Ignoring McCain's inaction, AP claimed NC GOP "ignored McCain's repeated calls to kill" controversial ad
SUMMARY: The AP reported that Sen. John McCain's campaign "promises to condemn any race-based political appeals" and, referring to a controversial television ad by the North Carolina state Republican Party attacking Sen. Barack Obama, asserted that McCain made "repeated calls to kill the ad." But according to the party's chairwoman, at no point did McCain call her directly and ask that she not run the ad, and McCain reportedly said that "he wouldn't have run the GOP ad, 'but I am not going to referee, I am just going to run my own campaign.' "
In a June 23 article, the Associated Press asserted that Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign "promises to condemn any race-based political appeals" and noted that "[s]hortly before North Carolina's May 6 primary, the state Republican Party aired a TV ad linking Democratic candidates to [Sen. Barack] Obama, who was described as 'too extreme' because of his ties to the retired Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr." Writer Charles Babington went on to assert that "[t]he state party ignored McCain's repeated calls to kill the ad," but did not provide support for that assertion. Indeed, as Media Matters for America noted, while McCain pledged, "I'll do everything in my power to make sure not only they stop it but that kind of leadership is rejected," according to North Carolina GOP chairwoman, Linda Daves, at no point did McCain call her directly and ask her not to run the ad. Moreover, as Media Matters noted, there were several ranking members of the state Republican Party who also had "official" roles in the McCain campaign or in the Republican National Committee, to whom McCain could have insisted the ad not run. Finally, on May 1, FoxNews.com reported that McCain said "he wouldn't have run the GOP ad, 'but I am not going to referee, I am just going to run my own campaign.' " Further, in a June 12 article, the Boston Herald quoted McCain saying, "I can't be a referee of every spot run on television," and described his comments as "a softening of his view on the negative campaign tactic" that "opens the door to a no-holds-barred five-month scramble."
From the June 23 Associated Press article:
The McCain campaign promises to condemn any race-based political appeals. But it also insists it won't stand still for false charges of racism or for allegations merely aimed at preventing criticism of Obama on legitimate issues.
"Every word will be twisted to make it about race," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a McCain friend and adviser. When he and others confront Obama on issues such as national security and the economy, Graham said, it will have "nothing to do with him being an African-American."
Obama adviser David Axelrod said the Democrat's campaign will be on high alert for code words or innuendo meant to play on voters' racial sentiments. "We're going to be aggressive about pushing back on anything that we feel is inappropriate or misleading," he said.
It's not enough for McCain to say he cannot control independent groups airing racially charged ads on his behalf, Axelrod said, noting that the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" was independent of President Bush's campaign.
"We've seen this movie before," he said. "And we're not going to be passive in the face of those kinds of tactics."
Racially charged criticism of Obama already has surfaced in several states.
Shortly before North Carolina's May 6 primary, the state Republican Party aired a TV ad linking Democratic candidates to Obama, who was described as "too extreme" because of his ties to the retired Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
Obama eventually ended his relationship with Wright, his longtime pastor who had been criticized for sermons in which he cursed America and accused the government of conspiring against blacks. The state party ignored McCain's repeated calls to kill the ad.
I agree, in 2008 I'm embarassed that there are still people in America that cannot fathom a black president
You're embarrassed that some people wont vote for a black president, but you're not embarrassed that 90% of black voters are for Obama, solely because of race? Sounds a bit hypocritical.
It's clear to anyone that Liar McCain WANTS the racist Republicans, including Racist White Supremacist Hate Hag Republican Linda Davies, among others, to run these racist ads.
It should also be noted that Racist McCain also refused to appear at the convention of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, an organization of 200+ African-American Newspapers read by 15 million African-Americans in the United States.
Has Obama spoken out against the bowelmovement.org ad that has a woman crying that McCain can't have her infant son for a 100 years of war in Iraq? No, inaccuracy in that ad at all!
McCain complained about this ad from the state committee but it is really accurate in it's portrayl of Obama's minister of 20+ years being quite the radical.
well, when does McCain say we are leaving?
I've heard 4-5 years, 100 years, whenever it's plausible
There is a giant sucking the life out of this country, so far its sucked up 4 thousand lives and 2 Trillion dollars, that giant is Iraq and it may be the end of us.
Actually, its more along the lines of $600-700 Billion, still less than social welfare programs.
The and real evil draining this society is the price we pay for foreign oil, when the left doesn't want us to use our own.
You got that from a left position paper? Continuing to believe that we can save ourselves if we just had more oil is a bougus starting position. Blaming our energy position on the people you hate is lame. Thinking it will be ok it we just do what the companies making record profits on the current situation want is stupid.
Seems the Iraqie oil is not going to American companies. Perhaps the owners can see what this occupation was about and are seeiing that its major projected benificiaries will walk away empty handed.
It was about the oil and shrub has failed to deliver it.
PC,
If there was an article saying that Obama had asked for the ad to be removed when it hadn't, you would have a point. I think McCain's timetable changes every time he thinks about it.
Let us know if the AP publishes an article that claims Obama is asking for the ad to be removed and he hasn't.
MMFA does not just post articles that contain misinformation. They also post articles that do not include all the relevant material that MMFA thinks it should, as well as articles based on pure partisanship views....such as smearing the Obama book before they've even read it.
I think he's got a point, that the ad was clearly misinformation, as he isnt taking people to place into Iraq for 100 years. Its nothing more than taking something out of context, and pushing your agenda. But no one is going to take that ad seriously, especially after the Betrayus debacle.
There is no legitimate reason to continue noting the race color ethnic heritage or whatever, of the two presidential candidates: why does that matter at this stage?
Does the race color heritage of either of these men, affect their decision-making? Does it affect their Policy opinions, or Policy decision-making process? Does it affect their thinking?
At this stage, does anyone actually think there are White thoughts and Black thoughts? White decisions and Black decisions? White feelings and Black feelings? White Policy and Black Policy?
If you will admit that there are no such things, then you must admit little or no difference between the two presidential candidates, that can be attributed to their race color heritage whatever...
Then why mention it at all?
Above in the item, we have Sen. Lindsey Graham saying:
"Every word will be twisted to make it about race," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a McCain adviser. When he confronts Obama on issues, it will have "nothing to do with him being an African-American" he said.
Why does he have to say the words "race" and "African-American" there? Does anybody think that it's at all possible to claim the man is being racist, if he simply refrains from mentioning race?
Do you see what I mean here? It is impossible for you to say I have said anything racist, if I have said nothing about race: isn't that clear and obvious? The moment I say anything about race though, I am then and only then, treading the ground that a racist might tread: but if I never broach the subject, then I cannot be accused of saying anything racist....
This seems so obvious to me, that I believe a child could understand it. "If you don't want to get burned, then don't play with fire" "If you don't want to be in an airplane crash, then don't fly in an airplane" "If you don't want to drown, then don't go in the water"
"If you don't want to be accused of having said something racist, then don't talk about race"
If you will accept this simple truth:
That to not say anything about race, delivers you from any accusation of having said something racist.
...then the only other truth you need add to that, is this one:
That the race color heritage whatever of the two presidentiasl candidates, cannot possibly matter at this stage of the campaign, for the fact that there is no such thing, as a White or Black thought, or White and Black feelings, or decisions, or Policies, or White and Black Policy-making and managerial skills.
Add them up, and you'll get it.
Again, why keep talking about race, if it doesn't make any real difference, and if you don't want anybody to say that you've said something racist?
There is no legitimate reason to do so, to keep talking about race color heritage... not at this stage of the proceeding.
I know of one absolutely certain way that Sen. Graham can deliver himself from any accusation, and be completely immune from the charge of having said something racist, and that is this:
Don't Make Any Reference To Race While You Are Talking About Sen. Obama
...because it really doesn't matter, does it?
Because there is no such thing as White and Black National Policies or National Policy-making, or even White and Black thoughts and feelings, are there?
Hats off DEM, that really does nail it, just exposes how loose and thin the logic is on the Right when it comes to race and politics. They want to swin and not get wet, so either they are idiots or they believe we are. Great post!
This business of continuously and unnecessarily (gratuitously) invoking either of the candidate's race color heritage, is everywhere in the media it seems. It was cited in the above item, as being done by Sen. Lindsey Graham, but it's done so often by the media, especially by chris matthews and sean hannity too. There is another MMFA item published Monday (as the above item is), headlined "Shelby Steele acknowledged he doesn't believe claim in subtitle of his own book on Obama": in the brief transcript included in the item, we have hannity introducing this guy shelby, this way...
HANNITY: As the first African-American presidential nominee, Democrat Barack Obama is no doubt running an historic campaign. But will that distinction help or hurt his chances of making it all of the way to the White House?
I say that sean hannity strained for and contrived a reason to yet again note one of the candidate's race color heritage: I say at this stage of the proceeding, there is no legitimate reason to do that: I say that every single instance of unnecessarily (gratuitously) invoking the race color heritage of either candidate, is only the invitation for us, to sift what is being said, to perhaps find racism there...
Again, the emphasis here is on how unnecessary it is to continuously and gratuitously invoke any of the candidate's race color heritage at this stage of the proceeding: what, hannity thinks we don't know the race etc of the candidates? Does he think someone in his audience is going to be informed by what he says when he says "African-American" and "that distinction"? He thinks someone in his audience is going to sit bolt upright, and say aloud "WOW, I hadn't realized that: one of the candidate's is an African-American!"
It's not news, so why talk about it: hannity and chris matthews can only be suspected of being racist, for continuously and unnessecarily citing the race color heritage of the candidates at this stage... it's not necessary to do that: we know already: we get it: we accept the facts...
...unless hannity and matthews et al thinks it really makes a difference? Thinks there's a real "distinction" (as hannity said) to be made here? Thinks there's such a thing as Black and Whites thoughts and thinking, Black and White feelings, Black and White Policy...
Guess what? It's racism and racist to think those things.
Why keep mentioning race color heritage, when it doesn't really matter?
HANNITY: As the first African-American presidential nominee, Democrat Barack Obama is no doubt running an historic campaign. But will that distinction help or hurt his chances of making it all of the way to the White House?
I had asked rhetorically above:
"what, hannity thinks we don't know the race etc of the candidates? Does he think someone in his audience is going to be informed by what he says when he says "African-American" and "that distinction"? He thinks someone in his audience is going to sit bolt upright, and say aloud "WOW, I hadn't realized that: one of the candidate's is an African-American!"
I asked those questions rhetorically, and assumed you would answer them in your own mind, that "of course it isn't news: of course his audience already knows there's an African-American candidate in the race"
...and you and I may wonder together, then why is it so necessary to invoke to us what we already know: why are hannity and matthews et al doing that?
I asked:
"Does he think someone in his audience is going to be informed by what he says when he says "African-American" and "that distinction"?
There's an ugly answer to that question: it centers on the word "informed": and it might also explain why these media people keep unnecessarily invoking the candidates race color heritage... but it's too ugly an answer for me to give you here: and if it were nothing that was already in your mind, then I would never want to be the one who had first put it there.
dem with good vision,
I agree that the political arena doen't need to continue labeling folks by their race. It serves no positive pupose, but unfortunately some indivdiuals still deem it necessary to claim some descriptor about the type of American they are. It usually has to do with a desire to make it clear that people are at first and foremost different from each other. This is also a desire that media reinforces and minorities themselves often deliberately invoke for the same purpose, separation and division.
My friends and co-workers of color are described by me as Americans first, then with some type of ethnic distinction if so desired by them. Obviously, we are differenct culturally, religion and worship wise and history but we all agree about the great ideal of individual freedom and other tenents found only in this country. Economic freedom brought some to our shores, freedom to be free of true racism brought another.
I have two friends from South Africa, now both naturalized citizens and could be called African-Americans right? Yes but one is white and the other black, the typical labeling that media/politcal correctness doesn't fit. They now are both Americans but one is of black african descent the other of white african descent. (His family lived in SA longer than slavery existed here!) We concluded that in essence, you choose the label, and the accompanying baggage and agenda that comes with it when you identify your type of American you want to be, before your country. My Pakistani friend wants to become an American, not a muslim American or a Pakistani American. Just an American. When he becomes a citizen, we have already decided that he will called a 'Tubby American", he needs to loose weight you see. We make quite a foursome on the golf course.
I do think that many who seek these kinds of group identities have agendas that continue to foster victimization, separation and in the political world, immunization from criticism. The more we see our purpose here as singular, no matter how we arrived, the better off our country will be.
I really wish John Stewart would guest on a few cable news shows Crossfire style, I'm picturing Hardball:
Matthews- Why is Obama using a mocked up replica of the presidential seal on his podium?
Stewart- Chris, I gotta ask. With gas at over 4 dollars a gallon, Americans all over the country losing their jobs and homes, do you really think anyone gives two figs about what seal Obama uses? He could use a smiley face for all I care, people are scared and hungry and we need to focus on the issues.
Buchanan- Yeah but Chris, Obama is exotic. He hangs out with Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright. He wants to have Ack-ma-deen-a whatever over for tea...
Stewart- Pat. Pat. Stop. Please. Just stop. There are four thousand dead Americans in Iraq now Pat. You want to go to Iran right now? With folks on their third and fourth tour you want to pick a new fight? Obama never said anything about inviting anyone from Iran for tea but let me tell you that if he did I'd be willing to pour. Hell I'll bake cookies to go with it if it means one less dead American.
Chris- So you think the answer is cookies?
Stewart- Well the answer isn't demonizing opponents is it? Remember after 9-11, whe we were ALL just Americans? What happened to that? Why did REpublicans start declaring that the Left were all terrorists? Does that include those Liberals on the NYFD that saved lives that day? I can't believe that with the economy where it is and the country where it is, with Two Trillion wasted on an endless war of choice and citizens divided into red and blue states, that the NEWS is talking about where people go to church and where they held fundraisers twenty years ago...
Buchanan- This stuff is important...
Stewart- We might as well just talk about socks. Obama wore grey terrorist socks today or ...
Matthews- That's silly...
Stewart- Is it Chris? A few weeks ago you were talking about Rachel Ray in a Dunkin Donuts commercial wearing a terrorist scarf...you guys are hurting America.
Matthews- We need to take a commercial break
This isn't about McCain not insisting that the ad be pulled. It's about AP writing that he did when he didn't.