008 6:33 AM
Slightly OT, but interesting...
What do you think of this article: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain ?
(Or this one, for that matter: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23318320/mad_dog_palin)
They are obviously character assassination pieces, but I'm curious to see how much is actually true.
Posted by: Nothing Sacred | October 14, 2008 11:55 AM