Whereas earlier I was disagreeing with Matt Yglesias, I couldn’t agree more about this (and yes, I do read other blogs):
I imagine I’m not the first pundit to note that Kim Gandy and the crew down at NOW must’ve been off their rockers when they decided to endorse Carol Moseley-Braun for President of the United States. Clearly, Mosely-Braun is a woman, whereas her opponents are not, but leaving aside the dubious merits of her candidacy, it is simply inconceivable that she’ll be the nominee.
Because they are morons- always have been, always will be, and they reflect the values of the fringe left. At any rate, to save Karl Rove the time, here is a commercial I would run in January/February (and again in September with some modification) 2004, after NOW endorses a viable candidate:
Scrolling text of embarrassing statements by Braun, along with all of her ethical problems and fund-raising scandals, as well as her positions on issues (which will sink her with over half the voters by themselves) over a picture of her face. Have the voiceover state: “Last year, the National Organization for Women decided that Carol Moseley-Braun was the type of candidate they wanted to be President. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the country, that won’t be happening. Given another choice, they have decided that (Dean/Kerry) is the next best thing. Does (Hoard Dean/John Kerry) represent you?”
Clearly, I am not an advertising man, but you get the point. They wanted Moseley-Braun, with her whacky opinions and bizarre politics, now they have decided that Dean or Kerry is the next best thing. If I were Howard Dean, I would ask NOW to endorse Bush.
Brandon
Would that commercial you suggested qualify as fringebaiting?
Jonas
How would you react if the Democratic nominee started running ads about how the KKK endorsed Bush? (They did endorse him in 2000, and I assume will again in 2004, since they have endorsed the Republican candidate from at least 1984).
John Cole
Jonas- Are you claiming the KKK and NOW are the same thing?
And, btw, the NAACP and left wing bloggers essentially already claim that the GOP is the party of the KKK.
In fact, I was even watching a 12 year old Bill Maher stand-up, and Maher was talking about David Duke:
“I feel bad for David Duke. He was in the Klan, and he was in the NAZI party, so at least he is a joiner. But he couldn’t find a mainstream party until he read the Republican platform. ‘Hey- thre against quotsa and affirmative action- it’s all here in the GOP platform.””
Quit fooling yourself.
BAM
John – You may not be an advertising man, but I am. And that would be a VERY effective political ad. Just don’t tell anyone how easy it is though. I get paid a lot of dough to make this stuff up.
Thomas
John, I think Jonas meant that it doesn’t mean that much if a special-interest group endorses a candidate so it is pretty unfair and deceptive to say that ‘X endorsing Y automatically says something meaningful about Y’.
John Cole
I understand his point, Thomas, but there is a difference. NOW sends delegates to the convention, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC. Check on how Democrat politics work- ceratin quotas for gender and all the minority status. Please don’t tell me you think the NEA, NOW, and the UNIONS don;t get the same treatment.
The KKK is not affiliated in any way with the Republican party, so it is a different case. I would not hold it against Kerry or Dean if The White Aryan party endorsed them- they have no affiliation and have done nothing to court their votes.
Jonas
John
A lot of politicians have said and done bad, stupid and even illegal things, even including our current president. If you’re idea of a good commercial is: “The National Organization for Women endorsed ______ (Dean, Kerry, whoever). Previously they endorsed Carol Mosley Braun. Now stick with me here. She said (or did) ________ (whatever it is you’re outraged about). Now they support ______ (Dean, Kerry, etc.).”
then you made a good career choice not going into advertising.
This would be running against ads showing snippets of Bush speeches, presumably showing both ridiculous things he said, as well as anything that can be taken out of context as well (Both sides do that ya know). Trying to paint the Democratic nominee with something somebody two steps removed said is not going to be effective. It’s not even effective as guilt by association. The KKK did endorse Bush, whether he wanted it or not. Anyone whose views would be influenced by a TV commercial would probably be more shocked by the KKK endorsing Bush, than NOW endorsing a Democratic candidate, especially if it has to be explained why the NOW endorsement is a bad thing.
John Cole
ME thinks you didn’t read my comment at all.
HH
Isn’t Dean pro-life (at least right now)? Can’t see NOW endorsing that.
Thomas
Basically, John your ad is the equivalent of this:
‘John Ashcroft is Bush’s attorney general. Thus he supports him. John Ashcroft also supports the Conservative Citizens Council, a group trying to protect white heritage. What does this say about George Bush?’
I’m all for this ad, even though it’s a bit flawed, so fire away.
Dean
The thing is, Thomas, I fully expect to see ads like what you’re describing running.
John Cole
Kimberly:
HE IS BREAKING CLINTON’S RECORDS, WHO ALSO RAN UNOPPOSED WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY.
Was Clinton a pig?
Kimmitt
The idea that NOW is a subsidiary of the DNC is beyond laughable. NOW is a political organization which has endorsed both Republicans and Democrats in various races.
Further, I guarantee you that the DNC considers Moseley-Braun an embarrassment. This endorsement, while utterly baffling, has nothing to do with the DNC and everything to do with an interest group playing stupid identity politics.
HH
“The idea that NOW is a subsidiary of the DNC is beyond laughable.”
I’m laughing now alright.
HH
By the way Moseley Braun was encouraged by the Dems to run, quite obviously to keep Sharpton from getting too popular.
JPS
Good stuff, John. But if your commercial runs, watch for it to replace the Willie Horton ad as the next symbol of Republican race-baiting. Which, n.b., I am absolutely not suggesting you’re doing or encouraging. I’m not saying it would be fair or true.
First the Dems would cry foul, then the usual people would weigh in about this disturbing, threatening commercial. Liberal pundits would declare that, sure, the facts may be technically true, but you know they were trying to appeal to racists on a subconscious level.
There would be saturation coverage (from an entirely nonbiased point of view coming down entirely on the Dems’ side) in the media for at least a week. And before you know it, people would vaguely “know” the commercial was racist, even if they don’t quite remember what exactly it said.
Not saying it isn’t absurd, but I’m pretty sure that would happen. Major backlash, net loss for Bush.
HH
The Dems (through Moveon.org or somesuch – good thing we have Campaign Finance Reform, eh?) would then come out with an ad vaguely accusing Bush of murder (again)… the mainstream press will yawn.
Sweet Lou
Kimmitt wrote:
NOW is a political organization which has endorsed both Republicans and Democrats in various races
Which Republicans? How many? What percentage?
The latest NOW endorsements that listed party were 1996 and 1998. All endorsed Federal candidates were Democrats, with the exception of one or two independents. 2000 and 2002 endorsements don’t seem to specify which party an endorsed candidate belongs to, but I didn’t recognize any Republicans.
Dean
I wonder which has happened more often:
NOW endorsing Republicans, or the NRA endorsing Democrats.
If the latter, I wonder if Kimmitt would conclude that the NRA, too, is not a subsidiary of a particular party…
Kimmitt
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth; I generate enough of them to satisfy anyone.
The NRA, like NOW, is an interest group. It supports candidates and organizations which share its positions. The NRA has supported both Democratic and Republican candidates in the past, just like NOW. Since the Dems tend to disagree strongly with the NRA’s positions, the proportions are as you’d expect, just as since the Republicans tend to disagree strongly with NOW’s positions (especially its single largest issue set, reproductive issues), they get relatively few nods.
The Republican Party has moved rightward in the past 30 years, and the frequency of NOW endorsements of Republican candidates has followed that trend, which is hardly surprising.
Sweet Lou
How many Republican candidates, and when?
After viewing a hundred or so endorsements — all Democrat or independent, I gave up.
I figure since you stated that NOW has endorsed Republicans, you can back that with a non-trivial number of names (say 10) in the 2000 and 2002 election cycles, on the State and Federal level.
Kimmitt
Since the Republican Party platform explicitly opposes NOW’s major issues, and since the Party itself has moved to the right since 1994, it is hardly surprising that NOW has recently endorsed Democrats nearly exclusively, which only supports my point — that NOW is a special interest group which endorses based on policy, rather than on partisanship.
Were the parties to flip-flop back on the abortion issue (keep in mind that it was the Dems who were pro-life back in the 60s and the Repubs who were pro-choice), I guarantee that NOW would start leaning heavily Republican.