TN-SEN: Expert: Mehlman's Excuse On Bimbo Ad Is "Weak"
Okay, so here's a bit more on the Republican National Committee's "bimbo" ad targeting Dem Harold Ford, Jr., which you can view in all its lowbrow glory right here. As noted below, Ken Mehlman defended the ad today on MSNBC, saying he doesn't "have the authority" to get it pulled down. But we checked in with election law expert David Donnelly of the nonpartisan Public Campaign Action Fund, and he says that Mehlman's argument is "weak." More after the jump.
As best as we can determine from some quick chats with experts and campaign operatives, Mehlman is right in the narrowest legal sense: There is supposed to be a group within committees like the RNC which decides on ad content and placement independently. (Whether that actually happens in the real world is, to put it mildly, an open question.)
Nonetheless, as our expert Donnelly notes, Mehlman, as head of the RNC, would seem to be the person who hires and fires the people who are directly responsible for the ad's content and placement. And there's nothing at all stopping him from publicly condemning the ad, or even calling for it to be taken down, even if he can't legally make it happen.
As Donnelly puts it, Mehlman's protestations of no authority is "a very weak excuse. Mehlman could say he doesn't like the spot, doesn't think it should be airing, and thinks it's inappropriate."
"If it's a disgraceful ad, and I think it is," Donnelly continues, "Mehlman should take responsibility for it. He can’t hide behind legalities on something as offensive as this ad. It's a very weak position for him to be hiding behind these legal distinctions. It doesn't matter if he has control over it or not. He can call it offensive."
So there you have it. One expert's view: Mehlman's excuse is "weak."
OK, here's what we do. We get a really good-looking young male model to film an ad saying, "I met Ken Mehlman at Andrew Sullivan's house. Hey, Ken! Call me!" That'll work.
October 24, 2006 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a story on CBC national radio news tonight about this race. It was cut prior to this ad issue arising. It's main point was that Ford was fairly conservative on social issues, a fairly atypical Democrat and had a chance to be the first Black elected to the Senate in any election in the South for more than 100 years.
Now we have an openly racist ad -- that implies that white women of a certain typoe are attracted to Black men (and implicitly perhaps Black men are 'after your women'. A tired old story that produced 100s of lynchings for decades. Strange fruit, indeed.
I like to think that this would revolt a majority of the citizens of Tennessee. It probably will. But it just might turn a few the other way and those that will be revolted were almost all already voting Democrat.
For me, as someone living outside the United States, the larger question is: can the world be sure that the only hegemonic power in global history can be trusted to remain an effective democracy? It seems to me that this race is now something of a litmus test on that point. Will a border state pick a sleazy white crook exploiting race issues when sexual preference issues are suddenly unavailable over an articulate moderate Black American?
global citizen
October 24, 2006 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they had hired a black actress to play the bimbo, then that would not be racist? Fat chance. That would be cast as a racist slur on black women.
The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir
October 24, 2006 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Farinata X, Great Idea!
October 24, 2006 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Legal, shmegal. There should be an ad that only has the "this ad the responsibility of the Republican National Committee", then a clip of the chair of the RNC saying he is not responsible, big "chair of the RNC" blazened across, followed by Dennis Hastert "taking responsibility" and then passing the blame around, then a clip where Corker claims he didnt know that one of his illegal deals were illegal.
"Republicans dont understand responsibility. You cant trust someone like that with power."
October 24, 2006 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a swell idea F.X. For the stud male model I nominate Jimmy Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon, the gay escort guy who was hired by the administration to pose as a White House reporter. He's probably looking for a day job, or some kind of job. Maybe he already has Ken's number -- I think the rest of us do......p.s. Let's do a subliminal film test on the end of that ad "Harold Ford. He's just not right/white."
October 24, 2006 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Ken does not have the authority over the running of the ad, does that mean it was ordered by someone higher up in the chain of command?
October 24, 2006 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weren't they supposed to get 527's to do this below-the-belt smear stuff? I had thought the playbook was well defined by now: the candidate is "above such things," the party talks about shared scare-tactic issues (i.e. "BOO! It's Osama!"), and you get your donors to funnel a separate flow of cash into front "527" groups to do this kind of ugly stuff. But if there's no throwaway cutout between the message and the money then it can be traced back to "responsible" parties and backfire.
Somebody really screwed up on this one.
October 24, 2006 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, never mind Mehlman (OK, I really do mind Mehlman, but I have another ax to grind). Take a look at the rambling "analysis" at NewsBusters.
NB--a right-wing rag--whines about NBC's correct treatment of the Ford ad and the Fox ad for McCaskill. A lot of blather, but there is a hidden gem.
NB offers a transcript of Andrea Mitchell's reporting that includes a comment from Jerry Della Femina.
It also mentions Della Femina's comment earlier in the article also reminding the reader that Della Femina is a Republican. It's interesting (and odd) that I have not noticed any other comments on the blatant racism of the anti-Ford ad. It's quite ironic that it takes NewsBusters to publicize this.
October 24, 2006 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find this whole, "I don't have the authority to take it down or put it up", dance by Mehlman/RNC interesting. Are we going to see more of this Republican three step?
Seems it goes somethinig like this:
Hmmm... Seems to me everyone is insolated from the nasty add.
What a Croker of shit this is! Oh. Sorry. That's Corker.
Duplicate post
____________________________________________________
“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
October 25, 2006 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mehlman implies that - even if he had the "authority" to take the ad down - he sees no reason to do so. He does not think the ad has any racial, let alone racist, undertone or theme. And, by the way, neither do any of the the African American and Latino folks with whom he consulted about the ad after hearing complaints. Ken thinks it is just fine. What on earth is the fuss about? Nothing inconsistent about this ad and his mea culpa to the NAACP. But, I cannot say I would expect anything different from him. I don't think he and Karl Rove have a single scruple between them.
October 25, 2006 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given the Corker Playboy bimbo ad, the Limbaugh's jerking mocking of Michael J Fox's Parkinsonism, and the "We really don't mean stay the course" WH statements, the GOP is becoming a punchline for jokes. If main stream Americans of any color, race or creed buy into the Corker ad, then they are going to get exactly what they deserve.
Want slogans rather than real world solutions in Iraq? Vote GOP. Like stagnant wages despite high worker productivity? vote GOP.
If White voters in Tenn want to see governmental debt passed on to their children and grandchildren, if Black conservative Christians in Ohio want the same (and hate the idea of Gay marriage more than anything), and if Conn. voters love Joe Lieberman and are willing to just shut up about any misgivings they have about Iraq- then all these groups should vote for the GOP.
Corker won't debate Mr Ford, he'll just use just attack ads. Why should Corker have to explain his position on the issues?
On MSNBC yesterday, both Tony Snow and Ken Mehlman had the chance to distance themselves from the Corker ad. They did not. The GOP will remain the other folk's party for most African-American's as long as things like the Corker ad are tolerated. Even the former Sec of Defense under Clinton, the GOP's William Cohen stated that he objected to the ad. Where are the Black voices of the GOP concerning this ad? Does Ken Blackwell of Ohio, Michael Steele of Md, or Lynn Swann of Penn agree with the stance of Corker, Mehlman and Snow? Barack Obama, Harold Ford and Duval Patrick of Mass. would be sought out if a Black Democratic candidate had put up a questionable ad playing the "race card". Shouldn't we get a response from Black GOP activists?
October 25, 2006 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
See a tongue-in-cheek visual that gives Mr. Mehlman a dose of his own "Innuendo" medicine...here:
www.thoughttheater.com
October 25, 2006 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink