Will Brokaw Let McCain Change Subject To Ayers?
Senior McCain advisers have flatly declared that they want the subject of the campaign changed from the economic crisis to Barack Obama's past associations and the various things that allegedly make Obama a "risky" choice.
So the question going into tonight's debate is this: Will moderator Tom Brokaw let McCain do this? For that matter, will Brokaw himself ask about former Weatherman William Ayers?
And if the discussion does shift over to Obama's relationship with Ayers -- whether due to Brokaw's questioning or McCain's attacks -- will Brokaw play the association game fairly and ask about the Keating Five scandal?
No one is questioning Brokaw's professionalism or impartiality, but keep in mind that Brokaw has taken on a behind-the-scenes role as a kind of emissary to the McCain campaign for NBC, suggesting he may be sympathetic to the McCain team's claims that McCain has been treated unfairly by the media.
What's more, Brokaw has indicated that he may be less than sympathetic to efforts to recall McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal. He recently agreed with an assessment of the scandal as "ancient history."
One interesting side note: The McCain team would probably prefer that McCain not be the one to bring up Ayers, since that will allow Obama to remind everyone that McCain's own adviser said they were hoping to turn the page past the crisis and get back to explaining why Obama is "risky." That makes the question of whether Brokaw will bring up Ayers more pressing.
We'll be blogging the debate right here at Election Central.
Late Update: John Aravosis makes the key point that the suggestion yesterday by McCain's lawyer that McCain did nothing wrong amid Keating Five might make questions about his role newly relevant.
Who the hell knows what Brokaw will do -
thanks for getting this thing working again. I hate to say a thing - I don't want to jinx it [looks nervously from side to side]
October 7, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's the "no one" who aren't questioning Brokaw's impartiality? He's a known militarist shill and jock sniffer (see his buttlicking ode to the people who gave you Joe McCarthy, "The Greatest Generation").
I don't know what his politics are, but he's completely in the tank for the War Hero red herring.
October 7, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem for McCain is that Ayers only works when Obama isn't there to respond. McCain can make a slimy scare ad using Ayers but if Obama gets a chance to respond it is game over.
NATO forces had been chasing that Bosnian war criminal round for eight years, nobody in the hippie health movement knew he was a war criminal. If republicans think its easy to spot a terrorist they are completely missing the problem.
McCain had a terrorist fundraiser speak at his convention - Rudy Giuliani used to collect cash for the IRA.
Obama should want Brokaw to raise Ayers, he can swat that one down easy. But McCain certainly does not want to be asked on Keating.
October 7, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pat Buchanan laid it out perfectly, if McCain brings up Ayers, Obama should own that he knows he made some bad associations but turn it on McCain and nail him for associating with Charles Keating.
That will completely neutralize that attack from Mccain.
October 7, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terrorist trumps greedy financier.
People expect bankers to be greedy.
People expect terrorists to spread terror.
Making money is the American dream.
Bombing America is Al Queda's dream.
October 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not when the Economy is the central issue facing our country.
Dow Jones down 500pts today.
October 7, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding.
The economy is way more terrifying than Osama bin Laden.
October 7, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Palin's association with anti-American groups is more immediate, more recent, and occurred when she was an adult AND had a chance to have an impact.
October 7, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the Bankers are the Terrorist!
October 7, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It doesn't matter how bad the economy is. That's why Obama should should stick with pointing out the patent absurdity of the whole thing - that he was a boy of eight living thousands of miles away when Ayers did these things.
October 7, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't Brokaw get to select the questions that come in by email and who to call on from the audience? he smells of bias and is in the McShame camp to "even" coverage. Really can't stand Brokaw...
October 7, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never been able to figure out how Brokaw got to be a network anchor in the first place. He always sounds like his mouth is full of marbles.
October 7, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What evidence is there that Obama is not risky?
He has almost no tack record. Changes position frequently. Has a history of questionable association. Was a virtual unknown on the national stage before this campaign.
Regardless of how intelligent he is, how well he speaks or how good a 3-point jump shot he has, Obama is a high risk gamble.
October 7, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Regardless of how intelligent he is, how well he speaks or how good a 3-point jump shot he has, Obama is a high risk gamble"
Fucking your mother without a condom is a high risk gamble.
October 7, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, that was a bit much..lol
October 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like you are speaking from experience there, Humanity Critic.
October 7, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No comment. lol
October 7, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well see, when you tack, you do change positions frequently.
It would help if you wouldn't make typos while you copy that fucking talking point that I've seen about 150 times now.
October 7, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touché.
I actually authored that and didn't copy it from anywhere. It is just that many reasonable people have that opinion.
October 7, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fully expect you, in the interest of intellectual honesty, to admit that the choice of Palin by a 72 year old is risky.
October 7, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not really an "opinion," though, is it? It's an assertion of (putative) fact. And it's wrong.
As to this "virtual unknown" nonsense: We know plenty about Obama. In fact it's hard to imagine how we could possibly know much more about anyone. You maybe choose to support him or to oppose him, but don't play this game of Fear the Scary Alien Negro Who Might Be a Secret Muslim! It's disingenuous, to put it kindly.
"Changes position frequently"? Come now. You do know who he's running against, right? Can you name a single position -- just one, any one -- that McCain has held consistently for longer than the past several months? Haven't you seen any of those McCain vs. McCain mashups, where he is shown taking (at least) two contradictory positions on a wide range of subjects, often denying that he ever said things that he just clearly said? Very amusing.
I'll let the 3-point thing slide. Obviously a Scary Negro can play some basketball.
October 7, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I've noticed that, since Obama is ahead in virtually every state.
I guess that makes you one of a handful of "reasonable people."
October 7, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your coming to a left leaning blog with posters who are political junkies and know what is going on. If you going to come here and span stuff like "He has almost no tack record. Changes position frequently. Has a history of questionable association. Was a virtual unknown on the national stage before this campaign." Then back it up.
He has almost no track record? Iam pretty sure that a lot of people here knows Obama's life story by now and he has plenty of track record and its one of the reasons why so many people support him.
Changes positions frequently? Name them... i know we could list off tons of McCain flip flops on just about everything.
Has a history of questionable association? You got what 3 people? Ayers - he shared a charity board with to promote education... watch out he just might be the boogy man. Rezko - he might of at worse gotten himself in a situation where someone could of used leverage on him. However there hasn't been any real proof that it ever occurred. Wright - he said some over the top stuff but Wright is a respectable person who was talking about the US foreign policy, and how we shouldn't blindly praise everything our country does. McCain on the other hand has much worse connections to various people, so don't even get us started.
"Was a virtual unknown on the national stage before this campaign"
Well before his speech in 2004 that is true... but Who the F cares? He has been in the national spotlight for over a year now and has proven himself over and over again. A lot of former presidents were not known nationaly before they started to run for president.
So don't come in here expecting people to take you seriously when all your doing is spamming stupid talking points that we have all heard 10000 times and are complete junk.
October 7, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not interested in your opinion or analysis. What I would be interested in is beating your punk arse into the dirt.
October 7, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans gave us 9/11, 2 failed wars and a bunker buster to the heart of our retirement security and you think Obama is risky?
October 7, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look everyone! The repulsive little racist snot from a previous thread is back! Hey jerkoff: guess what? The Secret Service is investigating the jackass who made the "Kill him" shout. Still think Obama supporters are just like Tawana Bradley?
October 7, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brokaw will likely be as neutral and objective as all the other moderators. He's a professional. Of course, each side will claim he favored the other.
October 7, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
October 7, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I do agree with this. I think Tom Brokaw is too Old School and too professional to let his personal feelings intrude here.
To put this in a more partisan way: Unlike the GOP campaign, Brokaw does have a sense of the historic weight of this kind of thing. He won't be winking and dog-whistling tonight.
October 7, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd think so but remember George Stephanopolous/Charlie Gibson's debacle as moderators for the Clinton/Obama debate?
October 7, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw that and I just loved it, too.
October 7, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think fogu is back everybody!
October 7, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny, I thought McCain was a Gambling enthusiast, or "addict" if you will.
So, by your logic, if Obama is that much of a "risk" McCain should love the guy!
October 7, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And McCain is playing a game of high stakes poker and only holding a pair of deuces.
October 7, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he wants to win the election, he's gonna have to bluff his way there.
October 7, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has many arrows in his quill...
October 7, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brokaw won't bring up Ayers. He'll have one of the town hall questioners do it. (He does, after all, get to pick which questions get asked.)
October 7, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brokaw got cowed by the McCain campaign during the conventions. And my guess is that he'll bring up Ayers, because I also guess that Ayers' actions deeply offend Brokaw's midwestern sensibilities. He would never have those attitudes or those feelings, so that makes Ayers just so wrong in Brokaw's mind (total guesswork here, obviously).
Brokaw wrote "The Greatest Generation". Ayers was a dirty fucking hippie, trying to blow up the US. Yes, Brokaw will bring up Ayers.
October 7, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walter Cronkite was one of my favorite "hippies". Brokaw missed the "greatest generation" of journalists.
October 7, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he does, he should also bring up the Keating 5. I bet he won't. He loves McCain per his comments during the Democratic Convention about McCain being a POW.
October 7, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we have to assume Brokaw's selected questions will be as bad as the infamous flag pin ABC debate. I just hope Barack can stay calm, not take the bait, and pivot back to the real issues (while pointing out the far more salient Keating 5). He might also quickly allude to the fact that Republicans who served on the same educational charity in Chicago have stated the notion that Ayers was a dangerous type at the time Obama knew him, is just plain silly.
October 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point re: Republicans on the board.
October 7, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not making any bets on the press any more.
I'm just waiting to see what happens.
Everyone told me Katie would let the Princess get away with murder, too.
October 7, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, I wish I could reach the state of zen master like you, lol.
I'm nervous to death, honestly....
October 7, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I was a total mess last week before Princess Sparkle Starburst and Biden were debating.
I've watched Obama and Biden walk off with two debates now. After awhile - and this close to the election with polls (which I do hate, but) this good-
I'm just tuning in hoping for a fatal crash.
October 7, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brokaw is a mediocrity with a tiny, tiny mind. Of course he doesn't think Keating is relevant, and of course he'll bring up the Ayers smear. My guess is he's even capable of taking Obama to task if Keating comes up--even as he puts Ayers in play.
October 7, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really care for this kind of ad hominem bashing of working journalists. I think it's fair game to call people on specific cases of bad performance. But I really think we should leave the Hate-the-Press rhetoric to Republicans.
Look at how artfully the much-maligned Katie Couric skewered Sarah Palin.
October 7, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that he may, for whatever motivation, suprise us. But so far, his track record is pretty dismal. Time, as they say, will tell.
October 7, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for being reasonable.
There are two blanket complaints that people on the left use over and over to address almost any situation and that's: the press is in the tank for the right and Americans are too stupid to get it.
Neither of these cliches fit the current situation. This isn't 2004.
October 7, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know where this reverence for the "working press" --whatever the hell that menas comes from. You've been asleep for eight years or more if you think these talking heads are performing the duties of an actual press.
October 7, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gamble? I think McCain is the "Gamble" candidate, in more ways than one.
His health, rather than his craps jones, is the most urgent in my book. And then of course, there's the fact that this guy has been dishonest with his wives, dishonest with Charles Keating and the country. He chose for his highly possible successor a nasty, petty, stupid fool.
I'll take my chances with Obama. I think the odds are far better in my favor with him.
October 7, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Town Hall audience will include a lot of Independents. They are the only voters in play.
Republicans are with McCain, and Democrats are with Obama.
The biggest mistake that Senator Obama would make is to get into a mudslinging contest, instead of addressing the economic crisis, and how it is affecting the lives of every day people. It is the Independents, stupid.
If McCain brings up Ayers, Senator Obama should just reply: John, that is a lot of false nonsense, and you know that it is, now, I am going to address the economics needs of the working class people of America,...............
Always speak to the voters concerns, and never to your opponents agenda.
It is the Independants, stupid?
October 7, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you honestly think Obama would do that?
I don't see it - it's not him.
All he's said is he'll fight back if he's punched - he won't just take it and nor should he.
October 7, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It better be him, or he will be playing into McCain's hands, by letting McCain set the tone of the debate.
The thing about getting down in the gutter with your opponent is: the viewers only see two equally filth covered brawlers.
October 7, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You managed to read me backwards, liam.
I am saying I don't think Obama would get in the gutter and you seem to think that I'm saying he will.
October 7, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Tena,
I wrote what I think Obama should say and do, and you wrote: do you think he will do that, and that you did not see him doing it. How else was I supposed to interpret you response?
October 7, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, liam - my bad.
October 7, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is the possibility of making the jab while pivoting to higher ground. I think Obama can pull it off, only because he won't be trying to hit a home run, but merely getting onto first base. McCain, on the other, in his attempt to reach the bleachers will flail aimlessly for a big strike three. Enough baseball metaphor, I think so.
October 7, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.