Shocking

I'm not sure if I have much to say about this one, other than that this is the sort of stuff that makes us lose elections. AP story:

WASHINGTON - Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.

The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Friday that he wasn't aware of the mailing, but said it could be the work of the RNC. "It wouldn't surprise me if we were mailing voters on the issue of same-sex marriage," Gillespie said.

Via Josh Marshall.

I was trying to think, if there were an equivalent on our side, what would it be? The only thing that occured to me was something like: "If George W. Bush wins, he'll bring back slavery!" But that seems to be too severe, doesn't it? Any ideas?

-- Michael

Comments

[Jeffery Blanco]

You forgot , "if you don't vote, you allow another black church to burn."

[Gary]

I haven't been able to come up with an equatable slogan...and I've tried.

Never underestimate the republican party when it comes to lying about what 'liberals' stand for just to get votes.

These leaflets are priceless...and they did it with pictures too. I guess so you wouldn't have to be able to read to understand the message.

Ban the bible? I mean, really. Which side of the political spectrum typicaly bans books anyway...Right wingers, or left wingers? Hollywood, or the Bible belt?

[dmeyers]

How about John Kerry saying in the last week that republicans have plans to disenfranchise blacks like they did in 2000.

Let's not forget the beauty run by the NAACP of the pickup truck dragging a chain behind it saying "It was like Bush killed my brother a second time" or words close to that.

Jeffery had mine which was run in Missouri saying more black churches would burn if you vote for a republican.

Let's admit, both sides, or surrogates from both sides, always run pretty outlandish ads every election.

But, lets not forget John Kerry is already playing the race card and trying to scare blacks. DISGUSTING

[here's what's left]

How about John Kerry saying in the last week that republicans have plans to disenfranchise blacks like they did in 2000.

Unfortunately for your argument, d, that is the truth. I think there's good evidence for it. You and I both know that blacks were purged from the voter roles in Florida in 2000.

Let's admit, both sides, or surrogates from both sides, always run pretty outlandish ads every election.

No, because it's not true. The Republican National Committee sent out a direct mailing that said that liberals want to ban the Bible.

There is no equivalent to that. I suppose somehow you'll make a fact-free claim about how that's either true, or that the DNC has the same thing, but I want you to find a parallel example if you're going to make a statement like. You gotta have some evidence if you're going to say that.

[d meyers]

once again, republicans evil, racists, homophobes, dems good

"Unfortunately for your argument, d, that is the truth. I think there's good evidence for it. You and I both know that blacks were purged from the voter roles in Florida in 2000"

FELONS were purged from the voter rolls. Did the list contain blacks? I would guess so. Did the list contain hispanics?? I would guess so. Did the list contain whites?? I would guess so. Did the list contain Cuban-Americans?? I would guess so... So how was it only the blacks on the felon list that were purged were disenfranchised and not the hispanics on the list??? Once again the Dem. leader goes in front of a black audience and plays the race card to scare the BLACKS...

Give me an f'in break. Are you too stupid to realize that both sides have surrogates that do most of the dirty work? So when the NAACP runs an ad saying black churches would burn the Dems are not responsible??? How about in 1996 the DNC running ads saying republicans want Medicare to Wither Away on the Vine. Hmmm, lets scare the old people.... Do your research to see what Newt actually said.

This attitude of repubs are the only ones that run negative campaigns is so laughable... I for one really could care less about ads that both sides run because I have faith in the American people to sift thru the B.S. You seem to think that so many people are dolts and are influenced by the ads and that is why republicans win elections

[here's what's left]

FELONS were purged from the voter rolls.

well, that the was the intent. in fact, 57,000 people were wrongly purged from the voter roles, because Florida had bought the names from Texas through a republican connected company. greg palast has written extensively on it, but that's not the topic at hand.

Are you too stupid to realize that both sides have surrogates that do most of the dirty work?

calm down, and don't call me stupid. there are a lot of differences here. sure, the NAACP ad (as you describe it, i haven't seen it actually) is over the top, but here's the actual text:

"I'm Renee Mullins, James Byrd's daughter. On June 7th, 1998, in Texas, my father was killed. He was beaten, chained and then dragged three miles to his death all because he was black. So when Governor George Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again. ..."

So, the language she uses is actually slightly less strong than you had it above, but that doesn't matter. Now, some might say it's inappropriate, and some might say that Bush's apparent insensitivity to the situation is more inappropriate, but that also doesn't matter, because it's not our topic. The point is, there is nothing there that is factually inaccurate, because it's not an ad that's dealing with facts as such.

And that's a very different thing than saying something like "Democrats want to ban the Bible." Because there is no evidence for that. No one wants to ban the Bible! John Kerry is a catholic, and John Edwards is a methodist! It's preposterous. Furthermore, it's preposterous to say that Democrats support gay marriage, because most of them don't! (which is something that vexes me to no end.)

The point is this, and it was the same for the hannity stuff, and for so many other things: Campaigning is dirty, and we all know that, but there must be a basic standard of truthfulness in appealing to the American electorate. We all know there will be nothing tasteful, nothing sacred, nothing that really gives voters any help in making decisions. But there should not be blatant untruth of this sort.

Furthermore, there is certainly quite a difference between the Republican National Committee and the NAACP. One is the committee of a political party and has a lot of money and the other is an issues organization. To say they're equivalent is to obfuscate the issue. It would be like me saying that the DNC and the Club for Growth were equivalent.

I think that the reason and you other conservatives might want to believe that "both sides have surrogates that do most of the dirty work" is that it absolves you of having to deal with the fact that your side is dirter (Abu Ghraib was a DNC plot? liberals want to ban the Bible? John Kerry had an affair?), and it will often tell amazing untruths to help your candidates. I don't think you'll be able to find an equivalent example on our side. but you're welcome to try.

[d meyers]

you don't want to go down the quote game because I will serve you up a bunch. We have a different viewpoint of this. I look at all groups, DNC, RNC, 527's, activists groups, etc, etc, etc as all of the same cloth. They are all political groups working to get their issues/party elected and to tear down the other. Again, I know you like to make a distinction but conservatives have been called, racists, homophobes, Hitleresque, facists, child killers, senior citizen killers so often by so many different groups I really don't make a distinction by who is making those charges, it all comes from groups on the left. I could always open up the Terry McAwful quote book to quote what the head of the DNC says and the dispicable charges he has made against the President. But why bother, it is all the same whether it is the DNC, MoveOn.org, NAACP, etc, etc, etc

You brought up a good point on the purge of voter roles. Unless you are going down the "black helicopter conpiracy" theory that the names were purposely provided that were wrong to help Bush then the voter purge used junk data so people of all races were effected. So by Kerry saying that "blacks were purposely disenfranchised" when the purge was race neutral it is nothing more than a scare tactic to scare the blacks. Cheep but typical.

The under reported story is what a horrible situation we have in all states with regards to verifying who is voting and the natural spoilage rate of voting across the country. I believe the NY Post did a great piece of the 46000 or so voters that are registered in both Florida and NY, with the huge majority of those 46000 being Democrats. The fact is there is nothing in place to prevent people from registering and voting in multiple states so this supposed disenfranchisement of blacks is just plain silly.

[d meyers]

HWL,

of course I apologize for saying "are you stupid", I was just kind of steamed. I will try to refrain from using that language... especially since this is your site and you could probably put me on the S-list and kick me out of here.. but who then would you ridicule if I wasn't here??? :)

[bog]

d, for that matter, your constant referrals to "Terry Mcawful" and other silly name-calling only serve to reveal your vitriol and lessen the chance that anyone might actually take you seriously. It boils down to respect and not writing something without having the evidence to back it up.

[d meyers]

If you want to defend the head of the DNC go right ahead. He is a God Send for the republican party. Under his leadership he has led the Dems over the cliff. All we have to do is run every statement he says in our ads... You are right, I have no respect for him, he is bottom of the barrel slug. Anyone who accuses the President of the United States of commiting a felony on national television is scum. He has repeatedly said Bush was AWOL, which is a felony. Oh, of course, he has no evidence.

Oh, how about this gem from today

"Democrats Monday acknowledged some documents it touted in attacking President Bush's U.S. military record were false, but continued to push other evidence.

"Now that we know what's not true, let's focus on the facts," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement regarding CBS's News' apology for broadcasting a Sept. 8 story about Bush's military service based on documents of dubious merit.

"Today we learned that George Bush did not earn enough points to qualify for an honorable discharge and that he has given three different explanations for why he missed his physical," McAuliffe continued in the statement."

What facts are McAwful talking about??? So he now claims the National Guard issued a bogus honorable discharge. What facts McAwful??? He deserves no respect because he is everything what is wrong with politics. So yes, I do not dignify him by calling him by his proper name. I actually McAwful is quite courteous.

p.s., you wanted facts chew on those facts about Terry. Please back up his outrageous statements with facts, if you can

[d meyers]

here is shocking for you.... a major media organization COORDINATING a hit piece on Bush with the Kerry Campaign

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20040921/ap_on_el_pr/cbs_guard_kerry_1&printer=1

"At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry (news - web sites) said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush (news - web sites)'s National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes."

Good thing C-BS doesn't have to register as a 527 because this would be "COORDINATION". What in the Hell is C-BS working with the Kerry campaign regarding a hit piece about Bush???

HWL, even you can see Ms. Mapes went way, way, way over the line. the C-BS fiasco is why the entire campaign finance reform legislation will never work. When news organizations become an appendage of a political campaign we have lost all control. There is absolutely nothing to prevent C-BS from doing all the dirty work that the current 527's are doing.

Here is what is scary. I don't even think MoveOn.org would stup so low as to peddle forged documents in their ads, but C-BS seemed to feel it should.

[d meyers]

more shocking revelations (just what should C-BS be considered?)

"USA Today is set to report in Tuesday editions:
"Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a female producer talked to him about the "60 Minutes" program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett."

"At Burkett's request, we gave his (telephone) number to the campaign," Betsy West, senior CBS News vice president, confessed to USA Today.

Late Monday, CBS said it was investigating the role of "60 Minutes" star producer Mary Mapes in setting up the contact between Burkett and Lockhart.

"The network's effort to place Burkett in contact with a top Democratic official raises ethical questions about CBS' handling of material potentially damaging to the Republican president in the midst of an election," the paper said.

Aly Colón, a news ethicist at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, said the collusion between CBS and the Kerry campaign to damage President Bush "poses a real danger to the potential credibility of a news organization."

[here's what's left]

d, you're going to believe whatever you want to about CBS, so go right ahead. but just a stylistic thing:

you wanted facts chew on those facts about Terry. Please back up his outrageous statements with facts, if you can.

it's not our job to defend him. he's a smart man. i'm sure he has reasons to say the things he has to say. but it's not our responsibility to find them for you.

I look at all groups, DNC, RNC, 527's, activists groups, etc, etc, etc as all of the same cloth.

well, that's your right. but i would caution you against it. certainly today's politics are dirty, but there are lines in the dirt. the RNC as such, for example, didn't run ads questioning Kerry's service (despite some circumstantial evidence of collusion), and certainly did their best to make it look like they had nothing to do with it. why would they do that, if they were the same thing as SBVT? because it's considered inappropriate for a major political party to run ads that are so nasty and based on such dubious factual claims.

in this case, it's the political party itself making a claim that has no justification at all. and i don't mean some justification. i mean no justification.

you may not like the NAACP ad, but it's not something one can subject to factual scrutiny as such. and while terry mcauliffe might have stepped over a line saying that president was AWOL, as you often mention (did he actually say that? what were his word i wonder), he didn't step far over it. at the very least there are unanswered questions about bush's guard service. it seems likely to me that bush didn't actually show up for duty in alabama. i don't know what the military definition of AWOL is, but certainly mcauliffe's statement was on one end of a continuum. saying democrats want to ban the Bible is outside of that continuum.

while i recognize that the RNC is just doing its job, i certainly hold them to a standard of truth that involves not lying.

as you say, we certainly have different views on this, but i would be careful before i attached myself to a party apparatus that would tell such a lie. seriously, what would you say if john kerry said that bush supports cross-burning?

The under reported story is what a horrible situation we have in all states with regards to verifying who is voting and the natural spoilage rate of voting across the country.

i agree, and would go so far as to say that we have a mini-voting crisis on our hands. i know i'm asking for a paper ballot. i sure hope illinois provides them. i think GA did.

[bog]

d, we both know that facts regarding Bush's actual guard time are rather circumstantial. But, this may be the piece that the head of the DNC is referring to:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/roane040908.htm

As HWL said, it's not our responsibility to defend what Terry McAuliffe says, but it appears that what he said is not unsubstantiated. Anyway, the real point is that I'm not trying to defend him when I say that your empty name-calling is childish at best. And it's not just him. C-BS, Tiffany Network, etc, etc. Now, I'm not saying CBS's handling of this story is defensible, but I am saying you should be able to make your point without stooping so low.

[d meyers]

"as you say, we certainly have different views on this, but i would be careful before i attached myself to a party apparatus that would tell such a lie. seriously, what would you say if john kerry said that bush supports cross-burning?"

Well close, NAACP runs an ad on behalf of the Dems saying if you elect republicans more black churches would burn. so would you say that you should be careful before you would associate yourself with the NAACP... Oh yeah, where was the Democrat party coming out and denouncing the church burning ad???

HWL, I agree, the national voting system is in total chaos. What was amazing about Florida 2000 was they started talking about spoilage rate and it turns out Chicago and many other places have much higher spoilage rates then Florida did. Moving to electronic voting and/or internet voting IS A BAD IDEA and I would never, ever, ever support it.

I honestly do not know how you would go about fixing this system. It seems like the voting system is based on an honor system. How do you handle a populace that moves all the time? I have the feeling that the system is in much worse shape then you or I know and I have a feeling thousands and thousands and thousands of votes are being fraudulently counted.

p.s.s, bog, The Tiffany Network is what CBS news called themselves.

[D MEYERS]

More reason why he is called Terry McAwful... keep talking Terry, you are driving up GW's numbers

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued this statement:

“In today’s New York Post, Roger Stone, who became associated with political ‘dirty tricks’ while working for Nixon, refused to deny that he was the source the CBS documents.

“Will Ed Gillespie or the White House admit today what they know about Mr. Stone’s relationship with these forged documents? Will they unequivocally rule out Mr. Stone’s involvement? Or for that matter, others with a known history of dirty tricks, such as Karl Rove or Ralph Reed?”

He is such a loose cannon.. Once again, Terry is violating the first rule of holes.... When you are in a hole, stop digging...

You all seem to be silent about one of the Big Three news media networks coordinating with the Kerry campaign with regards to a hit piece on GW. How low can you all go. I don't know if anything can be done to CBS, besides everyone smeared by the forged documents suing the pants off CBS, but it is not good when a major media network becomes an appendage of a Presidential campaign.

[d meyers]

every vote should count, except those for Nadar

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/41576|top|09-21-2004::17:27|reuters.html