The View From Here . . .

By Bob Morgan, Jr.

There have been numerous recent reports describing campaign events for Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin as full of "anger," with descriptions of occasional outbursts by members of the crowd. New York Times oped columnist Frank Rich very hyperbolically declared last Sunday that "the McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder." At one point last week, Mr. McCain attempted to cool the ardor of his supporters by stating that Senator Barack Obama was "a decent man" and that the country has "nothing to be scared of" with an Obama presidency.

Without in any way condoning the over the top (and occasionally vile) rhetoric by individual partisans at McCain-Palin rallies, a little perspective is in order.

Mr. McCain has every right to emphasize the shortcomings of his political opponents and feeding off the negative energy of supporters is a part of political campaigns. (Whether a negative campaign is the best strategy is a different subject, and probably depends on the situation.) To take a classic example involving a liberal icon, President Harry S. Truman frequently railed, both in his acceptance speech and on the stump, against the "do-nothing" Republican Congress. His supporters would cry out "Give them hell, Harry" and he would respond, "I don't give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."

Nor is it unfair to raise issues of the opponent's character and choice of associates. Frequently, the personal characteristics of the president are more important than issues debated in the campaign. For example, the debate in the 2000 election between President Bush and former Vice President Gore largely revolved around education policy and a "health care bill of rights." Of course, the September 11, 2001 attacks largely eclipsed these issues from President Bush's first term, as national security concerns became preeminent. In many ways, President Bush's most striking character trait -- firmness (to supporters) or stubbornness (to detractors)-- was more important in defining his presidency than his position on particular issues.

The associates of a presidential candidate are similarly fair game in a campaign. Senator Obama's campaign has appropriately raised the issue of Mr. McCain's closeness with Washington lobbyists and (at least defensively) has mentioned Mr. McCain's relationship over 15 years ago with convicted banker Charles Keating.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with Mr. McCain raising the issue of why Mr. Obama associated in any way with self-proclaimed terrorist William Ayers, whose group bombed, among other places, the United States Capitol. And Mr. McCain can legitimately ask what Mr. Obama saw in Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his virulently anti-American pastor, that would make Mr. Obama want to remain a member of Mr. Wright's church.

Of course, neither party has a monopoly on overheated talk. Just last week, for example, a Congressman supporting Senator Obama, John Lewis, compared Mr. McCain to segregationist governor George Wallace while also bringing up memories of long ago church bombings by white supremists. (In fairness, the Obama campaign quickly disavowed these remarks.) Having attended much of the Republican National Convention in 2004, I can personally attest to the hyperventilated rhetoric of anti-Bush protesters that year (for example, outrageous epithets directed at elderly women), although I certainly did not (and do not) blame the John Kerry campaign for the acts of individuals.

In a perfect world, political rhetoric would be dispassionate, while still giving voters a complete picture of the candidates. But for the foreseeable future, a more rough and tumble process is part of the equation.