A recipe for eliminating every campaign ad

The “Annenberg Political Fact Check,” a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, is often relied upon for objective, non-partisan analysis of campaign commercials. When candidates or parties try to get away with playing fast and loose with the facts, Annenberg’s goal is to set the record straight.

Which is why it’s rather astounding that Political Fact Check scrutinized the Democratic National Committee’s new “100 years” ad on John McCain, and ended up taking the Republicans’ side.

The clear implication is that if McCain is elected, we can expect to be battling in Iraq for many decades to come. But the admakers cut off the rest of McCain’s response, which provides some badly needed context. […]

[DNC Chairman Howard Dean] is correct in one sense. His ad doesn’t say in so many words that McCain is “going to be at war for a hundred years.” But by juxtaposing McCain’s words with dramatic, violent images of war, it clearly leaves that impression. […]

Anyone who didn’t already know the fuller version of McCain’s answer could easily be fooled into thinking that McCain would be perfectly happy to see the war continue.

This isn’t fact checking; it’s decrying an ad that might give voters the wrong “impression.” The DNC, Annenberg argues, shouldn’t create ads that lead some to the wrong idea. It doesn’t matter what the ad says, Annenberg concludes; what matters is what some might think the ad means.

What kind of standard is that? Since when are perfectly accurate ads slammed?

Josh Marshall’s point from other day — unrelated to the Annenberg piece — continues to ring true.

[W]hat the McCain campaign is pushing for here is a standard in which any negative ad targeting McCain must be delivered with the McCain camp’s own spin included in order to be within bounds — a standard few politicians, to say the least, have ever been granted. […]

There is a way foreign policy questions are hashed out in quiet symposia and a way they are fought over in political campaigns. They are not the same. McCain and his surrogates are demanding something no one else gets: namely, the right to have their words repeated only in their fullest context and most generous, most amply spun interpretation. He wants his own set of rules, an election with a stacked deck.

True. Why the non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center wants to help in this endeavor is a mystery.

Once again, here’s the DNC ad:

There’s nothing in the DNC ad that’s false — while some, at times, have falsely suggested that McCain has vowed to keep the war going for 100 years, this commercial simply uses the senator’s own words.

There’s simply no reason for Democrats to feel even the slightest bit hesitant about using this. Even in its full context, McCain has said, on multiple occasions, that he’s comfortable leaving U.S. troops in Iraq for a century or more. The only way that’s even possible is to establish permanent bases, which are opposed by both Iraqis and Americans, and which fuel anti-American violence. He said it, he meant it, and Democrats would be insane not to tell voters about it.

And yet, McCain and Republicans have, for several weeks, launched a coordinated, carefully-orchestrated campaign to get people — everyone, really — to stop using the words “McCain,” “Iraq,” and “100 years” in the same sentence. No one can do push-back as well as the Republican Machine, and these guys are intent on making it impossible to hit McCain where it hurts.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check has fallen for the con.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check bends over backwards in order to ‘appear’ objective. As a consequence it is a contorted pretzel of what it pretends to be.

Astute observers have seen this since 2000. Definitely not to be relied upon.

  • Let’s fact check factcheck, shall we?

    Factcheck writes But the admakers cut off the rest of McCain’s response, which provides some badly needed context: and then The DNC ad doesn’t mention that McCain was speaking specifically about a peacetime presence.. But then fact check leaves off this part:
    QUESTIONER: But I want to go back to Iraq. I want to go back to Iraq — now, 50 years? What if U.S. soldiers are being killed at the same rate, one per day, four years from now?
    McCAIN: Oh, well, I can’t tell you the ratio or what it is, but I can tell you I understand American public opinion, sir, and Americans …
    WOMAN: [inaudible]
    McCAIN: Yes, ma’am, and so I understand what’s at stake here. That’s why — and I understand that American public opinion will not sustain a conflict where Americans continue to be sacrificed without showing them that we can succeed. Can I just —
    QUESTIONER: So what I hear is an open-ended commitment? That’s my last [inaudible]. An open-ended commitment?
    McCAIN: I have a quote open-ended commitment in Asia.

    So McCain was not limiting his hundred years to a “peacetime presence.”

  • This is just yet one more example of how totally and utterly corrupt America has become .. corrupt to it’s core because Corporations and their interests. No different that the The Politico now calling McBush’s health care plan a ‘move towards the middle’ …….. or the same corporate media still calling this senile old man ‘the straight talk’ express .. no matter what the actual reality is .. which of course it the fucking opposite … this once great country is so far down Orwell’s ‘memory hole’ that it is no longer that great country .. it is now a country defined by fascism .. a ‘government’ whose only function is to benefit the corporations themselves …

  • I really think Dems are approaching this in the wrong way, I mean, here the RNC has swiftboated Dems without a showing any care at all for the truth or reality in any fashion, NONE AT ALL. So why are Dems trying to justify anything. Dems just need to push back with their own lawyers, because there is NOTHING wrong with this ad, – it’s what McCain said – it’s is NOT taken out of context, not one bit.

    Where is it written that Repugs are allowed to lie and Dems most make excruciating non-Repug style distinctions? Distinctions that the RNC would not spend one minute on if this were a Dem attack ad?

    Why is it okay for Repugs to just make shit up on national TV but not okay for Dems to show the very words of John McCain? Because, you know that John McCain did say what he said and thus showing more of the content does NOT change the fact that McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq with no deadline for withdraw at all.

    If the Repugs can’t stand the heat, or the truth, maybe they should withdraw the candidate because it will only get uglier from here on out and McCain is showing everyone that he actually a very loose cannon, a regular foot and mouth disease guy with worse problems that Howard Dean EVER had. Perhaps the Repugs made a mistake with McCain but I don’t see how that is the Dems problem.

    I would not spend one minute trying to justify this ad to those “lack of fact checking” queens of the RNC. Hey this is exactly what McCain said and if the Repugs don’t like it than why aren’t they settting a deadline for withdraw in Iraq? This AD is not an act of fiction at all. Why do Dems always go on the defense instead of attacking Repugs over exactly what time they plan to end the war?

  • Here’s my recipe for eliminating every campaign ad: hold elections at the start of the election cycle instead of at the end. And since the election cycle begins on the first day after the previous election, we can hold elections every day, forever. Thus, no time for campaigning.

    The “100 years” ad invites viewers to ask themselves two questions: How can McCain guarantee that 100 years of American presence in Iraq *won’t* be as violent as the last five; and how many years would McCain stay in Iraq if they are just as violent?

  • Fact check does OK at times. They’ve defended Obama. But sometimes they go too far in being fair and this is one case.

    The overall truth of the ad is there. McCain wants us to stay in Iraq forever. And to bombbombbombbombbombIran.

  • Exactly right #9. The next ad needs to have the clip from TPM when he ups it to a million years.

    The Press will always pass along GOP lies and run interference the protect the GOP from accountability. But we have more money, and people can hear McCain hang himself with his own words, over and over and over.

    Not only will it hang McCain, it will hang the media as they try to obfuscate the issue.

    How ironic is it that we will use political ads to cut through MSM distortions?

  • Never mind a hundred years… how about the end of a second McCain term? Eight years away. Got a twelve year old kid? Eight years down the line, you may find him drafted. McCain of course doesn’t have that to worry about, and if he had kids that age, they wouldn’t be going to Iraq…. he’s a Republican… their kids don’t serve.

  • A campaign ad playing fast and loose with context?!?

    The horror!

    Shouldn’t this post’s title be: A recipe for eliminating every democratic campaign ad?

  • I told you it would be better if the DNC had more of McCain’s response and then asked how long we have to stay in Iraq to get to his fantasy of peaceful occupation.

    They should go ahead and rewrite and and say they have changed it to satisfy McCan’t complaints, because it doesn’t matter, he still looks like an idiot.

  • McCain may claim that he envisages a long-term US military presence in Iraq along the lines of South Korea or West Germany.

    But such delusional nonsense is even more reason for the Democratic Party to throw back his words at him.

    If people would prefer the DNC to argue that McCain thinks it’s possible to occupy Iraq without US soldiers being shot, bombed and killed, then by all means let them run those ads.

    Iraqi acceptance of US control of their country – Not. Going. To. Happen.

  • This will be an unpopular opinion here, but I think the FactCheck people do make a somewhat compelling point. I mean, John McCain’s comments are not taken out of context, but the juxtaposition of them with the footage does imply that he meant to suggest the current level of confrontation for 100 years.

    That said, I think this is a very mild jump to make from the facts, and the RNC should be careful what they start by condemning this. What about when the DNC pushes back at a subsequent RNC spot?

  • if he had kids that age, they wouldn’t be going to Iraq…. he’s a Republican… their kids don’t serve.

    lenko, i don’t wanna defend st. john (and this ad is completely fair), but he has 2 kids who have either been sent to iraq or are there now.

  • The problem with the Mccain statement is that it was careless and insensitive. You need to be in Iraq to know how bad this war really is. Watch Aljazeera and get a different perespective on the iraqi occupation and violence. To suggest that mccain meant a ‘peaceful’ occupation in Iraq is even dumber. The middle east is not Asia and so Iraq is not Vietnam. Iraqis are strongly opposed to US occupation of Iraq and that is the chief reason the violence has persisted beyond imagination. Under which scenario is it then possible for there to be a peaceful US occupation of Iraq? It is impossible and everybody knows that, including Mccain, the veteran soldier. For as long as the US remains in Iraq under any pretext, violence will persist, Americans will continue to be kidnapped and possibly beheaded- as the captors often do- which will only fuel further violence. So give this another thought and try spinning the mccain comment one more time let’s see how that sounds again.

  • DNC push back against lying RNC ads will get the usual media treatment of
    being ignored or ridiculed

  • It is really sad when the democratic party is reduced to defending something by saying okay its misleading but its technically accurate. You undercut your own message that way and lose people.

    We need to stand up for truth and not these political games.

    Many who hear the whole context of McCain’s statements still find them troubling because it does stand for an “openended’ committment that will cost a lot of resources even if people aren’t dying.

    We can win on that point. We don’t need to emulate the Republicans by trying to shade the truth and leave a false impression and we shouldn’t try to anyway.

    We need to get rid of the Republican lies and game-playing. Not just replace them with Democratic lies and game-playing. That would be a hollow victory that advances the country hardly at all.

    We need to set a better example. And I really am disheartened that so many of you have a problem with an organization that bends over backwards to argue for accuracy in ads.

    We should be applauding that and adopting the same principled stand. Not abandoning our principles for short-term partisan advantage.

    Remember Lincoln’s adage- you can fool people for a short time- but sooner or later the truth wins out and they will hold it against you.

    This is part of the reason why Bush’s approval numbers are so low. People no longer pay attention to him because they realize that everything he said was biased spin. Lets not make the same mistake.

  • Alex Higgins said: “Oh, Lance got in there first at #17!”

    Don’t worry, your comment was very illuminating. Maybe someone will read this and get their finger out.

  • Thanks, Lance!

    Truthsquad, I’m not slating the Annenberg Factcheck – they do some good work but I do they think they have been simply wrong about the facts and in their conclusions on a number of occasions. This is one of them.

    There is nothing misleading about this DNC ad. McCain did say he has no problem with a 100-year military presence in Iraq and clearly meant it, and explained why he meant it. He may believe that this can come about with few, ever-decreasing (American) casualties and US control over the situation will increase in time, but such a fatuous view is of a piece with his pre-war prediction that occupying Iraq would be easy.

    The DNC are absolutely right to juxtapose his description of the future of US policy in Iraq with the actual violence going on now and which will continue if he becomes president.

    McCain’s hubristic and belligerent approach to South-West Asia cannot but lead to a continuation, if not an escalation, of the carnage shown in the ad.

    Don’t concern-troll this – this is an important argument Democrats should be making.

  • Democrats should give the same response the Republicans would give if the shoe were on the other foot – crickets!

    Take the Jeremiah Wright controversy for instance. I saw McCain asked about Hagee and he gave a non-answer and then said, “I’m not going to talk about it any more…” and guess what, no more questions were asked. Obama should’ve said ad infinitum, I gave my answer and I’m done…it not only looks and feels strong, it is.

  • Ah, you crazy liberals with your not understanding foreign policy…

    The US has military bases in Japan, Germany, and Korea. We’ve had them there since their respective conflicts/wars. Guess what? The countries have succeeded and they’re all democratic (with the exception of North Korea) and produce some of the best products and technology in the world. Iraq has the same potential.

    Oh, and we can’t forget Bosnia. I have a friend stationed there, and he hasn’t had to fire his weapon. His 15 month tour will be up in June. We CAN do this. We’ve only been there for 10 years.

    Do you people really think that 4000 lives in a 5 year war is really that bad? Sure, we don’t want our soldiers and citizens to die, but they did sign up for the military, and, while many call it an “illegal” war – guess what? It IS legal. Why? Congress voted for it, therefore it’s legal.

    If we had left Japan to rebuild on their own and not helped them, a government and regime like the one that had been defeated would have rose yet again. The same goes for Germany. We helped Afghanistan and the Al-Queda/Muhadajan (sp) defate the Russians during the Cold War, and that war left the country devastated, and then guess what? The Taliban took over, Al-Queda hated us, and other countries in the region, who already despised us because of Israel, hated us even more. Saudi Arabia DOES NOT LIKE US. And guess what happened due to that chain of events over 20 years ago? 9/11, which leads us to today.

    The fact of the matter is this: whether or not the war was justified doesn’t matter at this point in time. Hindsight is always 20/20. The CIA screwed up the intelligence, as many in congress saw the exact same stuff that the president did. Where we are now is at a crossroads: if we pull out now, we save American lives. However, in the process, we will create even more resentment of the US and those in that region that dislike us will have an even greater following and a justification for terrorist actions. If I came to your house, evicted a non-paying, destructive roommate who killed your dog and won’t leave, but in the process, I broke 10 windows, a door, and set the kitchen on fire, you’d be greatful. If I replaced the door and one window and said “Whelp, you’re on your own!” how would you react?

    Now, the other side of the coin. If we stick it out in Iraq and establish an ally in Iraq, we stabilize the entire region. Why? We’re true allies with an Arab nation and Israel. We can depend less on the Saudi military bases, and we can keep tabs on Iran and Syria.

    If you think having a military presence in Iraq is a bad idea, it only is in the financial sense. It does spread us thin, and it is expensive. However, the way to fix that is not to pull out of Iraq – you think that would divert money from the military to the public? No. Also, military contracts to American companies create jobs. Manufacturing jobs.

    The problem with Iraq is the UN. The UN is refusing to help the US, who, quite frankly, makes the UN a force to be reconed with. If the US was not in the UN, would anybody even care about the UN? If the UN was helping the US rebuild Iraq and helping to police the streets and helping to train the military and the governments, it would be much better.

    Oh, and speaking of approval ratings, I do believe the the DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS has lower approval ratings than Bush.

    Democrats of today know nothing of the economy, foreign policy, or the reasons as to why things happen. The typical Democrat is someone with liberal ideas that gain traction from resentment of the wealthy (who employ everyone else) and have greatly contributed to the sense of entitlement that most Americans feel. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to turn the US into a fascist welfare state and destroy the capital economy. The government OVERTAXING corporations profits (50% of oil companies profits above a certain point? How much more communist can you get?) will do nothing but drive those same corporations to outsource jobs. They aren’t outsourcing jobs because they don’t want to have American employees; they’re outsourcing jobs because they pay too much in taxes in the US.

    I think that’s enough for now…

  • Shane H in comment # 28 is one of those room temperature IQ morons. Sorry if I didn’t get the irony in your message.

    The fact you’re comparing Iraq with Germany, Korea and Japan, shows your ignorance. You have no clue about what is happening in the Middle East.
    Keep drinking your Kool Aid.

    You would have done fine in Italy, when Mussolini was still running the show. It’s the same fascist government the Bush cabal has been running for the last 7 years.

  • There was no irony in my message…

    Actually, I do have a clue what’s happening in the middle east. My sister in law is serving her third tour in Iraq. I get my news from the BBC, and I have a good friend that returned to Turkey after college.

    Do you know what fascism is? If anyone’s a fascist, it’s Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – they want to take the power away from the people and increase the size of the government and taxes. They want to take things like health care, employment, and financial responsibility away from individuals and give them to the government. Sounds like fascism to me.

    Before posting, give reasons as to why “I have no clue what is going on in the middle east.”

    What Kool-Aid am I drinking? I never said I supported the war, I just think it’s a mistake to pull out for the reasons I gave above. We shouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq, but we did, Congress voted on it, and we’re there – so we need to do it right, otherwise we’ll be worse off. It’s common sense. It’s good military strategy, which, again, liberals know nothing about as those in power typically refuse to serve (not to say that Republicans serve in droves, but you definately can’t say that about McCain. The one candidate with miltary experience is being questioned by a draft dodger’s wife and someone who was too young to serve in any of the other wars? Please).

    I don’t support Bush at all and didn’t vote for him. I’m a registered independent, but I’m definately not a democrat. If you’re a Barack or Hillary supporter, you need to follow your own advice and quit drinking their Kool-Aid.

    If you’re going to go against things I say, content would be nice.

  • Comments are closed.