The Democratic Senate campaign arm took a shot a Sen. Elizabeth Dole, North Carolina Republican, for refusing to condemn a political ad sponsored by her state party that includes inflammatory video from Sen. Barack Obama's pastor condemning the United States.
Dole said she is choosing not to insert herself in the tangle because the ad, slated to run on Monday, attacks the two Democrats running for governor and is unrelated to her own senatorial campaign. Likely GOP presidential candidate John McCain urged state party officials to stop the ad. The spot lambastes the two Democratic candidates, Richard Moore and Bev Perdue, for both endorsing Obama, who has refused to completely renounce Wright.
"I am concentrating on getting my work done here in the Senate, and I'm just not going to get into refereeing a third-party political ad that has nothing to do with my race," Dole said yesterday.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) pointed out today that Dole's state party was heavily involved in her last campaign.
"Elizabeth Dole simply isn't telling the truth when she says the North Carolina Republican Party has nothing to do with her race," said DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller. "They spent nearly $50,000 getting her elected in 2002 and are certain to play a role in this year's campaign as well. Elizabeth Dole has the power to stop this ad with one phone call, and instead of making phony excuses, she needs to do it immediately."
Mark Stephens, a consultant for Dole's campaign, echoed the senator's reasoning for not inserting herself into the ad war and forwarded The Washington Times a letter sent today to Jerry Meek, chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, urging him to shun all third party political advertising.
"They're talking the talk; this alllows them to walk the walk," said Stephens, who said the North Carolina Republican Party, The National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican National Committee have all said they would not involved in Dole's race as long as their Democratic counterparts pledge the same.
Here's the ad, taken from the state party's homepage:
— Carrie Sheffield, Web editor, The Washington Times
Comments (5)
First of all, "simply isn't telling the truth" is lying. Matthew Miller is accusing Senator Dole of lying. The problem is that the moral relativism his party stands for also works against them when it comes to proving anything. The Republican Party invests in their candidates, they don't make the candidate sign a blood oath of allegiance. What Pastor Wright said was extreme, why would anyone support the extreme, even Obama. When are we going to get away from racism, sexism and class warfare and start addressing energy, the economy, immigration and the plan for Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan?
Posted by Larry Stone | April 26, 2008 7:19 AM
Lately, I'm reconsidering the definition of "conservative" in view of this political wretchedness by anda Daves and her cronies. For me, this kind of cheap shot is radical - extreme - and UNamerican. Reagan would never have stooped so low, and McCain clearly knows better. Our founding fathers would be seething!
I see conservativism dying, along with integrity . . .
Posted by Sue Deaunym | April 26, 2008 9:15 AM
It would have been helpful to point out in the article that DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller lied about what Senator Dole said. The senator did not say the "party" had nothing to do with her campaign. She said the "ad" had nothing to do with her campaign. There is a huge difference which makes her response defensible.
Identifying such easily proven documented lies is not partisan, it is good journalism.
Thank you
Posted by Mike Miller | April 26, 2008 9:20 AM
I agree with Mike Miller's post. DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller lied about what Senator Dole said. The senator did not say the "party" had nothing to do with her campaign. She said the "ad" had nothing to do with her campaign. GOD forbid a female or male, white, brown, yellow, red or black Republican candidate for president of the United States had a twenty year, close association, as Mr. Obama has,and "continues" to have with Pastor Wright, who continues to spews radical racist, hate mongering diatribes about whites and America. But, no such labels for a Democrat, Senator Obama, who has gone to a church for twenty years and introduced the public to Pastor Wright, his friend, and "mentor"and was with his campaign, until recently. The media would have demanded a Republican, explain why such radical association had nothing to do with character. Dr. King preached "content of character, does matter." Senator Obama introduced the public to Pastor Wright, as his "mentor." He told the public how his pastor, of twenty years, married him, baptized his children and continues to be a prominent friend, "mentor" and member of his and his wife's inter circle of confidantes.Senator Obama's endorsement by Oprah (worth millions}, was by association. It was reported, both attend Pastor Wright's church. Both have done well in America. One, is a multi billionaire, the other attended a prestigious university,was elected to the U.S. Senate, and won victories in mostly "white" N.E. Democratic state primaries. Would Senator Obama, Oprah, or Pastor Wright have done better, if they never lived in America? If your answer is yes, where, and explain?
Posted by sj | April 27, 2008 4:07 AM
Well Sue Deaunym, I sincerely doubt you are a Republican or a conservative. I notice that you did not deny the information in the ad as untrue or misrepresenting the facts. Rather, you made an ad hominem attack on conservatives, i.e., suggesting that the position is wrong by attacking the character of the person who espoused that position. Charlatans generally resort to this tactic when they cannot counter the facts.
I find it interesting that you selectively ignore the fact that Democrats have been running an anti-Bush campaign for seven years, a principal argument of which is that a vote for a Republican is a vote for the continuation of Bush's failed policies.
Republicans are just turning the table here. A rational person would acknowledge that Rev. Wright's statements are racist, un-America and extreme, and that Obama openly associated with Rev.Wright for years. And as the ad points out, the two candidates have endorsed Obama and his views. It thus not radical or extremist to suggest, using the Democrat's own line of reasoning, that endorsing Obama is supporting his views.
Finally, the ad is actually quite generous in that it only states that the two gubernatorial candidates' views are too extreme for North Carolina. Many believe it should have gone further to add that Obama's views are too extreme for America.
Posted by P. Elwell | April 27, 2008 10:21 AM