Posted on 09/20/2008 7:48:57 PM PDT by reaganaut1
The wholesale descent into Swift Boat campaigning has been blocked — for now — by a federal judge in Virginia. But voters should not rest easy. A group calling itself The Real Truth About Obama is appealing the ruling.
The group aims to block federal regulations so it can spend unlimited money on a commercial smearing the Democratic nominee as a zealous proponent of any and all abortion on demand — “at any time during pregnancy, as many times as a woman wants one.”
If the group were to win on appeal, it would signal open season for countless stealth groups to flood the remaining weeks of the campaign with underhanded attack ads. The courts must uphold the law, heeding the Federal Election Commission’s warning of “serious harm to the public” if the attack group prevails.
Posing as a mere “issue advocacy” operation, the group’s ad attacks Mr. Obama’s character and accuses him of “lying” about his abortion record. In truth, it trashes the candidate’s nuanced position. It even employs an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.
To spread these lies, the group wants an injunction against the election commission’s disclosure and spending rules, instituted after the Swift Boaters of 2004 were belatedly ruled in violation of election law.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Of course, the Senator who has worked hardest to silence independent groups at election time is John McCain. Ugh.
By discussing the alleged "smears" the Times may encourage some readers to learn the truth about Obama's positions, helping McCain.
To the drive-by media, if you tell the truth about Obama, you’re lying and if you lie about Palin what you say is fact.
Smearing? Since when is the absolute truth smearing?
He’s nuanced. They are liars - And underhanded too.
Typical op-ed.
Killing a child after it's born. This is an interesting definition of nuanced.
NY Times does not own a copy of our Constitution.
This is exhibit A on why the NYT is slowly going bankrupt, they are in the Free Speech business, that is how they put money in the bank account, and here they are cheerleading limits being put on the very life blood of their franchise.
Media is like no other “business” in the world, cut your own throat then lay off 10,000 people who do the work that allows the enterprise to function.
Good job NYT....morons...
How horrible, citizens exercising their first amendment rights! Mustn’t have that... Issue advocacy should never have been brought within the scope of the campaign finance laws.
The NY Slimes sure knows about smears esp. when about Palin.
“”””
Posing as a mere “issue advocacy” operation, the group’s ad attacks Mr. Obama’s character and accuses him of “lying” about his abortion record. In truth, it trashes the candidate’s nuanced position. It even employs an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.
“””””
That’s his record...
“This is exhibit A on why the NYT is slowly going bankrupt, they are in the Free Speech business, that is how they put money in the bank account, and here they are cheerleading limits being put on the very life blood of their franchise.”
The Times knows that Federal judges are not going to slap them down for non-stop propaganda on behalf of leftists. They want to suppress political TV ads and other ways of getting around them. The McCain-Feingold law was so popular with the MSM media for this reason.
New York Times definition of "nuanced": A position we don't want people to take literally, or think about too much.
No, they're not in the tank for Obama. Not at all. </sarcasm>
This is one reason why I’m insisting on candidates for state and fed offices go to using and distributing printed pieces http://www.theusmat.com/home.htm
I think Sandra Bernhart recently said that her wish for Governor Palin to be gang-raped by a group of black men was part of a “nuanced” opinion piece.
I guess THAT clears up what “nuanced” means when it comes to Obama’s position on abortion.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Nah. That’s just projection.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I thought the NY Times supported Obama because he supports unlimited abortion. So, why are they complaining? Isn’t that what they want?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.