McCain Campaign Manager: Smear Campaigns Work Even If They're Not True.....

[Mr. Peabody]

I guess he learned a thing or two from Rove's attacks on McCain in 2000. It's interesting to note that he says that Bush & Co. ran a smear campaign in 2000, because they knew the momentum was on McCain's side. It's also interesting that he would call on the Kerry-Bush campaign not to engage in such tactics.

The anatomy of a smear campaign

By Richard H. Davis | March 21, 2004

Every presidential campaign has its share of hard-ball political tactics, but nothing is more discomforting than a smear campaign. The deeply personal, usually anonymous allegations that make up a smear campaign are aimed at a candidate's most precious asset: his reputation. The reason this blackest of the dark arts is likely to continue is simple: It often works.

The premise of any smear campaign rests on a central truth of politics: Most of us will vote for a candidate we like and respect, even if we don't agree with him on every issue. But if you can cripple a voter's basic trust in a candidate, you can probably turn his vote. The idea is to find some piece of personal information that is tawdry enough to raise doubts, repelling a candidate's natural supporters.

All campaigns do extensive research into their opponent's voting record and personal life. This so-called "oppo research" involves searching databases, combing through press clips, and asking questions of people who know (and preferably dislike) your opponent. It's not hard to turn up something a candidate would rather not see on the front page of The Boston Globe.

It's not necessary, however, for a smear to be true to be effective. The most effective smears are based on a kernel of truth and applied in a way that exploits a candidate's political weakness.

Having run Senator John McCain's campaign for president, I can recount a textbook example of a smear made against McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 presidential primary. We had just swept into the state from New Hampshire, where we had racked up a shocking, 19-point win over the heavily favored George W. Bush. What followed was a primary campaign that would make history for its negativity.

In South Carolina, Bush Republicans were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The situation was ripe for a smear.

It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"

Campaigns have various ways of dealing with smears. They can refute the lies, or they can ignore them and run the risk of the smear spreading. But "if you're responding, you're losing." Rebutting tawdry attacks focuses public attention on them, and prevents the campaign from talking issues.

We chose to address the attacks by trying to get the media to focus on the dishonesty of the allegations and to find out who was making them. We also pledged to raise the level of debate by refusing to run any further negative ads -- a promise we kept, though it probably cost us the race. We never did find out who perpetrated these smears, but they worked: We lost South Carolina by a wide margin.

The only way to stop the expected mud-slinging in 2004 is for both President Bush and Senator Kerry to publicly order their supporters not to go there. But if they do, their behavior would be the exception, not the rule.

[JoeChalupa]

This is not news. It is the norm of the republican party.

[Ya Vez]

I am sure the democrats have never been accused of a smear campaign.. just ask hillary and bill when the confronted lord obama...

[Ignignokt]

This is not news. It is the norm of the republican party.

politics is not for babies, i guess you never heard of the October surprise.

[boutons_]

McJerk has not yet begun to smear.

As nasty as it has been, so far only lightweight stuff.

His Rove protege/hatchet man is right. Smearing and lying works well, because enough American voters are ing ignorant and superficial.

McJerk said his campaign would be civil. He ing lied.

[Gino]

This is not news. It is the norm of the republican party.

Show me the republican equivalent of Michael Moore.

[ElNono]

Show me the republican equivalent of Michael Moore.

Ufff, there's a long list... Hannity, Bill O-Reilly... that they don't make a movie doesn't mean they're any less of a troll...

[xrayzebra]

Show me the republican equivalent of Michael Moore.

Or moveon.org. General Betray Us. You know boutons favorite website.

[Wild Cobra]

Ufff, there's a long list... Hannity, Bill O-Reilly... that they don't make a movie doesn't mean they're any less of a troll...

You're joking, right?

The right to my knowledge, the right has no equivalent to Michael Moore-on. At least not anyone who is admired by the rest of the right. None of the conservative pundits stoop to the levels of propaganda he does. Almost everything he says can be verifies as distortions or flat out lies, and the lib s eat it up.

Care to find some comparisons of accuracy checks?

[boutons_]

"None of the conservative pundits stoop to the levels of propaganda he does."

Inanity, O'Reilly, Buchanan, Beck, Kristol, Dobbs, etc, etc. are far worse because they present themselves as serious commentators. Moore is a movie maker. Apples and oranges.

[ElNono]

You're joking, right?

The right to my knowledge, the right has no equivalent to Michael Moore-on. At least not anyone who is admired by the rest of the right. None of the conservative pundits stoop to the levels of propaganda he does. Almost everything he says can be verifies as distortions or flat out lies, and the lib s eat it up.

Care to find some comparisons of accuracy checks?

Come On!!! I don't personally like Michael Moore myself, but watching Bill or Hannity is amusing as . Anytime somebody is about to bring a good counterpoint they get cut out or yanked out the air entirely.
And you can't be serious about fact checking? None of these guys work with facts, just opinion. The sad part, is that as much as Michael Moore, they try to pass it as fact. And FWIW, they're no different than the Lou Dobbs of the world out there.
That said, I regard those TV channels as comedy, not actual news. Pretty much as Michael Moore movies.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You're joking, right?

The right to my knowledge, the right has no equivalent to Michael Moore-on. At least not anyone who is admired by the rest of the right. None of the conservative pundits stoop to the levels of propaganda he does. Almost everything he says can be verifies as distortions or flat out lies, and the lib s eat it up.

Care to find some comparisons of accuracy checks?

Wow you just desribed hush limbaugh to the T!

And the xray's of the world eat it up!

[George Gervin's Afro]

LIMBAUGH: Explaining why the Democrats wanted to "sabotage" President Bush with the 1990 budget deal: "Now, here is my point. In 1990, George Bush was president and was enjoying a 90 percent plus approval rating on the strength of our victories in the Persian Gulf War and Cold War." (ToldYou So, p. 304)

REALITY: In October 1990, when the budget deal was concluded the Gulf War had not yet been fought.

LIMBAUGH: On the Gulf War: "Everybody in the world was aligned with the United States except who? The United States Congress." (TV show, 4/18/94)

REALITY: Both houses of Congress voted to authorize the U.S. to use force against Iraq.

LIMBAUGH: On Bosnia:

"For the first time in military history, U.S. military personnel are not under the command of United States generals." (TV show, 4/18/94)

REALITY: That's news to the Pentagon. "How far back do you want to go?" asked Commander Joe Gradisher, a Pentagon spokesperson. "Americans served under Lafayette in the Revolutionary war." Gradisher pointed out several famous foreign commanders of U.S. troops, including France's Marshall Foch, in overall command of U.S. troops in World War I. In World War II, Britain's General Montgomery led U.S. troops in Europe and North Africa, while another British General, Lord Mountbatten, commanded the China-Burma-India theatre.

This is the tip of the tip of the ice berg. All you right wingers have the balls to blame dems when your hero is the biggest liar of them all!!!

[possessed]

American voters are ing ignorant and superficial.

Obama is counting on it.

[Gino]

O'Reilly, Hannity etc. are the conservative equivalent of Bill Maher, Randy Rhodes etc.

The point was that "smearing" isn't confined to one party. Both sides are equally bad at putting out sub-truths, but liberals like to believe that they're above it.

[Anti.Hero]

Why is this even a story? This is politics. This is the norm. This will not change.

yawn.

[ducks]

the liberal media still sucks donkeys

[Wild Cobra]

This is the tip of the tip of the ice berg. All you right wingers have the balls to blame dems when your hero is the biggest liar of them all!!!

From the thousands of statements he has made over the years, yes, you can find some that are wrong. He is wrong very seldom however. The right pundits share a level of correct accounting that the left can never achieve.

Again, with anyone you can find fault. I challenge you to look at the frequency.