David Brock's Tough-Talking Third-Party Group Fizzles
A few weeks ago, Media Matters' David Brock announced to great fanfare that he was taking over Progressive Media USA, a third-party group that would, he vowed, raise $40 million for ads to soften up John McCain in advance of the general election.
Now the group is quietly shuttering those efforts with barely a whimper.
Barack Obama's fundraising team has been quietly putting out word to major donors that they didn't want any money to go to such third-party groups. Instead, they wanted the cash to go to the Obama campaign, so Obama advisers could be in sole control of the campaign's message.
It worked. Brock has quietly leaked a statement to The Washington Post saying that his group is, for all practical purposes, defunct.
"Progressive Media will not be running an independent ad campaign this year," Brock's statement to WaPo said, adding that "donors and potential donors are getting clear signals from the Obama camp through the news media and we recognize that reality."
One interesting footnote: With the likelihood of Obama donors helping them pretty much non-existent, Brock and company reportedly realized that Clinton donors, too, would be unlikely to help fund an effort to get Obama elected.
Two things about this. First, the speed with which Obama closed this thing down is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the party in advance of his all-but-certain nomination. And second, it looks as if this election is going to be impacted far less than anyone expected by groups like this, at least on the Dem side.
And this will make it so much easier to go after McSame for being beholden to so many special interests.
Thank you, Barack!
♪♪♪
May 15, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS
May 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS
June 12, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
McShame.
I've christened him McShame.
May 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This shows that it IS possible -- while not violating campaign finance laws regarding coordination of effort -- for a candidate to effectively communicate to third party advocacy groups that their efforts are not welcome.
Senator McCain, the ball is in your court.
May 15, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain either can't or won't do the same thing. Frankly, I think McSame is impotent. The 527s don't respect him, hell, most of his party doesn't respect him.
This will make it all the easier for Obama to take McCain down.
May 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is not only impotent he has zero fundraising ability. He is in desperate need of those 527's.
May 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Obama is showing leadership and vision ahead of his rivals, yet again.
May 15, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Top ten things that won't happen on the McCain campaign:
1) This.
May 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
He can use this story to paint McCain as inefectual if he does not shut down similar efforts from GOP groups. So -
THIS IS EXCELENT NEWS!! FOR McCAIN!!
May 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
MCSAMEMENTUM!!!!!
May 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
McMENTUM!!! (Similar to the once-popular MITTMENTUM!!
May 15, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama is right. He's done such a good job of keeping his campaign focused on his message that it would be a shame for a third-party to come in and derail it.
May 15, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama also sees this as an opportunity to draw a line in the sand so that when the 527s come after him he can point to the very high road he has taken and make McCain look bad for not being able/willing to the same.
Very smart indeed!
May 15, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? The StraightTalk Express doesn't ride on the High Road. Neither do the bobblehead pundits.
May 15, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice work.
Just one of the many reasons I support Obama.
Keep watch to see if JSM possesses the same type of leadership.
May 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
In this context, it's probably better to use "independent" or some other word in place of "third-party" unless you're actually talking about a political party that's not the Democrats or Republicans.
May 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
apologies -- the comments were closed down for a few minutes due to technical glitch
May 15, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
While we have you here, can you ban Godzilla/Dogzilla/Mila etc?
It keeps spamming threads with racist droppings that are very offensive.
Thanks
May 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A smaller point, but it means more of the money goes for the message and not for overhead - salaries, rent, etc. - and, who knows, maybe bigger discounts on media.
May 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the truest sign yet the that the paradigm has shifted. Big Money will no longer control Washington, the people will.
May 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold would be proud, says this native son of Wisconsin! Thank you, Obama!
Nice try though, Mr. Brock. Love Media Matters! Keep up the good work.
May 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama runs the most tightly disciplined campaign that the Democrats have seen in a long, long time. And it's about damn time we had a candidate who knows what the hell he's doing.
May 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I Totally agree...
He needs our money to go into his own campaign coffers so he can basically run his own media channel, to co-ordinate and respond 'swiftly' to any attacks.
Makes total sense to me.
May 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems to be the clearest signal yet that Obama is opting out of the public financing system for the General. If he wants funds going to his campaign instead of independent 527's then obviously he plans on taking contributions for the GE.
The only possible exception is that he is going to try to use this as an example to McCain when negotiating parameters for both of them taking public funds. It would be like: John, see, it is possible to shut down 527's, so I expect you to do the same on your side, or I will let the 527's on my side loose to do whatever they want.
May 15, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile....we can expect more "Obama is a black, muslim, jihadist elitist" from the Republicans.
May 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile....we can expect more "Obama is a black, muslim, jihadist elitist" from the Republicans.
May 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sort of thing will definitly lose Obama the uninformed vote. But it will be smaller this year. People pay attention during an economic freefall.
May 15, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
hilarious.
May 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Add this to the very long list of reasons why Obama is an amazing leader.
May 15, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
anybody notice how hillary is no longer news?
May 15, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's news only in Taylor Marsh's world of Lanny Davis, Paul Begala and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
May 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karl Rove:
I wonder why Obama wants all the money under his control, besides, isn't he stifling free speech?
May 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The swift boaters have come out and said they will attack Obama for anything and everything they like. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
May 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He learned nothing from Kerry's defeat.
Another stupid rookie move.
May 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly Gotalife - The swift boat is leaving port - we better hop on FAST (they pay REALLY well).
Are we still going to step class this afternoon?
May 15, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a godsend. I know that stalking can be an exhausting business so it'd be a lot to ask - but perhaps you'd consider triple, quadruple duty. I don't think I have to name the others that could 'benefit' from your rapid response system.
May 15, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be a stupid move for a less skilled politician like Kerry or Clinton. Obama will handle the GOP 527's with the same grace under presure he has been criticised for by the Clinton supporters who thought he was being weak while he was kicking but in the primaries.
May 15, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm.. Kerry was perfectly happy to let 527s spend money during the campaign, and it DID cause a lot of message confusion. Obama wants one clear, consistent message coming from the Democratic party. If he can achieve that it may be something of a miracle, but the closer we can get to it the better. Traditionally we're all over the place, and it hasn't helped.
May 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly the point to take from this.
May 15, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohhh. Now I get it. I was ambivalent at first ("isn't more better?"), but remembering the shit-storm and/or cluster-fuck that was the 2004 campaign, this whole "unified message thing" makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the helpful compare-and-contrast, KarinJR.
May 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife-
How's that for leadership?
May 15, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Mississippi they brought out the smears, Obama and his ties to Wright, and we know how that went over. Right? Didn't work. Even in a majority Republican district.
hee, hee, hee.
May 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is good. We don't need amateur hour groups giving McCain an opening to criticize Obama as being hypocritical when he calls for a "new kind of politics" in the face of Republican smear tactics.
May 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
God send this be true. But I'm skeptical. Will both parties really forego raising the other candidate's negatives (ie, suppressing the vote, to give it its right name) by proxy? It's become the #1 go-to tool in the box because it's always worked - so far. Or is this just a way of further distancing themselves from it?
May 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
...Classy:
'An Ohio-based group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters say they’ll work actively against Sen. Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee, arguing that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media.'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_backer_backlash.html
May 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, what a fucking disgrace these people are. Sore losers who can't face the fact that their candidate lost because she ran a shitty campaign. Sexism my ass. They certainly don't speak for this baby-boomer middle-aged white female. I am embarrassed for them - they are making absolute and utter fools of themselves and if they have any decency they will stop this shit right now.
May 15, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. As a female, I have been nothing but embarrassed by the antics of these supposed "feminists". Gloria Steinm, Geraldine Ferrarro Emily's List and all those crying sexism really do need to sit the eff down. This is the same thing that the local NARAL chapters are doing after the national group endorsed Obama yesterday.
Their actions throughout the campaign, much like Bill Clinton's, has left a tarnished mark on the history books.
May 15, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
They fail to see that supporting her because of her gender is just as sexist as oposing her for her gender.
May 15, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
They just make Hillary look bad. It puts pressure on Hillary to respond - and she will have to, sooner rather than later.
May 15, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is off topic, but can you please stop using "impact" as a verb? Even if it may gradually be creeping into accepted usage, it's still awful. "Affect" is still a perfectly good word.
May 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is an accepted verb - I don't understand what the objection is. It hasn't gradually crept into usage - it's always been an accepted verb (unlike "disrespect", which my young adult children use as a verb - ugh!) ;)
May 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
disrespect has been used as a transitive verb for hundreds of years.
May 15, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No we cannot. The transformation of verbs into nouns and nouns into verbs is a standard of the language that is only denounced by mavens who have not studied how language works cognitively. See "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker.
http://www.amazon.com/Language-Instinct-Mind-Creates-P-S/dp/0061336467/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210869644&sr=8-2
May 15, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is one of my pet peeves, also.
My theory on why impact as a verb came into vogue a few years ago is most people don't know the difference between effect and affect.
May 15, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
History shows that nouns are regularly transformed into verbs. Shakespeare was an expert at this, and so was Walt Whitman and Mark Twain. There is nothing wrong in the act.
There is nothing wrong in expanding English. The problem lies in diminishing it. I would focus my language nanny energy on improper grammar instead of experimental vocabulary.
May 15, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prof Pinker would be proud.
May 15, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 12, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me try that again:
So, you're saying that there's nothing wrong with Englishing a noun into a verb? Cool!
I really, really, really hate the software here.
June 12, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm with you, EricW. Not because I have a problem with "verbifying" nouns per se (I LIKE that English is a living language), but because "impact" as a verb was popularized by buzzword-spewing corporate-types.
Semi-related Simpsons Teachable Moment:
Lady: We at the network want a dog with attitude. He's edgy, he's "in your face." You've heard the expression "let's get busy"? Well, this is a dog who gets "biz-zay!" Consistently and thoroughly.
Krusty: So he's proactive, huh?
Lady: Oh, God, yes. We're talking about a totally outrageous paradigm.
Meyer: Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?
[backpedaling] Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that.
[pause] I'm fired, aren't I?
Myers: Oh, yes.
http://improvidentlackwit.com/lackwit/2004/07/buzzwords_that_.html
May 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
USAGE NOTE The use of impact as a verb meaning “to have an effect” often has a big impact on readers. In our 2001 survey, 85 percent of the Usage Panel disapproved of the construction to impact on, as in the sentence These policies are impacting on our ability to achieve success; fully 80 percent disapproved of the use of impact as a transitive verb in the sentence The court ruling will impact the education of minority students. • It is unclear why this usage provokes such a strong response, but it cannot be because of novelty. Impact has been used as a verb since 1601, when it meant “to fix or pack in,” and its modern, figurative use dates from 1935. It may be that its frequent appearance in the jargon-riddled remarks of politicians, military officials, and financial analysts continues to make people suspicious. Nevertheless, the verbal use of impact has become so common in the working language of corporations and institutions that many speakers have begun to regard it as standard. It seems likely, then, that the verb will eventually become as unobjectionable as contact is now, since it will no longer betray any particular pretentiousness on the part of those who use it.
May 15, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply