We’re several days into the controversy about the Priorities USA steelworker ad, and the Obama campaign has repeatedly declined to condemn it. Campaign staffers have said they don’t know enough about Joe Soptic’s story to comment (even though they organized a conference call for Soptic to share the same story with reporters in May). They’ve also argued that the ad is being run by a super PAC that’s unconnected to the campaign, and therefore Obama has no responsibility for it.
Would the Obama campaign have bought the same excuse from its opponents? Of course not — in fact, the campaign has previously demanded that its opponents denounce sleazy attacks from outside supporting groups.
Remember the outrage after the New York Times report that a conservative super PAC was considering an ad proposal that revived the Reverend Wright controversy? Here was the response from the Obama campaign:
“Stunning! Will Mitt stand up, as John McCain did? Or allow the purveyors of slime to operate on his behalf?” David Axelrod, a senior campaign adviser to Mr. Obama, wrote on Twitter early Thursday morning. …
“This morning’s story revealed the appalling lengths to which Republican operatives and Super PACs apparently are willing to go to tear down the president and elect Mitt Romney,” Mr. Messina wrote.
He added: “It also reflects how far the party has drifted in four short years since John McCain rejected these very tactics. Once again, Governor Romney has fallen short of the standard that John McCain set, reacting tepidly in a moment that required moral leadership in standing up to the very extreme wing of his own party.”
The Wright ad was never even in the works, it was simply one proposal out of many. And unlike Priorities USA, the super PAC in question wasn’t run by a former Romney staffer.
Unlike Priorities USA, the super PAC in question wasn’t run by a former Romney staffer. And yet the Obama campaign held Romney responsible for an ad campaign that never even made it past the proposal stage. Even when Romney quickly condemned the ad proposal, the Obama campaign blasted his response as too tepid and jeered that he wasn’t even willing to stand up to his conservative supporters.
Note also that Obama actually sat in Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years, so that ad would have been far more fair and accurate than the Priorities USA commercial.
At Fox News, Chris Stirewalt also flags a 2007 quote from Obama, calling on John Edwards to ask a supporting outside group to stop running an attack ad:
“If [then-Obama communications director] Robert Gibbs started running a [independent political expenditure group] and I called Robert Gibbs and said, ‘Stop running ads on my behalf,’ are you suggesting I would have no influence over Robert Gibbs?”
– Then Sen. Barack Obama, as quoted by Politico, in West Des Moines, Iowa in December of 2007 attacking opponent John Edwards for negative ads being run by an outside group run by a former Edwards aide.
Judging from past comments from both the president and his campaign, if Obama remains silent on the Priorities USA ad, it should be assumed he approves of it.
Multi-cultural leadership is needed, but that is not enough; the ideal leader should also be a Multi-spiritualist and lover of all sizes and shapes. That leader should be able to hold hands with every race, religion, and culture. The recent mass murderers hated Infidels, Apostates, and porn lovers; these Crazies must be identified, searched, and relieved of their weapons.
If, until it uttered a mealy mouthed dissociation from this ad, anyone thinks the campaign proper didn't support it, approve it and implicitly defend it, they may be interested in some bridges and swamp land I have for sale. The symbiotic relation between the PAC headed by Burton and the campaign is undeniable. The former being politically aware tries obviously to calculate the blow back to the campaign from its various exercises in perniciousness. The campaign just as surely lets its own views be known sotto voce but clams political and legal cover when the uncalculated blow back hits the fan and the campaign retrenches itself. Romney and his proxies should rub Obama's face in this scurrility.
There is something more sinister at work here. n nObama wants to hold all business owners responsible for the health issues of former employees after they are laid off. He's building a case for single-payer government controlled health care. Pure an simple. n nMark my words, this will become the leftist narrative.
As Sir Thomas More points out in "A Man for All Seasons": "The maxim is, Qui tacet consentiret: the maxim of the law is, 'Silence gives consent'."
The Priorities USA steelworker ad is based upon an outcome from a decision that is abhorrent. to many. (Of course there is the question whether Romney was even there at the time of the decision). n nMay I suggest an outcome from a decision directly connected to the president, which to me is more abhorrent. Having announced that Afghanistan was the "good war" Obama had to be seen as actively supporting the action. He ordered a "surge" and at the same time announced a withdrawal plan that effectively undercut any possibility of success. n nIf we were going to withdraw with our tails between our legs, then we should have done so immediately without endangering the live of our soldiers. n n n n
Here's the real murderous criminality: touting Afganistan for mere political advantage at the cost of how many dead and maimed lives before "evolving" to doubt about the war as manifest in announcing the surge and the withdrawal together: political calculation as sheer criminal homicide.
If I understand your comment, we are both saying the same thing in different ways.
I looked more closely at what you said. Yes we are saying the same thing more or less, you saying it more clearly than I.
Obama never believed that Afghanistan was the "good war." He was mostly likely lying. He did not dare appear soft while running for president. Obama existentially believes that American power normally causes more harm than good.
I agree with this.
The one and only thing an incumbent President should run on is his record in office.
Perhaps President Obama should take a bold principled stand and announce that, "These are not the words I would have chosen.".