Why McCain's campaign strategy is, well... bad. Part II.

The attack rhetoric on Obama's assocations with Ayers, Rezko, and ACORN is not working, for two reasons.

The first is that these attacks do not pass the "if my candidate did it" test. Over the past few weeks, my Republican friends and I have been debating over the questionable associations that each candidate holds. The arguments go something like this:

Them: "Ayers!"
Me: "Liddy! Keating!
Them: "Rezko!"
Me: "U.S. Council for World Freedom!"
Them: "ACORN!"

For each of Obama's tenuous associations with People Who Have Done Bad Things, McCain has a corresponding equivalent--and vice versa. They might not be exactly equal (I would say that Rezko is worse than Keating, and Liddy and the U.S. Council are worse than Ayers and ACORN), but they are easily comparable. And yet I have not changed my vote for Obama, and they have not changed their vote for McCain. This is because none of these associations pass the "if the candidate of my own party did it, would it change my vote?" test. (The same goes for Troopergate.)

Anything that does not pass this test is not going to sway an independent voter in this volatile climate. Period. Finito. The end. I don't know why the McCain campaign officials (who should have been fired months ago) do not realize this.

In contrast, political smears do turn off independent voters, especially when they don't pass the test. Obama's campaign knows about Liddy. They know about the U.S. Council of World Freedom. And yet they have not aired any attack ads featuring McCain's associations with this person or group. The Obama campaign--which is the best campaign I have ever witnessed--knows that this won't work. And McCain's antics give Obama an opportunity to stay out of the mud, and frankly, he looks better for it.

Of all McCain's attackable associations, the Obama campaign has only utilized one--the Keating scandal. And they have only done that because it directly correlates with the #1 issue on every independent voter's mind right now.

The second reason that these tactics will not work is the (unintended, I imagine) consequence--videos of the seething, frothing hatemongers who go to these rallies. I'm not going to call these people Republicans, because that's not really what they are. They don't have a guiding set of principles that they believe are the most sound ones for running our government.

They are, however, people that the Culture War persuades to vote Republican. They are xenophobes who are susceptible to the nativist message of Rove politics, who show up to vote for the "Defense of Marriage" amendments on ballots. To put it simply: they don't like people who are different from them. Rove and co. exploit that. But Rove would never allow OTHER PEOPLE TO SEE him exploiting that. Dole and Bush 41 were extremely critical of hatemongers; they have both said that they do not belong in their party.

Rank and file Republicans do not like to be reminded of this segment of their voting bloc. Libertarian-leaning fiscal conservatives particularly hate this shit, y'all. Those are the people you NEED if you want to win states like Florida and Virginia--and they were *already* thinking about voting for Barr.

And of course, independents see this and it does not persuade them, not one iota, to vote for you. These people at your rallies look like they're about to start a lynch mob.

John McCain and Sarah Palin both need to immediately apologize and scale back their rhetoric. I can't even figure out what they're trying to do, since this tactic is clearly not working. Are they trying to create civil unrest after the election takes place, or violent mobs beforehand? Are they trying to create an atmosphere of ilegitimacy for Obama's probable presidency?

It certainly looks like it. This is not "Country First," y'all. Not at all.