How you campaign is how you govern.

Underlying most reporting and discussion of the current and past Presidential campaigns seems to be an assumption that campaigning is different from governing. During the campaign—the horse race—you gotta be tough and remember that politics ain't beanbag and that character assassination works. While campaigning, repetitive and bald-faced lies, ad hominem attacks, dirty money, secret commitments to special interests, expedient flip-flops, evasion of responsibility for what you and your staff have done, dirty tricks, etc. seem to be regarded as situation-appropriate ethics.

I don't understand why anybody would believe that once the campaign is over the winner will stop all that nasty stuff and play by Marquis of Queensbury rules while governing. First, campaigns are never over; it's now accepted that there are "permanent campaigns" while in office. Second, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush were the two nastiest campaigners since WWII, and neither of them reformed a bit in office. Indeed, they were our lyingest, cheatingest, concealingest, law-defyingest, and most partisan Presidents of the era. Third, because candidates are subject to much more media scrutiny and accountability than are Presidents, a President can much more easily get away with the nasty stuff than can a candidate. If his conscience lets a candidate do something in the campaign, there is no restraint on going at least that deeply into the dark side when in power.

How he campaigns is the "character issue" I would like to see discussed more in the mainstream media, but I guess that's just me.

Update on Saturday, September 13, 2008 at 06:32PM by Skeptic

Former McCain supporter, Andrew Sullivan, now declares him unfit to be President because of the way he is campaigning.  Thanks to Christa for the link. 

Update on Saturday, September 13, 2008 at 09:44PM by Skeptic

The Obama campaign and NBC News are both using the L word in connection with McCain campaign statements.  Other MSM reports aggregated here prefer euphemisms, such as the Washington Post's award of "4 Pinnochios" to McCain for statements he made on The View.  Now let's take the next step and talk about whether it's a good idea or a bad idea to put our lives and fortunes in the hands of somebody who will look us in the eye and lie to us. 

Update on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 09:47AM by Skeptic

Biden's back (where's he been?) and he's saying on the stump this morning, "The campaign a person runs says everything about the way they'll govern." 

Update on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 01:01PM by Skeptic

ABC News weighs in, not using the L word but posting a copy of the letter from Gov. Palin to Sen. Stevens in which she makes her earmark requests.  Correspondent Jake Tapper says in his open letter to John McCain, "Will you please stop telling the American people that she never asked for or received any pork barrel projects?" 

Update on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 10:05PM by Skeptic

Claire McCaskill frames the right message, and Joe Romm writes it up here. 

Comments

[Cynthia]

I agree with this blog. Lying is a bad sounding word but it accurately describes what Republicanism is all about. The media venerates "balance" even when a corrupt and emotionally fragile person like Mc Cain is running against a mensch like Obama; a silly Palin against an experienced statesmen like Biden. It is important to insist that there is a major difference: the Republicans persistently lie. Case in point: Mc Cain's mantra that Obama will "raise taxes". Obviously, this is an intentionally misleading statement, banking on public ignorance. Similarly, the pig and lipstick willed misinterpretation.
The problem is that the word "lie" sounds emotionally charged and defensive. Maybe its better to make a point about honesty and temperament. Obama is honest and tells the truth. He is not apt to go to extremes or fly off the handle with mistatements.