Talk:John McCain 2008 presidential campaign

NPOV dispute of 7/31/08

Regarding the section above, I hereby retract my thanks. Your additions aren't the least bit neutral, and they totally ignore the well-documented lies in McCain's attack ads, as evaluated by neutral third parties. Please revise to improve neutrality ASAP. --Art Smart (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Smart, you inserted the following:

A recent ad run by McCain alleged that Obama chose to skip a chance to meet with wounded troops because media was not allowed. The claims are being disputed.[1]

Then, User:Happyme22 replaced it with the following:

McCain attacked Obama for canceling a visit to an American military base to visit wounded U.S. troops while in Germany.[2] This was the subject of a McCain television advertisement, which chided Obama for making "time to go to the gym" instead of visiting with wounded troops. The Obama campaign responded, saying that it would be "innapropriate" to "have injured soldiers get pulled into the back-and-forth of a political campaign", which led a McCain spokesman to respond, "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."

Seems to me that the material by Happyme22 is neutral, and more detailed than what you inserted. What's the problem? This article cannot address every dispute in a campaign, but this was a big one, and it seems to be handled neutrally by Happyme22.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I too am a bit perplexed. As I said to you in the section above, we as Wikipedia editors cannot label McCain's ads as "attack ads" or his campaign as "negative", for that is in violation of WP:NPOV. But we can say that the Obama camp perceived the ads as negative, which is mentioned in the paragraph below this one, regarding the Obama celebrity ad. Also adhering to WP:NPOV, I added to the paragraph above what the McCain ad was about, how the Obama camp responded, and how the McCain camp responded to that. It is, simply, balanced. Happyme22 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict -- let me start over) Every statement in Happyme22's new section concludes with McCain's point of view, and there is not a single word about the documented falsehoods in his recent ads (see list in section above). I propose moving Happyme22's section to this talk page, hammer out a consensus, and only then reinserting into the article. If that's agreeable, I am willing to remove the tag, even though I now see other elements of the article that are not neutral (but I'm willing to deal with them on a case-by-case basis). Agreeable temporary solution? Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and take my proposed action. --Art Smart (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new subsection: "Obama's foreign trip and campaign ads"

Amidst the ongoing campaign in July, McCain's challenger, Senator Obama, traveled to the Middle East as a part of a Congressional delegation, and to Europe, in what many saw as an international campaign. This overshadowed Senator McCain in terms of media coverage, though McCain attacked Obama for canceling a visit to an American military base to visit wounded U.S. troops while in Germany. This was the subject of a McCain television advertisement, which chided Obama for making "time to go to the gym" instead of visiting with wounded troops. The Obama campaign responded, saying that it would be "inappropriate" to "have injured soldiers get pulled into the back-and-forth of a political campaign", which led a McCain spokesman to respond, "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."

The McCain campaign recently launched another political advertisement, comparing Obama's celebrity status with that of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. USA Today noted that the ad "questions whether being a 'celebrity' qualifies someone to be president" and a McCain spokesman added, "makes the case that Obama is unsuited to be president like those two young pop stars and that the Illinois senator favors higher taxes." Obama said that the ad "was the latest example of McCain's negativity" and later stated, "All they do is try to run me down". NBC Nightly News reported that "both campaigns", however, are expected to put up ads "tearing each other apart." Stuart Rothenberg, a Rothenberg political reporter, said of the ad, "Nobody's going to confuse Paris Hilton with Senator Barack Obama. But over time, the attempt to raise questions about his substance, that could really well work."

References:

Discussion of above proposed section

Above is the content originally added today by Happyme22. Let's argue the specifics below. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some coverage of the fact that several media outlets reported McCain's claims to be transparently false would be nice. — goethean ॐ 20:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

1. Why no mention that the whole trip was at the instigation of McCain himself? How else could it be "international?"
2. The NewsHour segment answered all the questions about why Obama canceled visiting the wounded, and the truth differs markedly from the characterizations in McCain's ads. In that segment, both of the NewsHour's guests were neutral (one with FactCheck and the other being a news reporter), so their input is much more neutral then Happyme22's imperfect interpretations of the campaigns' backs-and-forths.

I don't understand this "instigation" comment. Are you referring to the fact that Obama had not been to Iraq in years, and that McCain urged him to go, without preconceived notions? "Instigation" seems like quite a non-neutral word to characterize this. And I don't think McCain urged Obama to go to Iraq (or Europe) to campaign, but rather to learn about the situation. I don't understand your remark "How else could it be 'international?'"Ferrylodge (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue about what may be true and untrue in the ad goes back and forth, and we will probably see no end to it. Please see this piece. It's best to say what the ad said and avoid any of the back and forth, so we don't tread further into WP:RECENTISM. Happyme22 (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Second paragraph

1. The Spears/Hilton ad has been widely criticized by journalists on multiple news outlets today (Good Morning America, Today show, local news). The Today Show's Matt Lauer was especially critical in his questions of the McCain surrogate. I've never seen him so offended by a guest.
2. On "The View" today, Whoopi Goldberg was highly critical of McCain's use of white girls in the Obama comparison, instead of celebrities like Will Smith. She repeatedly shouted "it was a junk ad" over Hasselbeck's objections. "The View" is just a symptom of widespread criticism of the Spears/Hilton ad. I'm sure there are tons of URLs out there equally critical of the ad, some of which would meet Wikipedia's RS guidelines.

I'll take a break for now, and give others the chance to chime in. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:Recentism. This article isn't supposed to be a play-by-play of all recent campaign developments, but rather is supposed to give a more enduring overview of the major points. It's true that images of some white people have appeared in some of McCain's ads (e.g. Paris Hilton and Britney Spears), and it's true that some critics view the selection of those images as racist, just as some of those very same people might view it as racist if the McCain ads contained some black people instead of those particular white people. But really, do we have to go into this? Let's please just try to stick with neutral facts that everyone can agree about and that everyone thinks are very notable. It seems much more notable that McCain is now being accused by Obama of saying that Obama's "got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." This seems like a very serious accusation from Obama. Or we can just stick with the issues covered by Happyme22.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me, Art, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you only want to mention the criticisms of the ad. Well frankly, that is not allowed on Wikipedia in accordance with our policy of writing with a neutral point of view. You will see in the paragraph that the ad is criticized - by Obama no less (in fact, there are two quotes from Obama, the other picking up on McCain's perceived negative campaign). But with that criticism, we also need a supportive view, which comes from a McCain spokesman. A summary giving both pros and cons is included, written by Stuart Rothenberg. Of course the ad was discussed all over television, but we cannot judge negative reception based on Matt Lauer and The View. Happyme22 (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM

Probably best to leave Happyme22's proposed new subsection out completely. The issues are changing so fast that by the time we reach a consensus (assuming that is possible), new issues will have overtaken them.

I agree that we need to avoid WP:RECENTISM. However, I suspect that long after this election is over, pundits will look back on McCain's sudden attack of negativism (to most) and prevarication (to some) as a key event in the arc of the election -- not a turning point, unless he ultimate wins, but obviously a high-stakes roll of the dice (possibly destroying his "straight talk" brand, which I've always thought was his greatest asset). For that reason I think these recent ads satisfy the requirement to avoid WP:RECENTISM. I just think we are too close to it time-wise, and of too divergent a set of opinions on how to interpret lessons from the exact same set reliable sources, to reach a consensus.

When I read Happyme22's proposed new subsection, I saw not the least bit of neutrality, though I'll grant he probably acted completely in good faith. For example, I can read the exact same reliable source and see a phrase like, "Overall, the media sees McCain's move as a sign that he is going negative on Obama," which Happyme22 certainly didn't quote in his proposed new subsection. For another example, Happyme22 has dismissed FactCheck.org as an unreliable source, but I'm unconvinced of his belief. And if it turns out that is a reliable source, then we owe it to our readers to reveal FactCheck's questioning of the honesty of McCain's campaign in multiple instances.

No doubt the two campaigns have now turned negative, and unfortunately, that is to be expected as inevitable (e.g., Kerry's slowness to respond to being swift boated is a mistake that Obama will not repeat). Any two opposing campaigns naturally will always differ as to who started the negativity. And as others have pointed out, our neutrality requires we tread with extreme caution on the subject of negativity, if at all.

But on the issue of honesty, when relable third parties have done the fact-checking, that's an area that meets all guidelines for inclusion in the article. That's why I originally stated, "A recent ad run by McCain alleged that Obama chose to skip a chance to meet with wounded troops because media was not allowed. The claims are being disputed." I cited the PBS NewsHour segment which used FactCheck's neutral research on the subject, as well as a Washington Post reporter who had first-hand knowledge of the events in question. I'm not sure how more neutral and reliable one could get on this or any other matter.

But while I would welcome a fuller exposition on the subject, in my opinion Happyme22's good-faith attempt at neutrality fell far short of the mark. I'm doubtful we could wordsmith it into something we could all agree upon, and even if we could, by then the issue would be overtaken with other notable events. Therefore, I say let's drop this whole proposed section. Anyone other ideas? Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the material is completely relevant so I do not think that it should be left out completely. However, I also do not think that User:Hvalross's good-faith contributions were neutral and they did not come from completely reliable sources (Youtube videos, funnyordie.com). I reverted the edits. Perhaps my version and this version could be combined in some fashion. I'll look into that. Happyme22 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A comment on the general problem here. Trying to write a history of something as it's happening is a fool's errand. At least during the primary season, we periodically had real events with real consequences we could cover — results of the primaries and caucuses, candidates dropping out, major new endorsements. During the general election season we don't have much. All campaign long we're going to have the back-and-forth of charges, charges about charges, complaints about going negative, etc. Eventually, after November, we'll know whether "pundits will look back on McCain's sudden attack of negativism (to most) and prevarication (to some) as a key event in the arc of the election". But we don't know it now. So my general advice would be to stick to the election facts (who gets picked for veep, what the polling bounce is after the convention, what happens in the three debates, what states get fought over most as battlegrounds) for now, then add descriptive material about 'key events in the arc' once we know what they are. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagerism?

How is this notable? Furthermore, how is this not a wikipedia self-reference? A wiki editor emails a blogger and says these phrases look similar which is then picked up by a couple of bloggers. Additionally, is it even possible to plagerize historical facts which one would expect him to know....How many different ways could you possibly even say this information? This should be removed per undue weight, and lack of RS that actually show plagerism. Arzel (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern American political campaigns are full of this kind of silly stuff, and bloggers earn their keep (if indeed they earn anything) by analyzing it endlessly. Unless this has more staying power than the usual one or two day kerfuffle, no it's not worth including. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Georgia Connection - Randy Scheunemann

Shouldn't Randy Scheunemann be mentioned? While it's relevant to recent events, it certainly seems like an enduring relevant issue rather than the gaffe of the day - and it was in the news last spring. Some recent articles on it: in the NYT [[3]] and the Wash Post [[4]]. Eeblet (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

I'm not sure I understand this edit. It's purely an issue of grammar and syntax, and doesn't affect neutrality one way or the other.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Contiguous

The article has been edited like so: "In the event of his victory in 2008, he would also become the first President of the United States not to be born within the contiguous United States (he was born in Panama within the Panama Canal Zone)...."

Why remove the word "contiguous"? If it's removed, then the sentence appears to say that McCain was not born in the U.S. whereas this is debateable given that the Canal was at that time a U.S. possession. Isn't it true that McCain would be the first President not born in what are now the contiguous 48 states?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A possession is different from a state. When people talk about the "contiguous United States", the purpose is almost always to distinguish the first 48 from Alaska and Hawaii. It might make sense to say this about Obama (born in Hawaii), for instance, but not McCain. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain lawsuit in Pennsylvania

This should remain in the article because it is accurate and verifiable and newsworthy.

In August of 2008, McCain supporters in the Pennsylvania GOP filed a lawsuit to remove Bob Barr from the ballot in Pennsylvania. The suit says Libertarians waited too long to substitute Barr's name for the stand-in candidate whose name had appeared on petitions, although Barr's substitution fell well within the historically permitted period. Barr has called this the actions of a "dictator." Barr points out that in 2000, when New York GOP supporters of George W. Bush tried to remove McCain from the New York primary ballot, McCain spoke forcefully against trying to remove another candidate from the ballot, saying "We all know that the Berlin wall is down ... People should be able to get on the ballot in states," also describing it as something "I would never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of mine to challenge Governor Bush's right to be on the ballot in all 50 states."

This action can be criticized as showing that:

1. McCain is afraid to face a true conservative in Barr
2. it is undemocratic to try to limit the choices of Pennsylvania voters
3. it is a dirty trick in general that shows McCain up as a typical Washington politician
4. it is a waste of precious campaign resources to press a lawsuit on such flimsy grounds
5. it unnecessarily shines attention on the candidacy of Bob Barr in a sympathetic light
6. it insulates Obama from claims that Obama made a similar challenge against a competitor when he ran for the Illinois legislature
7. it is a major betrayal of the principles that McCain spoke out about in 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.132.31 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it should not. Much of what you have here is OR. Furthermore, the two actions are not the same. Bush/McCain was a primary issue, this is not. Finally, this is not something that is being directed by McCain, there is an assumption of guilt, and an attempt to paint hypocrisy on McCain. Arzel (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole "This action can be criticized" passage is manifestly inappropriate for the article. A neutral report of the litigation should be included, however, regardless of who is directing it. Pennsylvania is likely to be close. It's far from inconceivable that, if Barr is on the ballot there, he'll pull more votes from McCain than from Obama, which could cost McCain the state, which could cost McCain the presidency. (Nader, Florida, 2000) Regardless of who is formally directing the suit, it's clearly aimed at helping McCain's campaign. (For the same reason, I'd expect the Democrats to cynically try to help Barr get on the ballot, the way the Republicans have cynically helped Nader in several states.) This article should include brief factual updates on such pro-McCain efforts.

One problem, of course, is that the anon who inserted and re-inserted the editorializing follows the usual unfortunate practice of using the term "vandalism" to mean "an edit I disagree with", thus throwing the whole section into disrepute through guilt by association. JamesMLane t c 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel. Regarding the numbered list, it is completely WP:OR and does not belong. Plus, this action to remove Bob Barr from the ballot was not orchestrated by McCain or his campaign staff at all. I think even mentioning this low-profile, not highly publicized story at this time is a mistake, as it may put too much undue weight on the matter. Happyme22 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the original cite, I don't see much here. There's no real tie to the McCain campaign, and the law (as unfair as it seems to be) may be on the state GOP's side. It's SOP for third-party candidates to claim they're being screwed by the majors, and yes, they're usually right, in the sense that American ballot laws are heavily skewed towards protecting the two-party system. A brief mention at most, but probably more suited to the Barr campaign article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

But look at the 2000 New York Times Article, McCain lays the responsibility for the ballot removal effort on Bush, though the action was by Bush supporters. He said: "I'm sure that if Governor Bush told them, don't do that, don't remove McCain's name, they would respond." And he also said: "I would never consider, ever consider, allowing a supporter of mine to challenge [his opponent's] right to be on the ballot in all 50 states." What kind of double standard is it to now say "no real tie to the McCain campaign"? Barr has called for McCain to publicly call for the withdraw the suit and McCain has remained silent when he was earlier vocal. Hypocrisy, especially when it comes to reversal of a position of principal, is very relevant to the campaign. 128.164.132.31 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)