Conservatives really just lie constantly:
A Northside great-grandmother taped a statewide TV ad on behalf of Senate Bill 5 opponents – only to be stunned and outraged when she saw herself featured in an ad for the other side.
The fight over the Cincinnati great-grandmother’s image is now the latest battle in the hard-fought campaign over Senate Bill 5, which limits collective bargaining for public employees. Ohio voters will decide whether to keep the law in November; it’s on the ballot as Issue 2.
“I think it’s dishonest and downright deceitful that they would use footage of me to try to play tricks and fool voters,” Marlene Quinn said in a press release by We Are Ohio, the anti-Issue 2 group that initially produced the video. Three television stations in Columbus and two in West Virginia pulled the controversial ad, at the anti-SB5 group’s request. The use of Quinn’s image in the ad was first reported Tuesday by the liberal blog Plunderbund.
The original ad:
Quinn credits Cincinnati firefighters with saving the life of her great-granddaughter Zoey Quinn, now 4, and grandson in a November fire. In an ad she taped for Senate Bill 5 opponents, Quinn says, “When the fire broke out, there wasn’t a moment to spare. If not for the firefighters, we wouldn’t have Zoey today. That’s why it is so important to vote no on Issue 2.”
Quinn continues, “How many of those politicians in Columbus have fought a fire, have been short manpower? The politicians don’t care about the middle class. They turn their backs on all of us. I don’t want the politicians in Columbus making decisions for the firefighters, the police, teachers, nurses or any organization that’s helping the people. Fewer firefighters can mean the difference between life or death, and that’s why I’m voting no in Issue 2.”
And then former Fox News personality John Kasich’s version:
Building A Better Ohio released an ad this week that starts with the same image of Quinn saying “When the fire broke out, there wasn’t a moment to spare. If not for the firefighters, we wouldn’t have Zoey today.”
Then another voice says, “She’s right. By voting no on Issue 2 our safety will be threatened. Without Issue 2, communities will have to lay off hard-working firefighters to pay the excessive benefits of other government workers. Issue 2 protects our communities.” Quinn appears again saying, “Fewer firefighters can mean the difference between life or death.” Then the ad ends with “Vote Yes on Issue 2.”
We’re getting direct mail here from “The Alliance for America’s Future” which is some shady right wing group out of Virginia. Their website made me laugh out loud because it reveals absolutely nothing about the group, or why they would spend millions of dollars union-busting in Ohio.
h/t commenter Bella Q
Here’s We Are Ohio if you want to volunteer.
And here’s Plunderbund, the excellent Ohio liberal blog who revealed the lie.
El Cid
Are they so unaware of Georgia counties’ modern solution for free firefighter labor?
Maybe they could call them indentured civil servants.
arguingwithsignposts
Can’t she sue under invasion of privacy? Seems like that’s false light, or misappropriation? I hope she gets some pro bono rep. and sues the pants off of them.
Chris
We MUST screw over these lazy government workers in order to keep hiring these worthwhile government workers… and don’t worry (big used car salesman grin!) we won’t EVER screw over the worthwhile government workers in the future! Just help us do this one thing, it’ll be peace for our time…
Ben Cisco (mobile)
Kasich might as well have waved his dick at the screen. What a punk move.
kay
@arguingwithsignposts:
I don’t know. Election law is complicated. Conservatives don’t lack election lawyers, as you know.
I think it’s great that Plunderbund, which is a liberal Ohio blog, broke the story.
kay
@Chris:
It’s always been about public school teachers. They threw in the rest of the workers, but the more I read on SB5 (and watch the cable tv millionaires pontificate) the more I realize all of these actions are aimed directly at public school teachers.
Napoleon
WKYC in Cleveland ran a piece on this last night and this morn (see below). I hope that this is happening with every station because you can not buy PR like this for your position. Any one who sees this is automatically going to question anything from the Yes side.
http://www.wkyc.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1213482264001&odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|featured
arguingwithsignposts
@kay: Might be good to give them a link and send some traffic their way.
jayjaybear
I’ve seen this before with candidate political ads (playing parts of an opponent’s ad in order to refute it), so it’s probably legal. Doesn’t mean it’s not a dick move.
kay
@arguingwithsignposts:
They’re calling it “grannygate”, which is great.
Chris
@kay:
I guess it makes sense, knowing the high esteem they hold education in.
Ash Can
@El Cid: Moreover, it’s not like firefighters need any kind of training to do their jobs. What could possibly go wrong?
Tom Johnson
This doesn’t strike me as especially egregious. The woman made a political ad — so forget any concept of violation of privacy, arguingwithsingposts. She voluntarily inserted herself into the political realm, and political communications is rightly the most protected under the First Amendment. The opposition put together a response ad that used a key statement from the first ad, which fits firmly into fair use.
She may not like that they did that, but assuming the didn’t libel or ridicule her, its a legitimate part of the political discourse. Does anyone really believe that political campaigns shouldn’t be allowed to excerpt advertising from their opposition? Really?
Xenos
I am astonished at the breakdown in public morality here.
How do these right-wing ratfuckers expect to face their neighbors after pulling these stunts? Do they think their children will love and respect them for being accomplished liars? I don’t expect them to stay up late at night contemplating their sins, but do they not fear, at some level, the effect of screwing over thousands of their fellow citizens, making for tens of thousands of embittered, emboldened enemies?
I am not calling for the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Red Brigades, but some version of that will come around eventually if these guys keep this up. In the age of Anonymous these crooks are not as safe as they think they are.
Ash Can
@Xenos: They have no neighbors, they raise their children to be the same sociopaths they are, and screwing over their fellow citizens is a feature, not a bug.
arguingwithsignposts
@Tom Johnson:
Violation of privacy has four facets: (1) the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one’s personality, (2) the publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, (3) the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities. (4) the “false light” theory.
I was asking the question, and it’s a fair one. The use definitely wouldn’t fall under 2 or 3. It’s true that it might not have legs, but it’s worth asking.
JCT
I think Kay’s original point, that the Republican’s just “lie all the time” is the bottom line for this and next year’s campaign season. Everyone is used to campaigns and ads “blurring the truth” or exaggerating a position, but out and out baldfaced lying is the new normal. Did you guys catch any of last night’s debate? If you took a shot everytime one of those assholes told an outright lie you would be dead from alcohol poisoning in the first half hour. It’s astonishing. It seems at this point any ad from the pro-sb5 contigent should be assumed to be fraudulent from the get-go.
Grannygate, heh. Good on plunderbund for exposing this nonsense, the Republicans seem to never play fair, time to point it out relentlessly.
kay
@Tom Johnson:
Well, three television stations pulled the ads because it’s deceptive, whether it’s unlawful or not is interesting, but really beside the point.
The ad deliberately deceives. It’s a lie. That’s why it’s objectionable.
kay
@Xenos:
I think that’s how it wil be perceived. It’s already being framed that way, as a dishonest act.
No one will care if it’s strictly lawful or not, so I hope Republicans bring out the lawyers, and argue that :)
Steve
Of course it’s common for Obama to run an ad that starts with a clip from a McCain ad and then responds to that clip.
The difference, for those who need it spelled out, is that nobody sees the clip from the McCain ad and thinks that McCain is supporting Obama.
Here, anyone who wasn’t familiar with the original granny ad would be misled into thinking that the nice granny with the sympathetic story supports the opposite position. That’s why this ad is deceptive and Obama showing a clip of McCain is not.
Tom Johnson
I don’t know enough about the financial situation to know if its a lie or not. I certainly don’t agree with the policy. But it is a nice illustration of what Charles Peters calls “The Fireman First” principle, which is the strategy of preserving spending by claiming the first cuts will come in popular program like police and fire protection, rather than something less appreciated. If there are, in fact, cuts that must be made to support pensions, there are probably lots of programs that would have less impact than firefighters. But you go right to firefighting because no one wants to cut that.
As for privacy, @arguingwithsignposts, I’m not a lawyer, but number one on your list sounds more like a right of publicity, which she sacrificed by inserting herself into the political discussion in the first place. It’s like you can’t make a statement in front of the city council and then tell people they can’t excerpt it in ways you do’t like. Number Four sounds like my exception for defamation or ridicule. They certainly didn’t claim anything but that she was mistaken, which is entirely legitimate, even if wrong.
And I really am curious: what do you think the result would be if we made it impossible for political campaigns to excerpt each other’s advertising in order to refute it? Do you think that would improve the quality of our political discourse? Wouldn’t it, in fact, make it possible for people to run even more ridiculously distorted ads, knowing that they couldn’t be used as evidence against them?
kay
@Steve:
The AP has it this morning as eight stations pulling it:
They’re sending the stations lawyer letters to get it back up, which is great.
I think we should discuss whether the law’s backers lie a lot for weeks, here in Ohio :)
Napoleon
@kay:
Actually it is up to 11 stations as of 6 this morn.
Dr. Squid
@kay: I especially liked the line: Imagine if Obama made an ad implying that Joe the Plumber endorsed him.
It really is no different.
kay
@Tom Johnson:
No one is “making it impossible” to do anything. If it’s within Ohio law, they may do it. The question is if it’s ethical, within community norms, which is what the opposition is highlighting. I don’t think it is. Are these people credible, having done this?
I didn’t say lying is illegal, or I wanted to bar lying in some formal sense. The sanction for a lie is getting called out on it and the loss of credibility that results. They can lie, and people can object to the lie.
RSA
@kay:
That’s my perception. The great-grandmother is an iconic social figure, but she’s also someone we can all identify with. It makes you think (or at least, it makes me think), “You mean if I express an opinion, some anonymous group with lots of money can make it seem as if I’ve said the opposite? How is that fair?”
Ash Can
@Tom Johnson:
“The lie” has nothing to do with any financial situations. The lie is the fact that the message of the person who made the video is being misrepresented to indicate that it is the exact opposite of what it actually was.
This isn’t difficult. You’re overanalyzing it.
kay
@Ash Can:
The firefighters who responded and saved the three year old are insulted, too. They’re saying Marlene made the ad to “thank them”, and “anti-worker” politicians are twisting her words.
Here’s one standing in front of his Local’s banner.
They’re going to have a great time with this.
Ash Can
@kay: You’ve already said it, and I second it: Heaven bless the people who broke, and are publicizing, this story. Fucking with local-hero firefighters and great-grandma together? Way to hand your side a PR disaster. No wonder the lowlifes who made the ad want to remain anonymous.
artem1s
It makes me think “why would I trust these guys to represent my interests in anything, let alone how kids get educated, health care distributed, or fires put out?”
Their argument has been ‘the average guy gets screwed because the DFH teachers/unions only care about their own benefits and pay (also.too having good pay and benefits only makes you a lazy).’
I’m thinking their own hubris in dealing with this ad will only bring their natural behavior out into the cold light of day. They could have pulled this and had a replacement up and running in very little time. Instead they are going to waste time and money sicking lawyers on the media outlets pulling the ad.
Please, please King John, keep demonstrating just exactly how you will behave once collective bargaining is a thing of the past.
Hmmm....
I just went and view the Cleveland TV link… the conservative liars who made the lyin’ ad declined to be interviewed on TV…
…but, predictably, claimed that they HAD to resort to these tactics… because “the other side” uses them.
Paging Corey Robin…
http://coreyrobin.com/new-book/
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Tom Johnson: I think that when the excerpting becomes deceptive, as it is in this case, it’s a different story. Granted, election law is complicated, but at least some experts believe as I do that the deception changes the issue. Fortunately, we have some good election counsel who are Democrats and in [email protected]kay: It’s very cool that Plunderbund broke the story, and remarkable as well that the very red Cincinnati Enquirer published (for that paper) a rather balanced story that wasn’t all Republican spin. SB5 backers lie. Period, the end.
Ash Can
@kay: Also, this reminds me of a not-quite-OT anecdote that in recent days has struck me as interesting. I’ve been watching the baseball playoffs (and I may have seen this on football broadcasts as well), and Budweiser has been running an ad featuring various people in various situations making toasts (with Budweiser, of course). One scene is of a group of very obviously unionized firefighters at a testimonial dinner, with the speaker saying, “So let’s stand with our brothers!” When you’ve lost the cheap-beer drinkers…
Marc
You’d be unethical if you edited a tape so that someone appeared to be saying the opposite of what the full tape showed.
If they showed her saying something in context, then put up a counter-argument, that would be different. This is much closer to editing
“I strongly oppose the union support of Obama” to
I strongly….support…Obama.”
The argument by Tom is veering into sophist territory.
Paris
@El Cid: Apparently the magic free hand of the market prefers public investments into fire fighters.
PeakVT
Conservatives really just lie constantly:
Well of course they do. Who would vote for them if they were honest?
BTD
@Tom Johnson:
Nope. It’s false advertising.
rikryah
all they know how to do it lie and deceive. it is who they are.
piratedan
@Tom Johnson: “This is especially egregious. Does anyone really believe that they did advertising protected under the First Amendment?”
see Tom, here are your words, taken from your post and they come out meaning something completely different from what you implied and intended to say and support, but then again, you should have known better because you were posting on a political blog, neh?
S. cerevisiae
@Ash Can: Budweiser iz eeeleetist! Real merkins drink Milwaukees Be(a)st!
Tom Johnson
First, @arguingwithsignposts advocated suing based on a violation of privacy. My original response was to that suggestion, and I thought to myself as I wrote it: “I bet this is going to spin out of control.” I wrote it anyway, because I’m a big fan of free speech even for Republicans, and I take my pedantry out for a walk whenever anyone suggests counterproductive things like suing people over political ads.
Second, I’m at a disadvantage because I haven’t seen the actual commercial. I’m relying on the transcript, which I read (perhaps incorrectly) as a response to a widely circulated ad. I assumed that in the second ad, the first ad was presented in a way that made it clear the second ad was a response. (Are you following this, because I’m getting a little confused.) For example, the image of the first ad appeared in the second on a television screen, to show it was from another ad entirely.
If, in fact, the video was slipped into the second ad in a way that made it appear to be an original part of that ad, then it is slimy, and worthy of being called a lie. Perhaps someone could link to the ad and we could all see whether I’m a big jerk or whether maybe this is a post that’s maybe just a teeny wee little bit overstating the scale of the offense.
@BTD, false advertising is a concept that has little legal relevance in political advertising — and thank goodness for that. If the same truth-in-advertising standards were applied to political speech as commercial speech, imagine the army of lawyers that would be enriched policing political campaigns. Every time Mitt Romney claimed to be a regular guy, some Ivy league nob in pinstripes would get a new vacation home. The candidate with the best and most tenacious lawyers would control what everyone in every campaign could say, and the chilling effect of SLAPP suits would kill meaningful political expression.
@Marc — you say I’m “veering into sophist territory.” Well, duh. These are blog comments. You expect real insight?
Finally, @piratedan, thank you so much for the vivid illustration of what out-of-context means. My understanding is that this case is not anything like your illustration, but still.
debbie
Building a Better Ohio pulled the ad, and then my local tv station pulled the We Are Ohio original ad. Yeah, that’s fair.
Shallot
@Tom Johnson: If you click on the Plunderbund link in Kay’s original post, it has both the original Grandma ad (video #1) and the Building a Better Ohio version (video #3) that I’ve been seeing on local television. The BBO version made me do a double take– if I hadn’t seen the original, I wouldn’t have known the lady was actually against Issue 2.