Race-Tinged Attack Ads Start Flowing From Right In Campaign's Home Stretch
The outside groups on the right are starting to hit the race panic button as time runs out and things look increasingly dire.
The National Republican Trust PAC, for instance, just reported to the FEC that it sank nearly $900,000 into a new ad buy, most likely for this spot hitting Obama with a bunch of footage of Jeremiah Wright's rants:
The group had previously vowed to spend some $2.5 million on the spot, so this current buy falls short, but nonetheless amounts to real ad cash. (There's still more time, obviously, for the group to do a second buy.)
Meanwhile, another winger outside group, Let Freedom Ring, which has been known to spend serious money, is up with this new spot using Martin Luther King's "content of their character" line to urge a vote against Obama:
Late Update: A commenter below explains the spot's rationale:
Seems to me like the target audience on the second one is white Democrats who want to be reassured that they are not racists if they don't vote for Obama. (See, even that black person doesn't like him, and he can't articulate why, either!)
Sad. The lot of it.
http://thepajamapundit.com/
October 30, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This ad is playing in Michigan. A similar ad create by the same group has some douche bag talking into the camera and made a ridiculous claim that Obama doesn't have the American flag on his campaign plane. The guy also mentions Obama not putting his hand over his heart and idiot Wright and so on.
This played on CNN last night and I think CNN should show some restraint in allowing these ads to play on their channel. It shouldn't be about money all the time. I mean c'mon
Best Robocall Ever!!! Obama Supporter Drunk Calls
October 30, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then again, it's CNN. I don't think it's a right-winger as some suggest. But I do think they are generally dumb.
And it may not just about money. Those news organizations rejected an ad that questioned McCain's health, even though that is a far more legitimate question. I guess they are operating on some weird standard is all.
October 30, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the sick irony of this ad. As an Arizona Senator, McCain voted against the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday. When the measure still passed, he voted to withdraw federal funding for the holiday.
And now they're going to invoke MLK on behalf of McCain???
Senator McCain, you need to take a closer look at the content of your own character. Hint: it's despicable.
October 30, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me like the target audience on the second one is white democrats who want to be reassured that they are not racists if they don't vote for Obama. (See, even that black person doesn't like him, and he can't articulate why, either!)
October 30, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Sullivan used your comment on his blog.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/using-king-agai.html
October 30, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The second ad seems like another one of those "He's not ready....Yet" ads, doesn't it?
The first one is just straight up boogeyman shit.
Neither seems effective.
On top of it all, it's Thursday before the election. The question is not why the put out shit like this, more like why they waited so long?
October 30, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who's that Uncle Tom in the ad?
October 30, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing like a racist comment to point out your accusations of racism.
October 30, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your denials of racism underwhelm me.
October 30, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
...and your acceptance of the "Uncle Tom" comment were expected...as a matter of fact, I seriously doubt anyone here will call him out.
October 30, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't see the ad (very effective corporate firewall), so I can't (and didn't try to) comment on the "Uncle Tom" reference. Consequently, your expectations of me are based on your on assumptions, not fact. Should I be surprised?
BTW, your demurral to defend yourself against the charge of accepting racism as part of the stock and trade of the Republican party only serves to confirm the allegations against both you and the party.
Thanks for playing. Please see Let Freedom Ring for some lovely parting gifts (sorry, but the white robes and hoods are on back-order).
October 30, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
>(sorry, but the white robes and hoods are on back-order).
That's a liberal democrat communist lie.
There's plenty in stock, some models on sale. Not selling well lately for some reason...
October 30, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I have no idea how you took me commenting on the use of "Uncle Tom" in the Fluffer's comment as condoning racism...
October 30, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're lightning quick on the draw when it comes to pointing out Democratic racism, but I have yet to see you...uh, what's the platitude that McCain likes to invoke in these cases? oh yeah....repudiate clear-cut racism coming from the anus of the Republican arse, which at this point is verging on virtual diarrhea in a multitude of media.
Does that help your idealess puzzler?
October 30, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFC has always been a bit in denial about his party's past. A couple months ago I sent him a transcript of his hero Rush bragging about Nixon's Southern Strategy, which even Republicans today admit was racist, and he just couldn't or wouldn't admit it.
October 30, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm proud of my party's past...ending slavery...voting for civil rights legislation...appointing the first (and second) black Secretaries of State...it's Dems that like to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
October 30, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny. I seem to recall it was the elder George Bush who voted against the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's, and LBJ who recognized as he signed it that he was "losing the south for a generation." Score on courage: Dems 1, GOP 0.
And it was the Dems who nominated an African American for president. You guys flirted with it in the 1990s but just couldn't hack it.
I call both of these cases walking the walk.
October 30, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need a history lesson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
"The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, but was then referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely."
"the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor."
"Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."
"On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation."
And the by party voting %:
The original House version:[9]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
October 30, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The part you left out (how convenient!):
By party and region
Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
October 30, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you are using the fact that there were more racist Democrats in the South to claim that Republicans are racist...?
October 30, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just as a point of historical fact, those racist democrats, by and large, decamped to the Republican party. Strom Thurmond, one-time Dixiecrat presidential candidate, for instance, finished up his political career as a Republican senator. Your point, as such, is a touch disingenuous. If the racists were Democrats at the time that they opposed the civil-rights act, but Republicans in their later days, how exactly does that stand as proof that the Democratic stands in opprobrium? What it proves to me is that the Democratic party which was once guilty has done what was necessary to mend its ways, whereas the once virtuous Republican party to which you point no longer exists, having absorbed all of those racist Dixiecrats.
October 30, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Republican party to which you point no longer exists, having absorbed all of those racist Dixiecrats.
If I'm not mistake, the only name I recognize as still serving is Sen. Byrd...and last time I saw him on TV spewing racial epitaphs he still had a "D" by his name.
October 30, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm correcting your assertion that Republicans (in general) have a progressive civil rights history when in fact party affiliation was not the determining factor in either the abolition of slavery (in fact, Lincoln did not free northern slaves, just those in the Confederacy) and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Southern Reps voted with Southern Dems while Northern Reps voted with Northern Dems.
Now as Stemper suggests, can we get back to current events and your defense of Republican racism as a legitimate campaign tactic?
October 30, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur with Missouri Voter. The fact remains that Nixon, Buchanan, et al clearly saw the southern "no" votes on the civil rights legislation as fuel for their racist Southern Strategy. That McCain has turned a blind eye to that strategy's successor is clear to most voters, and it's one reason your candidate will lose on Tuesday. As Biden said in the VP debate, past is prologue. Your party's past is informing its present, to its detriment.
You tout Powell as the first black secretary of state. Fair enough. It must burn that it was Powell who so clearly called out your party's racism with his eloquent anecdote about the photo of the Islamic mother mourning her child who died fighting in Iraq.
October 30, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nixon, Buchanan, et al clearly saw the southern "no" votes on the civil rights legislation as fuel for their racist Southern Strategy."
You mean that Southern strategy that didn't work since Wallace and Lemay won the Southern States and Nixon had to rely on the West to make it to the White House?
October 30, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't defend racism as a campaign tactic. I do however claim that y'all jump and point and scream racism at anything innocuous that you can twist into a claim of racism on our side and overlook blatant racist comments by anyone on your side (which is how this conversation got stated by Flufferwink).
October 30, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't condemn it, all the while asserting that silence signifies consent (isn't that what "overlook blatant racist comments by anyone on your side" means?). Let's see if I've got you right: I'm supposed to condemn Flufferwink (who is so frighteningly influential in this campaign -- ooh, scarey!) because he called someone who I can't see or hear an "Uncle Tom", i.e. render judgement based on incomplete facts. Yet, when Republican operatives seek to undermine a U.S. Senator with vile racist smears, you get a pass. Is this your argument?
October 30, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the delay, I went to lunch. Now if I get this right. You are telling me to condem the racist attack that you admittedly haven't seen yourself and are just assuming it's racist; while at the same time failing to denounce Flufferwink's "Uncle Tom" comment, that is racist whenever it's made (unless you are actually discussing the novel) because you can't see who he's calling Uncle Tom. Is that really YOUR argument?
October 30, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM, is there a problem with my response here?
October 30, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've tried to respond but apparently, the blog owner doesn't like my response. Apparently, they think I'm going to hurt your feelings.
October 30, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha...if that were possible I'd have been out of here long ago! You called me a douchebag...huh?
October 30, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, I don't do names. I said that I thought Flufferwink is smarter than you. That's about it.
October 30, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doh!...now I am crushed!! That's it!!! I'm outta here!!!!
October 30, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I ever hear from TPM, I'll (try to) let you know. Besides, the margins were getting pretty narrow anyway.
October 30, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the cases of both slavery and civil rights, regionalism (North vs South) was the driving force, not party affilation. If you check your history, you'll find both Democrats and Republicans on both sides of each issue, depending on where they lived.
Mere window dressing with not a whit of sincerity (read cynical): probably the two most incompetent people ever to hold the position. In fact, Rice has been an unmitigated disaster for this country.
October 30, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know you hate it when I'm right but a higher % of Dems opposed the Civil Rights Act than did Reps.
October 30, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from the fact that you ignore Schmedley's pertinent points about geography, it's telling that you have to reach back to the 1960's for your ammo.
Could it be that voters today are more swayed by the actions of current politicians in deciding for which party they'll vote -- for example, McCain's vote against making MLK's birthday a national holiday, or his refusal to condemn South Carolina for flying the Confederate flag? Judging by the greater participation in the Dem primaries than the GOP promaries, and the results of current polls, I'd say Yes.
October 30, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...it's telling that you have to reach back to the 1960's for your ammo."
Well, since the question was about my party's history, I'm not a history major but I do believe most of it takes place in the past.
October 30, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, don't sell yourself short! Your ability to edit out the parts of history that don't support your argument shows that you are an eminently qualified Republican historian.
Carry on.
October 30, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely, I hope SFC carries on. His side's denial is going to march us right into the White House on Tuesday! :) You'd have thought the 2006 midterms would have taught them something. Guess learning from history is for those "elitists."
October 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
When have you ever been right? See http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/race-tinged_attack_ads_start_f.php#comment-3260526
October 30, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually all those southern politicians who called themselves Democrats only did so because of the popularity of FDR. But because Democratic presidents Kennedy and Johnson supported civil rights, those politicians jumped over to the other side and became Republicans.
Support or opposition to slaver was a north vs. south thing not a D vs. R thing.
Not to rag on you, but I don't find Wikipedia to be a credible research source.
October 30, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not to rag on you, but I don't find Wikipedia to be a credible research source."
Not for academic research...but for basic, quick lookup stuff it's the most user friendly (especially if you're lazy).
October 30, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently it's OK for white people to be "lazy"...
October 31, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that Barack has admitted he reads Harry Potter, McCain Attacks Obama for Palling Around With Lord Voldemort
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=4441
October 30, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
23% of Texans believe Obama is a Muslim. Do they not read in that state? Unbelievable.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6084678.html
October 30, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Outside of Austin and some parts of Houston and Dallas, the rest of Texas is filled with with right-wing evangelicals. When I'm driving, 3 out 5 cars on the road has that Jesus fish on the back and many of them also have that McLame bumper sticker as well.
I'm surrounded by low info people here.
Anybody want to start a donation drive to help me move back to civilized Michigan? :-)
October 30, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's possible to over-generalize with something like this. I know many Texans living well outside of the major cities, and they are wither progressive or very liberal-minded people.
Plus, the polls don't back up what you're saying, at least this time. Right now, Obama's running at about 41% in Texas.
This is a remarkable feat.
October 30, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"either" not "wither". Though "wither" makes it a more fun sentence.
October 30, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only way I'll believe 41% of Texas is for Obama is when all the votes have been counted. Presently, my eyes see the contrary.
October 30, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it's important to look rather than just listen. I'm just saying, I think people are coming through this time. I'm going to remain as positive as possible!
October 30, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike: It is not what I am saying, it is what the poll said. And I am not trying to generalize, they are that UNinformed. To me this is just unbelievable, or, they have chosen (more the case maybe) to buy into what they are told at church, etc. But that still makes them uninformed.
"Statewide survey of 550 registered voters has one very surprising finding: 23 percent of Texans are convinced that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is a Muslim".
October 30, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amelie, he was saying that I was over-generalizing. But I only call them as I see them. Like I said, Austin, parts of Houston and Dallas are blue but the vast majority of Texas is blood red. Evangelicals have a strong hold on this place.
October 30, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
you help get me back to WI, and it's a deal.
October 30, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deal! ;-)
October 30, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have spent my entire life in Texas, so I know A LOT of these people. Texans do read (sometimes), but they are very good at blocking out information that does not jive with their preconceived world view. I bet that 23% has heard or read that he's not a Muslim, but they believe *secretly* he is. Most of them are paranoid rednecks, I would guess.
October 30, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a native Texan, but I differ from most in that I am curious and educated. The media has some of the blame. While many read, their mainstream choices don't offer them any real information. The more important stories just don't show up anywhere in a newspaper, even the "Austin American Statesman" (a paper that endorsed Bush even though the county went for Kerry).
It is hard to explain. I think Obama may actually get more like 44% here. There are a lot of idiots, but there are a lot of reasoning people too.
October 30, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a 7th generation native Texan.
I would say that the media has some of the blame. The available mainstream choices don't offer them any real information. The more important stories just don't show up anywhere in a newspaper, and conservative talk radio is everywhere.
I think there may be a substantial "Obama effect" here in Texas. This is a state where many a reasonable person might never admit that (s)he is voting for Obama. It is easier for these people to nod and agree with their republican buddies, but vote on conscience at the booth. I say this based on a few odd comments I've heard from people and an understanding that people here are afraid to express themselves publicly on voting democratic.
October 30, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
My husband's theory is that most people won't admit they won't vote for a guy because he's black, because except for the fringe, that isn't acceptable.
It is more socially "okay" to be prejudiced against Muslims, hence, the racists just say they say they think Obama's a Muslim.
October 30, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they don't read in that state. Bu.sh left those children behind.
October 30, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
:)
October 30, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if that 23% of Texans believing Obama is a muslim makes me feel better or worse about 12 percent of Kentuckians believing the same thing.
I swear, if Obama gets a higher percentage of voters in Texas than in Kentucky, I'm going to have to do something drastic.
Like what, you ask? I don't know - depends on how assholey the wingnut freakazoids in my office act after Nov. 4.
October 30, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Target audience is the producers, cheap money. Good to know they speak for all non-black people.
October 30, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are the crazy right wingers going to do when Obama becomes President and doesn't make abortion mandatory, doesn't appoint Rev. Wright and William Ayers to the Supreme Court and doesn't nationalize all industry?
October 30, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope their heads explode!
October 30, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's not promoting Ayers for the SCOTUS? There goes my vote.
October 30, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What are the crazy right wingers going to do when Obama becomes President..."
Once he signs "card check" they'll start exporting more jobs to avoid the increased cost of union labor. They'll probably buy up as many guns as possible before he gets his "no gun stores within 5 miles of a school" legislation. Most will sell off anything they can to avoid the hikes in capital gains ASAP (he can't make those retroactive...yet). Then they'll hunker down, cling to their guns and religion and wait for the next Newt in 2010 to get us headed back in the right direction.
October 30, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, why would anyone sell off stocks to avoid capital gains tax when the vast majority of people own stocks in 401ks and IRAs, neither of which is taxed when you sell stocks?
And which of your stocks have made any gains under Republican rule, anyway?
And lastly, why do Republicans understand so little about finances (which explains why they keep running up huge debts?)
October 30, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say stocks...
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/football/pro/dolphins/sfl-flspdolwayne27sboct27,0,1382404.story
October 30, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to know that "most" own professional football teams.
October 30, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace suffers from the common Republican delusion that the "obscenely wealthy" includes him, when it clearly does not (see Plumber, Joe).
Hence, he does not understand finances, and would sell off his IRAs to avoid capital gains.
October 30, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I keep forgetting I'm held to a different standard here...I can't give an example to support a claim I must list every possible example and defeat any possible counter argument and only then can I make a statement of opinion (because nothing is fact unless it supports your side). I'll get right on that now.
October 30, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You specifically said that "most will sell off everything they can" in order to avoid an increase in the capital gains tax rate. You then deny you meant stocks and proceed to list a professional football team as a specific example. So let's try again....what do "most" own that they will sell off for a capital gain that is not a "stock"?
October 30, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's all kinds of stuff Obama can tax...stocks is one (I din't mean to exclude it as a category, I was trying to point out that that wasn't the only thing subject to capital gains), businesses, rental properties...that kind of stuff.
October 30, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the good news is that the economy routinely does better under Democrats, so even as they grouse about socialism, your ilk will have more money in their pockets to buy Thomas Sowell's new book, and pay your cable subscriptions so as to be able to watch FOX, and to be able to buy all of those guns which you suggest will be urgently coveted in preparation for the "ban and seizure" which is always touted but never emerges. In other words, it will be a time of anxiety for the right, but a comfortable, well fed sort of anxiety. A posh penthouse paranoia, as it were.
October 30, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been wondering the same thing. My guess is that some percentage of them will snap out of it, but a larger share will seize on anything that comes along to vindicate their present ravings. A tax increase on capital gains which restores the rate to the levels experienced under George H.W. Bush, for instance, will be advanced as proof of the socialist hegemony which Obama was predicted to unleash. I guess if that sort of thing makes them happy, why spoil their fun.
October 30, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
HAHA! Did you post this without seeing Wallace's post?
October 30, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
He did...I always thought he was pretty smart.
October 30, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here, let me translate:
"Hello black people. I'm a person of an indeterminable racial background; I may even be a greater minority than you. And just like you, I long to see a non-white president.
"But you know what I found out recently? Martin Luther King, Jr, hero of minorities everywhere, said we shouldn't vote for people based on race; we should vote for them based on character.
"Now, have you seen my buddy John McCain's messages? Obama is one scary dude! Or at least, he's not experienced. Either way, while I, like you, want to see a non-white person in the White House, Obama is too scary to elect; and that's just what MLK would say if he were around today.
"So, be like me, and vote for McCain. Not because you like McCain, but because Obama is too scary. I mean, after all, if this black guy got this close, isn't that enough?"*
*Paid for by White People who are Scared of Obama and want to Dissuade Minority Voters.
October 30, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo
October 30, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, you made me snort.
October 30, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
or, paid for by white racists who'd like not to admit that overtly and would rather pretend merely to be "scared"...AND want to dissuade minority voters.
October 30, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disgusting.
Even though it's a photo, the fact they used Senator Obama's kids in this vile garbage - is beyond the pale.
Again the double standard. Can you imagine a DEM 527 running an nasty ad with photos of McCain's children?
It would be breaking non-stop Fox News, "Red Banner" headline at Drudge, and 24-7 on right wing radio calling on the other side to denounce it.
October 30, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Seeing the Obama children there made that ad even more deplorable. The enormous double standard is staggering.
October 30, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, TPM has become a troll-free zone. . .Jonze even sounds optomistic in his writings. . . I almost expect a second moon to appear in the night sky any day now. . .
October 30, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but last night's thread was dismal, a morass of negativity. So glad people feel better this morning.
That thread about the infomercial was about the most disheartening one I've ever seen in my 2 years out here. You'd think Obama was losing and had turned into the worst sort of politician from what some people were writing.
October 30, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Glad I missed it.
I thought the infomercial was great. I didn't intend to watch the whole thing but totally got hooked. I thought it was very powerful and caring but still with plenty of specific policy details. I liked it a lot.
October 30, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. But others suggested it was a money dump, and things deteriorated from there. I went to bed much earlier than usual.
October 30, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you look upthread, you'll see the fraudulent "SFC" is back, and spouting his racist paranoid nonsense like an open hydrant.
October 30, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wright was the only thing that damaged Obama in the primaries. The idiot McCain refuses to use him so it is up to scattered 527s to make the attack. YouTube is filled with videos that would make devastating anti-Obama ads but McCain is too incompetent to use them and he thus deserves to lose.
Because the Daily Kos tracker is so favorable to Obama in its demographics re Dem ID, women, and Hispanic voters, the Obama margin in that poll is probably the upper limit of what is possible in the popular vote on election day, assuming Obama GOTV offsets the Bradley effect. Today Kos has Obama uo by 5 (7.5 points better than Kerry).
October 30, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
All right, I'll bite; how do you figure that Wright damaged Obama. The Wright story broke a week after the Ohio and Texas primaries - roughly 7 weeks before the PA primary. At the time the story broke, Obama was more than 20 pts behind Clinton in PA. He finished less than 10 pts behind her. From there he went on to finish ahead of her Guam, North Carolina, Oregon and Montana, just as everyone had predicted he would months before the Wright story broke. She went on to finish ahead of him in Indiana (albeit only just), West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico and South Dakota. Of those, the only unexpected result was South Dakota, but by the same token she was never able to make good on her promise that North Carolina would be an upset, despite the circulation of the Wright story.
So, where exactly is the evidence that the Wright story made a difference. Do you mean to say that, despite the fact that everyone, starting months before the Wright story broke, predicted Clinton to win PA handily, had it not been for the Wright story Obama would have upset Clinton there? If so, what is your evidence for this contention? I think that the importance of Jeremiah Wright has been greatly exaggerated.
October 30, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
IMO the Wright story made a difference in the campaign, but not the way people think: it pushed Obama to make the Philadelphia Speech, which demonstrated to many that he was beyond a doubt the real deal.
October 30, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reality of this is that those spots will "reach" exactly the people who in most instances would not have voted for Obama anyway.
Anyone who is persuadable by something like those already believes that Obama is everything the ads say he is.
October 30, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wright was the only thing that damaged Obama in the primaries. The idiot McCain refuses to use him so it is up to scattered 527s to make the attack. YouTube is filled with videos that would make devastating anti-Obama ads but McCain is too incompetent to use them and he thus deserves to lose.
Because the Daily Kos tracker is so favorable to Obama in its demographics re Dem ID, women, and Hispanic voters, the Obama margin in that poll is probably the upper limit of what is possible in the popular vote on election day, assuming Obama GOTV offsets the Bradley effect. Today Kos has Obama up by 5 (7.5 points better than Kerry).
October 30, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that's why Wright is old news.
October 30, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
And thank god Hillary tested him with it, because it removed all of the sting.
October 30, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did the Wright story even have a "sting"? Color me skeptical.
October 30, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's an even more overtly racist ad from LFR in which a white working class type opines in front of a tractor that "people like Obama" don't understand what it's like to run a small business as well as have a litany of other experiences related to the middle class. I couldn't believe it the first time I saw it.
October 30, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gambling in the casino? Shocking!
October 30, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
My question how much time on television is left for these right lending groups. If i was Obama I would buy up all the TV time so their isn't any TV time for these right wing groups to buy.
October 30, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
So they are using Rev. Wright, now's the time to drag out Vogler and the Alaska Independence Party. At least Wright didn't advocate treason. There's tape of Palin in support of AIP. Where's the Obama commercial?
October 30, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The McCain camp was smart enough not to get their hands dirty with this. BRING IT ON! If we win by a landslide I truly hope this type of politics is thrown out of the window for good.
October 30, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama anticipated these ads and bought national air time to counteract their attacks. The Republicans are throwing so many accusations at Obama that it's become overload. At some point even Republicans will start feeling turned off and realize that they are a part of an angry mob set on lynching a black man.
October 30, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is correct that race should have nothing to do with who you vote for. The issue is that anyone making less than $250,000 a year who votes for McCain, or any republican, is just like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
October 30, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good one, Bill. LoL!
October 30, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
MCWar: Someone stole my Joe the Plumber...Well, we are all Joe the Plumber...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/30/103713/27/126/646704
It gets worse by the day...McWar is suffering from dementia
October 30, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Viewing those two 'ads',,,,, all that came to mind was an aging, puffy faced Peggy Lee crooning "Is that all there is?"
October 30, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those ads are two weeks old and the networks will show restraint in running rightwing garbage. I thank god, Hillary forced Wright and Ayers into discusion during the primary. Wright old news, know one cares about him or Ayers anymore.
October 30, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record (and with appreciation for my sources), I would like to note that:
1) Adam Smith, the intellectual founder of modern capitalism, wrote in his seminal The Wealth of Nations that
2) Obama is proposing merely to return the capital gains tax rate to the rate at which it was set under Clinton, a president whose administration oversaw the largest expansion of our economy in the nation's history. More jobs, more GDP, more profits, more wealth, and all that with higher capital gains taxes. If this be socialism, we are all reds.
3) Obama is not even talking about raising the top tax rates to the levels at which Dwight Eisenhower (republican) set them (91%). It might be worth noting that Eisenhower's administration also oversaw a truly unprecedented economic expansion. Clearly, then, this idea that high taxes on the rich kills the golden goose has a bit of a trouble reconciling itself to the data (although when have scientific proofs ever convinced the American right?).
In other words, if Obama is a "socialist," so are Adam Smith, Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower. More to the point, if Clinton and Eisenhower really were enacting socialist economic policies, isn't that proof that socialist economic policies work?
October 30, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"it is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
Which is why we have a progressive tax system...however, I doubt Mr. Smith ever said "...and the rich should be taxed additionally so that you can cut a check to the poor."
October 30, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen the GOPtrust ad on cable channels in the Boston/New Hampshire area.
October 30, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
My mother, a white woman in her 70s, happens to have met Wright and heard him preach (I don't know how long ago). She's a retired minister in the same mainline Protestant denomination as Wright (UCC - United Church of Christ). He's well-regarded nationally by many people, as he has long made available tapes and transcripts of his sermons, which are considered quite good. This is part of why the tapes were available for the attackers to edit to make Wright look bad -- and by extension make Obama look bad for the association.
Part of her core take on the whole Wright business is that she's glad *her* sermons weren't taped so that someone could extract a 15 second sound bite as an attack. She knows, from hearing him and from being a minister, that anyone can sound bad if somebody pulls out a "bad" quote.
I think a terrific ad would be some warmer, more inclusive Wright soundbite that makes clear to the religious right wing that there'd be good reason for a reasonable Christian to sit in the pews of a church where Wright was the minister.
October 30, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"NeverFindOut.org" at the end of the ad? Doesn't that totally negate the quasi-positive intent of the message--hopeful about a Black President, but cautious about this particular candidate? Maybe someday, but not yet? "Never" kind of glaringly suggests a different idea.
October 30, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"NeverFindOut.org" at the end of the ad? Doesn't that totally negate the quasi-positive intent of the message--hopeful about a Black President, but cautious about this particular candidate? Maybe someday, but not yet? "Never" kind of glaringly suggests a different idea.
October 30, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
In terms of the former ad, people know about Reverend Wright. We already saw 2 weeks of his worst rants in a row on all the TV stations in the Spring so $900,000 of these ads won't make a difference. If I saw this ad on my TV, I would just change the channel. Whenever I see a negative ad on TV, I either change the channel or I mute it. That's what is great about TV now than it was even a decade ago. Everybody can just change the channel or mute the TV. Before people would have to sit through negative ads.
In terms of the second ad, I think this 527 is trying to remind everybody that Obama is black. So what. Obama is black. This ad doesn't say WHY NOT to vote for Obama in specifics. Instead it just says that one shouldn't vote for Obama just because he is black. Well I hope that is the case.
October 30, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the second ad: two things spring to mind when I watch it.
The ad condescends Barack Obama in its tone and use of the MLK quote and closes by reminding its target audience to keep their eyes and minds closed. The web address "neverfindout.org" belies the ignorant and intolerant mindset that is at the core of the conservative movement in this nation.
My other take on this... I'm reminded of a recent comparison of John McCain to Gollum. I can imagine him watching this ad and asking "What has it gots in its pocketses? Is it the presidency my precious?" And in truth it is, all of us have the presidency in our pockets and its time to cash in our votes. Precious.
October 30, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the neverfindout.org at the end of the ad means you are never going to find out who made these ads and you are never going to find out the source of their "information".
These are the same racist dog whistle attacks, cleaned up and made slick, even hip. Nice production, expensive feel. Reminds me of when David Duke was all slicked up and ready to make his big break into the mainstream.
October 30, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly the intent is to get black voters for McCain (which is a real sign of desperation), but it may have the opposite effect-- the wording at the end-- "this is not that time"-- reminds me of stuff that was said during the 60's civil rights movement about "slowing down" the movement because white America wasn't ready for it. I don't think MLK would approve of this message.
I suspect there is also the attempt to sway white pro-Obama voters into thinking they are voting for him BECAUSE he is black, and not for any other reason, which also probably won't work.
Furthermore, they are trying to imply some character flaw in Obama (are we to believe McCain has no character flaws?) How many blacks (or whites, or Asians, or...) in poor/middle class America are going to suddenly look at Obama, the eloquent Harvard-educated Senator, and suddenly think "ehhhh. . . he's not so admirable"?
If "not this time", when? Who can the GOP would claim would be a better choice?
October 30, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The strategic description that comes to mind about the Wright ad is that McCain is pissing into the wind...again.
I think the response ad is already in the can. The one where it says John McCain said he wouldn't use Obamas former pastor...and some neat quotes that will be forthcoming by leaders of all political parties.
I wouldn't be surprised if some independent ads popped up in Pennsylvania, and other states, starring John Hagee, and Rod Parsley. The same pastors who attack the Roman Catholic church as an evil cult. The same pastors who McCain solicited support from.
I thought this would happen on Friday, but this does allow for response that just decimates McCains already suspect character.
October 30, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no shock value in running the Rev Wright ADs. The RNC have already been running a few of the Rev Wright Ads a few months ago. The GOP are so stupid- Early voting has already began. So We are not living in an age where everyone votes on Nov. 4, where this could have some impact. The Gop must feel really comfortable with Hagee comments against Jews and Crazy Sarahs association with AIP and her church. So unless the MSM decides to play these Ads in an endless loop, I seriously doubt that they will sway any voters from changing their minds about Barack and vote for McHate. However I wish the Obama Campaign could put together a memerable Negative Ad to control the MSM narrative for the next few days. This to me has been the only Gap in this fantastic Campaign. The Mchate express has been able to dominate the talking points for the MSM with the Socialist, Ayers, and Khalidi nonesense for the last few weeks. Anyway I can't wait until Nov 4. I am so sick of seeing and listening t Mchate and Mrs Mooseburger.
October 30, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big surprise huh?
What's the news here? Republicans will say and do anything to get elected? Republicans don't have any problem smearing and lying? This simply is not news. It's sickening, disgusting and pathetic, but not news.
Had Obama spent the past 6 months destroying the corrupt, lying, criminal Republicans he faces this sort of thing would have no effect at all. Instead, he has played the "above it all" thing he's so comfortable with. I just hope it doesn't end up biting him and the rest of us in the ass.
October 30, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Obamas plan for America,I am still waiting for McCains but I guess this is all he's got...mmmmhhhh never mind.
October 30, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the disgusting irony of this ad. As an Arizona Senator, McCain voted against the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday. When the measure still passed, he voted to withdraw federal funding for the holiday.
And now they're going to invoke MLK on behalf of McCain???
Senator McCain, you need to take a closer look at the content of your own character. Hint: it's despicable.
October 30, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the disgusting irony of this ad. As an Arizona Senator, McCain voted against the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday. When the measure still passed, he voted to withdraw federal funding for the holiday.
And now they're going to invoke MLK on behalf of McCain???
Senator McCain, you need to take a closer look at the content of your own character. Hint: it's despicable.
October 30, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Wright ad, if they didn't include the legalese at the bottom of the last frame, I think The National Republican Trust PAC would have had space to add the phrase they really wanted to close with:
TOO BLACK
October 30, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I would just rely on what Biden Says.
http://www.bidensays.com/obama2008/2008/09/28/biden-voting-for-obama-or-mccain/
October 30, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I would just rely on what Biden Says.
http://www.bidensays.com/obama2008/2008/09/28/biden-voting-for-obama-or-mccain/
October 30, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm just curious after reading different comments,
how many of you agree with the teachings of rev
wright
November 2, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
any answers?????? who agrees with rev wright
November 2, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink