Sneak preview: The DNC’s attack ads against McCain

posted at 8:56 pm on February 11, 2008 by Allahpundit

Via Ambinder. By the end of the campaign, these soundbites will be as familiar as Romney defending legalized abortion and opposing “Reagan/Bush” in 1994. Explaining that Maverick’s promises of an “easy” victory extended to the initial invasion and not necessarily to an occupation won’t cut much ice, especially paired with clips of Obama’s pre-war warnings of Sunni/Shiite discord, but that’s how the debate will shape up so we might as well prepare for it. Besides, we have some ammo too: Every new sign of AQI in distress is an occasion to revisit the left’s leading lights calling months ago for Bush to abandon Iraq to its fate.

Needless to say, in this as in all things, running against Hillary (who voted for war) will be much easier than running against the Messiah.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wait the DNC is going to say that the US isnt veiwed as liberators ? Just sow them the Iraqis voting with their purple dyed fingers.

Yes it went bad soon after that but Mac can argue that is because Iran stepped in to screw things up the same Iran that Obami has no problems with sitting down with.

William Amos on February 11, 2008 at 9:00 PM

Yeah, well, we’re not talking about how we got there but what we’re going to do now that we’re there…and in substantially better shape than the past few years.

Obama still wants to leave tomorrow come hell or high water. And if he wins and does pull out, hell, without the high water, is what he’ll get.

Grantman on February 11, 2008 at 9:03 PM

the invasion was easy. it’s the occupation that’s been so damn tough.

but who cares about context.

locke on February 11, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Is that all they got? I like our chances more and more the closer we get to november?

THE CHOSEN ONE on February 11, 2008 at 9:08 PM

I assume when they see this warm up ad more Republican Congressmen will be opting for retirement and lobbying positions.

a capella on February 11, 2008 at 9:09 PM

meh

DwnSouthJukin on February 11, 2008 at 9:13 PM

Ouch.

A good deal of who wins in November will hinge on the situation in Iraq leading up to voting day. Of course any high profile bombing or attack will dominate the news cycle for a day or so, just like the terrorists want, and the Dems will seize on it as proof of failure; but if the situation continues in the current fashion of security gains and some political reconciliation, then I think that takes a lot out of these types of attacks.

VolMagic on February 11, 2008 at 9:20 PM

I think that a good negative ad against the DNC would be a (photoshopped) pic of an Iraqi holding up a purple-dyed middle finger.

chsw

This election, don’t be a Jackass.

chsw on February 11, 2008 at 9:20 PM

Meanwhile the rand corporation is releasing a new survey that says the surge is a failue

Is on CNN’s site right now

The Rand Corp. report characterizes “U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world” as “at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible.” The Pentagon asked the nonprofit research organization to review strategies to thwart insurgents.

William Amos on February 11, 2008 at 9:21 PM

Needless to say, in this as in all things, running against Hillary (who voted for war) will be much easier than running against the Messiah.

True. But when Obama had a chance to say unequivocally that he gets everyone out by 2009, he did not. And he won’t he can bash McCain all he wants but McCain can say no we aren’t leaving while Obama squirms on direct yes or no questioning about Iraq. He cannot be a dove in a direct debate, it is not politcally tenable and he knows it.

Also the sheer vap[idity of his campaign… A supporter of his was interviewed on talk radio and she was as exactly the type of supporter you would expect “he speaks to me” “everytime I hear him speak I’m enthralled” Obama as the immature candidate, being carried to the presidency by idealistic nimrods is a very easy picture to paint.

Whenever McCAin is criticised about age he can point to Obama’s whopping 3 years of service, which is a good one two punch with his hollywood/MTV style support.

With the Obama surge I think McCain would be a good contrast if campaigned properly. The voters most in play in blue/swing states have at least the potentil to go his way…

Unrealistically rosey? Probably but I feel better.

Theworldisnotenough on February 11, 2008 at 9:21 PM

I have no doubts it will be Shrillary. She and Clinton have planned all along to have the Michigan and Florida delegates allowed. There is no other explanation for her campaigning in both places.

SouthernGent on February 11, 2008 at 9:22 PM

McCain could counter with “Not Amnesty” but really is Amnesty.
It could show just how much he has in common with the Democraps.

Kini on February 11, 2008 at 9:22 PM

Look, I dislike McCain passionately, but it is so obvious that most of those comments are snippets taken out of context.

Although, after what McCain did to Romney vis-a-vis timetables, he deserves it.

Clark1 on February 11, 2008 at 9:23 PM

Exit question..

When was the last time any of you were “led to believe” something?

Talon on February 11, 2008 at 9:28 PM

Besides, we have some ammo too: Every new sign of AQI in distress is an occasion to revisit the left’s leading lights calling months ago for Bush to abandon Iraq to its fate.

That ammo is getting old. They should have been wiped out long ago if we were really allowing our military to fight a war. But since we have politicians and lawyers in charge…

TOPV on February 11, 2008 at 9:29 PM

I think that a good negative ad against the DNC would be a (photoshopped) pic of an Iraqi holding up a purple-dyed middle finger.
chsw
This election, don’t be a Jackass.

chsw on February 11, 2008 at 9:20 PM

Good point. I would counter with Hussein Obama’s bomb Pakistan comments, and all the reports on the collapse of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Obama is weak on foreign policy, and bound to make some more gaffes about Islamic appeasement. The key thing is to demonstrate how Hussein is weak and incompetent on this issue, rather than getting bogged down with the rights and wrongs of intervention in Iraq.

If there are any security concerns between now and November, expect Obama to be vulnerable, as well as conspiracy theories to soar.

Pax americana on February 11, 2008 at 9:30 PM

But the polls!!!
The polls all say he’s the only one who can win!!!
RIGHT!! THE POLLS SAY HE’LL WIN!!
Bill Kristol couldn’t be wrong, could he?

billy on February 11, 2008 at 9:36 PM

the invasion was easy. it’s the occupation that’s been so damn tough.

but who cares about context.

locke on February 11, 2008 at 9:07 PM

Took the words right out of my mouth. The Iraq War, as it was, WAS easy.

I notice the Democrats leave out the obvious as well…that almost every Congressional Dem, well prior to 2003, said the same things about Saddam as Bush did. And they all voted for the war too.

JetBoy on February 11, 2008 at 9:42 PM

That ammo is getting old. They should have been wiped out long ago if we were really allowing our military to fight a war. But since we have politicians and lawyers in charge…

TOPV on February 11, 2008 at 9:29 PM

I don’t think that is accurate, especially since Rumsfeld left. From what I’ve read of the Counter insurgency Manual that General Petraeus wrote and uses, since the surge, our guys are operating pretty much uninhibited by the political gnats. It’s just a different kind of war now. Now, if you want to talk about Afghanistan, I’ll agree with you completely about interference. NATO could screw up a wet dream.

a capella on February 11, 2008 at 9:42 PM

Goodbye Maverick.

Hello War Monger.

Does the MSM want their engagement ring back?

fogw on February 11, 2008 at 9:44 PM

It’s easy for me to see how the quotes were taken out of context, but the American people can be pretty stupid at times.
McCain needs to portray Obama as the extremist liberal novice that he is.

jgapinoy on February 11, 2008 at 9:50 PM

Just finished reading the Rand corp. report over at CNN. The DNC could not have commissioned a better document. As I read this POS I actually wonder what planet these folks lived on, this report will end up fueling the anti-war crowd as did the NIE only to be debunked after the damage is done!

dmann on February 11, 2008 at 9:50 PM

Circle the wagons RINOs.

saved on February 11, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Needless to say, in this as in all things, running against Hillary (who voted for war) will be much easier than running against the Messiah.

Indeed.

The Messiah may be even further left (if that’s possible) than The Spouse. But he shows promise of more integrity.
Harder to beat? Yes, absolutely. But without integrity, our government/country is dysfunctional. I support the Messiah.

petefrt on February 11, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Well at least it will be from the other side instead of the R’s themselves.

Rumsfeld and Bush messed up this whole thing. THEY thought it would be a day at the beach. THEY didn’t authorize appropriate troop size or equipment (MRAP vehicles) needed to win the peace. If you fight a war, you MUST be ruthless until they are COMPLETELY subdued. We wanted to come in and ‘shock and awe’ and then have them love us. . . it doesn’t happen that way, ever.

If our soldiers were given the equipment and manpower they needed earlier, it would have been easier. If the troops had these MRAP vehicles it would have been much easier. Equipment can be the deciding factor. TANKS ended trench warfare of WWI. Radar reduced the threat of the Luftwaffe during WWII. Helicopters helped mobilize large armies over the rice patties of Vietnam. MRAPs rendered the roadside bombs obsolete. We needed them immediately after we saw that they were killing our people with roadside bombs. It would have been a different war.

ThackerAgency on February 11, 2008 at 10:19 PM

OMG, can someone make an animated gif out of that? I love how they zoom out from the Obama face and then the Che head comes in focus

ninjapirate on February 11, 2008 at 10:21 PM

whoops…wrong..thread.

ninjapirate on February 11, 2008 at 10:23 PM

I don’t think I could take four years of that whistle when he talks.

Vigilante on February 11, 2008 at 10:32 PM

The starry-eyed-for-Obama want to hate anything that continues Republican rule.

McCain is a convenient pinata for their BDS anger.

Plus he has blurted out a hundred misquotable gems.

And all are being polished and set right now.

His main weakness is that he is not nimble.

He could turn back any attack upon the numbskulls of his blunt accusers if he had the flexible wit of a Reagan or JFK or Churchill or FDR.

But John tends to fume and sneer and bark.

Not a winning response.

He needs to start mocking Obama’s weightlessness.

And emptiness.

And say things like:

One of Barack’s suits was spotted standing without him the other day… and nobody much noticed the difference.”

Mock Barack’s glaring deficiences lightly.

And often.

Don’t argue back, just dismiss him as a slightly silly pretender.

A puffed poseur.

What’s the difference between a hundred and fifty pounds of feathers and a hundred fifty pounds of Obama? The feathers don’t ask you to vote for them.”

Undo Obama’s pretense.

Unmask his blankness.

Lightly.

profitsbeard on February 11, 2008 at 10:45 PM

Explaining that Maverick’s promises of an “easy” victory extended to the initial invasion and not necessarily to an occupation won’t cut much ice …

Indeed, that explanation won’t cut it. McCain can hardly claim that the American people were inadequately prepared for the cost of invading Iraq, only to turn around and say that his remarks “did not necessarily” extend to, you know, the war.

That kind of Clintonian evasiveness would not fair well against the clarity, and consistency, of Obama’s claim that we should have never invaded in the first place.

paul006 on February 11, 2008 at 10:49 PM

“especially paired with clips of Obama’s pre-war warnings of Sunni/Shiite discord,”
Obama was an unknown state Senator in Illinois pre war. When did he film these clips?

rockdalian on February 11, 2008 at 10:54 PM

You’re joking right? Obama the tougher opponent?

He’s got no political experience running against Republicans and it shows. Che flags on his wall. Won’t wear the flag lapel pin or say the Pledge of Allegiance because he has “issues” with the Flag. Wants to ban all handguns. Nation of Islam people all over his campaign.

Wants to surrender in IRAQ. Doesn’t matter if people don’t like the war, wish it never happened, and don’t approve of the conduct. People STILL don’t want a defeat.

Ask President Hubert Humphrey. Or President George McGovern.

If NIXON who had the personality of rancid grease could win because people did not want to surrender in Vietnam, which was MASSIVELY unpopular, what makes you think that Obambi and his plan for surrender to AQ will be a winner in November?

McCain’s counter-ad would be: Obambi wants to surrender to AQ. They’ll follow us home. Show carnage after carnage, Down’s syndrome bombers and say if we get defeated in Iraq they’ll do the same stuff here. Cut to: planes hitting WTC building.

Defeat is not a winner in American politics. Remember in 1968 Nixon was the ugly, sweaty loser to JFK.

whiskey_199 on February 11, 2008 at 11:00 PM

whiskey_199 on February 11, 2008 at 11:00 PM

Agree with just about everything you said, except for Kennedy beating Nixon. I have some real serious issues with the dead person vote in Chicago.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 11, 2008 at 11:20 PM

obama is weak. he’d be easier to beat than billary.

therightwinger on February 11, 2008 at 11:24 PM

therightwinger on February 11, 2008 at 11:24 PM

But, but McCain is a RINO, he will erase the borders, he has his NAME ON THE SAME BILLS AS DEMOCRATS, he doesn’t kowtow to talk radio and he’s such a Maverick. *Gasp*

How will the Union survive?

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 11, 2008 at 11:46 PM

William Amos on February 11, 2008 at 9:21 PM

McFlipFlop. Round 1 goes to the dems.

Thanks WA. You must be so proud.

csdeven on February 11, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Explaining that Maverick’s promises of an “easy” victory extended to the initial invasion and not necessarily to an occupation won’t cut much ice,

If Juan McSurgo didn’t specify that “easy victory” just meant at first and did not say that later would be a “hard slog”, then a resonable person would take it that he meant the whole nine yards.

especially paired with clips of Obama’s pre-war warnings of Sunni/Shiite discord, but that’s how the debate will shape up so we might as well prepare for it.

That will be of at least some effect for Obama. It is also what others like Hugh Fitzgerld, Robert Spenser’s “cohort”, said.

Besides, we have some ammo too: Every new sign of AQI in distress is an occasion to revisit the left’s leading lights calling months ago for Bush to abandon Iraq to its fate.

That will be easy for Obama to conter as AQI (which is not the real AQ) basical did not exists before some time after the invasion, only staring up during the attempt at “naton building” long part.

MB4 on February 12, 2008 at 12:02 AM

Goodbye Maverick.

Hello War Monger.

Does the MSM want their engagement ring back?

fogw on February 11, 2008 at 9:44 PM

I think that the engagement ring was designed to turn to dust at the appointed time.

MB4 on February 12, 2008 at 12:08 AM

He needs to start mocking Obama’s weightlessness.

And emptiness.

And say things like:

“One of Barack’s suits was spotted standing without him the other day… and nobody much noticed the difference.”

Mock Barack’s glaring deficiences lightly.

And often.

Don’t argue back, just dismiss him as a slightly silly pretender.

A puffed poseur.

“What’s the difference between a hundred and fifty pounds of feathers and a hundred fifty pounds of Obama? The feathers don’t ask you to vote for them.”

Undo Obama’s pretense.

Unmask his blankness.

Lightly.

profitsbeard on February 11, 2008 at 10:45 PM

If Juan McVain does that he will bury himself six feet under. All of that could easily be spun into an attack on Obama’s being Black. Actually he is half White, but for some reson is called Black – not my rules.

He can only attack Obama on his positions, like how Obama is for shamnesty and he, McCain, is not.

Oh wait, that won’t work. Juan will have to find something else, but it will have to be on the issues, not on anything that smacks of attacking the man himself.

MB4 on February 12, 2008 at 12:18 AM

MB4 on February 12, 2008 at 12:18 AM

But MB4
What about all those polls?
They all say he can’t be beat.
We were supposed to ignore his record, and we did, because the polls said HE WAS THE ONE.
What.
about.
the.
Polls.

billy on February 12, 2008 at 12:45 AM

McCain, Hussein, Clinton, what’s the difference?

Monday, February 11, 2008

ELECTION 2008

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

John McCain funded by Soros since 2001

Candidate’s Reform Institute also accepted funds from Teresa Kerry

Posted: February 11, 2008
11:44 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi

As Sen. John McCain assumes the GOP front-runner mantle, his long-standing, but little-noticed association with left-wing donors such as George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry is receiving new attention among his Republican critics.

In 2001, McCain founded the Alexandria, Va.-based Reform Institute as a vehicle to receive funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Tides Foundation and several other prominent non-profit organizations.

McCain used the institute to promote his political agenda and provide compensation to key campaign operatives between elections.

In 2006, the Arizona senator was forced to sever his formal ties with the Reform Institute after a controversial $200,000 contribution from Cablevision came to light. McCain solicited the donation for the Reform Institute using his membership on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, he supported Cablevision’s push to introduce the more profitable al la carte pricing, rather than packages of TV programming.

Yet, the Reform Institute still employs the McCain campaign’s Hispanic outreach director, Juan Hernandez, as a senior fellow of its Comprehensive Immigration Reform Initiative.

As WND reported, Hernandez serves as a non-paid volunteer for the McCain campaign. A dual Mexican-U.S. citizen, he was a member of former President Vicente Fox’s cabinet, representing an estimate 24 million Mexicans living abroad. Hernandez, with a “Mexico first” message, has argued aggressively against building a fence on the Mexican border, insisting the frontier needed to remain wide open so illegal immigrants could easily enter the U.S.

The July 6, 2001, homepage of the Reform Institute archived on the Internet lists founder McCain as chairman of the group’s advisory committee.

Prominent senior officials on the McCain 2008 presidential campaign staff found generously paid positions at the Reform Institute following the senator’s unsuccessful run for the White House in 2000.

Rick Davis, McCain’s current campaign manager, was paid $110,000 a year by the Reform Institute for a consulting position, according to the group’s 2003 Form 990 filing with the IRS.

In 2004, Davis advanced to the position of Reform Institute president, with an annual salary of $120,000, according to the group’s 2004 Form 990.

In 2005, Davis remained president, but his salary dropped back to $45,000 a year, with a time commitment of five hours per week, according the 2005 Form 990.

Carla Eudy, a senior advisor on McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign who until recently headed fundraising, was paid $177,885 in 2005 to serve as the Reform Institute’s secretary-treasurer.

Other McCain presidential campaign staffers who have found employment at the Reform Institute include Trevor Potter, McCain’s 2000 legal counsel, and Crystal Benton, the senator’s former press secretary, who served as institute’s communications director in 2005 for an annual salary of $52,083.

The Reform Institute regularly has supported McCain in various legislative efforts, including on campaign finance reform, global warming and “comprehensive immigration reform,” all efforts widely opposed by many in the party’s conservative base.

Arianna Huffington, syndicated columnist and creator of the HuffingtonPost.com, has served on the Reform Institute’s advisory committee since the group’s inception.

According to FrontPage Magazine, Teresa Heinz Kerry has provided more than $4 million to the Tides Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by anti-war activist Drummond Pike in 1976 with a history of funding causes such as abortion, homosexual-rights activism and open borders.

Financial contributors while McCain was chairman of the Reform Institute also have included the Educational Foundation of America, a group that supports abortion and opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

The Soros-Kerry funding connection with McCain was first exposed by Ed Morrissey at the Captains Quarters blog in 2005.

Subsequently, David Horowitz’s DiscoverTheNetworks.org website and Michelle Malkin’s blog gave renewed attention to the Reform Institute’s funding ties.

Indy Conservative on February 12, 2008 at 12:49 AM

Allah, I agree that running against Hillary would be easier than running against the Messiah Obama. But, does this look like presidential material to you?

Huckabee/Thompson defeats Obama/Edwards this November. I said it 4 days ago when none of you believed me. Tomorrow at this time, many of you will believe me.

ITookTheRedPill on February 12, 2008 at 1:00 AM

What part of McCain can beat Obama do you people not get? I keep hearing idiots being so afraid of him when they do not realize that the Racist vote will be much larger then the Black vote.

If you think Hillary will be easier to run against McCain you people are beyond delusional. You want to ask women given their first real chance ever to vote for a woman to vote for McCain? Keep dreaming. The female vote is slightly larger than the Black vote.

Poptech on February 12, 2008 at 1:11 AM

MB4-

I dislike McCain, but Obama is a flyweight.

Criticizing Barack’s lack of substance, should that be called “racist” by his delusional defenders, would just be par for their lib-kneejerk course.

But for those who don’t swallow the race card so easily, the necessary chipping away at this styrofoam Idol would slowly penetrate to the survival level of the instincts:

Do I want to risk the Republic on a kid with a snappy patter but no muscle?”

McCain, who I would support only as a desperate last resort (hoping he bows out before the Convention and Romney is drafted), has to contrast his own earned grit with Obama, the paper cut-out twit.

Barack is like a geeky cousin guest-star on “Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” …who only lasted one episode.

Like the wrong man lifted onto the shoulders of a confused crowd and mistaken for an actual hero.

As meaningful as a slogan like:

Obama: he’ll CHANGE your HOPE!

It sounds stirring, until you think about it for a second.

profitsbeard on February 12, 2008 at 1:53 AM

Poptech on February 12, 2008 at 1:11 AM

You may be right. America will soon find out that B. Hussein Obama is a Kenyan tribal stooge who is hoping to use US troops to sort out the conflict there in favour of his family. This is why he wants a quick exit from Iraq.

Pax americana on February 12, 2008 at 1:59 AM

If your vote is gone and you wanna ride on; McCain.

Dont forget this fact, you can’t get it back; McCain.

He dont lie, He dont lie, He dont lie; McCain.

He dont lie, He dont lie, He dont lie; McCain.

labrat on February 12, 2008 at 2:22 AM

It sounds stirring, until you think about it for a second.

profitsbeard on February 12, 2008 at 1:53 AM

Obama may be paper, but remember, paper covers rock.

MB4 on February 12, 2008 at 2:25 AM

McCain is going to get his a** kicked by the MSM.

And what is worse, Obama will be the one wearing the boot.

Dave R. on February 12, 2008 at 4:09 AM

Yeah, we were lead to believe that Iraq would be a day at the beach. Just like Viet Nam was a day at the beach, Korea was a day at the beach, WWI and II were days at the beach, the Civil War, The Revolutionary War, The Hundred Year War, and on and on and on. War is war. To think of it any other way is naturally going to lead to looney thinking.

pilamaye on February 12, 2008 at 7:41 AM

I can’t stand to think about having to see and hear him on TV all the time for 4 years.

saiga on February 12, 2008 at 10:28 AM

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html

Change..

Not a very good Change IMHO..

Obama, you disrespectful POS. >:|

Chakra Hammer on February 12, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Obama, you disrespectful POS. >:|

Chakra Hammer on February 12, 2008 at 1:32 PM

It is well known that BHO has multiple loyalties.
The Obama files.

Pax americana on February 12, 2008 at 2:09 PM

What part of McCain can beat Obama do you people not get? I keep hearing idiots being so afraid of him when they do not realize that the Racist vote will be much larger then the Black vote.

Thanks for the inside scoop.

Obama: he’ll CHANGE your HOPE!

It sounds stirring, until you think about it for a second.

profitsbeard on February 12, 2008 at 1:53 AM

Just curious, do you amuse yourself? Really. Reread the one liners you wrote on behalf of John McCain. Are you laughing now?

I love humor. Please stop killing it.

Actually he is half White, but for some reson is called Black – not my rules.

The reason is that one drop of blood was enough for whites to deny individual blacks their equal rights. But blacks did not write that rule. We conformed to it.

You feign surprise. Save the act.

***
RE: John McCain
He will continue the pseudo-conservative reign and further damage the party. As noted by many, we have no farm team, nobody on deck. Mitt 2012 is the best for which we can hope.

Also, if you think the attacks on Bush’s intelligence were overwrought, wait until the McCain’s background comes into play. He was a war hero, but he was also a self-proclaimed dunce.

We need Newt.

The Race Card on February 12, 2008 at 3:00 PM