The Republicans' Weak Threat to Shut Down DNC Ad

by Jonathan Singer, Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:36:26 PM EDT

The Democratic National Committee tomorrow begins running a rather ingenious ad on national cable news networks: Allowing John McCain to speak for himself on the issue of Iraq.

According to DNC chairman Howard Dean, the ad attempts to do two things (and I think accomplishes that goal, but you can see for yourself above):

  1. Showing that John McCain is willing to keep American troops in Iraq for 100 years. McCain supporters, including the folks at the Republican National Committee who are throwing a tantrum and have threatened to file what would appear to be a rather spurious and empty suit to stop the ad from airing on national television, say that McCain doesn't mean this. But McCain speaks for himself here.

    As Dean says, Americans simply do not want to be in Iraq for 100 years. This is the case under any circumstances -- "whether there is a war going on or not." What's more, Americans do not want to continue to spend billions and billions of dollars every year for another 100 years to sustain U.S. forces there, again whether hostilities continue or not.

  2. Anyone who thinks we're going to occupy Iraq for 100 years but there would not be consequences for American troops doesn't know what's going on in Iraq. By saying that he would be fine with maintaining a military presence in the country until the next century indicates that McCain is either oblivious to this concern or suggests that he just doesn't care about it.

In short, Dean said that the RNC "wishes" that drawing attention to McCain's weaknesses -- on Iraq, on the economy, on healthcare, on waffling on issues like campaign finance reform or immigration or taxes or you name it -- would be illegal. But it simply is not illegal to talk about where a candidate is wrong -- particularly when using that candidate's own words to do so. As DNC general counsel Joe Sandler put it today, to suggest, as the RNC does, that there is anything unlawful about the ad above would be "completely baseless."

And just one more point, this one from me: By raising the specter of legal action, drawing out dueling press conferences, isn't the RNC drawing more attention to this ad rather than figuring out a way to convince American voters that McCain didn't say he'd be comfortable keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years?

Tags: DNC, John McCain, RNC (all tags)

  • 17 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

17 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat to Shut Down DNC

Personally, I agree that it's a disingenuous ad.  It's clearly quoting him out of context -- McCain doesn't think we should have 100 years of the current conflict, but he thinks it's reasonable to expect SOME American troops to remain in Iraq just as they do in many countries all over the world.

Now, you can -- and should -- argue that that's unrealistic, and that keeping troops in Iraq is going to be unlike keeping troops in virtually every other country in the world.  That's an entirely valid criticism of his statement, and one that I wish the DNC (and Clinton and Obama) were making.

But, sadly, that's not the criticism that this ad is making.  This ad is using a partial quote that attributes to McCain a position that he does not, in fact, hold.

I don't like it.  We'd absolutely be crying foul if the RNC did this to one of our candidates.  I wish we held ourselves to a higher standard.

by ChrisKaty 2008-04-28 03:43PM | 0 recs
Profile_normal
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat to Shut Down DNC

Not really. As Dean said today, and I note above, the issue isn't just whether Americans would want another 100 years of war -- they clearly would not -- but also whether Americans would countenance another 100 years of American presence in Iraq, which would cost billions if not trillions of dollars (yes, maintaining a large troop presence costs big dollars even if there is peace, which is not visible on the horizon) and place an enormous strain on the military, both broadly and individually. So, no, I would not at all agree that it would be disingenuous to quote McCain as saying he wants to maintain an American presence in Iraq for 100 years.

by Jonathan Singer 2008-04-28 03:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat to Shut Down DNC
The AD is not disingenious, rather the position that his words were taken "out of context" is arguable.  In other words, I think you are both right, yes, McCain didn't mean 100 more years of war, rather it is likely that we may have a presence for a 100 years.  But I think "presence" in Iraq cannot be equated to "presence" in post-hitler Germany, where the country was undergoing a massive socioeconomic and political restructuring.  
Iraq is never going to be in a solid enough position to confidently state that American Troops will only experience the same peaceful effects of their "presence"  in Iraq as troops do in other post-war countries in Europe.  If you listen to Patreus, we have made incredible strides, all of which suffer from extreme fragility. SO until our successes become "more robust" or "structurally solid" our troops will always be in high danger over there.  Anyone have a freaking clue on how we can  determine that measurement?  Oh yeah, a minimalization of violence and death.  I mean we won the war a few years back, Saddam is gone, their are elections, and apparently Al Queda is essentially eliminated in Iraq - - but we still lose lives all the time  So 100 more years in Iraq means a 100 more years in Iraq = dead troops and trillions and beyond.
Until a "presence" in Iraq could be defined as similar to a "presence" in Europe, this AD is genuine.
by KLRinLA 2008-04-28 04:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat to Shut Down DNC

All McCain says is "..maybe a hundred--that'd be fine with me." Those of us who follow politics know he is talking about Iraq, but the clip is so short, he could be talking about what he's willing to pay for his wireless service or a pair of athletic shoes.

I don't think it's unfair to tag McCain for the Iraq/100 years quote, but it should be done right, not on the cheap. The ad is just very poorly done...who the hell is speaking at the beginning ("President Bush says..")? Should we know who that is? I hope is isn't a paid narrator, because the voice is awful. Also, the way the words are repeated once looks like they couldn't afford a better script or a long enough ad. I was really disappointed.

On the other hand, the RNC complaint is absolute bull--there is nothing in the ad, or the fact that the ad is being aired, that suggests coordination with either campaign. I would think if Obama or Clinton were footing the bill, there'd be better production values.

by Alice in Florida 2008-04-28 04:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat to Shut Down DNC

I believe the person speaking is the person who actually asked the question in the town hall meeting.

That said, I see where you are coming from, it is not 100% clear on the ad that that's the case.

by you like it 2008-04-28 04:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat

I wonder if the person who put together the ad was such an obessive political junkie that he thought everyone would instantly recognize the town hall question...the ad may be perfectly designed to appeal to people who would never vote for McCain in 100 years, rather than the people we need to reach.

by Alice in Florida 2008-04-28 04:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The problem with that argument...

is when does the 100 years of nonviolence start?  How long is he willing to tolerate the current violence in order to bring about that theoretical peaceful partnership?  That is a fair question, and it is one that McCain is unwilling to answer.

The truth is, McCain is being disengenuous in that he wants to pretend there is some sort of peace just around the corner and that his 100 years of peace is about to begin.  That is not the case.  All this ad does is force him to either confront that very question that he is unwilling to answer, or else own his words about an unending occupation.

That is what his presidency would be anyway, so the implication it makes is absolutely fair.

by you like it 2008-04-28 04:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Disagree at several levels

First, you speculate about our reaction to similarly "spurious" ads directed at our candidates by the GOPers. There's no need to speculate in that they have always, always, constructed unfair ads that target our candidates.  This is no mere appeal to "they do it to, so should we" however because their barrage of ads every single election for every single race is invariably constructed out nothing, including things our candidates never said or did, as opposed to different interpretations of what they said or did ("Harold, call me", SBV"T", and on and on).  Failing to use statements actually made by their nominee on the grounds of some notion of honor is tantamount to unilateral disarmament.

Second, something close to inference made by the ad is what McCain meant, I believe.  His argument was not that once Iraq is a stable democracy we should be willing to stay for a 100 years to keep the peace (a la Korea).  His argument is that we should stay until Iraq is stable and at peace.  Aside from that fact our presence will preclude such an eventual outcome, thus ensuring our presence over such a long period, what McCain is endorsing here is that we should be willing to stay for a hundred years if that is what it takes to achieve peace and stability, and then have some troops remain to protect that peace.  The fact he does not think it will take that long is irrelevant to the charge leveled in the ad.  If he had said 'We should stay a hundred years if necessary to protect the imminent peace and stability, but if I am wrong about that imminence, I think we will have to reconsider and bring home most or all the troops' then perhaps this ad would cross the line but that is not his position.  His claim is we should stay as long as it takes to secure peace and democracy, including up to 100 years or 500 years or 1000 years if that is what it takes.  This ad just uses his own words against him by allowing folks to see where he stands.

Third, I am morally comfortable if not at ease with an ends justifies the means notion here, particularly given that their smear campaign is 100% inevitable.  Electing McCain ensures a continuation of this failed war, but even more, a significant increase in the likelihood of more and interminably long wars with the consequences that none of the important domestic work this nation requires can be realized and increasing significantly the likelihood of eventual terminal conflict.  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few": The world's need to prevent that warmongering hothead from setting the world afire outweighs McCain's need to be treated with kid gloves.

by Trond Jacobsen 2008-04-29 06:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat

Personally, I think the ad is misleading.

But.

All's fair in love and war.  So, go Dean.  The only thing that surprised me was the way, between the music and the footage, they really tried to add some kind of Hollywood twist to this.

If I'm totally honest, I have to say that I wish both parties would ratchet down their drama level when speaking about Iraq and just behave like adults.

by bobbank 2008-04-28 04:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat to Shut Down DNC

i don't mind if it is misleading.. the more misleading the better IMHO.   There will be a few SC justices retiring in the next few years..

Whatever it takes to keep mccain out.

by soros 2008-04-28 04:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Why victory is at hand.

This ad is pretty much what I have had in my mind when I've envisioned the campaign against McCain this fall.  The fact is, McCain's positions and statements are toxic on this issue.  That is why I am so confident that either Democrat will win this November, even without our other advantages.

McCain and the Republicans can balk all they want.  If McCain doesn't mean 100 years of violence in Iraq with that statement, let him tell us what he does mean.  Let him tell us truthfully how many more years of violence he is willing to accept.

I bet it is not the answer that Americans want to hear.

by you like it 2008-04-28 04:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republican's Weak Threat

Hitting McCain on this issue is a good idea, but it would have been better to have more of McCain saying we should stay in Iraq rather than that whiney voice announcing that Bush wants to stay in Iraq 50 years...it gives the impression of unfair editing, and worse, it blunts the impact. The ad looks like it was done on the cheap....which should prove that it is strictly a DNC production, not coordinated with Clinton or Obama.

by Alice in Florida 2008-04-28 04:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat

I just wish we had video of McCain voting against all the veterans funding that the Dems have been trying to pass since 2006.
Now THAT would be a great ad.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 20 percent in 2006.

2006 In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D.

2006 Senator McCain sponsored or co-sponsored 18 percent of the legislation favored by the The Retired Enlisted Association in 2006.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 25 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the The Retired Enlisted Association 0 percent in 2004.

by skohayes 2008-04-28 04:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat to Shut Down DNC

The RNC is claiming the ad is illegal because of coordination between the DNC and one of the Democratic candidates. I have yet to hear, though, which candidate they're claiming the DNC coordinated with or what possible evidence they have.

The "illegal" claim is absurd on its face. But what else do they have?

by ryeland 2008-04-28 05:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat

Bush's name is going to on the ballot in November make no mistake about it. The message will be if you liked Bush you'll love McCain. There are literally hundreds of hostages to fortune that McCain has given, most recently his embrace of the Bush tax cuts. The albatross will be around his neck. Whether it will be enough depends on our candidate.

by ottovbvs 2008-04-28 06:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat

If the Rove cleaning of DAs had been moved to perfectly cleaning the judicial branch, this threat would not be weak.

This election is about more than war - it is about the rule of law.

Hillary & Obama support the rule of law. Mc Crypt Keeper supports "might makes right"

by redwagon 2008-04-28 07:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Republicans' Weak Threat to Shut Down DNC

AP got suckered by the RNC spin.  

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/19 1838.php

The media seems to get constantly worse.  

by bosdcla14 2008-04-29 07:33AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------