Those who vote for Democrats only aid the terrorists.

February 17, 2002 11:01 AM

Those who vote for Democrats only aid the terrorists. "In a series of TV and radio ads in each of five states hosting top Senate contests, President Bush utters the tag line to a narrated paragraph slamming the Democratic senator of that state for being partisan during a time of national duress." Has anyone seen any of these ads? What did you think of them?
posted by homunculus (27 comments total)

Gigantic, impossibly stupid error in the article: Jean Carnahan is most certainly not up for reelection in 2002. She's a senator, not a representative. She's up for reelection in 2006.
posted by raysmj at 11:18 AM on February 17, 2002

Offensive. Distasteful. Republican. I'd like to think that the majority of Americans can see through this kind of propagandistic crap, but I'm more cynical than that. You'd think that those politicians sticking to their beliefs during a time of duress would be admired, not criticized. Otherwise, they'd be nothing more than puppets for the influential.
posted by mrbarrett.com at 11:21 AM on February 17, 2002

It's not an error, raysmj - Carnahan's appointment to fill her late husband's seat only lasts until the next election cycle. So she is, indeed, up for re-election in 2002. Her opponent is former Rep. Jim Talent, who narrowly lost the governor's race in 2000. It will likely be a very tight race.
posted by Chanther at 11:36 AM on February 17, 2002

Offensive and distasteful indeed, but hardly exclusively Republican. That's American politics for ya.
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:36 AM on February 17, 2002

Gigantic, impossibly stupid error by raysmj: Jean Carnahan is up for [re?]election in 2002, primarily because it was her deceased husband that was elected, not her. She took his place in the Senate in a two-year appointed term, but is up for election in 2002 to complete the last 4 years of the term as Senator.
posted by hincandenza at 11:36 AM on February 17, 2002

Curses.... Chanther beat me by mere seconds. I would have posted first if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!
posted by hincandenza at 11:37 AM on February 17, 2002

OK, sorry. But I don't get how Missouri could do that.
posted by raysmj at 11:38 AM on February 17, 2002

We haven't seen them here in Minnesota yet, where the Republicans are aiming for Wellstone. But we will.
posted by gimonca at 11:50 AM on February 17, 2002

But I don't get how Missouri could do that.

Neither does anybody else. The words "election fraud" were uttered quietly in certain circles at the time, but Jim Talent presumably decided not to push the issue. Carnahan was a grieving widow at the time, after all.
posted by gd779 at 11:52 AM on February 17, 2002

Article 1, Section 3. Nothing in there about two-year appointments after a win by a dead candidate. There is a bit in Article 4 about states having the right to regulate elections, but this seems rather iffy. Did Congress intervene in some fashion, or did all immediately affected parties agree not to pitch a fit, given that the term was two years rather than the constitutional six? In case, the final blame still has to go with the author of the story. Carnahan's coming up for reelection in 2002 should have been explained. Would've taken one sentence, at most.
posted by raysmj at 11:58 AM on February 17, 2002

17th Amendment too. But still . . .
posted by raysmj at 12:14 PM on February 17, 2002

The partisan act of endorsing a friendly candidate because the oppositions candidate is too partisan is rather like telling someone to stop being so controlling; using the tactics you condem seems rather contradictory/hypocritical, unless you are speaking of politics where only the very naive expect honesty and integrity.
posted by Mack Twain at 12:45 PM on February 17, 2002

From http://www.senate.gov/learning/stat_19.html:

Appointed Senators

The 17th Amendment to the Constitution (1913) established direct election of senators, as well as a means of filling vacant Senate seats. If a vacancy occurs due to a senator's death, resignation, or expulsion, the 17th Amendment allows state legislatures to empower the governor to appoint a replacement to complete the term or to hold office until a special election can take place. (The only exception to this rule is Arizona, which requires a special election to fill all vacancies and does not allow for temporary appointments.) Typically, a replacement holds office until the next scheduled statewide election.

Missouri's next statewide election is November 2002.
posted by aaron at 1:32 PM on February 17, 2002

Offensive. Distasteful. Republican. I'd like to think that the majority of Americans can see through this kind of propagandistic crap, but I'm more cynical than that.

What did you think of that NAACP anti-Bush race-baiting ad in 2000? You know, the one that practically said Bush was responsible for the dragging-to-death-behind-a-truck murder of a black man just because he didn't sign a hate crimes bill several years after the man's death. Offensive? Distasteful? It certainly wasn't Republican.

And how about the example in the penultimate paragraph of that link?

Two years ago, the Missouri Democratic Party ran this radio ad: "When you don't vote, you let another church explode. When you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don't vote, you let another assault wound a brother or sister. When you don't vote, you let the Republicans continue to cut school lunches and Head Start."

Is the Missouri Democratic Party Republican?

Those sorts of ads are disgusting. Any attempt to falsely claim that only a Republican could ever run such an ad is also disgusting.

And I'm reserving comment on whether the ads homunculus refers to in the top post are even in the same league as the ads I just mentioned, since I haven't seen them and can't find a transcript of them.
posted by aaron at 1:48 PM on February 17, 2002

Aaron: I had just mentioned, and included a link to, the 17th Amendment. Still sounds like a deal to me, but on to other things, OK?
posted by raysmj at 2:01 PM on February 17, 2002

As one who comes from a state with a Democratic Senator up for election this year, I would like to applaud Max Baucus for undercutting any such drivel from the Republicans, by prominently featuring GW in his ads. Dubya is praising Baucus (as chair of the Senate finance commitee) for his by-partisan efforts. I would welcome the Republicans to show the linked style ads in Montana if for no other reason than to show Dubya's hypocracy and ignorance of the political environment around him.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:37 PM on February 17, 2002

I must admire the way Bush has managed to redefine "bipartisan" as "doing what I want."
posted by solistrato at 3:12 PM on February 17, 2002

Okay, fine. Offensive. Distasteful. Democratic. Both parties disgust me.

We need a 3rd party not vulnerable to hijacking by the wealthy and the corporations, but that's a different thread/topic entirely...
posted by mrbarrett.com at 3:21 PM on February 17, 2002

Aaron: I had just mentioned, and included a link to, the 17th Amendment. Still sounds like a deal to me, but on to other things, OK?

Hey, you added that "But still..." at the end of your post, so I thought you were still confused. Not trying to drown you in data or anything.

Okay, fine. Offensive. Distasteful. Democratic. Both parties disgust me.

Thank you! <g>
posted by aaron at 3:35 PM on February 17, 2002

We need a 3rd party not vulnerable to hijacking by the wealthy and the corporations, but that's a different thread/topic entirely...

Why? You actually think Nader or Perot would have been any better than Gush or Bore? There are parties "not vulnerable" - turns out, however, that the American people don't seem to like them. Perhaps, just perhaps (unlike the apparent majority on this board, for whom the US can do nothing right), large numbers in this country don't see their own interests as being in opposition to corporations?

Reading MiFi one could easily come to believe this country was headed down the tubes. Strangely enough, here we are, with the most dynamic, powerful economy in the world, and one of the most stable political systems on earth.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:29 PM on February 17, 2002

GD779, what does Jim Talent have to do with the outcome of the Mel Carnahan/John Ashcroft 2000 Senate race, anyway? Your post makes no sense.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:39 PM on February 17, 2002

Strangely enough, here we are, with the most dynamic, powerful economy in the world, and one of the most stable political systems on earth.

Which, every few years, causes inexcusable abuses by those "in charge," Enron being only the latest.

My argument is that our "stable political system" has become corrupt and seems to serve more the corporations and the wealthy rather than the average citizen. How else can things like Enron (and Whitewhater and S&L scandal, ad nasuem) happen and continue to happen.

It's not about voting for Nader or Perot. It's about objecting to the corruption of the system.
posted by mrbarrett.com at 5:54 PM on February 17, 2002

I don't think that a third party will be any more immune to corruption by money than the two current parties are. Why would it be? The system itself leads to it's domination by moneyed interests, and it is that system that needs to be change. Then all parties will be free of undue monetary influence, and we can have as many or as few parties as we want.
posted by donkeymon at 6:30 PM on February 17, 2002

"My argument is that our "stable political system" has become corrupt and seems to serve more the corporations and the wealthy rather than the average citizen."

Has become corrupt? My goodness ... study history. You are aware, I'n sure, that political candidates (for instance) cannot openly buy voters gifts to get their votes, yes? Know where that law came from? In the summer of 1757, Colonel George Washington lost the first election he ran in (for a local seat). Country was still under British rule of course, this was a couple of decades before the revolution. He went down in flames. Got 40 out of 580 or so votes.

Next election he won by a landslide - got 300 or so votes. During that election, his political agents in Frederick County provided around 160 gallons of liquor to the constituency (28 gallons of rum, 50 of rum punch, 34 of wine, 46 of beer, 2 of cider ... according to "American Revolutionaries in the Making" by the historian Charles Sydnor). He bought, in other words, and delivered well over a quart of liquor per voter. Immediately after this election, the House of Burgesses passed a law disqualifying any candidate that gave (either directly, or through an agent) voters presents, gifts, rewards or entertainment in order to get elected.

That's right, the first anti-corruption law passed in this country (or rather, in the precursor to this country) was the result of George Washinton having pretty much flat out bought his first elected office.

We do have a "stable political system". Not because people are pure and perfect, but because we've designed our system assuming people are self-interested and imperfect. The system is less dominated by "moneyed interests" than it was 200 years ago for goodness sake.

It has always seemed foolish to waste too much breath condemning "corruption", if one is going to say that what we really need is to get to some ideal system where it no longer exists. Such a system has never existed on earth. America is not the ideal - but in many ways it is far more transparent, and less corrupt, than a good deal of both current and historical systems of government. (You want real corruption in a democracy, try India ... bribery is close to being institutionalized there).

Anyone that wants to preach loudly about how terrible "corruption" is will always be able to. It has never been absent from human affairs. What we have in the US is a system that mitigates it's effects probably as well as any have been able to.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:28 PM on February 17, 2002

Midas -- are you somehow arguing that corruption at its current level in US politics is what you want? What I think the anti-corruption posters want is a gov't that represents them rather than the organizations that do a candidate the most "favors."

Also reacting to a previous post: We may have a vibrant economy (which is arguable, looking at my *cough* 401k statement) but that has nothing at all to do with the state of corruption in the gov't. in 1939 Germany had an amazing economy and there was a dark influence that had undermined their democratic system. Corporate influence in gov't is (I would most certainly say) developing unchecked and developing a dark side. What the corporations want that buy influence in government is not usually good for people. Why? Because if they only wanted what was good for the people they would not have to pay politicians to share their point of view. If the corperate influence takes over we're all eventually going to be living in love canal and eating PCB's in our breakfast cereal.
posted by n9 at 5:05 AM on February 18, 2002

I don't know how many of you know who Jean Carnahan won the Senate seat from... Our new Attorney General, John Ashcroft. As a native of Missouri, I can tell you that there was this great, long running battle between Carnahan and Ashcroft that closely resembled your basic fight between good and evil. I was ecstatic when Ashcroft was beaten down by a dead man in the last election, and then absolutely terrified when he was appointed to the Attorney General seat.
posted by kaibutsu at 5:38 AM on February 18, 2002

I can tell you that there was this great, long running battle between Carnahan and Ashcroft that closely resembled your basic fight between good and evil.

or your basic fight between mediocre and ignorant, rather :)

We get a lot of laughs over the election antics of our River City brethren over here in almost-but-not-quite-sensible Illinois. In any event, Hin's right, Jean Carnahan is running for election, not re-election. She has never been elected to any public office, never "won" anything. Knowing Jim Talent's fundraising prowess, debating skill, and moderate stance on many hotbutton issues, it is possible she may retain the honor of never having been elected to any public office.
posted by UncleFes at 3:18 PM on February 18, 2002