An adviser to Sen. John McCain apologized Monday for saying a terrorist attack on the United States would be "a big advantage" for the Republican presidential candidate.
According to Charlie Black, another attack would benefit McCain, the Benazir Bhutto assassination and McCain's reaction to it highlighted his qualifications ("Bhutto's killing was an "unfortunate event," he said, but McCain's 'knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be commander-in-chief. And it helped us.'"), and even McCain suggested on the day of Bhutto's assassination that it showed how he was the better choice.
Now they backpedal. Black goes "too far" and McCain distances himself. But it's a red herring...it's like a lawyer saying something in court when questioning a witness, something he wants to plant in the jury's head. He knows it will raise an objection from opposing counsel, and that the judge will sustain the objection, but he says it anyway, then allows it to be struck. The jury is instructed to disregard it, but the deed is done...it's in their head, and nothing will change that.
McCain lets a surrogate take the heat for something he clearly believed, probably wanted to say (and even pointed out himself 7 months ago). The surrogate will fade into obscurity, and no one will remember his name in a couple of weeks. But what they will remember is the point of the controversy (and the free advertising it gives to McCain)...that McCain is supposedly better able to handle terrorism and foreign policy.
Sorry? Bull. I'd bet good money that it was a planned statement, meant to plant a seed and sacrifice a relatively obscure surrogate to get a point across that the candidate himself can't make. Politics, pure and simple. George W. Bush-style Swift Boat politics.
Technorati Tags: Politics, McCain, Terrorism, Dishonesty
0 comments:
Post a Comment