411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 106

Posted by Brandon Crow on 10.20.2008

Will "troopergate" cost Sarah Palin reelection as Alaska's Governor? Does John McCain still have a shot at winning the presidency? Is Cindy McCain wrong when she claims Obama has run the dirtiest campaign in history? Is Dick Cheney the worst VP of all time?

It's Monday morning, and you know what that means…it's time for Politics Fact or Fiction. Hey, finally, it's on time! Alright, enough chit chat. Get ready because Week 106 is rolling your way, featuring Jeff Clarke and Pat McCormick.

Let's get to it.

Ding! Ding

1. The discovery that Governor Sarah Palin "abused her power" in "Troopergate" will cost her the Alaskan governorship in the next election.

Jeff Clarke: FICTION. Fiction simply for the qualifier "will" cost her the election. The Troopergate finding is a blow to Palin's credibility, and who knows what her "friendly" investigation (that has turned decidedly unfriendly) will turn up? However, despite the fact that she has become the punch line of this election, we're looking at her from a national perspective. Who knows how seriously the citizens of Alaska are taking her abuse of power? For God's sake, Ted Stevens might go to prison, and the Democratic challenger for his Senate seat only has a slight lead.

I think her popularity numbers will tank a bit (and let's make something clear: Palin's "80% approval rating" was on one issue—getting kickbacks from the oil companies. And really, how many people are going to be against getting a check for a couple grand?) and if the statement was "might cost her the election" I'd say fact. But the election is years away, and that's a lifetime in politics.

Of course the other possibility is the Alaskan legislature could begin impeachment proceedings, and toss Palin out of office. Then this statement would still be fiction because she'd never get to the next election.

Pat McCormick: FICTION. "Tasergate" doesn't seem to have much traction, especially since the report essentially acknowledges that "Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads" and that Monegan's refusal to fire Wooten was "likely" a contributing factor. Combine that with Branchflower's "October surprise" prediction and the whole thing just seems to be a wash. Ultimately, if Palin does not become Vice President and ends up going back to Alaska, I don't think Tasergate will be an issue. What may be a more proximate threat to her reelection is the beating she has taken on the national scene. I'd also agree with Jeff that, barring impeachment proceedings, Palin has plenty of time to make nice with her constituents.

1 for 1. These two agree that Palin has a high chance of staying governor and getting reelected.

2. With many polls showing Barack Obama up near, or at, double digits nationally, John McCain can still win this election.

Jeff Clarke: FACT. Granted, it looks very unlikely, and it is almost unheard of for a candidate to have numbers as strong as Obama's going into the final few weeks, but this is politics, and anything can happen. If the market continues to improve, and McCain can shift the discussion away from the economy, he has a (slim) chance to make this an actual race again.

Remember, Truman was supposed to lose spectacularly to Dewey, and Harry S. pulled it out. Now, he pulled it out by making a Herculean effort crisscrossing the nation to connect personally with every voter he could, and we're seeing nothing like that from Johnny Mac (in fact, it's the frontrunner Obama who's been going door to door!), but it was still the ultimate upset in American politics. Never say never, and even though I'd say McCain has about a 5% chance of winning at this point, we're three weeks out, and plenty of shocking things can take place with so much time left.

Pat McCormick: FACT. Obama has been pulling impressive numbers in polls, but as the saying goes, the only poll that matters happens on November 4. With Gallup and Rasmussen polls as recent as Friday showing McCain trailing only within the margin of error, nothing can be ruled out. I'm going to be interested to see how two emerging strains play out: ACORN and Joe the Plumber. Obama let the mask slip a bit when he told Joe how he wanted to "spread the wealth around" and McCain may try to hang that around his neck. I say "may" because McCain has a bad habit of paying lip service to winning issues, but never investing himself in them.

The ACORN voter registration fraud story is also getting a decent bit of attention these days and presents another potential avenue of attack for McCain. Many fault McCain's campaign for negativity, but what has been most frustrating has been McCain's lack of follow through and follow up on winning issues like democratic culpability in the economic collapse via their protection of Fannie and Freddie. So while I feel less confident that McCain is going to be able to pull things out, interesting opportunities keep falling into his lap, and no candidate can really be counted out while he still has ground to fight on. Except Michael Dukakis. Heh.

2 or 2. McCain still has a chance…really? Only if the "Bradley Effect" bamboozles him!

Switch!

3. At a recent rally, Cindy McCain remarked to the crowd that Barack Obama has run one of the dirtiest campaigns in presidential history. Cindy McCain is wrong.

Pat McCormick: FACT. But with a caveat. There have been far dirtier campaigns run than either the Obama or McCain campaigns we've witnessed during this election cycle. Both campaigns have spent about the same amount on negative advertising, with Obama having the luxury, thanks to his massive campaign chest, to fund plenty of Hope-y Change-y positive ads as well. That said, our founding fathers engaged in some of the most brutal mudslinging contests one can conceive of, in a time when dissemination of information was limited and adequate fact checking was all but nonexistent. And somewhat more recently, one can look back to the LBJ "Daisy" ad or the deservedly reviled George Wallace outright calling his primary opponent a sissy.

But, while we're on the subject of George Wallace, things like Congressman John Lewis comparing McCain to the aforementioned scumbag, the vicious and invasive disinformation campaign against Sarah Palin, and the continuing attempts to paint McCain as a senile idiot on the brink of death, might make a candidate's wife a little touchy.

I will, of course, grant that the Lewis comments were made after Cindy made her own declaration, but it wasn't the first time the race card has been played by the opposition. But, at the heart of the matter is the fact that negative advertising and distortion of an opponent's record are "par for the course" in political campaigns. The really nasty stuff, with the exception of a certain race baiting Spanish language ad, has by and large come from people not directly tied to Obama's campaign. So unless we plan to broaden the definition of campaign, which would be patently unfair, Cindy's comment is, ultimately, inaccurate.

Jeff Clarke: FACT. What do you consider "dirty"? When it comes to the specific definition of a "dirty campaign", no matter what kind of group you ask, I doubt you'll get two identical answers. Are personal attacks okay? If so, how personal can you get? Both sides play fast and loose with the other side's figures and policies. Is there a threshold that separates an out-and-out lie from being "somewhat dishonest"?

I have seen plenty of Obama ads and surrogates attacking McCain's policies, but nothing on his character. By contrast, the McCain camp has openly admitted that if this election is about the issues, they lose. Thus, the glut of character assassination attempts we've seen from them all October. Which tactic is worse?

Plus, there is the issue of perspective. Pat brings up a great point with our founding fathers. The personal discord between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson is the stuff of political legend. What would that race have looked like with 24 hour news networks, Youtube, millions of dollars, and two years of constant campaigning? American politics is too relative a world to make hyperbolic statements like Mrs. McCain's.

But Pat, Cindy might be "touchy?" Michelle Obama has heard her husband called a baby killer who wants to teach sex ed to toddlers, a terrorist sympathizer, and listened to calls for his being bombed and water boarded. Yet we don't have Mrs. Obama complaining about McCain's tactics. She has done her best to keep her cool and stay above the fray. Mrs. McCain, on the other hand, jumped the intellectually dishonest shark when she accused Obama of voting against funds when her son was in Iraq.

Memo, Cindy: your husband voted against funding for your son, as well. Obama voted against one bill because it didn't have a timetable, McCain voted against another because it did. I don't know if this was Cindy being "touchy", disingenuous, our clueless about her own husband's voting record, but whatever the reason, she should be careful about throwing stones in any of her 11 glass houses.

3 for 3. Wow, strong answers from both on this one. Nice job, guys!

4. Lots of talk has circulated about George W. Bush possibly being remembered as the worst president in US history. But all this talk has neglected Dick Cheney. You believe Dick Cheney has been, and will be remembered as, the worst Vice President in the nation's history.

Pat McCormick: FICTION. It's way too early to make either of these assertions. James Buchanan let the Civil War erupt on his watch, for crying out loud. And as for the Vice Presidency, well, I would have to go with the only other VP to shoot a man while Vice President, Aaron Burr, and he was trying to kill the guy he shot.

"Darth" Cheney has been used as an all-purpose boogey man by his detractors, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. Since the traditional role of the VP (and yes, I'm raising this point for a reason...I'll come back to it) has been to preside over the Senate in a largely ceremonial role, give counsel and aid to the sitting president, be prepared to step into the office of the Presidency in the event of his demise or displacement from office, and to help his running mate win elections, I would find it hard to say that, like him or not, Cheney has been the worst vice president. Bush won two elections and Cheney, despite being oft painted as the devil incarnate, didn't destroy his candidacy.

Now, I will throw Cheney-haters one bone. One of my closest, most intellectual friends detests Cheney on the grounds that he has perverted the office of the Vice Presidency by reinterpreting and expanding its powers and responsibilities in a way that jeopardizes the separation of powers in the United States government. After doing some research myself, I can admit that I still find the whole argument a bit baffling and open to interpretation along ideological lines. The most clear cut example of Cheney ostensibly abusing the powers of his office was related to his insistence that some high-level discussions with energy executives were to remain private under the broad banner of executive privilege, and even that is still being, to my knowledge, sussed out in the courts. All this said, if Cheney has set a precedent that truly perverts the office of the Vice Presidency, then down the road you may have a stronger argument that he was the worst VP. In the short term, however, I don't find him to be particularly better or worse than any number of previous VP's. I mean, at least he can spell "potato".

Jeff Clarke: FICTION. And I threw up in my mouth a little typing that, but we're trying to be honest here. If the statement had been "one of the worst", I would have said FACT before I read the word "history". But to castigate Cheney as THE worst is arguable, simply because I don't have the legacies of all 55 VP's in front of me to contrast and compare. We also have to answer for ourselves, which is worse: Someone who is an active VP and winds up causing damage, or someone who doesn't do anything at all? Quayle was a little dim, but for the life of me I can't think of anything he did in four years. Ditto Gerald Ford. Looking back, I'd say Cheney is unquestionably the worst VP of the last 60 years (with an honorable mention for tax cheat Spiro Agnew) but once we get into FDR and his multiple veeps, my eyes get a little glassy.

But I have to take umbrage with your "too early" argument, Pat. Yes, it is too soon to proclaim who was THE best and THE worst of anything, if only because history is a living entity that we're always adding to. But some parts of the Bush/Cheney legacy need no "perspective", such as New Orleans drowning, or the lack of follow through on pre-9/11 intelligence. Think about it: Herbert Hoover is decried because of the 1929 market crash. LBJ, despite The Great Society, will always be painted with the Vietnam brush. Nixon recognized China, but will forever be remembered for his abuse of power in Watergate. All three men, if you ask most Americans, we're not good presidents.

Bush has a market crash, an unpopular war, abuse of power allegations, AND Katrina and 9/11. I doubt you'll find many people willing to put W. even in the top 30. As for Cheney, the damage of his legacy is already evident apropos to the point you brought up, Pat: Sarah Palin at the debate was thrilled about expanding on VP powers she thought the Constitution guaranteed her, when Cheney actually just made them up. Joe Biden had to set her straight on the fact that Cheney artificially expanded his powers in spite of the Constitutional life's blood of checks and balances. But she admittedly doesn't know what the vice president does, so I guess we can cut her some slack.

4 for 4. Funny how two folks whose political ideologies differ can actually go four for four. But let me just interject one personal thought: Dan Quayle's lack of brain cells made him an idiot, which is relatively harmless; Cheney's overt acts to turn the Vice Presidency (and the presidency) into some kind of puppet master government is downright dangerous. Look up what Cheney did as Secretary of Defense. And then look at what he did for Halliburton regarding military contracts immediately after he left his DOD job. There's a history and a clear pattern of Cheney's megalomania there for all to peruse and hopefully learn from.

Much thanks to Jeff and Pat for some great answers. You two are welcome back any time. Just shoot me an email when the itch hits you again. By the way, for any of you readers (and comment posters) out there, shoot me an email and I'll schedule you in. See you in seven.