A nasty pattern of scorched earth political advertizing on behalf of Republicans is emerging. (cross posted at slothropia.com)
Submitted for your consideration, a series of news stories. Do they constitute a pattern? The question is, of course, rhetorical.
Item #1. Glenn Greenwald points us to this story in the Cincinatti Enquirer:
Ken Blackwell's gubernatorial campaign today distributed harsh comments by radio talk show host Bill Cunningham related to Ted Strickland's sexuality and about a former campaign aide arrested in 1994 for public indecency.
In a news statement emailed to Statehouse reporters, the campaign reprinted a transcript from Wednesday night's Fox News' Hannity and Colmes television show. The show's co-host, Sean Hannity, is a Blackwell supporter, who will be in Blue Ash for a Blackwell rally today. They also sent out a digital video version.
Cunningham, who hosts a talk radio show on WLW radio, was a guest on the program. During the TV broadcast, Cunningham questioned the Democratic congressman's sexuality -- even after Strickland declared Wednesday: "No, I am not gay, although it is none of their business in the first place."
Item #2. From the UK Independent:
In California, a struggling Republican congressman called John Doolittle has argued that since his opponent, Charlie Brown, is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, and since the ACLU has in the past defended Nambla's free-speech rights, he is tainted by association. "It is astounding," Mr Doolittle said in a recent press release, "that anyone could defend a group dedicated to aiding and abetting paedophiles." (Mr Doolittle failed to mention that he once acted as a character witness for a friend convicted of sexually assaulting six of his patients.)
The Nambla charge has also been thrown at Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco congresswoman who would become the next Speaker of the House if the Democrats win a majority on 7 November and who has thus become a multi-purpose pincushion for the Republicans. The maverick right-winger and erstwhile presidential candidate Pat Buchanan told a television interviewer this week that Ms Pelosi had been on gay pride parades where Nambla members were also present and had thus been "marching with paedophiles".
Item #3. Tennessee Guerilla Women present this Republican ad.
This is not just negative campaigining. I see nothing wrong with candidates attacking and critiquing each other over policy or over proven corrupt practices. But attacking someone over their sexuality, and even worse making shit up about it, should be punishable by no less than 5 years in the big house.
I realize that this kind of smear campaigning is not a new tactic for Republicans. I believe, however, based on nothing but my own recollection that the GOP is setting new high marks for brazeness. My perception has always been that smears like these are almost always delivered in a whisper campaign or through carefully targetted mailings, and not via electronic or mainstream print media.
I also realize that Democrats are not immune to the temptation to use smear tactics in the heat of a campaign. No one who participates in electoral politics is. But i am not aware of anything from the Democrats that approaches the slimy examples I have presented above (although I don't know why Larry Craig's sexuality has all of a sudden become such a hot topic).
Add the inevitable "Bin Laden supports Democrats" theme and soft on terror accusation from Republicans Re Dems and I think you have a complete inventory of all the arrows in the GOP quiver.
The Republicans are desperate, and Rove is playing the only game he knows and playing it as hard as he can. Will it work? Will the GOP retain control of at least one congressional chamber? Can they minimize the damage at least?
Stay tuned.
Update: See Billmon for a much more comprehrensive take on this topic.