POLITICS

Do the Wright Thing

Senior advisers think John McCain should attack Barack Obama's ties to his former pastor. He won't.

Khue Bui for Newsweek
On Principle: For McCain, here with Sarah Palin, stirring the race pot is personal
 
Sponsored by
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

 

For a man who boasts of delivering "straight talk," John McCain was sending mixed messages. Supporters who gathered earlier this month outside Milwaukee thought he needed to amp up his campaign rhetoric. One by one, they stood and railed against the "shady characters" linked to Barack Obama. The crowd roared its approval when McCain blasted Obama's ties to William Ayers, the former Weather Underground radical. But then James T. Harris, an African-American host of a conservative radio show, urged him to hit Obama's "soft spot." "It's absolutely vital that you take it to Obama," Harris said. "We have the good Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright … I am begging you, sir. I am begging you. Take it to him." McCain looked uncertain, pausing ever so slightly. "Yes, I'll do that," he said. But then he promptly changed the subject to the economy.

Top aides to McCain share the dismay of his hard-core supporters. Many senior advisers, as well as McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, believe the campaign should remind voters of Obama's ties to Wright, whose inflammatory sermons emerged as a problem for the Democratic nominee during the primary. "If we were to go up with an ad during the final weeks of this campaign just showing excerpts of [Wright's] sermons, we would probably win," says one senior McCain aide, who declined to be named discussing internal debates on tactics. "But we won't."

McCain has refused to do it. The main reason, according to two aides who did not want to be named discussing private conversations with the candidate: any attack could be viewed as racially insensitive—or stir up racist sentiments—and that gets personal for McCain. He has not forgotten the racial smear directed at his own family during the South Carolina primary in 2000, when he ran against George W. Bush. Back then, supporters of Bush (their precise identities were never known) papered cars outside churches and McCain events with nasty fliers. They suggested his adopted daughter, Bridget—who was then just eight years old—was in fact his illegitimate child by a black prostitute. The McCains were sickened about the impact this might have on Bridget and planned to wait until she was much older to tell her about it. Not long ago, Bridget, who is now 17, found out what had happened when she Googled herself.

There are probably other factors at play, too, in McCain's thinking. Bringing up Wright at this point would open his campaign to charges of hypocrisy and even desperation. Last spring, McCain himself condemned the North Carolina Republican Party for running an ad featuring Wright's sermons, including one in which the preacher said, railing against the treatment of blacks, "No, no, no. Not God bless America. Goddam America." McCain trashed the ad, saying it "degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with Democrats."

Shortly after the North Carolina ad ran, Obama said on "Meet the Press" that Wright was a "legitimate political issue." At that point, McCain criticized some of Wright's more extreme views—including, as he put it, likening U.S. Marines to the Roman legionnaires "responsible for the death of our savior." But McCain also said that he didn't believe Obama shared Wright's "world view." His comments prompted pushback from the Obama campaign nonetheless. Spokespeople said McCain was contradicting his earlier position that Wright shouldn't be an issue. In May, Obama broke his ties to Wright after the pastor restated some controversial views to the National Press Club.

McCain won't try to stop independent groups from hammering Obama on his former association with Wright. Last week, the Republican Jewish Coalition began running ads suggesting Obama had surrounded himself with advisers who are "anti-Israel." The ad includes a photo of Obama with Wright, captioned HOSTILE TO AMERICA. The McCain campaign said it would not ask the group to desist. "Senator McCain's position on Wright is very clear," says spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker. "He's not the referee in this race."

The debate over Wright within the campaign is part of a larger conflict over how negative McCain should go in the final weeks before the vote. In spite of polls showing that McCain has been losing support among swing voters, senior advisers remain split over whether character attacks have benefited their candidate. Last week, McCain scaled back on the attacks, focusing more on his own proposals. That may or may not help him win. But looking back after Nov. 4, McCain will likely argue that no matter what happened, he did the right thing.

© 2008

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 11/03/2008 11:00:56 PM

    The problem with Obama is a simple one. One association does not a radical make. But in Obama's case, the list of left-wing radical mentors and associates is seemingly endless, (Davis, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi , etc., etc.) with a new revelation practically every day. With that trend, a picture begins to emerge, and that picture is that Obama is as steeped, not in just left-wing political thought, but in radical left-wing economic and race ideology, to the same extent that Pat Robertson was steeped in the ideology of the radical Religious Right. I would not have voted for Pat Robertson for dog catcher, and for similar reasons, I will not vote for Obama.

  • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 11/03/2008 10:24:40 PM

    In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" Obama unintentionally revealed that he really is as radical as his early political mentors and acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi etc., (gee, there sure seem to be a lot of them) and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Now there is absolute proof. In 2001, Obama, the "community organizer" turned legislator, said in an interview:

    "And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

    2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview.

    Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
    See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

    Indeed, some democrats are publically saying as much. See Barney Franks comments on the news, including face the nation last week, stating essentially that Democrats in Congress intend to greatly raise taxes and go on a spending spree.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJGnSAlqjoU

    See http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

    Obama's ill-conceived programs will require him to tax, and his health care plan alone is a substantial hidden tax on all business, large an small. In reality, it does not really matter who he taxes, those taxes are going to be passed through the economy. He has to tax, because it is they only way he can pay for his massive social engineering experiments. Any first year economics student knows that taxation is a tool used to contract an economy experiencing inflation, because it reduces demand by reducing the amount of money individuals and businesses have to spend. It is contractionary, which is exactly what you do not want to do when the problem is that the economy is contracting already into recession. Like Hoover and FDR, Obama's plans will only make it worse for longer.

    See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/opinion/main4499465.shtml
    And
    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx


    The democrats failed social engineering policies in the housing market are what brought us to ruin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related
    Even Bill Clinton says so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE
    Obama and a supermajority of Democrats simply is not the change we need, nor is it change we can afford.

  • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 11/03/2008 12:22:46 PM

    And lets not forget the Court, and decisioins like Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

    What does redistributive mean. Well, remember that it was the liberal Left-Wing Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that brought us this little jewel, holding that the government could take your real property, like your home, not for public use like a road or school, but to give to another private individual, such as a political contributor or other party hack or interest group. You remember this one.

    Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

    The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the general public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

 
 
The Peek
 
 
MEDIA

Just a year after buying The Wall Street Journal, the press rapscallion has revitalized the fusty paper.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu