Obama up 8 points

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You do know that McCain did nothing wrong in the affair and was cleared of any impropriety by the Senate Ethics Panel, right?

Or more precisely:

Glenn and McCain: cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment

The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of Glenn in the scheme was minimal, and the charges against him were dropped. He was only criticized by the Committee for "poor judgment."

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him. McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf. The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate." On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."

Regardless of the level of their involvement, both senators were greatly affected by it. McCain would write in 2002 that attending the two April 1987 meetings was "the worst mistake of my life".[50]

...from Wikipedia.

[Ramo]

The problem is that Obama loses his 'above the fray' appeal when he does this. You can pivot to issues without going negative, and, in this case, make John McCain look like a douchebag in the process. Obama doesn't need Keating Five, and bringing it up isn't going to help his case.

It blows my mind that people don't seem to grasp that there's a middle ground when it comes to hitting back. You don't have to just sit there and take the punches, but you also don't have to sling mud to hit back effectively. Obama is more than capable of defending himself on Rezko and Ayers. He doesn't need to distract the electorate from his associations by playing up McCain's.

The McCain campaign is going around saying that Obama is buddies with a terrorist, and he drew first blood. I doubt that Obama's going to get a bum rap for punching back with a relatively mild character attack (which is related to the current policy debate). The intent isn't to reorient the campaign on Keating, but to make McCain pay every time that he brings up Ayers or Rezko.

[Kirnwaffen]

The problem is that it doesn't matter what the intent is or who started it. The electorate is going to look and see both camps slinging mud, and Obama isn't going to get any sympathy for being the first victim. The risks of going negative are much bigger for Obama than they are for McCain. A lot of Obama's base are young idealists, and doing things like this may alienate them. He needs those voters to show up to maintain his lead.

McCain risks almost nothing by going negative. His base is extremely tolerant of this kind of politics, and he's already losing moderates, so he's got nowhere to go but up.

[Ramo]

I doubt that's the case. Negative attacks are so prevalent in politics for the simple reason that they work. In a race with only two significant candidates, this is a zero sum game. Hurting the other guy helps you, unless there's a large backlash in the press. And the absurdity of McCain's attacks minimizes the chances of a backlash against Obama.

[Imran Siddiqui]

While the Keating Five thing just seems dumb. McCain has NEVER plowed it under. He talks about it quite a bit (just read his books) and credits it for changing him into a reformer. It's his crisis that led him to be "born again".

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ramo

The McCain campaign is going around saying that Obama is buddies with a terrorist, and he drew first blood. I doubt that Obama's going to get a bum rap for punching back with a relatively mild character attack (which is related to the current policy debate). The intent isn't to reorient the campaign on Keating, but to make McCain pay every time that he brings up Ayers or Rezko.

I predict Obama will use a one-two punch:

(1) McCain's slinging mud re Ayres, but has similar problems with Keating [etc].

(2) The reason McCain is slinging mud is because he has no answers to the economic morass into which he and his fellow Republicans have taken this country. He has no plan for unemployment, for foreclosures, or the falling stock market. He now says he's for re-regulation but until a few weeks ago, he was crowing that he's always been for fewer regulations. Now, McCain wants to de-regulate the health care industry the same way he did banks.

[Ramo]

While the Keating Five thing just seems dumb.

I don't see how airing the message that McCain got into the "reform" game to stay in office after getting caught with his hand in the jar in a scandal that would resonate today is a "dumb" attack. I think it'll have a decent amount of traction. Whether the voters will buy it less than they'd buy the Ayers charge is question that still needs to be answered. But it's worth pointing out that McCain surrogates were floating Ayers in the Summer, and getting little traction. Keating hasn't been unleashed yet.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
While the Keating Five thing just seems dumb. McCain has NEVER plowed it under. He talks about it quite a bit (just read his books) and credits it for changing him into a reformer. It's his crisis that led him to be "born again".

So now he's better than Obama because he's "born again?"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo

While the Keating Five thing just seems dumb.

I don't see how airing the message that McCain got into the "reform" game to stay in office after getting caught with his hand in the jar in a scandal that would resonate today is a "dumb" attack. I think it'll have a decent amount of traction. Whether the voters will buy it less than they'd buy the Ayers charge is question that still needs to be answered. But it's worth pointing out that McCain surrogates were floating Ayers in the Summer, and getting little traction. Keating hasn't been unleashed yet.

Because people would see the whole attack as retarded. Maybe some wacked out Kosites will think that McCain got into the "reform game" to stay in office, but the vast majority of the population would be turned off by that insinuation. It would also go against the commonly stated "He's a good man, but wrong on the issues" Obama and Biden have hammered on. There is a reason for that: people tend to think that McCain is a good person. If Obama tries to insinuate that the reform thing is a ruse to stay elected, it would mega-backfire.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

Now, McCain wants to de-regulate the health care industry the same way he did banks.

It was the Democrats that opposed regulating banks as they saw Fannie and Freddie as being thier baby.

Here is what he said at the time

Here's an even earlier attempt to mitigate the mess by the Bush admin along with a few choice quotes:

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

[Ramo]

You talk about "retarded" arguments and some great "backfire" when McCain's new message is that Obama is buddies with a terrorist. It really doesn't get any more idiotic or objectionable than that. But that doesn't mean that argument won't have any resonance with the voters.

And the key to Keating is the pivot to regulation. McCain was caught pressuring financial regulators on behalf of Keating. This can be tied into a narrative about a historical antipathy to regulation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Basically the Obama friend with terrorist link will work with those who probably already are voting with McCain... so I don't think it'll work all that well. I also think that it won't be played up too much... they'll let the media keep commenting on it. He's already down by 8, I don't think there will be a big backfire with those numbers already.

The 'pivot to regulation' probably won't work either because McCain, as said, has been very open about that time in his life and basically learned his lesson and became a crusader... what it will do is allow McCain to talk about one of the more powerful stories of his bio.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It was the Democrats that opposed regulating banks as they saw Fannie and Freddie as being their baby.

Ah! And so Fannie and Freddie were the only two banks in America?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Ah! And so Fannie and Freddie were the only two banks in America?

I refuse to believe that you are this stupid.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I refuse to believe that you are this stupid.

Well you do seem to believe that the only problem was that Fannie and Freddie weren't regulated properly.