$40 Million in Attack Ads

[BPSCG]

For everyone who's so self-righteously furious about the so-called "Republican attack machine":

Wealthy Democrats are preparing a four-month, $40 million media campaign centered on attacks on Sen. John McCain. And it will be led by David Brock, the former investigative reporter who first gained fame in the 1990s as a right-wing, anti-Clinton journalist.

(...snip...)

But after a dinner Tuesday night at the Manhattan apartment of liberal megadonor George Soros, at which Brock and consultant Paul Begala laid out the group's plans, Brock said his group now has commitments worth $7.5 million — almost twice what the Fund for America is expected to report raising in the first quarter of this year. He said the group would begin running ads before it meets its $40 million goal.

Brock suggested that the group could do the work of a press corps that, he says, has "fallen down on the job" when it comes to McCain.

"A void that might be filled, while the Democrats fight it, out by the press is not going to be filled, because the press is in love with John McCain," Brock said in an interview at the Regency Hotel in Manhattan. "It's what McCain is allowed to say without being challenged by facts that will show him to have said something different in the past."

Link

 

[corplinx]

Oh god, does this mean Bill O'Reilly will be back on Monday with his liberal media conspiracy charts?

 

[jj]

It's sad, but given the last election, it would be foolishness and failure to perform NOT to have it.

Having said that, it's not any more ethical than the Swifties.

Which is just (rule 10) sad. But that's what the last crop of righties have brought public discourse down to. Gresham wins.

 

[BPSCG]

Which is just (rule 10) sad. But that's what the last crop of righties have brought public discourse down to. Gresham wins.

So the Dems are gonna do attack ads because the Republicans made them do it.

Might be more a more compelling argument if we weren't daily being treated to the spectacle of Democrats calling each other racists and sexists for supporting the wrong Democratic candidate.

But you do have a point that Gresham wins. In a nation of 300 million people, someone is going to say something harsh and nasty about a candidate, and if you don't respond, you're cooked. And, like a multi-car pileup with police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances all at the scene, the harsh and nasty gets the attention as opposed to the candidates' actual positions on issues.

 

[jj]

So the Dems are gonna do attack ads because the Republicans made them do it.

Yep. You notice I didn't say I liked it, in fact I said I didn't.

Might be more a more compelling argument if we weren't daily being treated to the spectacle of Democrats calling each other racists and sexists for supporting the wrong Democratic candidate.

They learn, they do. I would use a more insulting phrase, but somebody would mistake it for racism, and I don't mean anything racially based.

But you do have a point that Gresham wins. In a nation of 300 million people, someone is going to say something harsh and nasty about a candidate, and if you don't respond, you're cooked. And, like a multi-car pileup with police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances all at the scene, the harsh and nasty gets the attention as opposed to the candidates' actual positions on issues.

Yep. And it poisons the well every time. Yes, I do hold the media responsible, but not much I can do about it.

 

[Brainster]

I might be worried but it's David Brock and the Media Muttheads for America. They'll figure out some way of shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Cleon]

They learn, they do. I would use a more insulting phrase, but somebody would mistake it for racism, and I don't mean anything racially based.

And some of us simply have more regard for our simian cousins than for politicians.