McCain Can’t Plead Ignorance in the Age of Google — Nobody Can
Senator Obama’s response to criticism that he should have known about Johnson’s sweetheart mortgage deals was: “[E]verybody . . . who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters.” This is a classic line. If there is justice, “vetter to vet the vetters” will enter pop culture and get screened onto American Apparel basic T’s. At least it deserves something on the Colbert Report.
But he does have a point. Johnson’s apparently too-cozy Countrywide mortgages came to light (through an article in the Wall Street Journal) only after he was named Chief Vetter.
While there are many things that a campaign ought to know, there are just as many things about supporters that campaigns can’t know. And the means for many of these things to come to the fore are firmly entrenched in the landscape. Look no further than sites like Pajamas Media. The only certainty, then, is that things will come to light.
Candidates need to both up their game and prepare for the mistakes they will definitely make. It won’t pass muster to say you didn’t know something anyone can find out in less than a minute.
But, as former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld pointed out (and for which wisdom he was unfairly ridiculed), there are known unknowns. That is to say, candidates can bet on embarrassing revelations about their supporters, even if they do not yet know, and cannot yet know, what they are.
How will the campaigns respond? Circle the wagons? Or — perhaps too much to ask from the Candidate of Believable Change or from Camp Straight Talk — with straightforward candor?
Brad Rourke writes a column on public life called Public Comments, produces a videolog called Taxonomies, is a founder of the Maryland neighborhood blog, Rockville Central, and is in a band called The West End.
The author: “Shouldn’t he have known? That last question is, perhaps, worth thinking about.”
Let’s just do that right now.
So, this “Clayton Williams” stuff of McCain’s campaign staff is supposed to nullify/equal out Barack Obama’s personal choice of a 20-year-long mentor of anti-American and racist Rev. Wright, a decade long relationship with anti-American and domestic terrorist William Ayers, and crook Tony Rezko?!
Gee…moral relativism sure makes liberal excuse-making – err – “thinking” easy.
What a load of horse hockey.
McCain has just dropped about 20 points in my eyes for his priggish pettiness.
It just occurred to me how little McCain – or what McCain does – matters to me in this election. To me, it’s all about stopping the left’s empty suit front man, Obama.
It looks like everybody is going to lose in this election cycle. It’s just the degree to which we lose for which we are casting a vote. It’s referendum on socialist universalism. I’ll vote ‘against’, but how depressing it is to always play defense.
How demoralizing it is that the GOP has used the ‘Well they are worse!’ alibi to become the slovenly, complacent, and undisciplined party they are today. How sad that the only thing saving the GOP is the fact that the Democrats are so malicious.
Rome fell for many reasons, but the main was that the character of the leadership ebbed downward, observe how similar the once great character of the American leadership settles toward the sewar.
Bill, if you read a bit about Lyndon Johnson, John Nance Garner, and Joe Kennedy — or go back to the Tammany Hall days, or the Prendergast machine — I think you’ll find that the character of our politicians hasn’t changed. Ben Franklin was known to enjoy an off-color joke and a little canoodling. Sara’s point about “priggish pettiness” is a good one, but in this election, I’m not sure I see McCain has a lot of choice; if he weren’t doing it, the legacy media would do it for him.
Thought provoking article as usual, Brad. However, I can’t agree with your conclusions that there is an implicit guilt by association assumed by a candidate whenever someone associated with his campaign is discovered to have said or done something stupid, and that, in this Google age, it is inexcusable for him not to have known his associate had done so. By that lofty measure, any future candidate might just as well put a gun to his head the moment he decides to run for office. Everyone is guilty of misjudgment or wrongheadedness from time to time. Even some of the most extreme crimes have statutes of limitation placed on them. Stupid, insensitive comments are forms of Constitutionally protected speech, not crimes and misdemeanors. They are punishable by the loss of an election as it was in Williams’ case 18 years ago. Yielding to “bushwhack politics” makes for cowards in office. In my opinion, McCain showed his cowardice by withdrawing from this event over this issue. Give me an honest, courageous, even “politically incorrect” candidate anytime.
By the way, I really like the photo you used in your header: Just the observational angle most of us will ever have.
I am not surprised at all these cover-ups. John McCain cant pretend he never knew. Anyway, whatever he does or donot do never gets my attention because I have already made my choice to vote for Obama. We just need a fresh face.
Rawlings:
Coverups as you say.
Why don’t you investigate your own Democratic Party and see 1000 of coverups.
Explain why all communists are rallying around Obama and get back to us and give us explanation.
If you can give us explanation then maybe we shall vote for Obama after all.
I hold no torch for Obama but I am tired of n****r haters conjuring up reasons not to vote for Obama, most of it is drivel & fantasy. Be realistic, listen to what Obama has to say, consider the polls, & decide how you will act when Obama is elected. REB SHLOMO