Is McCain running a dirty campaign?

Thoughts from Steve Chapman here and from Stuart Taylor of the National Journal here.

I think the answer is a clear yes to the question in the title. I also think this answer is not surprising, though it appears to have surprised some of McCain's friends in the media. Bush's hardball campaign worked last time and McCain started the final leg of the race as the underdog. So, no surprises there.

Is McCain's campaign somehow extra bad by historical standards or relative to Obama. Here the blogosphere seems to be arguing by anecdote, which typically does not lead to clear conclusions unless the anecdotes are sufficiently large in number, and sufficiently systematic in their collection, to constitute data. Yes, McCain and Palin have run ads saying things that are false. Applying the standard of truth that applies to product ads would, of course, mean that nearly all political ads, other than the most sacchrine assembly of flags, moms, babies and patriotic songs, would be labeled false.

Some seem to make a distinction between sort of the usual political bombast and falsity - such as claims that one will provide health insurance for 40+ million people, not cut any programs other than a bomber or two and still cut taxes and balance the budget - from lies about actually verifiable facts, such as not having sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky. I see the distinction but I think the first type of lie is actually more dangerous and damaging to the polity than the narrow kind - something the dems used to argue back when Bill did indeed have his cigar out in the oval office.

In regard to the comparison with Obama, I heard a radio ad for Obama here in Michigan that implied that if McCain/Palin won the election, abortion would become illegal. This is, of course, false in several senses. First, it seems unlikely that even a more Republican supreme court would ever overturn Roe vs. Wade both for political reasons - it would crucify the Republicans in the following election - and because it would greatly weaken the prestige of the court. Second, even if Roe vs. Wade was overturned abortion would not become illegal in most states. What would happen is that abortion policymaking would go back to the states - in most if not all cases to the state legislature. While I am "pro-choice", and vexed by the current situation in which a truly wretched supreme court opinion supports the equilibrium I prefer, it seems odd for "democrats" to complain about an issue, essentially, being returned to the people to decide at a more decentralized level.

I have not made the serious large-n study that would really pin down an answer to the comparative question over time or vis-a-vis Obama/Biden, but I think the anecdotes at least suggest that in the current election, who is playing more hardball is not obvious.