Blasts From the Past

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 9:39 AM

Just what America needs while the economy is crumbling: a campaign about William Ayers and Charles Keating.

The McCain team rather clumsily signaled that it was going to go after Obama's "associations," meaning his limited interaction with a onetime terrorist and, if Sarah Palin gets her way, a reprise of the greatest hits of Jeremiah Wright. The Obama camp, meanwhile, has clearly been sitting on McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal, waiting for the right moment to return fire.

What perfect timing, just as the country is sick to its collective stomach over the plunging Dow, despite the $700 billion bailout that was supposed to fix this mess.

I'm not going to whine about how these campaign fusillades are a distraction from the "real" issues. Voters are entitled to examine Obama's judgment in associating with a guy who's unrepentant about his anti-Vietnam War bombings, and McCain's judgment in intervening with regulators on behalf of an S&L kingpin whose thrift, along with plenty of others, later went belly-up.

But with two wars grinding on and an economic calamity at home, is this the best we can do?

Obama was in elementary school during the Weathermen bombings. He's denounced the bombings. Perhaps he should have had the good political sense to avoid even the rehabilitated-in-Chicago Bill Ayers. But Ayers is hardly one of his advisers or an influence on his thinking. (And McCain has a "Who is Barack Obama?" ad that I critique here.)

McCain's involvement with Keating was a huge blunder -- but one that occurred 19 years ago. I've seen McCain apologize for his conduct more than once, without prompting, and he threw himself into campaign finance reform with the fervor of a reformed sinner. I think voters have factored the scandal into their view of McCain.

Bill Clinton (who had his own baggage) used to say he'd make an election about the voters' future, not his past. That's not the case at this moment in Campaign '08.

"Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama entered their general election contest this summer denouncing American politics as trivial and negative, and vowing to run campaigns that would address the concerns of voters during a difficult time," says the New York Times.

That seems like a long time ago.

"But Mr. McCain made clear on Monday that he wanted to make the final month of the race a referendum on Mr. Obama's character, background and leadership -- a polite way of saying he intends to attack him on all fronts and create or reinforce doubts about him among as many voters as possible. And Mr. Obama's campaign signaled that it would respond in kind, setting up an end game dominated by an invocation of events and characters from the lives of both candidates."

Boston Globe: "Senator Barack Obama, facing a broad new assault on his character from rival John McCain and the Republican Party, punched back aggressively yesterday with a multi-pronged attack on McCain's ethics, marking a sharp, personal turn in the presidential race as the two candidates face off tonight in their second debate.

"Obama's campaign raised, for the first time, McCain's involvement in the Keating Five controversy, an influence-peddling scandal in Congress 20 years ago that remains a major blemish on the Arizona senator's political career. In an unusual 13-minute Internet documentary, a new website, and an e-mail to hundreds of thousands of supporters, Obama's team asserted that the Keating case raises serious questions about McCain's judgment and ability to manage the deeply troubled economy."

L.A. Times: "Both campaigns have long planned for this newly negative moment, but with the world embroiled in an economic meltdown, the script is taking unexpected turns -- and the old lines of attack could fall flat.

"Rather than command public attention, as the Wright controversy did, the debate over Obama's past is being overshadowed by the loss of thousands of jobs every day and a steep decline in the stock market. With voters overwhelmed by major news events, character attacks can easily be lost in the din."

USA Today: "As they prepared Monday for Tuesday night's presidential debate, John McCain attacked Barack Obama's credibility. But some of McCain's fellow Republicans say the aggressive tack may not offset the damage to his candidacy from the sinking economy."

New York Post: "John McCain went nuclear on Barack Obama yesterday, charging that the Illinois Democrat 'abetted' the mortgage meltdown."

Former McCain strategist Mike Murphy, now blogging at Time, sees his old friend making a mistake:

"McCain is in trouble in Michigan for the same reason he is in trouble in GOP leaning Florida and North Carolina; when it come to strategy Team Obama is throwing the McCain High Command around the room like stunt men in a Bruce Lee picture. The terrain of the election has shifted mightily to economic fear and Obama is moving his campaign to exploit that. Meanwhile the McCain campaign retains its lamentable focus on press tactics at the expense of a real strategy . . .

"Over the top negative attacks and a campaign message that too often seems to be little more than sarcasm and suppressed anger has damaged McCain's priceless and hard earned 'brand' as a different kind of Republican. McCain's best option now is to ditch the chainsaw and offer a scared and angry country what it badly wants; hope and leadership.

"Palin should drop the braying attacks on Obama's aging hippie bomber pals and start connecting to her cherished hockey moms on the one issue they are actually worried about; a quickly slowing economy. Chuck the hacky and ineffective negative ads and switch to man on the street spots with real people voicing their real doubts about Obama; too weak to stand up to Washington's mighty special interest cartel or the newly empowered Democratic bosses of the Congress and Senate, too liberal to know how to fix the economy, too inexperienced to handle a dangerous world."

National Review's Byron York wonders whether McCain should bother with the army of fact-checkers, some of whom jumped on Palin's charge "that Barack Obama 'is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.' That, of course, is a reference to William Ayers, the former Weather Underground radical who in the 1960s and 1970s took part in bombing the Capitol, the Pentagon, and several other targets with the goal of overthrowing the U.S. government. Obama has attempted to downplay his relationship with Ayers -- Obama once called Ayers a 'guy who lives in my neighborhood' -- but there is no doubt that the two knew each other, that Ayers supported Obama and Obama accepted Ayers' support, and that they worked on projects together as recently as a few years ago.

"Nevertheless, the factcheckers have been all over Palin's statement. 'Verdict: False,' wrote CNN's fact-checking unit. 'There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now 'palling around,' or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.'

"It would be pretty easy for McCain and Palin to satisfy those objections. Barack Obama, they could say, 'is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he has worked with -- has even accepted the support of -- a radical who bombed the Capitol and the Pentagon, who wanted to overthrow the U.S. government, and who to this day has no regrets about it.' That would certainly satisfy the fact-checkers' objections and would still be a tough hit on Obama. Would that work? Would the fact-checkers withdraw their complaints if McCain and Palin satisfied the objections they have raised? Not likely."

By the way, Palin is giving another interview to Fox, in the person of Greta Van Susteren. I guess the rest of the MSM can wait till Nov. 5.

Why did the Obama camp wait until now to put out a new defense about Ayers? Power Line's John Hinderaker is amazed by this CNN report:

" JIM ACOSTA: In 1995 Ayers hosted a coffee for Obama when the young community organizer was making his first run for the State Senate. At this point looking back, should he not have done that?

" DAVID AXELROD: Well I mean, when he went, he certainly -- he didn't know the history.

"This strikes me as a rather stunning development. Obama appears to be admitting that if he knew about Ayers' terrorist history, and the fact that he still takes pride in that history and despises America, it would be an error in judgment to form a close association with him.

"But it is inconceivable that Barack Obama knew Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn well enough to kick off his first political campaign in their living room, but didn't know that Ayers and Dohrn were Communists who led the Weatherman faction of SDS, urged young people to 'kill your parents,' carried out approximately 30 bombings, including New York City's police headquarters, the Capitol and the Pentagon, celebrated the Charles Manson murders, spent years living underground to avoid criminal prosecution, and continued to express their lifelong hatred for the United States in books, magazine articles, and public speeches."

I guess the Google didn't exist then, huh?

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin concurs: "Bluntly put, it's one thing to hang out with former terrorists who conspired to kill Americans and avowed a hatred for America, it is quite another to lie to voters now. The 'just a guy in the neighborhood' excuse was not quite flying -- the 'I didn't know he was a terrorist' hooey sure isn't."

A new poll gives Obama a 49-43 lead, in line with recent surveys:

"Independent voters are starting to swing behind Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who continue to benefit from economic turmoil and the public response to their debate performances, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

"The survey, conducted over the weekend, was full of good news for the Democratic presidential ticket. Sen. Obama increased his advantage over Republican rival John McCain when voters were asked which candidate they prefer to handle economic issues at a time when a growing percentage of voters said that was their top concern heading into the election. More voters said they are 'more reassured' by how Sen. Obama was responding to the financial crisis than by Sen. McCain."

And by the way, "voters said by a 50%-to-29% margin that they thought Sens. Obama and Biden did 'a better job in the debates.' "

CBS gives Obama a tighter 47-43 lead.

Having already suggested to Sarah Palin that the Reverend Wright might be fertile territory, Bill Kristol turns to handicapping the race:

"The odds are against John McCain and Sarah Palin winning this election. It's not easy to make up a 6-point deficit in the last four weeks. But it can be done.

"Look at history. The Gore-Lieberman ticket gained about 6 points in the final two weeks of the 2000 campaign. Ford-Dole came back more than 20 points in less than two months in the fall of 1976. Both tickets were from the party holding the White House, and both were running against inexperienced, and arguably risky, opponents . . .

"If a campaign can convince supporters of the other candidate that the race is effectively over, the enthusiasm and volunteer efforts drop off -- as does, ultimately, their turnout on Election Day. Just as important, undecided and loosely affiliated voters become persuaded there's no real contest and lose any incentive to look closely at the candidates. This explains the efforts of the Obama campaign -- aided by a colluding media -- to sell the notion that the race is over, that McCain supporters should give up, and undecided voters should tune out."

Just a second, Bill. Whatever you think of the coverage, the "colluding media" aren't saying Obama has pulled ahead because they love the guy. They're saying it because the polls have shown several battleground states suddenly turning blue. And your colluding Fox pundit Karl Rove also says Obama is over 270 at the moment.

CQ's David Corn finds the new attacks tiresome:

"It seems that whenever Obama criticizes McCain's policies, McCain's response will be, 'Bill Ayres, Bill Ayres, Bill Ayres.' Or, I suppose, it might shift to 'Jeremiah Wright, Jeremiah Wright, Jeremiah Wright.' I wonder how McCain is going to follow this strategy in the debate on Tuesday night. His running mate, Sarah Palin, looked quasi-foolish trying to change the subject so many times during her face-off with Joe Biden. If McCain is asked about the fact that Obama's tax proposal offers more tax cuts to the bottom 99 percent of taxpayers than his own, will he say, 'That's just the sort of plan that a pal of Bill Ayres would propose. And let me tell you about Bill Ayres . . . '?"

When it comes to the Wright stuff, Wizbang asks: Why not?

"John McCain would be committing political malpractice if he didn't highlight Obama's very long term relationship with Jeremiah Wright, a man who said America was a curse on this world. What else could have he meant when he said it's not God Bless America but it's God Damn America and that AIDS was invented by the US government in order to commit genocide. Both Ayers and Wright see America as a source of hate and evil in this, and Barack Obama worked with and used both of these men to advance his political career to get him to where he is today: running for president."

History's verdict awaits, says American Prospect's Ezra Klein:

"If his campaign's final assault is defeated, it will be read as a repudiation of these politics. It will be understood as firm proof that you can no longer purposefully shatter this country's uneasy sense of tolerance and consensus and be assured that your pieces will be bigger . . . McCain, a man who once fashioned himself as among the country's most decent leaders, will have to live with the knowledge that history will remember him as having been unable to stand against bigotry and fear when they presented a political opportunity."

Of course, the victors have a way of rewriting history.