The Pennsylvania media is on to Joe Sestak’s strategic gaffe:
U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak frequently tells supporters at campaign events that he would rather risk his job than shirk a principle. The Delaware County Democrat says it is for that reason that his campaign has been demanding that television stations across the state, and Comcast here in Philadelphia, pull ads created and funded by private groups attacking his run for the U.S. Senate.
But by attacking his attackers, does Sestak help draw attention to their claims?
That seemed to be the case with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is running an ad on 21 TV stations in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Scranton and Johnstown that says that Sestak voted 100 percent of the time with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on “job-killing” legislation on health care and energy.
Two stations in Pittsburgh pulled the ad for one day, but the resulting media coverage only helped spread the message.
The report points out that the same is true of his unsuccessful effort to stifle the Emergency Committee for Israel. And what does Sestak say, now that it’s apparent his “shut-up” strategy is a bust?
That ad claims that Sestak “raised money for an anti-Israel organization the FBI called a front group for Hamas,” the Palestinian group that funds terrorist attacks on Israel.
Sestak said his campaign asked Comcast to pull the ad because it is “harming Israel’s security.”
“This was not any kind of political calculation,” Sestak said. “For me, this was purely based on how I look at Israel, which is always about security and not politics.”
Groan. He tried to trample on the First Amendment rights of his opponents for Israel’s sake? Good grief. Shouldn’t he then have tried to take down J Street’s ad? I mean apparently debating Israel policy is somehow a threat to the Jewish state. But no, it’s actually a threat to Sestak, one so severe he’s tried to squash the entire discussion.
But if we want to talk about what is good for Israel, let’s ask Israelis. Only about 10 percent of them approve of Obama’s policy, which J Street tells us (most recently in its ad that features Obama quite prominently) is exactly what Sestak is supporting. Oh, Israelis don’t get to decide what is in their security interests, at least according to J Street.
One thing is certain: Sestak and the Democrats are petrified of making Israel a campaign issue. They simply want critics of their approach to pipe down and voters to accept on faith that their self-descriptions as pro-Israel are unassailable. If we weren’t a democracy where all issues of public policy are open to debate and where elected leaders must be accountable for their actions, it would make perfect sense.
I find this media outrage over the McCain/Palin campaign’s silliness to be ridiculous. Of course many aspects of the McCain campaign have been absurd and unrelated to serious issues. But where was the media over the last year as the Obama camp has repeated on a daily basis the deceptive statement that McCain wants us to fight the Iraq War for 100 years? Or the repeated attacks, often implicit, on McCain’s age? Or of Obama declaring the McCain camp to be racists? Or of Obama’s irrelevant observation that McCain didn’t immediately know one time how many houses his heiress wife owned?
American elections have always been about tit for tat. This is no different.
The left in our country is in a fury. Born of their pagan blindness.
They see a Universe filled with danger, with only their personal splendor
to protect them.
Love th.e teaser here, but I have gotten three error pages when trying to pull up the whole piece
No one forced them to mention it. The same way no is forcing them to mention what Obama did as a community organizer, question why every person who becomes a liability to Obama is said to be “not the person I knew”, etc.
The idea the Republican Party forced the media to pay attention to the lipstick foolishness is itself foolish.
[The link (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-great-unmasking-12720) may not work in Firefox 3.0.1. It fails repeatedly but works in Internet Explorer.]
Why is it McCain’s “fault” in the MSM’s eyes? Does Obama just get a pass b/c he’s said he’d run a different campaign (even though that was BS, even in the primaries) or is it b/c the MSM’s beloved candidate can do no wrong?
The MSM ought to blame Obama – he’s the one who got cute with pigs and lipstick – if he doesn’t say it, there’s no controversy.
I think this is just the “cover excuse” – this is backlash for McCain picking an unknown candidate that wasn’t leaked to them, vetted by them, AND worse, she’s a rising star who threatens their candidate so much he’s been off-message for more than two weeks since.
Of course, the full-throated media defense of Obama might have an unintended consequence. It suggests that the media panjamdrums see their candidate floundering and know that he cannot or will not defend himself. By rushing to his defense they are doing something that he should be doing himself. And this makes him look weak and ineffectual… anything but presidential.
“Seven out of 10 voters (69%) remain convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and this year by a nearly five-to-one margin voters believe they are trying to help Barack Obama.” —The Rasmussen Report
Voters aren’t buying what the MSM is selling in more ways than one.
When has the MSM ever critically analyzed any smear against the Right? But, they do it all the time, the other way. Does anyone remember the story “The Emperor Has No Clothes”?
OK, now having read it: fine piece. I would only suggest that the umasking took place a long time ago. The difference in 2008 is that the MSM are seriously being called on their partisan practices.
The press are following the same directive from “The Little Red Book of Leftism” that Obama and his staff live by: “Always project your own malfeasance and shortcomings onto your opponents.”