Ignoring attacks, Politico's Smith claimed "well-funded attacks from independent groups on behalf of John McCain" have "so far [been] absent"
SUMMARY: In a blog post, the Politico's Ben Smith asserted that "well-funded attacks from independent groups on behalf of [Sen.] John McCain" have "so far [been] absent" during the presidential campaign. However, the Vets for Freedom political action committee has run television ads attacking Sen. Barack Obama over issues related to the Iraq war, and independent group Freedom's Watch has put out ads attacking Obama over tax and health care issues.
In a June 19 post on his Politico blog, senior political writer Ben Smith wrote: "Obama announced in a video message to supporters this morning that he won't participate in a public financing system to which he appeared to have committed last year, citing the system's flaws and the threat of -- so far absent -- well-funded attacks from independent groups on behalf of John McCain" [emphasis added]. In fact, the Vets for Freedom political action committee launched two ads in May attacking Sen. Barack Obama over issues related to the Iraq war. Moreover, in the run-up to two special congressional elections in Louisiana and Mississippi on May 3 and 13, the independent group Freedom's Watch ran television ads linking Democratic congressional candidates Rep. Don Cazayoux (LA) and Rep. Travis Childers (MS) to Obama, claiming that Obama and Childers would levy "a $2,600 tax increase" on "many Mississippi families" and that Obama and Cazayoux are behind "a big government scheme" for health care that would "cost[] up to 65 billion dollars."
Further, the group Citizens United has reportedly budgeted about $1 million for a "political documentary" on Obama that it plans to release this summer, which examines, in part, whether Obama is "the uniter the country begs for or a typical Democrat divider." In its May 19 issue, Newsweek quoted Citizens United president David Bossie as saying that the film will portray Obama as a "limousine, out-of-control leftist liberal ... more liberal than [Vermont Sen.] Bernie Sanders, who is a socialist."
Media Matters for America noted that two McCain supporters and frequent McCain campaign surrogates -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a general co-chairman of McCain's campaign, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a co-chairman of McCain's Connecticut Leadership Team -- served on the Vets for Freedom Policy Board of Advisors, but the day the group's PAC released the first Obama attack ad, they "request[ed] a leave" from their positions "[d]ue to McCain campaign guidelines." Smith himself noted Graham and Lieberman's departure from Vets for Freedom in a May 29 blog entry.
From Smith's June 19 blog post:
Obama announced in a video message to supporters this morning that he won't participate in a public financing system to which he appeared to have committed last year, citing the system's flaws and the threat of -- so far absent -- well-funded attacks from independent groups on behalf of John McCain.
Obama cast the decision, expected to give him a massive edge over McCain, as a risk and a sacrifice.
The Vets for Freedom ad is not an attack ad, that is ridiculous. It may be debatable and up for discussion, but to characterize it as such is off base. It asks questions, that's all.
Tommy, come on now.
Criticism of Obama or Mrs. Obama: Attack, smear.
Criticim of McCain (including ageist jabs): What's the big deal?
Criticism of Obama or Mrs. Obama: Attack, smear.
Criticim of McCain (including ageist jabs): What's the big deal?
I gotta agree Dex. But that's just part of the mindset here. It covers everything, not just ads. Dems, no matter what they do, are always excused by the folks around here.
Exactly. Many liberals are still bitter over Kerry, so now they view any criticizing ad as an attack, it's ridiculous.
Yet they can slur McCain six ways to Sunday and shrug.
Exactly Tommy. They are so afraid of swiftboating they think they can see/hear it even when it's justifiable criticism. I don't know if it's acute paranoia or just being wicked defensive, but jumping on every criticism as if it's an attack just sounds like whining after awhile.
There's a boy that cried wolf quality about it.
Well said, and my point in reprinting Obama's response yesterday is a perfect example of how capable and ready he is to defend his positions. He is no John Kerry, a lousy candidate. Perhaps if the rightwingers know that Obama will fight back point to point, they will think twice. He has the capability of turning a smear or attack ad against him to his favor, good for him.
Criticizing and debating issues is important for all of us. To pooh pooh critical ads of substance only leads to more smear attack ads, not less.
Hey Fog, have you ever suggested that to 2 Libs agreeing with one another?
Somehow I doubt it.
What is it about opposing opinions that you can't handle? Or that 2 posters you don't agree with, happen to agree with each other.
I think Foghorn may have ruined the magic moment. Wingnuttus Interruptus can bring out the fury.
Tommy to Jeter: Exactly...
Jeter to Tommy: Exactly Tommy...
Tommy to Jeter: Well said...
Now that's some serious terrorist fist-bumping!
Exactly...
Exactly Tommy...
Well said...
Now let's have a serious terrorist fist-bump! :-)
They are so afraid of swiftboating ...
Not quite. We've learned our lesson from the swiftboaters and won't let it happen again.
Here's more deepness for ya Jeter. I had a college philosophy final where there was only one question: Why?
My answer: Why not? I got an A.
Yeah Snoop that can be described as a swiftboating attack ad...however not every political ad criticizing Obama is an attack ad. That was all Tommy & I were saying.
It's this ridiculous Obama is a Muslim or was a Muslim smear that probably caused his volunteers in Michigan to refuse to allow two Muslim woman to appear behind him at a campaign event. That, was a damned if you do, damned if you don't moment.
I can see your point, Jeter and Tommy. Problem is this is going way beyond just attack ads. Here's an interview with Cindy McCain, and what where some of the pertinant questions asked the republican nominees wife?
So if we're just a tad touchy, I'd say we have a right to be. More right than McCain has of accusing the DNC of attacking his wife (which they didn't).
Nice find, Snoopy! Yeah see, we have nothing to fear.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." GW Bush
Well anyhow, you get the idea!:)
That is the kind of disgusting smear ads that will be used by the most vile amoung us! Most Americans will see right through that kind of BS!
All those ads will do, for the most part, is reinforce in those weakminded fools to be afraid of what their slimy leaders tell them to be afraid of!
Of course they're attack ads. One of them states that Senator Obama isn't willing to meet with the leaders of US forces, but is willing to meet with the leaders of Iran and others that hate America. Come on Tommy, even an apologist such as yourself should know that's not asking a question, but just a plain and simple attack ad.
Unless you consider any criticism an attack?
You need to determine the motivation of those making the criticism. In this case, they are using criticism as their method of attack.
Would you call this an attack, it's from Barack Obama yesterday. No, this is not an attack, it's criticism and it's Barack Obama at his best, good for him!
"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.
The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice."
They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.
Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism,"I'd say that's a very good and fair attack by Obama. Most of his points are valid.
I think it's the 'smear' categorization that we're trying to avoid, because that label usually implies a falsehood or misinformation.
They are, without question, beyond any shadow of doubt, attack ads. They're clearly intended to characterize Obama as out of touch with what's going on in Iraq and portray him as a friend of Iran's leaders "or anyone else who hates our country."
"[Obama] wasn't available to meet with us, but we weren't surprised, because he hasn't once, sat down with our commander in Iraq, General Petraeus.
[..]
if Barack Obama won't listen to us, who will he listen to?"
Just simple questions, eh?
A SMEAR is distorting facts or making unfounded personal swipes.
Well, in a political context, for me, an attack is a smear, and a smear is an attack.
And whatever you call it, Tommy, that Vets for "Truth" group is NOT interested in the truth - all they want to do is attack our next preseident, Barack Obama.
Among the entries for attack:
4.to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly:
I don't see anything about lying, distorting or unfounded claims.
The ads fit the definition to a T.
It is your own sensibilities that are at odds with the English speaking world.
So you do consider unfavorable criticism an attack? Sorry, I don't.
This campaign will be full of plenty of attacks then I guess.
Wait a minute, an hour ago these ads were just "questions."
Huh? They are questions. Questions criticizing Obama in the form of an ad doing the same thing.
Actually - that would be a 'smear' ad, because it makes a claim (Obama has never sat down with Petraeus) that is blatantly false.
I think that's the big difference here. Attacks are the same as criticism. It becomes a smear when the attack is fabricated from false or misleading information.
In their opinion, questioning him in a Congressional hearing is not "sitting down" with him. Ok, it's debatable form your point of view, but it's hardly a smear.
And it's a little hard to take anyone who engages or condones attacks on one candidate, yet cries foul when it's done to their own. Not namin' names of course....
OK - well, since you're obviously not talking about me, but let me clarify my position anyways.
I think attacks are legitimate, in that they represent valid criticism of the other candidate.
Attacks become 'smears' when they distort or fabricate facts to cast the other candidate in a bad light, such as the implication that Obama refuses to meet with Gen. Petraeus. Smear attacks are not part of a healthy political discourse, and won't accomplish anything.
You make an excellent point Kyle. But, I think Tommy's point is that for the most part the American public have been trained to equate "attack ad" as being the same as a "smear ad". We referred in large part to the Swift Boat ads as "attack ads" in 2004. Of course, they did not meet your definition of attack ad as they were obviously smears. That being said, I do like the way you have seperated what constitutes a attack from a smear. That makes perfect sense to me. I think though, you are essentially redefining what the American public terms "attack ads." That is hard to sale to many who have been conditioned to see it another way.
I'm not re-defining attack ads, I'm just including 'smear' ads as a nefarious subset of attack ads, that employ dishonesty and false framing.
The Swift Boat ads were attack ads, but they were also smears, which are the worst kind of attacks.
There are good, valid attacks as well, as you can see by the example of Obama's statement that Tommy posted above.
Yes but the common joe who doesn't spend time informing himself hears the word "attack ad" I think he immediately equates that with being the SAME as a smear. I see your point and I essentially agree. It's just my opinion that most common folks off the street do not define "attack ad" the way you do nor do they take the time to analyze them as being the same but different depending on content. Therefore, I do think your presentation does in fact attempt to redefine what constitutes an "attack ad" to most people. When we hear in the media that 527 groups are destined to put out "attack ads" I believe the common understanding is that such ads will be synonomous with what you describe as a smear.
It's almost as if we are arguing semantics here, but I get your drift and I like the way you have differentiated between the two. I just don't think most others will.
Wow - that really opened my eyes - and I'm afraid you are right.
I just hope this election doesn't turn out to be determined by the guy who made the best "attack ads" - and gets the most TV and You Tube coverage. As Dems, all we can do is remain vigilant and respond quickly with the truth.
so this is not an attack ad. they are just asking questions?
so by that logic i can say " are all conservitives subhuman because of their diminished brain capacity?"
"why do so many conservitive men seem to get caught having sex with boys?"
"why do conservitives always play the role of victim?"
these are not attacks i am just asking and trying to begin a positive debate on these issues
just my 2 cents..lol
Vets for Freedom. Freedom Watch.
How come any group with the word "freedom" in the title turns out to be filled with liars?
How come any group with the word "freedom" in the title turns out to be filled with liars?
About 30 years ago, I worked in Quality Control at a small company in NJ. I remember the QC Manager telling me that parts received from any supplier with the words "Quality" or "Precision" in their company name had to be inspected very closely, because that was an indicator that they offerred neither quality nor precision. And he was right.....
That's funny, WZ, and something i've noticed. If your company is "Smith Products", and your product is good, "Smith" comes to mean "quality".
Just like if you had a news station that was "fair & balanced", you would never have to say those words.
Along the same lines, I've purchased a few items in my lifetime with the words "Heavy Duty" on the package, that broke very quickly.
I LOVE HOW THE MEDIA IS JUMPING ALL OVER THE MUSLIM STORY AND NOW THE MONEY THAT OBAMA WILL BE TAKING NOW. HEADLINES LIKE OBAMA LIE, GOING BACK ON HIS WORD BUT WHEN MCCAIN FLIPFLOPS EVERYDAY THEY SAY NOTHING. THE MEDIA WILL DO ANYTHING TO BRING THIS MAN DOWN .
Along the same lines, I've purchased a few items in my lifetime with the words "Heavy Duty" on the package, that broke very quickly. - col.
Well you should still read the label, you know, how much to inflate etc. Or better yet, avoid the problem altogether and get one of those "solid" dates instead of those flimsy inflatables. =>
Now I can't stop thinking about Heavy-Duty Judy®, Ol' Ben. Worst part is I financed her, and the couch we got*, for longer than our love lasted.
*(slightly camouflaged Clash reference)
Every cheap hood strikes a bargain with the world.
Ends up making payments on a sofa or a girl.
Did I win?
What do you want, a prize?
Why not phone up Robin Hood,and ask him for some wealth distribution.
;0)
My last post cluttering this thread...
They got Burton suits, ha, you think it's funny
Turnin' rebellion into money
Anyway, if you haven't seen it (I haven't - stupid small city) Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten is out on video July 8 I beleive.
And just to touch on this topic - I really think all this bodes ill for the dems and after Obama's opting out of public financing among other things, McCain will win in Nov.
Now, tell me again why 3rd party candidates are a bad thing?
"a typical Democrat divider"?!
I think what is most maddening about these guys is the way they accuse the Democrats of doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING! The Republican playbook has not changed since the 60's when Nixon and Pat Buchanan figured out that they could split the country down the middle along class, race, and age and pick up the larger half.
The rancorous state of politics today is a direct result of thirty years of assiduous application of the tactics of divide and conquer. No wonder so many people have no stomach for politics when so much of what passes for "politics" is simple minded name-calling and emotional manipulation.
I'm voting for Hopey, but with my eyes wide open. Many of his positions, particularly on health-care and his refusal to contest the new "compromise" FISA bill are deeply disappointing.
- NHUNTER / Thursday June 19, 2008 4:01:17 PM EDT"
I hadn't heard that Obama was punting on the Bush-Hoyer FISA whitewash. If true, that's very disappointing indeed. For civil libertarians, the FISA capitulation is a rotten bill. I hope MMFA will cover it in some way.