Advice for the McCain campaign

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election | Posted at: Monday, 6 October 2008

Linking Barack Obama to Ayers-Dohrn and their 60s radical violence will have as much effect on the 2008 election as Bill Clinton’s ties to radical leftists at Georgetown and Oxford had in 1992.  In other words:  no effect at all.

Last night my wife and I had dinner with another couple our age–we’re in our early 40s.  For background music I turned on the cable music channel that is all 80s music all the time.  Together we enjoyed some songs we hadn’t heard in years.  Needless to say, our children hated the music.  And why shouldn’t they?  Our kids are as far chronologically from 80s music as I was from my parents’ 50s music.  The 80s is ancient history . . . sadly, as my scale and waistline will attest.

Ayers, Dohrn, the Weathermen, SDS–that was 20 years before I was in college.  It is ancient history.  Consider this:  the youngest soldier in the Vietnam War was 17 in 1973.  That means that every single veteran of that war has been eligible for AARP membership for at least the last two years.  And most of them for far longer than that.

By 1992 America was tired of fighting the Vietnam War.  What makes anyone think that sixteen years later we want to re-fight it again?  It is a loser issue.  Drop it.


While I still stand by my advice that the Ayers-Dohrn connection is not a winner for the McCain campaign, Barack Obama’s response that “he didn’t know” of the unrepentant bomber’s radical past gives McCain an opportunity.

Obama offers the same “I didn’t know” excuse about Rezko and Wright.  McCain needs to make reverend Jeremiah Wright a story again (a much more powerful story). The excuse allows McCain to show an Obama pattern of “I didn’t know about the horrible things my horrible friends did.”  It also allows McCain to tie Daley (just the name turns off everyone who lives outside of Cook County), Raines, and Johnson back to Obama. 

While McCain can’t rely upon American disgust with an anti-American bomber to alone turn Americans against Obama, making Ayers part of a pattern just might work.  Since most Americans–even his supporters–recognize that he is very light on experience, a big question about Obama is, who are those he will surround himself with for advice?  This attack angle offers McCain opportunities to sew distrust.

One other thing.  I would go on the attack tonight, directly.  70 million people will be watching.  Surely the Frank Luntz dials will drop, but the message will stick.  More people will learn the truth about Obama’s shady connections if McCain makes the case tonight than if he waits for the media to do their job.  But he will have to make the case that it’s a pattern.  An attack simply connecting Obama to a 60s radical will go nowhere.

(ht: JG)


Believe it or not, CNN has made the Obama-Ayers-Wright-Daley connection.


Here’s another attack from the past that is going nowhere:

John McCain may have an Iran-Contra connection.

Again, the individual connections themselves are unimportant. It’s the pattern that has to be established.  In the case of Obama the pattern is of a political neophyte whose advisors are of the worst sort.  In the case of McCain, what exactly is the pattern?

Share this post:

5 Responses to “Advice for the McCain campaign”

  1. John Says:

    I need some help here.
    I travel around spreading support for McCain, I am a left-wing troll who very transparently goes to websites to spout nonsense in a mistaken belief that anyone could be stupid enough to believe me and my BS, but lately I’m getting asked some things that are difficult to answer:

    1: They understand that Obama is certainly guilty of associating with a known terrorist whose bad behaviour occurred BEFORE Obama was 8 (and for which he is unrepentant still when Obama is 47), even though the terrorist was never arrested , tried or convicted (but the charges were thrown out on a technicality) of anything and the work they did together was in trying to rebuild Chicago’s inner city schools (so that they would be fonts of Marxist propaganda for a new generation), but

    they don’t understand that John’s support of and from Keating WHILE Keating was committing fraudulent activities that fleeced his customers and investors of their life savings was not at all unseemly. That even though Keating ended up as a convicted felon and John was investigated for trying to help his friend during the investigation and was censured by the senate for “exercising bad judgment”, he was really showing support for a constituent (and was a key event in McCain’s life that he learned from and has railed against ever since)

    I have to admit the hardest part is explaining why Walter Annenberg financed the opportunity that brought Obama and Ayers together. They remember Bush’s statement that those who finance terrorist activities are as dangerous as the terrorists themselves.

    2. The other set of concerns has to do with the unamerican speeches by Rev. Wright. What supporters are wondering is how this compares to John’s actions in Vietnam. They don’t understand that John’s decision to cooperate with the Viet Cong and, seemingly, betray his country and fellow soldiers,while a prisoner of war is not at all unamerican. (He didn’t; that’s a revolting lie. SERE training always teaches that every prisoner has a breaking point. The trick is to not divulge information until after it is too old for the enemy to do anything with it.)

    I think someone needs to have a press conference to clarify this confusing set of issues.

  2. » Bob Krumm Is Wrong. Bring Up Ayers Everyday, and Wright, and Pflegler, and Rezko, and God Knows What Other Scum He Runs With Says:

    [...] am just baffled at this post by Bob Krumm. It proves that he regularly reads and admires Aunt Bee. I don’t understand Bob and others [...]

  3. Mack Says:

    Welcome home, Bob.

    As to this guilt by association thing, I find it all very pedestrian. Beyond that, one of the things I admire about Obama is that he was able to become a very major player in Chicago politics, against some very entrenched interests. Like it or not, we will benefit from a guy who is able to turn adversaries into “partners.” We are going to have to cut deals to remain relevant in this new global economy. It isn’t like we haven’t done it in the past…

    Ed: Huh? Obama has NEVER gone against the entrenched interests in Chicago politics. He is wholly connected to Richard Daley. He has never gone against ConEd, whose former chairman, Thomas Ayers (the father of Bill), had all the power you could buy in Illinois. His connections to Rezko are exactly the way that a Chicago insider rises to the top of Chicago politics. He has never turned adversaries into partners, never having worked across party lines to pass controversial legislation. Not ever. You are severely wrong.

  4. By Glen Dean’s Measure I’m a Fifty Year Old Mexican Man « Tiny Cat Pants Says:

    [...] bringing up Ayers doesn’t achieve anything is because it doesn’t achieve anything.  Krumm didn’t come to that conclusion because of his “association” with me (which is basically nonexistent) or because he [...]

  5. » Clinton’s Ayers attack worked Says:

    [...] things in the 60s when a lot of Americans did some very bad things.  A better tactic, as I argued here, is to tie Obama to Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Raines, etc. and make the point that for a guy we know [...]