RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama Campaign Tells TV Stations Not to Run NRA TV Ads
September 26, 2008 12:37 PM
In this letter sent this week to TV station managers from Obama campaign general counsel Bob Bauer, obtained by ABC News, the Obama campaign argues that a TV ad by the National Rifle Association should not air.
"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"
The Obama campaign takes issue with an ad called "Hunter," pointing out that claims in the ad were called "false" by Factcheck.org, and was given three Pinocchios by the Washington Post's "Factchecker."
"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," writes Bauer. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."
In response, Cleta Mitchell, Counsel to the NRA, fired back in a letter to station managers that the fact checkers in this case are wrong.
"We respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys," Mitchell writes. You can read more of Mitchell's letter at the blog of Ben Smith of Politico, who reprinted it in full.
- jpt
September 26, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (88)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The document that the lawyer wrote seems to prove that there is no proof that the Ads were incorrect. Also, I've seen Obama's voting record. He has voted in support of infringing on gun ownership repeatedly. Didn't he ban handguns in Chicago? Is it safer now? Screw that, I'm joining the NRA. Anyone got their phone number?
Posted by: JF | Sep 27, 2008 11:22:11 PM
Has the McCain campaign attempted to take down Obama ads through legal intimidation? No.
Posted by: Captain America | Sep 27, 2008 1:43:29 PM
Simply stated: If there is a political ad run that Obama doesn't like, he takes legal measures to suppress it.
DOES THIS BOTHER ANY OF YOU OBAMA SUPPORTERS?
Posted by: Rianna | Sep 27, 2008 12:24:55 PM
Notice a pattern here? There is an Obama-sponsored "Truth Squad" in Missouri to combat any "perceived" lies about Obama on the airwaves; Sen. Barack Obama has warned TV stations and asking the Justice Department to intervene in an attempt to block the airing of an ad by a non-profit group that links him to an unrepentant domestic terrorist; now this latest ABC News Obama-censorship story. Meanwhile, The New York Times ran a story yesterday stating that FIVE of Obama's anti-McCain adds (including the stem-cell ad) contain FALSE information and LIES about McCain. Obama is NOT playing fair, but playing his friendly mainstream media. This suppression of free speech by Obama & friends should warn all of you of what is to come if he wins. SCARY!
Posted by: Rianna | Sep 27, 2008 12:08:16 PM
If ABC had the guts to air some more of the REAL truth about 'O', and his shady background, they would gain so much market-share, their invertors would be proud. (see FoxNews)
Posted by: Majordad | Sep 27, 2008 11:33:19 AM
You people that blame our gas prices on Bush need to get your facts straight. It was people like Obama that banned offshore drilling which would have made our gas prices lower. our economy right now is crap because of the gas prices, its a vicious cycle that we are stuck in because we cant drill for oil. people are losing their houses because it costs them hundreds of dollars a week to drive to work. Vote for a president who wants to keep this us NOWAY! Mcain/palin 08
Posted by: patrick | Sep 27, 2008 7:38:01 AM
This is to Jessica I would rather have a Bush the third then a Jimmy Carter the second. I don't believe you understand the dangerous policies Obama believes, or that he is exactly like Carter. I already pay my share in taxes I don't wish to pay more. Also, I am from Illinois so I know exactly who Barack is a man who would rather send a man to prison for shooting someone in self-defense, because a gun ban exsists, then make gang members eligible for the death penalty in a drive by shooting. Grow up.
Posted by: Candy | Sep 27, 2008 6:30:53 AM
I am an independent voter and my vote could go either way. But you can't persuade me to vote for Bush Jr...McCain! If anyone need to wake up it's the people who do not realize what a steak and stake president Bush has had in oil, and just how John McCain plans personally to follow him into financial bliss! He got his wife Cindy and all her beer baroness inherited money, now John's after the big gun! And that's oil! John McCain will even appease his potential voters "to get them off track" so that he can get in office and get his hands on the biggest asset right now and that's oil~!
An oil slick is coming... and you will not be able to hold on, because this deal is a personal deal made by Bush and subscribed to by John McCain. John wants his turn at oil investing internationally (who cares the cost at home) so long as John and his financial buddies get a piece of the national pie!
If your voting for John McCain, I hope you get some "interest" for the pain!
Obama/Biden08
Posted by: Jessica | Sep 27, 2008 2:56:05 AM
McCain may not be the ideal person to serve as president, but at least he doesnt want our freedoms like Obama does, at least McCain didnt disrespect our anthem and flag as obama did, and at least McCain wont disarm us and then seek to enslave us as Obama will if elected. People who vote for Obama will be like sheep willfully heading off to be slaughtered. Wake up and do the research America.
Posted by: james ward | Sep 27, 2008 1:21:35 AM
I live in Phila. and I remember Frank Rizzo using the same thug tactics as "southside Barry". Things never change , I think its time for the Republicans to let loose with all "guns". That would include alot more NRA Ads.
Posted by: Jim | Sep 26, 2008 7:44:16 PM
What, he doesn't support the First Amendment either??
Posted by: Sam Mosin | Sep 26, 2008 6:46:28 PM
Chicago thuggery at its finest. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is what we have to look forward to if Barack wins this thing.
Posted by: mom2-3 | Sep 26, 2008 5:09:11 PM
It seems that Obama thinks he,s Hugo Chavez and Vladimar Putin. Threten the Press and any group and shut it down.
Do we want a man like that in the white house? God I hope not! Wake Up America!
Posted by: Peter Hammond | Sep 26, 2008 4:39:36 PM
GO NRA - Keep running those ads, right on!
Obama has no morals nor does he have class or integrity. He is fighting to keep those ads off, but he continues to run ads that make John McCain look sick, old and not able to use a computer.
Posted by: jc | Sep 26, 2008 4:19:17 PM
Jake, I have a question for you. Aren't you (or ABC) a little concerned about freedom of speech issues with Obama at the helm? Okay, sure you guys on the right side of the issues now but what if he and/or the Democrats do something that the news business feels it should report even though it isn't flattering to the Democrats? Is the 'Truth Squad' going to hit you guys too?
Posted by: mak | Sep 26, 2008 3:30:51 PM
Barack Obama. He knows what's good for you. Even if you don't.
Posted by: WylieD | Sep 26, 2008 3:30:08 PM
Actually, the McCain campaign has run ads based on Factcheck - misleading ads, sure - but they used Factcheck as their basis. Now Factcheck is wrong?
Posted by: mara | Sep 26, 2008 3:28:28 PM
Last I checked, the 1st Amendment didn't have a clause that allowed restrictions on free speech if David Axelrod thought it unfair to his candidate.
In fact, Obama is on record supporting Chicago's ban on handguns. And there is that inconvenient questionnaire his campaign submitted then denied. The worker who filled out the questionnaire is on record as stating that it accurately reflected Obama's views.
Posted by: WylieD | Sep 26, 2008 3:27:47 PM
I am truly concerned for the future of our country if this man is elected. He has already used legal means several times in order to get what he wants - with FL and MI re-voting in the primaries; blocking the Ayers ad through these same legal maneuverings; his infamous clearing of the field with his opponents in Chicago.
He's sly as h*ll and I don't trust him one bit. Any other politician with his radical associations would have been taken out of the race by now. Please research for yourself ACORN and then realize that not only is that the group Obama did his community organizing through, but he was also their attorney through years of charges of voter fraud.
Wake up America! A revolution is happening and 3/4 of the voters are sleeping through it!
Posted by: marylou | Sep 26, 2008 3:22:04 PM
Team Obama is starting to freak me out. On Drudge there is a link to a news station in MO that reports that Obama now has prosecutors and sheriffs involved in making sure false or misleading ads are not put on TV. They say nothing about false or misleading ads put out by their own campaign ... only their competitor. By whose standards are they going to consider an ad false or misleading?
Posted by: mak | Sep 26, 2008 3:19:05 PM
Post a comment


