Obama Campaign Uses Threats to End NRA Ads

Good Luck

Good Luck

New member
http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=279431

Seems the answer the Obama campaign has come up with to counter ads they don't like is to threaten legal action against stations who air them.

Of course, they claim the NRA ads are inaccurate as the basis for their action. (As if any political ad is "accurate"?) NRA claims the claims in the ads are based on Obama's voting records and speeches given on the topic of gun control.

The ads are only running, currently, in OH and PA, so I have not seen them, and my connection is too slow to make sense of the posted streamers. But, knowing the NRA, (I am a life member...) they undoubtedly take the votes and statements and use them to indicate regulations and gun control tactics that Obama did not intend with his previous actions.

OTOH, Obama's CURRENT claims about his stance on 2nd amendment rights is at variance with his prior actions as a legislator. Either that or his definition of "reasonable" goes WAY out of left field into the north parking lot.


But the point of this thread is this:
Is this the future of politics, where ads created by organizations not directly associated with a political party are to be censured by the parties if they are considered to be "inaccurate" by those who do not like the ads? Are the conspiracy theorists correct, and we are heading for a totalitarian state no matter who we vote for?

Whether one supports or opposes Obama for President, his campaign needs to be sent a strong message by ALL of us that we will NOT tolerate use of political power and legalisms on the part of the parties to suppress messages they do not like.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=279431

Seems the answer the Obama campaign has come up with to counter ads they don't like is to threaten legal action against stations who air them.

Of course, they claim the NRA ads are inaccurate as the basis for their action. (As if any political ad is "accurate"?) NRA claims the claims in the ads are based on Obama's voting records and speeches given on the topic of gun control.

The ads are only running, currently, in OH and PA, so I have not seen them, and my connection is too slow to make sense of the posted streamers. But, knowing the NRA, (I am a life member...) they undoubtedly take the votes and statements and use them to indicate regulations and gun control tactics that Obama did not intend with his previous actions.

OTOH, Obama's CURRENT claims about his stance on 2nd amendment rights is at variance with his prior actions as a legislator. Either that or his definition of "reasonable" goes WAY out of left field into the north parking lot.


But the point of this thread is this:
Is this the future of politics, where ads created by organizations not directly associated with a political party are to be censored by the parties if they are considered to be "inaccurate" by those who do not like the ads? Are the conspiracy theorists correct, and we are heading for a totalitarian state no matter who we vote for?

Whether one supports or opposes Obama for President, his campaign needs to be sent a strong message by ALL of us that we will NOT tolerate use of political power and legalisms on the part of the parties to suppress messages they do not like.
Click to expand...

The Pimp RA? Why not join the John Birch society? The NRA started out as a conservation group focused on protecting habitat and hunters rights. There a gross failure in that mission. Now their a right wing puppet organization.

They don't hold a candle to Ducks Unlimited.
 
Good Luck said:
http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=279431

Seems the answer the Obama campaign has come up with to counter ads they don't like is to threaten legal action against stations who air them.

Of course, they claim the NRA ads are inaccurate as the basis for their action. (As if any political ad is "accurate"?) NRA claims the claims in the ads are based on Obama's voting records and speeches given on the topic of gun control.

The ads are only running, currently, in OH and PA, so I have not seen them, and my connection is too slow to make sense of the posted streamers. But, knowing the NRA, (I am a life member...) they undoubtedly take the votes and statements and use them to indicate regulations and gun control tactics that Obama did not intend with his previous actions.

OTOH, Obama's CURRENT claims about his stance on 2nd amendment rights is at variance with his prior actions as a legislator. Either that or his definition of "reasonable" goes WAY out of left field into the north parking lot.


But the point of this thread is this:
Is this the future of politics, where ads created by organizations not directly associated with a political party are to be censored by the parties if they are considered to be "inaccurate" by those who do not like the ads? Are the conspiracy theorists correct, and we are heading for a totalitarian state no matter who we vote for?

Whether one supports or opposes Obama for President, his campaign needs to be sent a strong message by ALL of us that we will NOT tolerate use of political power and legalisms on the part of the parties to suppress messages they do not like.
Click to expand...

By the way. I live in Ohio and I haven't seen those ads either.
 
Mottleydude said:
The Pimp RA? Why not join the John Birch society? The NRA started out as a conservation group focused on protecting habitat and hunters rights. There a gross failure in that mission. Now their a right wing puppet organization.

They don't hold a candle to Ducks Unlimited.
Click to expand...
Why not address the issue? Obama's campaign is using their political clout to threaten the FCC license of stations who run the NRA ads. That is dead fucking wrong and you know it. So what do you do? Attack the NRA. Does that mean you approve of censoring ads you don't like?

And NRA, for all their extremism when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, still does a lot of good work. NRA still runs campaigns to protect habitat and game animals, and campaigns that not only protecting hunter's rights, but hunters themselves through safety programs, both run by and advocated by NRA. NRA is also a significant advocate of firearms safety in the home, again both running and supporting firearms safety courses and programs.

But since they don't want the 2nd amendment gutted, they are the bad guys. While Obama's campaign (I do not know enough to say how much Obama is involved) is using totalitarian tactics, you're worried whether NRA has abandoned their original mission.
 
If the stations are airing material that warrants pulling their license, then their license should be pulled. That being said, I know nothing of these ads of of the laws pertaining to what would precipitate such an action.
 
Obama's Stormtroopers still at it.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Contact: Jessica Robinson, 573-751-0290
Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

See the video.
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1
 
LOL

Here is another perfect example of censorship...from the Obama Stormtroopers.

http://tinyurl.com/4bapqt

Signs of liberty
September 27, 2008 12:19 am

NOT ALL COUNTRIES guarantee their citizens the right to virtually unbridled freedom of speech. The United States does. Would someone please tell the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama? And the dozing guardians of liberty at the University of Mary Washington?

Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, is scheduled to speak at a rally at the university today. The public is invited to this forum, on property it, the public, owns. However, signs and banners will not be allowed, according to the organizers and compliant campus officials. Suddenly, UMW is a First Amendment-Free, or at least a First Amendment-Crippled, Zone, subject to the self-serving preferences of politicos. Why does an Obama rally--or a McCain rally or a Nader rally--justify taking a little off the top of Americans' most fundamental rights?

A UMW spokeswoman says that the Obama campaign required the sign-and-banner ban. That campaign tells us that the ban is for "security" reasons. But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for protecting presidential candidates, says that the service has no objection to signs at rallies, provided that no "part of the sign could be used as a weapon"--e.g., a heavy metal pole or a sharpened stick. Finally, the McCain campaign tells us, "We encourage people to make signs at our events."

Regarding today's event, one would expect better from a campaign bearing the name of a former professor of constitutional law. (See Ambrose Bierce's definition of a lawyer: "one skilled in circumventing the law.") And one would expect much better from a university that, in pursuit of a day of celebrity, a boost in prestige, and profits from its book store's planned commemorative Obama T-shirts (now scotched), shaves away an American liberty purchased by men who turned white snow red and dry dirt wet with their sacrificial blood. This is a lot to swap for a mess of pottage. Remarks the Rutherford Institute's John Whitehead, who has turpentined the Bush administration's civil-rights record, "The Secret Service has a better free-speech viewpoint than the college."

The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceable assembly, petition of the government. Will one who aspires to the title Defender of the Constitution begin inhibiting these First Freedoms even before he is in office--at a public university?

Free speech means you have the right to hold up a sign, to unfurl a banner, to wear a T-shirt or create music, to pass around handbills--or newspapers--expressing your views at any public event. This is doubly true at campaign rallies--quintessential political forums--where such expressions are subject only to narrowly drawn "time, place, and manner" restrictions. Says Kent Willis, chief of the ACLU-Virginia and a Fredericksburg resident: "Mary Washington may be able to impose some restrictions on the size of signs or the materials used in them, but we do not believe the school can legally ban all signs at an outdoor political event to which the public is invited."

Furthermore, the very speech we must be most careful to protect is that which is most onerous to us. Our natural inclination is to shut up the Other Side. The problem is, many days we are the other side.

America's fundamental freedoms--more in danger of being whittled away than stolen in one fell swoop--must be defended everywhere, including in our own backyard. The Obama campaign and Mary Washington need to back off this odious policy. An opinion printed in Magic Marker should never be contraband at an open American political event--and if that emblazoned thought interferes with the atmospherics of some partisan stagecraft specialist, that is a bearable tragedy.
 
so if a private organization ie political party or even the NRA tries to stop something they do not like thru legal action it is censorship ?

Now if congress or Obama himself were doing it....
 
uscitizen said:
so if a private organization ie political party or even the NRA tries to stop something they do not like thru legal action it is censorship ?

Now if congress or Obama himself were doing it....
Click to expand...
Right. So much for the "I only depsise republicans more than democrats" claim.

Whether Obama is involved or not is immaterial. At least that's what all you who deride McCain for who is on his campaign team seem to indicate. The fact remains Obama's campaign office is attempting to block political ads run by organizations who oppose Obama.

Want to be a blind partisan apologist for that king of un-American activity, fine. It only shows I have been right all along calling you a democratic partisan.
 
Good Luck said:
Right. So much for the "I only depsise republicans more than democrats" claim.

Whether Obama is involved or not is immaterial. At least that's what all you who deride McCain for who is on his campaign team seem to indicate. The fact remains Obama's campaign office is attempting to block political ads run by organizations who oppose Obama.

Want to be a blind partisan apologist for that king of un-American activity, fine. It only shows I have been right all along calling you a democratic partisan.
Click to expand...


This is a big fat yawner:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Republican National Committee said Monday it is asking cable networks not to air what they described as a “maliciously false” ad about John McCain from the Democratic National Committee – and accused Democrats of illegally coordinating efforts with the party’s presidential candidates.

The RNC said the ad was in legal violation because its content was misleading. Asked about the prospect of legal action from Republicans in a conference call late Monday afternoon, DNC Chairman Howard Dean responded: “Let them do it.”

The 30-second spot, slated to run on CNN and on MSNBC, highlights McCain’s comment that it would be acceptable if U.S. troops remained in Iraq for 100 years. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was talking about a peace-keeping mission, not active conflict.

"This is a complaint about the facts that are being misrepresented in this ad," said RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross. "Based on this being a deliberate falsehood. We are saying to the stations, 'You have an obligation.'

The complaint did not alter CNN's original plans. “We have received the letter from the RNC. We plan on airing the ad beginning tomorrow,” the network said in a statement released Monday afternoon.

On a conference call this afternoon, RNC officials accused the DNC of working in concert with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, because they met and used many of the same consultants. The GOP officials, though, refused to pledge not to run similar ads against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
Click to expand...


This is simply using existing laws to the advantage of the campaign and they both do it all the time. It is nothing new and sure as shit isn't "censorship."
 
Dungheap said:
This is a big fat yawner:




This is simply using existing laws to the advantage of the campaign and they both do it all the time. It is nothing new and sure as shit isn't "censorship."
Click to expand...
I already said it is not censorship. Not once have I called it censorship. It IS attempted violations of first amendment rights in the extreme.

But, since they both do it, it is ok with you (not to mention others)?

No wonder we are headed down the shitter.
 
On further introspection on this matter, I am starting to appreciate the situations - and responses - with deliberately misleading political ads. I admit I agree to the principle that blocking political ads which are deliberately misleading has its positive aspects.

I do not agree with the legal threats used against the broadcast stations. after all, they are not responsible for the content of ads placed anymore than they are responsible for a Coke commercial which makes improper claims. It should not be left to broadcast stations to verify the content of an ad, political or otherwise. Nor should it be incumbent on them to pull an ad just because someone says it is inaccurate.

But perhaps we do need new laws that would apply truth in advertising requirements to political ads. (In fact I now remember suggesting exactly that idea in a thread quite a while ago.) Current laws governing truth in advertising focus the penalties on those who write the ads, not those who broadcast them. The same should be applied to political ads, whether they come from an official campaign headquarters, or a private party. If you write an ad which can be shown to be deliberately misleading, you pay a stiff penalty.

In short - good idea to push accuracy in political ads. But it is bad tactics to threaten broadcast stations who are not responsible for the ad content.
 
Good Luck said:
Right. So much for the "I only depsise republicans more than democrats" claim.

Whether Obama is involved or not is immaterial. At least that's what all you who deride McCain for who is on his campaign team seem to indicate. The fact remains Obama's campaign office is attempting to block political ads run by organizations who oppose Obama.

Want to be a blind partisan apologist for that king of un-American activity, fine. It only shows I have been right all along calling you a democratic partisan.
Click to expand...

I fail to understand your illogic in that response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top