THE GENERAL ELECTION 2008

The difference, Soz, is that MediaMatters is bought and paid for by the likes of George Soros and others who, for all practical purposes, seem to be dedicated to the destruction of Republicans and/or anything conservative. Many such advocacy groups on your side of the aisle are. The danger of Obama's tactics here is that when things start getting ugly, and they will, he won't have as much credibility when he tries to distance himself from that. We're still seeing ads attacking McCain here that I think are below the belt. We'll see if that continues.

Evenso, I think probably conservative think tanks and advocacy groups are far more independent and not so beholden to the GOP or major GOP contributors. The reason I say that is the really harsh criticism many of those groups have directed toward George Bush and GOP practices and policies in recent years. I think McCain is quite honest in saying that he cannot control these groups and there is no way they would funnel their funds through the RNC.

McCain has denounced at least one ad and asked that it be pulled when he thought it crossed the line and hit below the belt and I rather suspect he will continue to do that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

McCain has denounced at least one ad and asked that it be pulled when he thought it crossed the line and hit below the belt and I rather suspect he will continue to do that.

But he didn't accomplish anything when he did that... It didn't result in the ad being pulled.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
McCain has denounced at least one ad and asked that it be pulled when he thought it crossed the line and hit below the belt and I rather suspect he will continue to do that.

But he didn't accomplish anything when he did that... It didn't result in the ad being pulled.

Thus his comment. Are you suggesting that Obama has the power to control the 527 groups that no other politician has?

0 Replies

Well, that was the compare and contrast from the previous page, yes.

Will Obama be able to control every single one? Probably not.

Did this particular attempt to shut one down work? Yes.

Has McCain been able to do something similar? Not that I know of.

Is McCain laying the groundwork for not even pretending to try to control the 527's on his side? Sure looks like it.

0 Replies

I can assure you that if the GOP had anything comparable to MediaMatters and McCain asked it to close down, it would. It doesn't, however.

It will be interesting also to see if Moveon.org and similar groups also follow suit with MediaMatters. The GOP doesn't have anything comparable to that either.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Well, that was the compare and contrast from the previous page, yes.

Will Obama be able to control every single one? Probably not.

Did this particular attempt to shut one down work? Yes.

Has McCain been able to do something similar? Not that I know of.

Is McCain laying the groundwork for not even pretending to try to control the 527's on his side? Sure looks like it.

It was a terrible hack job Soz and you know it. Cherry picking what fits your message.

What is Obama doing about Moveon.org? The Services Employees International Union? They spent 10 million dollars so far on the campaign, yet I don't see where Obama has asked either to stop.

NPR has a nice story about BOTH and their efforts to disarm the 527 groups. Without the bad hatchet job you have posted here.

Perhaps reading it will allow you to recast your line a little more down the center.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I can assure you that if the GOP had anything comparable to MediaMatters and McCain asked it to close down, it would. It doesn't, however.

It will be interesting also to see if Moveon.org and similar groups also follow suit with MediaMatters. The GOP doesn't have anything comparable to that either.

So you can assure that McCain would ... for instance ask to shut down ... Media Research Center.

And what about Progress for America and Progress for America Voter Fund?

0 Replies

Hack job? Hatchet job? OK.

I posted two stories that caught my eye for the contrasts. They're both current stories. Are either of them untrue?

What I found most interesting is that McCain is essentially saying yeah, it's gonna happen, oh well. He's not saying it's unacceptable or he won't stand for it or anything else. Do you dispute what he actually said?

Obama seems to be actually doing something that works -- it's only closed one down so of limited import, yes. McCain hasn't managed anything similar that I know of.

Pretty straightforward.

0 Replies

By the way, the last part of your NPR piece (that I just finished) seems to be what Obama is now doing, and what resulted in the closure of Progressive Media USA:

NPR wrote:

There is one drastic step the candidates could take. They could say that after Election Day, donors to outside groups can forget about any White House dinners, ambassadorships or other favors.

They could say that. But so far, they haven't.

Meanwhile, what I just quoted from TPM:

Greg Sargent wrote:

Barack Obama's fundraising team has been quietly putting out word to major donors that they didn't want any money to go to such third-party groups. Instead, they wanted the cash to go to the Obama campaign, so Obama advisers could be in sole control of the campaign's message.

It worked. Brock has quietly leaked a statement to The Washington Post saying that his group is, for all practical purposes, defunct.

(Emphasis mine.)

Now, what exactly "didn't want" means in this case is unclear -- we don't know if favors were mentioned.

But the central message seems to be exactly the same -- the Obama campaign doesn't want you to contribute to third-party groups, and won't be happy with you if you do.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I can assure you that if the GOP had anything comparable to MediaMatters and McCain asked it to close down, it would. It doesn't, however.

It will be interesting also to see if Moveon.org and similar groups also follow suit with MediaMatters. The GOP doesn't have anything comparable to that either.

So you can assure that McCain would ... for instance ask to shut down ... Media Research Center.

And what about Progress for America and Progress for America Voter Fund?

I am unaware of any ads attacking Obama or the Democrats that any of these groups are putting out. Do you know of any?

0 Replies

You didn't read the link, huh?

Quote:

This year's anticipated conservative offense once was going to include Freedom's Watch, a new group financed largely by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Insiders claimed it would raise $200 million, $250 million or more, and spend much of it attacking Obama. But now Freedom's Watch has switched to "Plan B," a spokesman says. It's currently concentrating on House and Senate campaigns.

Huh, wonder why that is? Suppose it's because McCain has asked them not to?

Who attacked 527 groups with gusto during his days fighting for tougher campaign finance laws. Who wrote the 2000 law that forced 527s to disclose their donors.

Was it McCain or Obama?

Who has an actual relistic view of current politics and realizes that he isn't living in a fantasyland where he can control the actions of others? McCain.

So yeah, McCain is honest about it and says yeah, it's going to happen. Would you prefer the gentle ass kissing from Obama? I doubt he has any real control over the independent dollars that run the 527 groups and when they start their attacks, I hope you join Obama in attacking them for it. Something beyond Obama's current tactic of not condoning such actions ala Wright...

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

By the way, the last part of your NPR piece (that I just finished) seems to be what Obama is now doing, and what resulted in the closure of Progressive Media USA:

NPR wrote:
There is one drastic step the candidates could take. They could say that after Election Day, donors to outside groups can forget about any White House dinners, ambassadorships or other favors.

They could say that. But so far, they haven't.

Meanwhile, what I just quoted from TPM:

Greg Sargent wrote:
Barack Obama's fundraising team has been quietly putting out word to major donors that they didn't want any money to go to such third-party groups. Instead, they wanted the cash to go to the Obama campaign, so Obama advisers could be in sole control of the campaign's message.

It worked. Brock has quietly leaked a statement to The Washington Post saying that his group is, for all practical purposes, defunct.

(Emphasis mine.)

Now, what exactly "didn't want" means in this case is unclear -- we don't know if favors were mentioned.

But the central message seems to be exactly the same -- the Obama campaign doesn't want you to contribute to third-party groups, and won't be happy with you if you do.

If you are right about the central message, doesn't it strike you as somewhat authoritarian to presume to control all the money and all the message no matter who is providing the money? I've honestly not considered that until just this minute, but the idea of it is a bit unnerving. I have personally picked up on a mild Marxism infused with a Bolshevek spirit in some of Obama's rhetoric and this has been exaggerated by others. Presuming to control the money and message certainly plays into and reinforces that suggestion and, if he wishes to dispel it, it is something he probably shouldn't emphasize too much.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You didn't read the link, huh?

Quote:
This year's anticipated conservative offense once was going to include Freedom's Watch, a new group financed largely by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Insiders claimed it would raise $200 million, $250 million or more, and spend much of it attacking Obama. But now Freedom's Watch has switched to "Plan B," a spokesman says. It's currently concentrating on House and Senate campaigns.

I did. Two points:

- They didn't close down -- they're switching focus.

- There didn't seem to be a cause and effect there in the same way that there was with the TPM story. Why didn't they raise that money? Did McCain make it clear to people who donated to Freedom's Watch that he wouldn't be happy with them?

Quote:

Who attacked 527 groups with gusto during his days fighting for tougher campaign finance laws. Who wrote the 2000 law that forced 527s to disclose their donors.

But that's exactly why I find his current "eh, whatever" stance to be disappointing at best and hypocritical at worst. Why isn't he attacking them with gusto now?

0 Replies

Do you honestly think all the leftwing 501C's are going to shut down or just route all the money to Obama and then do nothing for the duration of the campaign? Do you honestly believe he has asked them to? Or do you think they will just perhaps change focus? Do you think Obama will presume to direct campaigns for the Congressional races too?

0 Replies

I started this part of the discussion by pointing to one that did, in fact, shut down. Not just shift focus, but

Quote:

"Progressive Media will not be running an independent ad campaign this year," Brock's statement to WaPo said, adding that "donors and potential donors are getting clear signals from the Obama camp through the news media and we recognize that reality."

I doubt Obama will be able to control all of the 527's.

But I think it's good that he's doing as much as he has. Greg Sargent goes on, in the article I already quoted, to say:

Quote:

But guess what -- Obama's finance team has explicitly instructed donors not to give money to those groups. McCain, by contrast, seems to be saying that he can't control the groups on his side.

That's what I take from it, too.

If something emerges saying that McCain has also given these kinds of explicit instructions to donors, cool. I'm not saying no such evidence will emerge. I'm saying that what I've read today seems to indicate that Obama is putting more effort into limiting the effect of these outside groups, and is doing a better job of it, than McCain.

0 Replies

Well when I see evidence that anybody other than MediaMatters (who I heard was pretty well broke anyway) is pulling in their horns, I will consider Obama's sincerity--at least his clout--on that front. Right now I reserve a healthy skepticism based on Obama's propensity to let his attack dogs do any dirty work so he can stay above the fray.

0 Replies

It was minor so I didn't comment on it before, but the group in question is not Media Matters:

Quote:

David Brock's Tough-Talking Third-Party Group Fizzles
By Greg Sargent - May 15, 2008, 11:47AM

A few weeks ago, Media Matters' David Brock announced to great fanfare that he was taking over Progressive Media USA, a third-party group that would, he vowed, raise $40 million for ads to soften up John McCain in advance of the general election.

The guy, David Brock, is from Media Matters. The organization that is now defunct is Progressive Media USA.

0 Replies

The real test for McCain will be the RNC. He can claim to not control outside groups, but he DOES have direct control over what they do. If they are smearing Obama, it's essentially the same as McCain doing it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

It was minor so I didn't comment on it before, but the group in question is not Media Matters:

Quote:
David Brock's Tough-Talking Third-Party Group Fizzles
By Greg Sargent - May 15, 2008, 11:47AM

A few weeks ago, Media Matters' David Brock announced to great fanfare that he was taking over Progressive Media USA, a third-party group that would, he vowed, raise $40 million for ads to soften up John McCain in advance of the general election.

The guy, David Brock, is from Media Matters. The organization that is now defunct is Progressive Media USA.

Okay, but I'm pretty sure that I read or heard somewhere that MediaMatters is struggling financially too. Maybe not. But that would explain why Progressive Media is so willing to close up shop. At any rate it would make more sense since I don't think a 501C3 can run political attack ads and retain their not-for-profit status.

0 Replies

Obama cannot control the DNC any more than McCain can control the RNC. But we'll see if both national committees obey the orders from their presumed party leaders.

Quote:

Republican
National
Committee
April 29, 2008
Chairman Howard Dean
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St., S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003

Re: DNC's Use of "Fahrenheit 9/11" Footage in "100" Ad

Dear Chairman Dean:

I write regarding the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) advertisement attacking Senator John McCain titled "100," which was released on Sunday, April 27, 2008.

As you are already aware, and as has been widely reported, the DNC's ad is troubling for at least two reasons. First, its message is factually false; the DNC is deliberately misleading American voters. Second, it constitutes an illegal excessive in-kind contribution from the DNC to its presidential candidates. Now the Republican National Committee has learned that the ad features footage from Michael Moore's 2004 conspiracy theory, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

According to ABC News, the ad features "an IED blowing up near US soldiers," an image ABC confirms that was used in "Fahrenheit 9/11." It is no coincidence that the same Democrat advertising firm that produced this ad also was responsible for producing over $6.5 million worth of Democrat political advertising using themes from "Fahrenheit 9/11" in 2004.

The DNC's combining its gross mischaracterizations with footage made famous by a movie director who meets with dictators and continually expresses caustic anti-American rhetoric only further reveals the DNC's utter lack of respect for Senator McCain and his service to our country. Further, "Fahrenheit 9/11's" director has compared Iraqi terrorists with American Revolutionary heroes. For the DNC to deploy such footage in a political advertisement suggests at best a lack of appreciation, and at worst a disrespect, by the DNC for the sacrifices America's brave men and women have made and continue to make to protect our freedoms on the front lines in the war against radical Islamic extremism.

As a national party chairman you have an obligation to be straightforward with American voters. Continuing to air this ad, and others like it, is inconsistent with that obligation. Your responses to the falsity and the prohibited financing of this ad demonstrate that the DNC does not feel constrained by the law from running the ad. I am hopeful, however, that in light of this new revelation, simple common decency will prevail upon the DNC, and you will pull this advertisement off the air immediately.

Sincerely,
Robert M. "Mike" Duncan
Chairman
LINK

0 Replies

THE GENERAL ELECTION 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know