"Red-Handed" Ads: MoveOn.org Overreaches Again
MoveOn.org, the liberal political action committee, has generated a lot of creative energy and money to help liberal causes and candidates. However, the group often undermines its own credibility through its exaggerated and inconsistent attacks. FactCheck.org, recently called MoveOn on another inconsistency. FactCheck.org is run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which, as its website describes "accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals."
MoveOn has been running a series of political advertisements known as the "Caught Red-Handed" ads across the country. These spots generally attack Republican members of Congress for inappropriate ties to big business. The ads are well-produced and memorable, mainly because of the blood red hand digitally painted onto a black and white image of the targeted candidate. In fact, in our own second congressional district in Indiana, GOP incumbent Chris Chocola has been the target of a "Red-Handed" ad.
More recently, according to FactCheck, MoveOn has criticized three GOP congressmen (Charlie Bass of New Hampshire and John Sweeney and Randy Kuhl of New York) for being caught red-handed "supporting money spent on Halliburton contracts and wasteful Iraq projects." However, based on FactCheck's review of the applicable congressional appropriation votes, Democrats also widely supported many of the same spending bills. In fact, according to the nonpartisan group, "even three lawmakers whom MoveOn is specifically endorsing often voted for the same bills being criticized" in the "Caught Red-Handed" spots. Although those three politicians, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio voted for the defense spending bills, they were not targeted by MoveOn's "Caught Red-Handed" campaign. This double standard is similar to that applied by Republicans in the 2004 presidential campaign. At that time, Democratic nominee John Kerry was savaged for voting to cut military spending during his Senate career, despite the fact that many Republicans also voted for the very same cuts.
The tactic was misleading then, and remains so now. I believe Kerry and the Democrats also were hurt by other MoveOn attack ads during the 2004 campaign--ads that again were well-produced and even clever, but came off as smug or tasteless and turned off crucial moderate voters. MoveOn.org probably is effective at rousing the energy (and wallets) of the liberal base and maybe that's its primary goal. But for liberal politicians who need to attract moderates to get elected, the organization may provide more headaches than headway.
MoveOn has been running a series of political advertisements known as the "Caught Red-Handed" ads across the country. These spots generally attack Republican members of Congress for inappropriate ties to big business. The ads are well-produced and memorable, mainly because of the blood red hand digitally painted onto a black and white image of the targeted candidate. In fact, in our own second congressional district in Indiana, GOP incumbent Chris Chocola has been the target of a "Red-Handed" ad.
More recently, according to FactCheck, MoveOn has criticized three GOP congressmen (Charlie Bass of New Hampshire and John Sweeney and Randy Kuhl of New York) for being caught red-handed "supporting money spent on Halliburton contracts and wasteful Iraq projects." However, based on FactCheck's review of the applicable congressional appropriation votes, Democrats also widely supported many of the same spending bills. In fact, according to the nonpartisan group, "even three lawmakers whom MoveOn is specifically endorsing often voted for the same bills being criticized" in the "Caught Red-Handed" spots. Although those three politicians, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio voted for the defense spending bills, they were not targeted by MoveOn's "Caught Red-Handed" campaign. This double standard is similar to that applied by Republicans in the 2004 presidential campaign. At that time, Democratic nominee John Kerry was savaged for voting to cut military spending during his Senate career, despite the fact that many Republicans also voted for the very same cuts.
The tactic was misleading then, and remains so now. I believe Kerry and the Democrats also were hurt by other MoveOn attack ads during the 2004 campaign--ads that again were well-produced and even clever, but came off as smug or tasteless and turned off crucial moderate voters. MoveOn.org probably is effective at rousing the energy (and wallets) of the liberal base and maybe that's its primary goal. But for liberal politicians who need to attract moderates to get elected, the organization may provide more headaches than headway.
posted by Michael R. Kramer | 8:01 PM
|
0 comments
