NY Times, LA Times reported that McCain asked NC GOP not to run ad, but did not report Obama's response or that smears fit pattern
SUMMARY: Articles in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times reported that Sen. John McCain disapproved of an ad produced by the North Carolina Republican Party that attacks Sen. Barack Obama for his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and that McCain called on the party not to air it. But neither newspaper noted Obama's response, nor that this ad is part of a pattern in which McCain supporters and even McCain staff members have spread smears about Obama, and McCain has denounced those smears even as he has reaped their benefits.
In April 24 articles discussing a recent ad produced by the North Carolina Republican Party that attacks Sen. Barack Obama for his relationship with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., both The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times reported that Sen. John McCain disapproved of the ad and called on the North Carolina GOP not to air it. But like NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell on NBC's Nightly News, the articles did not note that this ad is part of a pattern in which McCain supporters and even McCain staff members have spread smears about Obama, and McCain has denounced those smears even as he has reaped their benefits. Slate.com contributor Melinda Henneberger noted this effect on the April 23 edition of MSNBC Live, "McCain gets to have it both ways. He gets to take the high road and say that these attacks are absolutely unwarranted ... and yet the ads are still out there doing him some good for the general [election]."
The articles also failed to note Obama's response to McCain's statement: "My understanding is that the Republican National Committee and John McCain have both said that the ad's inappropriate. I take them at their word, and I assume that if John McCain thinks that it's an inappropriate ad, that he can get them to pull it down since he is their nominee and standard-bearer."
An April 24 Washington Post article and an April 23 Associated Press article noted all or part of Obama's statement, but not the pattern of McCain's condemning smears of Obama made by state parties, supporters, or his own campaign, while still benefiting from those smears.
From the Los Angeles Times article:
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, on Wednesday urged GOP officials in North Carolina to remove a new television ad that brands Democratic candidate Barack Obama as "too extreme for North Carolina."
"We asked them not to run it. I'm sending them an e-mail as we speak, asking them to take it down," the Arizona senator told reporters aboard his campaign bus as he traveled to a town-hall-style meeting in Inez, where President Johnson launched his 1964 campaign on poverty.
[...]
"I hope that I don't see [it]," McCain said of the ad. "I had enough of a description of it to know that that's the kind of campaigning that I have told the American people we're not going to do."
Aides to McCain said campaign manager Rick Davis called the North Carolina Republican chairman Tuesday and left a long message urging the state party not to run the ad. The campaign also recruited North Carolina Sen. Richard M. Burr, a McCain supporter, to make the same request -- but the effort was apparently unsuccessful.
From the New York Times article:
Despite objections from Senator John McCain, the North Carolina Republican Party is planning to roll out a television advertisement on Monday attacking two Democrats who are running for governor by linking them to Senator Barack Obama and playing a clip of his former pastor excoriating the United States.
The release of the commercial, which Republican officials in North Carolina said would make its debut during the 6 p.m. newscasts, injects a potentially divisive racial element into the campaign for the state's Democratic presidential primary, which is on May 6.
In the advertisement, a narrator intones, "For 20 years, Barack Obama sat in his pew, listening to his pastor." Then a video clip of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who was Mr. Obama's pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, is cued up.
[...]
Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, along with officials at the Republican National Committee, implored the state party on Wednesday not to run the advertisement.
"There's no place for that kind of campaigning," Mr. McCain said. "The American people don't want it, period."
In a letter his campaign released to Linda Daves, chairwoman of North Carolina's Republican Party, Mr. McCain said the advertisement "degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats."
Mike Duncan, the chairman of the Republican National Committee who was traveling with Mr. McCain on Wednesday, said he had a left a message with Ms. Daves also asking that the advertisement be pulled.
But Brent Woodcox, communications director for the state party, said it still planned to broadcast the commercial, although for how long and how extensively throughout the state had not yet been decided.
From the Washington Post article:
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, denounced the ad, and Obama suggested that it was up to McCain and the Republican National Committee to take it off the air.
"I assume that if John McCain thinks that it's an inappropriate ad that he can get them to pull it down since he's their nominee and standard-bearer," Obama told reporters while campaigning in Indiana.
State party officials declined to pull the ad, and late yesterday the party's Web site was still soliciting donations to keep the ad on the air.
From the AP article:
"We asked them not to run it," McCain told reporters traveling with him in Kentucky. "I'm sending them an e-mail as we speak asking them to take it down.
"I don't know why they do it. Obviously, I don't control them, but I'm making it very clear, as I have a couple of times in the past, that there's no place for that kind of campaigning, and the American people don't want it," McCain said.
McCain said the ad was described to him: "I didn't see it, and I hope that I don't see it."
Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan, who accompanied McCain, said he had left a voice mail message for state party chairwoman Linda Daves asking her to pull the ad.
McCain, in an e-mail to Daves, said he will draw sharp contrasts with Democrats. "But we need not engage in political tactics that only seek to divide the American people."
Asked about the ad during an appearance in New Albany, Ind., Obama said: "My understanding is that the Republican National Committee and John McCain have both said that the ad's inappropriate. I take them at their word, and I assume that if John McCain thinks that it's an inappropriate ad, that he can get them to pull it down since he's their nominee and standard-bearer.
For the life of me I cannot figure out why MMFA wants to continue going down the road of criticizing smearing attack ads in political campaigns and who denounces them, or benefits from them, or endorses them, or funds them, or has anything to do with them.........considering the onslaught of these very type ads that are no doubt on the drawing boards of the independent Democratic groups.
Head scratcher, indeed?
Why the surprise Tommy? Of course they are going to rip the Repugs for negative adds, even if they are going to do it themselves. It's turnabout for what the right wing hacks do every election cycle. It's hypocritical yes, but taking the political high road got us two terms of GW. It's time to play to win.
Honesty is great, but attack adds have decided the last two presidential elections. Defense just hasn't got the job done, we're going to need an offense this year. Attacking them for attacking seems to be the Obama camps strategy, and it's a good one.
WOW ! What an offensive thing to say. So honesty among MMFA posters "is rare." Does that mean you think we're all a bunch of liars ? What did you mean?
No, what you are saying is not what I meant at all.
Then say what you mean and mean what you say, Tommy.
No, you didn't say you were talking about the parties, you said "I was speaking about your honesty in admitting what you did.....I applaud that, it is rare." [Bold mine]
Well?
No, your carification, at best, was dishonest: "Oh calm down, I meant honesty regarding the way the both parties operate......No, what you are saying is not what I meant at all." [Bold mine]
I respecfully wonder if you actually believe many of us here are dishonest, and if you don't, don't you think a simple appology is in order?
Frankly Tommy, the issue isn't what I thought you said, the issue is what you DID say. I still wonder if you believe that dishonesty is the prevelant among posters here. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you for clerity of what you actually wrote as opposed to that party thing that I feel you tried to pass off as an explanation.
You're right about the apology being unnecessary if you're opinion is that we're not honest. However, if you don't believe that, and didn't mean to imply that, then one is certainly due.
Rick, I have no clue why you are beating this horse except to try and incite some argument. Look at Dazed's response to me when he admitted the hypocrisy of the left regarding attack ads, it's right there in his post. I was complimenting him by saying I appreciated his honesty where that admission was concerned, most people would never admit anything of the sort, why you can't follow that is beyond me.
When have I ever said that the posters here are a bunch of liars?, that is flat out absurd. I have never even intimated such a thing. I have plenty of disagreements but that is hardly calling everyone liars.
I have clarified enough what I meant, and what I didn't. If you choose to believe me, fine, if not, fine.
Okay. Maybe I was kneejerking a bit. No, I 'm not trying to incite an argument, and no, you have never (to my knowledge) said that posters here are liars. Sure, there are plenty of disagreements, that is the nature of debate. It was the [honesty is rare] reference set me off.
So I will assume (since you never said) that you believe posters here (with some exceptions) participate in honest debate. Let's have some fun now, and argue some more.
Tommy,
I see nowhere where you inferred that MMFA posters are dishonest. I am puzzled at the assumption really. Perhaps someone is bored and would like to argue with you just for the sake of arguing with you? The reality is that you are being called a blatant liar even after you offered a clarification. Hmmmmm.
Thanks Chris, appreciate it. It's my fault really for continuing to follow Rick down the road. I should have answered it once and been done with it. I am the tool here, I admit it.
And upon reading it again, it could also be inferred that you meant DazedAndConfused honesty is rare--implying that he/she is usually dishonest.
Because Thomas, if we allow racially motivated ads it undermines our democratic process. Not to mention it's hard to explain why in 2008 people still use race to determine 'likability' of a candidate. You might as well say America is still a racist country. You and I both know America is totally guiltless in the department of racism now don't we? See Tommy the bs gets old after a while. You might as well be asking why Mediamatters bothered to post the Bill Bennet story how many years ago.
So, you're saying MMFA is criticizing them strictly out of a racial motivation? That they are fine with attack ads against Democrats otherwise?
I say it's more political.
I wonder who has more "delicate sensibilities?"
A person who navigates through hostile waters with pretty much 99.99% disagreement, or those who find comfort sailing through those waters with pretty much 99.99% like minded agreement?
I like the challenge, guess you need the reinforcement. ;)
It's a good thing I have a tough vessel to weather the perfect storm.
;) ;)
Nice sidestep of my point Pete in order to lob an insult, but I think you just confirmed what I wrote anyway.
And I wouldn't talk about who gets more upset at criticism, your CAPPING certain letters when your "sensibilities" are offended doesn't bolster your argument much.
It's a good thing I have a tough vessel to weather the perfect storm.
;) ;)- tommy
,Said the Capt. of the Titanic.
Just Kidding, I know the S.S. Tommy is a fine seaworthy craft, and I look forward to many exciting voyages! ;0)
To me, this issue is *not* the negative ad or who benefits from it (although I really hate these ads no matter which party is the source). Rather, the problem is one of credibility.
Do you REALLY think that the RNC has no influence over the state party? Consider the answers to this question.
If "no, of course the RNC could pull the ad if it wanted to", then McCain is basically being very slimy here, CLAIMING to be against the ad when he is actually for it.
If "yes, the state party doesn't care how McCain wants to campaign", then McCain is also being disingenuous by proclaiming with false nobility that he "takes full responsibility" for the negativity. Really! He takes responsibility? What does this mean? Does this mean that he will retaliate against the state party in the future by not helping local candidates there? Does it mean the RNC will somehow punish the state party? Does it mean he will not campaign in the state during the general election? Does it mean that he will not accept electoral votes from the state? Does it mean that he will air his own ad in the state which does nothing but try to counter the negativity by extolling his respect for Obama? Taking responsibility is not just making a statement that makes you look like a decent guy; if that was true EVERYONE would be jumping at the chance to do it. Taking responsibility means that you are actively trying to right a wrong that was executed in your name, and by doing so you are taking on any negative repercussions that result from it. THAT is what makes taking responsibility noble.
I think ultimately that's the issue here. If McCain is guilty he shouldn't get away with claiming to be above it, and if he is truly innocent and above it then he should not be allowed to get away with "taking responsibility" with something so empty as a useless statement that only makes him look good.
"Head scratcher, indeed?"
You can't figure it out because you insist on staying inside your own box when it comes to any and all things MMFA. So your scalp will continue to itch as long as you keep bumping your head every time you try to stand up.
You keep insisting that when MMFA criticizes the media's clumsy, incomplete analysis of the attack ads and their implications, it's merely a sleazy, partisan artifice.
You can't look at the headline and figure out who MMFA is leveling criticism toward. Until you figure out how to do that, you'll keep bumping your head.
Similar to playing inside the cardboard box in which the toy came instead of playing with the toy itself, It's a lot more fun to draw attention to yourself by coming up with your scary theories about MMFA's supposedly real intent, or ridicule them over how "delicate" their "sensibilities" are.
How boring and mundane it must be to take each item at face value, ascertaining the target of the criticism from the headline as easily as the nose on your face, and for once debate and criticize the validity of the grievance against the media member in question.
It's just not juicy enough to talk about how well the media is doing its job of informing the public, because MMFA, as dictated by the confines of your box, is the organization with the problem.
You talk about me living inside the box, when any comment that includes the media as a whole, or the issue at hand is dismissed as irrelevant because this is a conservative ONLY watchdog site, so you keep your hand over one eye and over one ear, content to criticize only half the picture of bias that exists today. And you have the nerve to tell me I live inside the box, that is asinine Pete, and you know it.
If you want to ignore the fact that this website bemoans attack ads against the left, but their founder actively participates in attack ads against the right, you go right ahead. If you can't see or acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy in that, that is your business.
As long as the comment section is open to all points of view, then you will just have to live with the contrary opinions that you don't agree with......and stop whining about them as being off target as some excuse to diminish them.
You're better than that.
I stand by my criticism of your criticism 100%
“you keep your hand over one eye and over one ear, content to criticize only half the picture of bias that exists today.”Oh Really??? And you can say this with absolute certainty? Is it your assertion that MMFA’s forum is the only site I ever visit and level criticism about the media? Do you track my web site visits? Do you have access to my sent e-mail?
“And you have the nerve to tell me I live inside the box”
No, not the box, a box you built that you crawl into whenever you visit MMFA. Read it again.“If you want to ignore the fact that this website bemoans attack ads against the left, but their founder actively participates in attack ads against the right, you go right ahead. If you can't see or acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy in that, that is your business.”
I see them bemoaning McCain’s ability to wash his hands of ads coming from his own party with the help of the media.As far as what Brock is doing in regard to attack ads of his own, I’m not surprised. Brock is openly partisan, his organization is openly partisan, but he is not the Democratic party. I would expect any attack ad he does outside of MMFA to be both vicious and partisan. I would expect, however, that any mainstream media organization that analyzes those attack ads from Brock and his minions to do so thoroughly and accurately, including McCain’s response, so that I have sound information upon which to make up my own mind. Meanwhile, I will continue to examine MMFA items like this one based on their content, instead of calling the hypocrisy WAAHmbulance on Brock.
“As long as the comment section is open to all points of view, then you will just have to live with the contrary opinions that you don't agree with......and stop whining about them as being off target as some excuse to diminish them.”
As I’ve accused you of before, it is your view that criticism of criticism is not allowed, thereby making you, not me, the forum monitor.
As long as the comment section is open to all points of view, then you will just have to live with critiques of your criticism and that of the rest of the WITH Patrol, and stop whining about “delicate sensibilities” as some excuse to diminish them.
This ad though was not from some independent group. It was from the NC Republican party. Not exactly some sort of wild eyed fringe group and all.
And aside, isn't this a website for conservative misinformation, and or conservative bad things? Do we have to keep reminding you of this? Last I checked, I wouldn't consider someone running for President of this country as a democrat to be, well, conservative at all. Would you?
Did Obama have a close relationship with Wright? Yup.
Did Wright say "God Damn America"? Yup
Then it's fair game.
Did Obama bring "God Damn America" to the floor of the Illinois legislature? Nope.
Did Obama bring "God Damn America" to the floor of the US Senate? Nope.
Did Obama bring "God Damn America" to a campaign rally? Nope.
Did McCain bring "Hurricane Katrina was the fault of homosexuals" to the floor of the US Senate? Nope.
Fair game? Only to those stupid enough to consume it.
Pete,
You'd have a point if MMFA hadn't posted several threads here already wanting the media to tie McCain to John Hagee. That tells me MMFA thinks McCain's ties to Hagee are fair game. Or at the very least they want a tit for tat because Obama's ties to Wright are still being batted around by the media.
Jeter,
Regarding this website's double standard where both stories are concerned, you make an excellent point. According to MMFA, damn the Obama/Wright connection, but carry on with the McCain/Hagee one - that's as obvious as the defenders stumbling over themselves, trying to defend it.
I think the idea is to get the same coverage for McCain/Hagee as for Obama/Wright.
IF Wright is to be made an issue (and I don't believe he should have in the first place, but what's done is done), then Hagee needs the same scrutiny.
It's the imbalance that's at issue for the most part.
I know people who, to this day, have never heard of Hagee, but they think they know everything there is to know about Wright. That's ridiculous and a symptom of a biased media against Obama.
Obama has denounced Wright's comments with the exact same level of veracity (indeed, in almost the same words) as McCain has denounced Hagee's. But McCain gets a pass and we're still hearing about Wright.
Why, just today, there was a discussion between two co-workers outside my office door about what a terrible person Wright is and how badly it reflects on Obama. Neither of them had heard of Hagee, so I took it upon myself to advise them to Google or YouTube some of Hagee's wingnuttery.
I totally agree with you about Obama, I am sick of it, frankly. Obama's words are his own, as are Wright's. This intent to morph Obama into Wright and put the Reverend's words into Obama's mouth is ridiculous. Obama has explained it enough for me, if he hasn't for some that is their business.....and they will vote for him, or not, accordingly. It's been done and done to death.
But to say, OK, now it's been done to Obama, time for McCain to get a taste is just reinventing the wheel, it will never stop. And then it goes to degree and which is worse, and the focus is on Wright and Hagee, when it should be on the candidates themselves.
It's time to move beyond it.
Gramps will continue to pretend that he disapproves.
So now you're a mindreader?
Funny I could never get away with that here, must be a special Liberal talent ;-)
That depends on a couple of things...
The organization responsible for the ad (Democratic Party or non-affiliate),
and whether or not the candidate's actions are successful in getting the ad pulled.
The difference is that many of those Liberals will at least admit that they don't really need the tax cuts. Rich Republicans tend to whine about their unfair "tax burden", and how those welfare queens deserve to be poor.
As with those rich Liberals, the Maverick admits that the ads are unwarranted. But using mmfa's logic, taking the highroad doesn't matter because they're all still reaping the benefits . . .
After Obama gets the nomination...
He needs to have a commercial ready to run in any state where McCain chooses to take this tack.
He needs to tell voters that Gramps McCain and his campaign is directly responsible for the sleazy ad, and that he's disappointed that Gramps has no respect either for himself, or for America. That the American people deserve better than the filth of Gramps McCain.
-- considering the onslaught of these very type ads that are no doubt on the drawing boards -- tommy
They're off the drawing boards...go to Brock's website for PMUSA. You'll laugh your ass off at the ad they produced. It links Hagee with the plot by Hitler and the catholic church as being responsible for the extermination of the jews...and McCain standing shoulder to shoulder with Hagee.
Brock is guilty of the same thing he whines about.
It's not about the ad.
It's about how the media are covering the ad.
There is no link to McCain for the ad.
They do point out, correctly, that he has reaped the benefits of things that he has denounced.
Again, it's about the media's coverage of the ad, not the ad itself.
Mag,
You can't separate the act itself from the media coverage of it, the two are inextricably linked, that is the subject of the media coverage.
Wes, You're right on target, of course. The bigger picture is the attack ads, the media coverage, or not, of it, is just a vehicle to get there. You don't whine about attack ads against your side and then get down and dirty in producing them against the other side.
How some fail to see the hypocrisy in that is unbelievable.
The "flip-flopping", or positions evolution, doesn't bother me much, it's acting all holier than thou denouncing attack ads, under the guise of the way the media is supposed to cover it or some such nonsense, and then being actively involved in doing the same or worse to political opponents you don't like.
And the defenders of all things MMFA that cannot even acknowledge the double standard that is so obvious.
The only way anyone has the absolute moral authority to complain that the media operates in an unfair or unsavory fashion against politicians, or some particular ideology, is if their hands are currently clean of any of it themselves.
I can even accept monitoring only one ideology, as in this websites mission of highlighting only conservative misinformation, and leaving out the other half of the story, let those that want that side go elsewhere and find it, it's cool.
But when you actively engage in what you preach against, then you are at the very least being duplicitious, or most likely a hypocrite.
Is this the you have to be poor yourself to fight on behalf of the poor argument ?
Tommy, I have yet to visit a non partisan site of this caliber. Newsmax comes to mind if one wished to indulge in right wing banter. This site does conservative infomation, running a Liberal media site would be hard as we on the left don't have maniacs like Rush, Coulter and Hannity.
Both sides engage in gutter politics, I agree. What is being pointed out here is that the Right goes dirtier and gets decent press for it. This same phenomenom does not exist for the left.
Ask yourself, the last two elections were won on fear mongering and character assault from the GOP, when was the last time you saw Dems play that way?
Easy...the new PMUSA site that is run by Brock. It says "check out our latest video" and shows:
-- It links Hagee with the plot by Hitler and the catholic church as being responsible for the extermination of the jews...and McCain standing shoulder to shoulder with Hagee. --
Clear evidence of " the last time you saw Dems play that way".
So now you assert that party and 527 are the exact same thing ?
Wow. Does your mother know you are up this late on her computer?
My take on Brock after having read a few of his books.
He entered into conservative politics in college. The reason did not seem to be idiology driven. He felt that the conservative side was not getting time and space to express their veiws. They were being shouted out and down by the left wing yahoos on campus. From this he became a conservative voice. I don't know that he renounced what are perfectly reasonable conservative political positions. He did and does renounce the neocon culture/media.
Which to my mind have become like those leftwing yahoos, shouting the opposition down and out. IMO his position on the public debate, has over time, been consistent.
If his new position produces the kind of easily deconstructed foorah that we see here daily. I'll be very surprised.
The media is not a strawman TS.
Hillary or Obama spin site, Antijohn? no merely a clever cover for an Edcult Conspiracy Site.
OOps, gotta run..
tion in the U.S. media." The statement uses the term "conservative misinformation" not one, but THREE times. MM often points out "misinformation" from mainstream media that is not usually considered "consevative", but that the item in question might give an advantage to "conservative" agendas. I often disagree with MM and I am proud to be a LIBERAL. At the same time I admire MM's intent. To come to this site and
attack MM for doing what it announced it was going to do is like going to an Italian
restaurant and complaining because they don't serve Chinese food.
I know I am going to be attacked for this, so go ahead.
Again, Dog, you're right on target. We've been telling them this same thing for years. We Liberals seem to forget that Conservative's attention span, on average, is 17 seconds, and that's only if we are able to pound it throug their 4" thick concrete skulls.
By the way, there is a Mexican restaurant here in East Lansing that also serves Chinese, and there is a Chinese Restaurant that has a car wash in the same building. The locals refer to these restaurants as Taco-roll, and Chinese Car Wash. Maybe we could talk one of the owners into opening an Italian/Chinese place.
I went to a Chinese-German restaurant.
A half-hour later I was hungry for power.