McCain Campaign Hurt by Selecting Palin as Running Mate

Comments

October 15, 2008 at 4:09 am

(1) day says:

A Study on Pre-McCain Governance
How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace
be associated with it. Henry David Thoreau
Should “Fact Check” have been called “Fact Wreck?”
Two weeks prior to the release of the “Fact Check” TV ad, Governor Palin of Alaska joined the McCain Campaign amid accusations of firing a Public Safety Commissioner for personal reasons, in an affair which is currently known as Troopergate, consequently raising questions about her background. The 30 second spot, approved by John McCain, opens with a beaming Palin, gazing heavenward, and closes with McCain in much the same pose, both of whom are surrounded by cheerful, pastel colors. The ad’s midsection is full of angst, dark ominous colors and a stern-faced Obama, combined to project foreboding and fear of the possible election of a Democratic leader, versus reassurance in that of the GOP’s. Other baleful indicators emphasized in the ad are a helicopter, jagged mountain background, negative words associated with stills of Obama, culminated by alarming music. A pack of beguiling wolves loping gaily through the wilderness breaks up the severity of the tone, but seems out of place in the ad, except as a reminder that Palin is an aerial wolf hunter as Salon.com reports and that Palin’s administration refuses to respond to the illegal killing of 14 wolf pups by high-level Department of Fish and Game administrators. The ad relies on propaganda techniques that are not only dishonest and misleading, but disdainful to viewers; however, it may be persuasive to an audience that is unaware of the effects of political propaganda and thus, swayed via sentiment rather than wisdom. A second type of audience that may believe the ad are confirmed McCain supporters.
The first claim states that the attacks on Governor Palin have been called completely “false … “misleading.” This claim is, in fact, completely false and misleading. FactCheck.org reports “that there were rumors about Governor Palin but Obama was never mentioned” meaning that Obama’s campaign was not at the origin of this scuttlebutt. FactCheck.org backs this up with, “Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn’t come from Obama.” They actually originate with McCain. The deception of the viewers by McCain has just begun. In this ad, McCain insinuates that Obama is unscrupulous when, in reality, the McCain camp is fabricating the rumors about Obama. “That one” who approved this message has gone to great lengths of duplicity and subterfuge to sabotage his opponent’s reputation. Since McCain endorses this message, his integrity is questionable at best and his disrespect for the viewer’s intelligence is palpable. As FactCheck.org dismally reports:
“They call the ad ‘Fact Check.’ It says ‘the attacks on Gov. Palin have been called ‘completely false’ … ‘misleading.’ ” On screen is a still photo of a grim-faced Obama. Our words are accurately quoted, but they had nothing to do with Obama.”
This type of propaganda includes a combination of two categories: the first is Name Calling, because the McCain-Palin campaign wants the viewers to condemn this act, thus, transferring the act onto the candidate. The second is Card Stacking, using fact evasion, issue dodging and false testimony to confuse the viewer, and diverting those viewers desiring facts, with fiction. In the book, The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue written by Deborah Tannen, the author opines that, “Adversarial rhetoric is a kind of verbal inflation - a rhetorical boy-who-cried-wolf” meaning that people will no longer believe, or even listen to these ads if they constantly insult the viewer’s intelligence with treacherous lies about the future U.S. president, whoever it may be. Unfortunately, the “Fact Check” ad’s falsehoods are camouflaged and certain audiences will not be able to differentiate facts from lies, however blatant they may be. In this case, the ad will be effective concerning audiences unfamiliar with the misleading nature of propaganda or those that are already McCain-Palin supporters.
In the second case, the ad does not affect the audience’s opinion, but in the former situation, it will skew the viewer’s perspective if this happens to be a gullible group. More importantly though, is the question of whether a future president has the integrity to abide by the fundamental rules of honesty and fair play; this ad does not feature these two basic and necessary ingredients. This ad is devious to both Obama and viewers; it should not be aired.
In the second claim, the McCain-Palin campaign soldiers on to associate a second negative and false allegation which is an opinion, disguised as a statement in a repeated attempt to sully Obama’s reputation. “The [Wall Street] Journal reports Obama ‘air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers’ into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin.” During this commentary, the ad displays a still of Obama which implies that these attacks originate from him. McCain resorts to a propaganda technique known as ad hominem, an attack on the person instead of an attack on the substance of the argument. The predicament is, however, that John Fund of the Wall Street Journal actually wrote this with a profoundly different meaning than what was portrayed by McCain’s approved ad. McCain’s intent is pondered in the following statement from the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund on Sept. 9: “Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin’s hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background.” FactCheck.org substantiates the Fund’s comment and surmises that, “The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from … Wall Street Journal columnist, John Fund, … who writes that the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to ‘dig into her record and background.’ [McCain’s] ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to ‘dig dirt.’ ’’ The ad implies falsely to the Obama camp that The Wall Street Journal has also stooped to woeful shenanigans, provoking the Obama camp to repudiate the inflammatory falsehoods in the following statement: “Furthermore, … in an update on FactCheck.org … the Obama campaign insists that no researchers have been sent to Alaska and that the [Wall Street] Journal owes them a correction.” This Smoke and Mirrors style of propaganda overload has even confused the Obama camp into believing that the Wall Street Journal is the source of this canard. The deceit engendered by the McCain ad, impels the Obama camp to charge the McCain camp with dishonesty, miring the debate in a morass of complicated confusion that I have been ferreting out, necessitating days of research. This is not what an ad should be, nor what the viewers expect of a political ad. This second claim in the McCain ad only emphasizes the fact that this machination should not be permitted to be perceived as reliable, factual information, and moreover, by a candidate for the office of American president.
An additional technique, approved by McCain, is not propaganda, but merely fraud; FactCheck.org says that the McCain camp misused the FactCheck.org banner in the ad to mislead viewers into thinking that these facts were indeed supported by FactCheck.org but in reality, FactCheck.org affirmed nothing of the sort. FactCheck.org contends:
“With its latest ad, released Sept. 10, the McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest. The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said ‘completely false’ attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.”
The McCain-Palin camp misused the banner for their benefit in the hopes of garnering viewers’ votes through exploitive means. This is defined as fraud, which is wrongful deception for personal gain “intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities (Wikipedia).” In showing the banner, they trick the viewers into thinking that FactCheck.org approves this ad and that these facts have been confirmed. FactCheck.org policy clearly states that, “we’ve asked that ‘the editorial integrity of the article be preserved’ and [FactCheck.org] told those who use our items that ‘you should not edit the original in such a way as to alter the message.’ ”
The first two claims made in “Fact Check” contain a minimum of three falsifications. The “Fact Check” ad is more than tinged with propaganda; it is a testimonial to what is rampant in politics as a whole. Substance, truth and constructive, respectful dialogue have been replaced by distortion, restrictive thought and outright lies. It is a painful realization that deception wins out as McCain’s modus operandi over intelligent and creative engagement. We must hold the leaders of our country to the highest level of honesty and intelligence and this is sorely lacking in McCain’s deportment.
More people might vote for McCain if he were genuine and forthright. His ad is a sham and his conduct shameful, prompting me to think that he embodies all that his ad divulges and implies. Both Palin and McCain prove that they are, as the authors of these vile deeds, the wolf pup slaughterer, and approver of lies, respectively, repugnant characters, lacking ethical and moral foundations. This induces me to conclude that their behavior is not only commonplace and acceptable as far as the McCain-Palin coterie is concerned, but that it is also highly probable that these acts spill over into their daily lives without much ado. “Fact Check” relies on disinformation that is not only dishonorable and fallacious, but insulting to most viewers intellect; nevertheless, certain viewing audiences, unaware of the biased nature of political propaganda, may be more easily inveigled and influenced through their emotions rather than logic. “Fact Check” should have been called “Fact Wreck.”

Works Cited
Fund, John. “The Hunt for Sarah October.” Wall Street Journal Opinion. 09 Sept. 2008.Wall Street Journal.09 Oct. 2008 .
“Http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html.” Fact Check. 10 Sept. 2008. FactCheck.org. 07 Oct. 2008.
Jans, Nick. “Sarah Palin: The view from Alaska.” Salon.com. 11 Oct. 2008. 13 Oct. 2008 .
Tannen, Deborah. The Argument Culture : Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random House Group. 488-93.
Wikipedia. Fraud. 09 Oct. 2008 .