RNC/McCain: Obama Will "Rob" You Of Health Care

A very smart, credentialed political observer from the Midwest e-mails:

You're interesting post on the "just as you suspected" line in a radio ad is pretty indicative of the tone of McCain/RNC ads that're running on talk radio. The verbiage in one ad suggests Obama will "rob 50 million Americans of their health care."  Yes, the word is "rob" - not "will take: or "you will lose" your health care, but Obama will "rob" you of it.  This rob line is in two ads, one of which starts with a reference to Obama "scaring seniors."

Listening to a talk station, one gets the impression these McCain/RNC :60 ads run at least once an hour -- in morning drive, throughout midday (including top-of-the-hour Rush breaks) and into afternoon drive, so the saturation is pretty heavy given the considerable traffic on talk radio from local candidates in the days running up to an election.  I've been able to hear the rotation of spots by tuning into my local talk station and listening to the McCain/RNC ads play just before the top of the hour.

First, if anyone has the audio of these ads, please send them to me.

Using the word "rob" ... this sets off the racial prejudice meter. 

Is this reading race into something non-racial?

Was there another verb available? 

If an advertising team thinks "rob" is OK and non-racial, does that mean it's OK and non-racial?

Is there a double standard? Certain words that can't be associated with Obama because he's black? 

Can it be legitimate and racial code at the same time? 

Comments

The accumulated evidence suggests it's racial, and it's deliberate.

Posted by Hieronymus Bosch's Poodle | October 29, 2008 4:43 PM

Yes, the word "rob" *MIGHT* be intentionally used for its racial connotation. However, it's more likely being used because 1) it's a very strong action verb, and 2) it's very short. Both of these are key to producing effective ads.

As a Democrat, I wish people would stop screaming "race" over every single word the GOP uses. Look, we're going to kick their asses, based on organizing, issues, policy and personality. Let's not weaken ourselves (and play into their hands) by whining about the GOP tactics.

I think the GOP is baiting us into crying race, because they know our whining will turn off swing white voters in key states.

Posted by dem. | October 29, 2008 4:48 PM

Jesus H. Christ, Marc. If you're going to play with calling this out of bounds, how about just going with the notion that it's an over-the-top, slanderous smear entirely on its own terms? It's as if it HAS to be proved to be race baiting to be called out by you. You make yourself sound really obsessed.

Posted by Mike | October 29, 2008 4:50 PM

i agree with dem... it's not racial it's just plain stupid. the mccain campaign hasn't shown one iota of intelligence this entire campaign.

Posted by pb | October 29, 2008 4:51 PM

No, insofar as issues of race and crime are intertwined in America.
Yes.
No.
Well, maybe. I don't know. The McCain campaign seems to want certain words of limits because he's old.
No.

However we are clearly at the point in America where you have to be incredibly subtle about this sort of coding, such that when the subject gets brought up the median voter perceives the left as engaging in nitpicking. This is why someone observed that Obama is going to have to let a lot of unfairly harsh language roll off him in a way that most candidates probably would not.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 29, 2008 4:51 PM

As a Republican, I wish Republicans would stop skating right up to the edge of making racial attacks, and retaining just a smidgen of plausible deniability.

Let's not weaken ourselves by resorting to distracting attacks instead of defending our very well-thought-out and detailed health and economic programs.

Posted by repub. | October 29, 2008 4:52 PM

Questions of linguistics aside, wouldn't it be far more accurate to say that Obama's plan would "force health care upon your personnage" than to say he'd take it away?

Posted by Joe Bftsplk | October 29, 2008 4:53 PM

I'm a Democrat and an Obama supporter. I don't think "rob" is racial code. There are many more effective ways to go there, if McCain wants to do so. I think he doesn't.

Posted by ezr | October 29, 2008 4:54 PM

Any factual basis whatsoever for 50 million Americans' losing their health care under Obama's plan?

Any?

Would that perhaps be a more suitable topic for a campaign blog to address? Or at least, *as* suitable?

Posted by Anderson | October 29, 2008 4:55 PM

If McCain's campaign has chosen the word because they suspect some will respond to it in racial ways, does that make them racist? I don't think McCain is a racist himself, just willing to take advantage of those who are.

Regardless of what you think of the use of "rob", the important point here is that the claim is demonstrably false. So McCain largely seems to run ads that are racially tinged or blatantly false. What a fucking hero he is, huh?

Posted by Jake | October 29, 2008 4:55 PM

As a devout Obamabot, I don't buy that "rob" is code. A far, far better example of race baiting is McCain's ad that says Obama will give "$100 Billion to those who pay no taxes" with the narrator calling it "welfare for those who pay none" over the text on screen.

The biggest and most tragic stereotype plaguing blacks hoping to excel in public office is the idea that blacks are looking out for their own, putting relatives into positions of power, etc. If you've lived in an urban area and not run into this stereotype - congratulations! McCain's clearly playing off this stereotype with his use of "welfare" in an obviously wrong sense, and it's pretty disgusting.

I was really surprised Obama didn't turn around and make a tough response to that McCain ad. "John McCain says a starting elementary school teacher doesn't pay taxes. John McCain says a construction worker doesn't pay taxes. John McCain's ad says folks making over $40,000/yr don't pay taxes. How out of touch is John McCain?" I always though that the use of that statistic (40% of people don't pay taxes) was too dangerous to touch, but McCain did and Obama didn't make him pay for it like he could've.

Posted by Zach | October 29, 2008 4:55 PM

I agree with Mike's point if not his tone.

How does Obama's healthcare plan cause anyone to lose their coverage?

People have the choice of keeping their coverage or choosing a new coverage. So the charge doesn't is misleading regardless of the language used to sell it.

McCain is trying to get people to fear Obama. But every time he appears on national television, all calm and composed and - gasp - articulate, people don't fear him.

A tame and toothless tabby can't produce a lion's roar.

Posted by Curtis | October 29, 2008 4:56 PM

I'm leaning towards racially insensitive instead of "racist."

I can see how this might be perceived by some as provoke racial sensitivities. All you have to do is look at the history of an oppressed people, the stereotypes surrounding their culture, and the way in which these ads are presented to begin to understand it. Moreover, and I believe this is more true than people will admit, based on my own experience with racism, people who have been victimized in the past in such a way are probably going to be more perceptive to such wording.

I can also see the flip-side of this. The verb rob is a pretty powerful verb that does stir an emotional response. Just because Obama is an African-American candidate doesn't mean we should have to censor certain words because of his race and some people's perception of his race.

But like I said previously, I believe it was more of a racially insensitive and stupid mistake than any real attempt to provoke some latent vestiges of racism.

Posted by Josh | October 29, 2008 4:58 PM

Ambinder,

It's just your technique to shut down debate.

Posted by Horatius | October 29, 2008 5:03 PM

Josh, with all due respect, these guys know precisely what they're doing with this sort of thing. They can put attack ads together with the best of them.

As for coming up with good ideas of their own? Not so much. But they absolutely know where people's fear buttons are located.

Posted by Jake | October 29, 2008 5:03 PM

They play during every commercial break here in Toledo, OH on Rush Limbaugh's 12-3PM show on AM1370.

Posted by Brian | October 29, 2008 5:08 PM

Jake,

Perhaps it is my youthful optimism that keeps me from believing people would really sink this low. I mean, I grew up in the Bush/Rove years and don't remember anything quite like this.

Perhaps, too, I believe so much in equality amongst the races and genders that I don't see why the word "rob" is so much of a problem. Now, when we start getting into Palin's rhetoric, we start to see a problem. Talk to linking Obama to terrorism is unacceptable, and I believe that John McCain was foolish and moronic to have said he was proud of those mailers his campaign sent out linking Obama to "terrorists."

However, the basic argument of this ad is a lie. Obama and McCain both lie in their rhetoric and their ads. This is traditional politicking, and is to be expected. I know in Obama's case there is an argument to be made that he promised a non-traditional campaign, and now he's just offering more of the same; but I would refute that with an argument that such a campaign is impossible given how the electorate responds to campaigns.

I'm just not convinced this is racial in nature. A lie, yes, but racial...not so much.

Posted by Josh | October 29, 2008 5:11 PM

But, Jake, Obama has also run ads aimed at pushing the fear button. His ads in Florida, which claim McCain will reduce seniors' Medicare benefits, are classics of the genre. Both sides play these games, but that doesn't mean "rob" is a coded appeal to racism. Crying wolf about things like this really does have the potential to backfire on us.

Posted by ezr | October 29, 2008 5:12 PM

Let's just say that at this point the McCain campaign is willing to accept the racist vote. They may or may not be using code words to try to draw it out.

To me the more important elephant in the room is that the GOP takes the votes of white racists for granted, whether they explicitly court them or not.

I don't think that that statement is controversial, since the history of and the thinking behind the GOP's Southern Strategy is now well documented.

Posted by BB | October 29, 2008 5:28 PM

Come on, folks, they even went where Hillary wouldn't- calling him a terrorist traitor for god's sake. Why wouldn't they call him a another black criminal?

Hell look what Feldman and Fox did over in PA last week. You'd have hard time convincing me that they wouldn't start a race war to win this thing. (Heck, judging by some of the video footage of their events, I'm not sure they haven't)

One thing puzzles me, though: what's Barack going to do with all the healthcare that he's stolen - sell it on Ebay like a big ol' jet?

You betcha.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | October 29, 2008 5:30 PM

The top-line ads are the tip of the media iceberg.

Right-wing talk radio (the equivalent of Radio Hutu Power) has long been saying that Obama's election will supposedly lead urban black populations to loot and rob the suburbs, because 'they'll have the green light' to do so.

The people who prepare radio ads know the context. So if you put it alongside the rants of the pudgy white guys at the microphone, you'll know what the dogwhistle terms are. On radio, the most prized ads are the ones that have the smoothest transition into the main program.

It's more about saying 'what Rush says, ditto' than an explicit appeal to racism. It's saying 'we speak the language of your host'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 29, 2008 5:31 PM

Let me be very clear. HELL YES rob is meant to be racial. Look at the context. Its a frikking RADIO ad. So how else can they try to get you to "see" a black man in your mind's eye? This isnt "playing the race card" Because oddly enough I never got mine in the mail. This is examining a situation with your eyes open and not being naive. Let me give you a quick rundown.
1. deprive
2. limit
3. downsize
4. remove
5. block
6. separate

All viable alternatives to rob in that sentence but they just don't have the same racist panache do they?
Any body who claims that ad isnt using race is fooling themselves.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | October 29, 2008 5:32 PM

Ezr,

What Obama has done or not done has nothing to do with whether or not there's a racial component to the use of "rob" in a McCain ad. It's not germane to the issue at all. I don't doubt that Obama's run negative ads.

Secondly, I don't think Obama should address the potential racial component here at all. In fact, I suspect a part of McCain's team hopes that he will raise the issue to the level where it gets to the MSM. When race gets discussed, Obama loses. I'm not at all concerned about that, however, as Obama really hasn't taken the bait.

In any case, I don't see the harm in trying to address Marc's question.

Posted by Jake | October 29, 2008 5:32 PM

Yes it is code. The entire socialism thing is a joke and only introduced so that they can say "take your money and give it to someone else" to people in central Pennsylvania, who will understand what's being said. Reagan's "welfare queen" returns.

Just because it's stupid doesn't mean it's not evil.

Posted by MinBK | October 29, 2008 5:39 PM

"If an advertising team thinks "rob" is OK and non-racial, does that mean it's OK and non-racial?"

If a "reporter" thinks "rob" is not OK and racial, does that mean it's racial and not OK?

"rob" is racial! Good Gravy!

If the "liberal media" had put out a style book before the primaries started and passed them out to candidates running against obama they would have saved themselves a lot of trips to the fainting couch and bunched panties.

Beyond absurd.

Posted by hadenough | October 29, 2008 5:41 PM

Really? Really?


Just sad that ANY verbiage chosen by a republican is under such complete scrutiny.

Demonstrate viable proof that there is an actual tone/message there.

I am tired of these blogger blowhards who think because they have a webpage or webspace, they have the voice to make issues when/as needed.

Double standard... Look at the effigy in Hollywood of Sara Palin- I am sure her children have not seen that yet... But Zero outrage from the McCain camp. Yet- you blogger blowhards make an issue out of a word that has 12 meanings and connotations.

Even the owners of that effigy admit they would be prosecuted (by the public at least) for doing that with Obama-

Sad, sad, sad. How about addressing a "real" issue whoever you are.

Posted by Joe | October 29, 2008 5:41 PM

I'm just pointing out that both sides play on fear and both sides use punchy words for maximum effect. In that context, "rob" is not an unlikely word choice. I disagree that the subtext is necessarily racial, and I say this as a biracial person and a psychologist who is probably fairly attuned to scenting out subtext. I absolutely could be wrong.

As for trying to address Ambinder's question, there's no harm in it, I suppose, Jake. I've just been surprised, and perhaps disappointed, at how much he's drifted from the journalistic ideal. Reading this post I thought for a minute that I'd wandered into Andrew Sullivan territory. And Ambinder's fixation on the Palin wardrobe issue was almost entertaining in its obsessiveness. I think of Ambinder as a real journalist but he seems to be veering off that path as the election draws closer. No offense in your direction intended, Jake.

Posted by ezr | October 29, 2008 5:42 PM

I think it's racially Willy Horton-esque. What the Republican candidates have been doing is using all sorts of euphemisms - different, foreign, Not Like Us, that are code, and then of course denying they're racist. I don't think they're fooling anyone. People can embrace the arguments without acknowledging they are racist (both the embracers and the arguments!), so it's rather clever, in a perverse sort of way. Though I don't think there are enough of them to win an election, fortunately.
My favorite argument is making fun of Obama being elitist, which I think hints at affirmative action. Race may have been an advantage for Obama's admission to a highly competitive law school, but you're not elected as president of Harvard Law Review unless you are exceptionally capable. The real affirmative action case looks to be Palin. Giving someone with such a weak resume a chance, et al.

Posted by BPT - MoneyChangesThings | October 29, 2008 5:44 PM

Only a person who is not Black or Latino would wonder whether use of the term "rob" in an advertisement about health care is racial.

Posted by lbc | October 29, 2008 5:50 PM

"I think it's racially Willy Horton-esque. What the Republican candidates have been doing is using all sorts of euphemisms - different, foreign, Not Like Us, that are code, and then of course denying they're racist.

Posted by BPT"

That is the same crap the gop used on Gore and Kerry. Was it racist then? That has been part of the gop attack talking points for more than 30 years. They have had nothing new for decades. Are you saying all that time those were racial attacks on white male dem candidates?

Ultra-Good Gravy!

Posted by hadenough | October 29, 2008 5:56 PM

I think it's a bit ridiculous to judge this one use of the word "rob" in isolation. So let's look at it in context:

"Rob" + "just as you suspected" + "redistributor in chief" (bonus: he even said "redistribution" in the context of civil rights!) + "spread your wealth around" + "giving money to those who pay no taxes (welfare for those who pay none)" + the GOP's long and distinguished history of clever and subtle race-baiting (see, e.g., the southern strategy, "white hands", "welfare queens", Willie Horton) + the McCain campaign's decision to gamble on winning this election by winning PA of all places (such a long shot--I wonder what makes them think they can do that and what sorts of voters they'll be targeting?)

=

Yes, it's race-baiting.

It doesn't have to be overtly racist to be race-baiting.

Posted by Chris | October 29, 2008 5:57 PM

It may be a "dog-whistle" of some sorts, but I'm really starting to feel that the purpose of these ads is to lay out a ground work to an opposition strategy to an Obama Administration.

Sure, these ads, on the face of them, are designed to get out the base. That's the only shot they have at this point: hope the voter patterns of 2004 repeat and get out the base.

Still, I think that most of these ads are also looking at 2010. Energize the base and fight Obama's tax and health care plans tooth and nail, if you kill 'em, or if you hobble 'em to an extent that Democrats become divided and start squabbling, you make Obama look weak, you have a good shot at making gains in 2010, setting themselves up for 2012.

I mean, if most of these ads are running on talk radio (Limbaugh at the top of the hour?), who are they exactly trying to persuade? Are there really hundreds of thousands of truly undecided voters who listen to talk radio? I suspect that the vast majority of talk radio listeners are partisan Republicans and very conservative, very strong McCain leans. I suspect that these ads have as less to do with November 4 as they do with November 5.

Posted by Shine | October 29, 2008 6:01 PM

Isn't criticism of Obama already an indictment of racism?

Why don't they just robo-call saying, "Democratic Senator Obama, the black celebrity running for President, will ruin health care. I'm the grumpy white geezer and I approve this message."

C'mon! I've already heard people say they couldn't imagine having a president named Obama, and they couldn't imagine selecting such an "exotic" name at the poll. That's without any complaint of his middle name. Is that racist, or just xenophobic? Another existential question for the cackling commentariat to kvetch about...

Posted by MarkG | October 29, 2008 6:32 PM

I am very sensitive to racial codes, but I don't think "rob" is a racial code. That might be more likely to be a stereotype of Jews. That's why it probably go through.

Posted by Jonna | October 29, 2008 6:43 PM

I think my tone was entirely appropriate. But I do apologize to anyone who is offended by the use of the Lord's name in vain. Or if I got His middle initial wrong.

Posted by Mike | October 29, 2008 6:54 PM

Well, it's a lie. That's first...

Secondly - it's amateurish and just a little hamhanded. Nobody short of the clinically insane thinks that any President would "rob" anyone of anything. It conflates a felony with a policy position that McCain has fabricated.

Posted by John | October 29, 2008 6:56 PM

Regarding:

Using the word "rob" ... this sets off the racial prejudice meter.

I don't think it set's off the "race" meter.
It's LOSER language.
We was robbed.
It was ours.
Was.

It's just an expression of how the McCain people are feeling these days.

Entitled.
And denied.

Posted by jeff t. | October 29, 2008 7:28 PM

It may be a "dog-whistle" of some sorts, but I'm really starting to feel that the purpose of these ads is to lay out a ground work to an opposition strategy to an Obama Administration.
Shine

I agree. I think "rob" is more about negatively framing Obama's plan before he takes office. I think the primary aim is to delegitimate him and his policies.

Using "rob" also might bring up racial fears in a smaller percentage of listeners, but that would be a secondary goal.

Posted by Kineslaw | October 29, 2008 7:47 PM

Very, very few things are accidental in political ads. 'Rob' was chosen for the emotional connection - they're sewing fear, and this is just another element of that. Influencing 50 million Americans doesn't happen in one 30 second slot - it's a process of accumulation.

And Obama's 'ticking' soundtrack in his last ad isn't accidental either.

Posted by Martin | October 29, 2008 7:52 PM

Could it possibly be that anyone who would cast their vote based on race has already noticed Obama's skin tone?

I say yes.

It doesn't matter if McCain uses the verb "rob" as opposed to some other verb meant to call out Obama's plan for its flaws - its likelihood to cause employers to dump their employees on the government plan.

All this agonizing over racial code words strikes me as irrelevant.

Here is SC, it is fairly obvious to everyone both black and white that Obama and McCain are of different races.

The racists are voting based on Obama's pigmentation.

The non-racists are voting on other criteria.

End of story.

Posted by Sand Hill | October 29, 2008 9:03 PM

Absoutlely racial slur and it's intentional. It's intentional because it goes along with Socialist and Robin Hood in reverse themes. It's racial because I asked my Dad, a retired Federal agent/ Police Lieutenant who worked in an all black precinct and he said so.

Posted by Julia | October 30, 2008 1:14 AM

Yes, I think it's racial.

Now, I'm not saying that Obama or anyone else who supports him should make any kind of a public outcry about this, because it certainly isn't using the N word. Obama has a way of acting serene and unflappable about racial slurs that is a beautiful thing to behold and I think it serves him well. Also, it could be completely innocuous. But I think it's fair to consider the context and to think if there are any other examples of skating close to the line on race in the McCain campaign. And I think there are a lot of subconscious, even unconscious, ways that McCain shows his feelings about race as well as Obama personally. Things like "that one," the way he won't look at him, the fact that McCain wouldn't attend the mixed-race family reunions, the fact that he chose Sarah Palin, that they attack Obama in such a personal way with things they surely know are lies over and over again, with this kind of very direct viciousness, as if he's not deserving of fully treatment, the way they do such a poor job of tamping down their more rabid fans, the fact that McCain opposed MLK day in AZ, etc., etc. These are examples I can think of off the top of my head, I know there are more. So, "rob" isn't exactly a direct reference to race, but it's not exactly clean of reference of race for two reasons 1. the idea that Obama's going to take away your health care is so contrary to the facts that people well educated on the subject are not going to believe it, so it can only have an emotional appeal, not a factual one; 2. "rob" does indeed have racial associations.

Posted by Alexandra | October 30, 2008 8:14 AM

This is getting so ridiculous. The Democrats are the ones always dividing people in groups. Most of the rest of us aren't looking at this election as a matter of black vs. white. Playing the race card at every turn is pathetic.

Maybe a "Dictionary of Terms that are Politically Incorrect for White People to Say" is needed. Some are taking plain everyday words and putting racial connotations on them. You never know what you can say anymore, that you won't be called racist.

It is the Liberals that made race an issue in this election, not the Conservatives. How can things be equal if we have to be sensitive about using every day words?

Obama's ad said "John McCain is running out of time"... isn't that a slur against seniors in this line of thinking? Like saying he's old?
I'm joking... and this line of thinking is a joke as well.

Just grow up, the Government is not your mama, your daddy, or your God! And Obama was not born in a manger! If he loses this election, it will not be because he is biracial, it will be because he is a far left liberal. Or has that term been hijacked as well?

Posted by Freedom Pundit | October 30, 2008 11:44 AM

Mccain is really going dirty and low. I thought he was better than this... He is running a very angry, hateful and racial campaign. Is this how he wants history to remember him?

United we stand.

Posted by Becky | October 30, 2008 12:13 PM