Antiwar group airs anti-McCain ad
The antiwar group MoveOn.org is using Thursday's fifth anniversary of President Bush's declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq to bash John McCain with a TV ad arguing that the presumptive Republican nominee would be worse.
As candle after candle is added and lit to a red-white-and-blue cake decorated with "Mission Accomplished," the announcer cites McCain's remark at a New Hampshire town hall meeting that US troops could be in Iraq for 100 years.
McCain has explained that he meant a military presence akin to peacekeepers in South Korea, but Democrats have hammered him for supporting an indefinite continuation of a highly unpopular war.
"You thought no one could be worse than George Bush," the narrator concludes.
UPDATE: Blair Latoff, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, responded, "Barack Obama has spent his entire campaign decrying 'special interests' in Washington yet the most egregious special interest group in the country is running false attack ads on his behalf. MoveOn.org has a long history of explosively offensive distortions and misleading attacks so it's not news that they would try another on John McCain, but it surprising that their endorsed candidate continues to bemoan the 'negative tone' in politics while reaping the benefits."
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
INside Boston.com
- Home
- |
- Today's Globe
- |
- News
- |
- Business
- |
- Sports
- |
- Your Life
- |
- A&E
- |
- Travel
- |
- Cars
- |
- Jobs
- |
- Homes
- |
- Local Search
Sure, just like McCain reaps the benefits of the anti-Obama/Rev. White ads in North Carolina while publicly decrying them.
The fact of the matter is, neither candidate has any say in what ads are run by third party groups. If they DID have authority, the ads would fall under the regulations of the FEC. That means, quite frankly, that if McCain had any authoritative say over the N.C. ads, or if Obama had any authoritative say over the moveon.org ads, both candidates would be facing serious legal sanctions. This is because it would be counted as a campaign expenditure, and therefore an "undeclared" expendature, AKA fraud. Additionally, the cost of the ads would likely exceed the limits for campaign contributions from a single organization, so they're screwed either way.
Is it a loophole? Sure. A candidate can easily claim to oppose an ad while condoning it behind closed doors. But the right to free speech of the populous far outweighs the potential personal gains by any given candidate. Moreover, the limits of free speech would be seriously infringed if a candidate had to support ANY ad that worked in his favor, regardless of the sponsor of that ad.
For example, if the NRA (of which I am a member in good standing) allowed McCain to have the final say on an NRA sponsored ad attempting to portray Senator Obama as anti-gun, Senator McCain would be the one facing charges, not the NRA, and there would be a chilling effect on the NRA's right to voice its opinion. I'm quite sure Ms. Latoff is counting on the ignorance of the populace in making her statements, but clearly we're not as ignorant as she believes.
But thanks for your slanted view, Ms. Latoff. Good luck in your next campaign.