Inhofe's Fred Davis Racist GOP Attack Ads

[Teatownclown]

I see Fred Davis name attached to the latest allegedly racist GOP ads...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/michigan-senate-candidate-criticized-for-racially-insensitive-super-bowl-ad/


PIGS!


More: http://www.angryblacklady.com/2012/02/06/more-on-moron-pete-hoekstras-racist-super-bowl-ad/

[Conan71]

Out of those who read the article, 86% says it isn't racist.

"Thank you for voting!
Yes, it's over the line  3.42%  (101 votes)


No, are you kidding?  86.1%  (2,539 votes)


I don't think it is, but I can see how some might think so  10.48%  (309 votes)"



Total Votes: 2,949
Return To PollShare This

It's pretty weak tea calling it racist, but it does expose how our government has sold out the American worker with trade agreements and stimulus money going to Chinese firms.

[nathanm]

http://americawhatwentwrong.org/story/american-steal-how-us-steelworkers-lost-china/

[Teatownclown]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-money-is-funding-more-election-ads/2012/02/03/gIQAfTxEuQ_story.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

Secret money is funding more election ads
By Dan Eggen, Monday, February 6, 11:24 AM

More than a third of the advertising tied to the presidential race has been funded by nonprofit groups that will never have to reveal their donors, suggesting that a significant portion of the 2012 elections will be wrapped in a vast cloak of secrecy.

The bulk of the secret money spent so far has come from conservative groups seeking to propel a Republican into the White House, advertising data shows. Millions of dollars in additional spending from both sides has poured into legislative races, such as the Senate contest in Massachusetts, that could help determine which party controls Congress in 2013.

The flow of funds is part of a wave of spending by outside groups that has quickly come to dominate the 2012 presidential contest, particularly by so-called "super PACs" that have few limits on their activities.

But unlike super PACs, politically minded nonprofit groups are under no obligation to disclose the corporations, unions or wealthy tycoons bankrolling their advertising, much of which is almost indistinguishable from regular political ads run by campaigns.

The end result is a presidential race heavily influenced by organizations and their funders who will remain largely in the shadows.

"I don't think we've seen these kind of groups acting so aggressively in election-related activity as we see now," said Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California in Irvine. "This is pure secret money .... The goal is to avoid disclosure."

Nonprofit "social welfare" organizations and other tax-exempt groups with confidential donors have spent more than $24 million in the 2012 cycle on political ads naming President Obama or, less frequently, his Republican rivals, according to a Washington Post analysis of data supplied by Kantar Media/CMAG, which tracks ad spending. That accounts for about 40 percent of the money estimated to have been spent so far on advertising related to the presidential candidates.

Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit group backed by GOP political guru Karl Rove, has spent more than $10 million on ads targeting Obama over the federal deficit, energy policies and other issues in the 2012 cycle. American Crossroads, a sister group registered as a super PAC, has spent just $133,000 on such ads, the data show.

The disparity means that nearly all of the broadcast messages that voters have encountered from the Crossroads groups were paid for by persons unknown.The super PAC side of the operation reported taking in $18.2 million in 2011, including $7 million from Texas billionaire Harold Simmons and his company; the nonprofit side raised almost twice as much from unidentified donors.

Spokesman Jonathan Collegio said Crossroads GPS is no different than tens of thousands of other nonprofits, from ideological groups to charities, that are entitled to keep their contributors confidential.

"Private organizations don't have to disclose their donor lists to the government at their beck and call," Collegio said. "Those who want to support the Crossroads groups have a choice of whether they want to give to a more political- or issue-oriented effort, and they make their decisions according to their tastes and preferences."

Another top spender so far is Americans for Prosperity, a Washington-based group that has ties to two conservative brothers who run the Koch Industries oil-and-gas conglomerate; David Koch is chairman of the group's foundation.

Americans for Prosperity has spent nearly $7 million on ads targeting Obama, including a spot criticizing his administration's handling of the Solyndra government loan guarantee that prompted a response ad from the Obama campaign. Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity's president, said he expects the organization will exceed $50 million in total spending, including ads and grassroots organizing, in 2012.

Phillips defended the ability to keep donors under wraps, saying the group "works in the public policy arena more than the political arena." He also cited concerns that donors could be targeted for harassment by the Obama administration and liberal groups.

"This administration, and politicians in general, want to seek retribution with people who disagree with them," Phillips said.

Obama has complained loudly about the influence of "secret billionaires" on the political system, and Senate Democrats are reviving efforts to force disclosure by nonprofit groups that run political ads.

But Democrats also enjoy support from many groups that rely on undisclosed contributors, including unions and environmental groups. Two super PACs helping Democrats in 2012, American Bridge 21st Century and Priorities USA Action, have accepted transfers of more than $200,000 each from their nonprofit arms — meaning that a portion of their budgets were effectively paid for by secret donors.

American Bridge officials said its $246,000 transfer covered administrative expenses under a cost-sharing agreement between the two sister groups. Priorities USA did not respond to a request for comment.

A general surge in spending by outside groups, first seen during the 2010 elections, is due in part to a series of court rulings, including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , that have made it easier for corporations and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.

That environment led to the rise of super PACs — more than 300 are now registered with the FEC — that can raise and spend unlimited amounts as long as they do not coordinate directly with candidates. The catch is that such PACs must disclose donors — leading an increasing number of publicity-shy contributors to use nonprofits to cloak their political spending, experts say.

Under U.S. tax laws, certain types of nonprofit groups can keep contributors confidential as long as their "primary purpose" is not politics, a definition that is the focus of fierce dispute in legal circles. The Internal Revenue Service has been cautious about treading too heavily, leaving many groups to in effect police themselves, many experts say.

The rule of thumb for social-welfare groups, business groups and other nonprofits is that they must spend less than half of their budget on election activities to avoid disclosure of donors. Many nonprofits contend that leaves them free to spend the rest of their budget on so-called "issue ads," which often include scathing and pointed attacks on individual politicians but don't explicitly tell viewers how to vote.

Crossroads GPS — which is still awaiting approval of its nonprofit status by the IRS — is currently on the air with an ad attacking Obama for the administration's loan guarantee to failed solar firm Solyndra, calling it a "big-government fiasco" that left "laid off workers forgotten." But the ad never urges viewers to vote in a certain way.

"Tell President Obama we need jobs, not more insider deals," the ad concludes.

Donald Tobin, a tax-law professor at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, said political advocacy groups are taking advantage of a murky legal landscape between tax and election laws.

Tobin argues that many of the social-welfare groups now spending big on campaigns are flouting the intent of tax laws, which did not envision groups formed solely to dance on the line between issue advocacy and direct participation in elections.

"There's no way that Congress expected groups like Crossroads GPS to be social-welfare organizations," Tobin said. "They used to be groups that were focused on social welfare and did a little politics on the side. This has turned that idea on its head."

Staff writer T.W. Farnam contributed to this report.

FRED'S BREAD!!!???

[heironymouspasparagus]

Out of those who read the article, 86% says it isn't racist.

It's pretty weak tea calling it racist, but it does expose how our government has sold out the American worker with trade agreements and stimulus money going to Chinese firms.

The irony being that those trade agreements started from Republicans.  Starting with Nixon opening relations with them....and carried on through by Billy Bob.

So both sides are equal opportunity sellouts.

[Conan71]

Just wait to see how nasty it gets from Aug. through early Nov.  I think I may vote absentee and go sit on my island down in the West Indies for a few months.

[nathanm]

Just wait to see how nasty it gets from Aug. through early Nov.  I think I may vote absentee and go sit on my island down in the West Indies for a few months.

That sounds like a good plan to me. I wonder if anyone will let me stay with them in the DR until November.

[Teatownclown]

This A$$ is back!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/man-2012-jeremiah-wright-ads-fred-demon-sheep/story?id=16370371


Dividing America is his goal?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Well, being Jim Inhofe's nephew, what can you expect??

The techniques of both go hand in hand.

[Teatownclown]

NYT CHIMES IN!

EDITORIAL
Racial Politics, 2012-Style
Published: May 17, 2012

For many Republicans, the belief has never died that President Obama is a secret revolutionary nurtured on black liberationist theology. Right-wing Web sites are littered with this nonsense, and the Fox News host Sean Hannity regularly tries to tie Mr. Obama to the clearly racist views of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Even Mitt Romney suggested in February, on Mr. Hannity's radio show, that Mr. Obama listened too much to Mr. Wright.

In 2008, Senator John McCain refused to make this divisive tactic part of his campaign against Mr. Obama. But, in a more coarsened political atmosphere, the rise of unlimited money has made it possible for a wealthy person to broadcast any attack while keeping a distance from it. As Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg reported in The Times on Thursday, Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of TD Ameritrade, worked with Republican strategists to prepare a $10 million ad campaign suggesting the president's governing philosophy came directly from Mr. Wright.

After the plan was disclosed, Mr. Ricketts said he was not interested in socially divisive tactics and the ads would never run. (Mr. Romney also repudiated the proposed attack.) But Mr. Ricketts is quoted in the proposal as saying that if the nation had seen an ad featuring Mr. Wright, "they'd never have elected Barack Obama." The proposal suggests Mr. Ricketts gave his preliminary approval.

The proposal was prepared by Fred Davis, who made and paid for a Wright ad in 2008 but couldn't persuade Mr. McCain to run it. "The good Reverend and his inflammatory influence have never been packaged in the proper attention-arresting way with sufficient resources to truly drill it into America's consciousness," his proposal said.

To do that, Mr. Davis proposed showing a clip of Mr. Wright saying "God Damn America," then saying the nation should have known that Mr. Obama would come up with terrible ideas like the stimulus and health care reform because of notions drilled into him by his old pastor. To defuse the inevitable attack that the ad is racist, the proposal suggests hiring "an extremely literate, conservative African-American" as spokesman and narrator.

It's hard to imagine why the plan's authors believed it would change opinions about Mr. Obama. Americans know him well and most know he is not a left-wing radical. But that's the kind of drivel money buys these days.

Since 1976, individuals have been able to spend without limit on independent ads, but rarely did so because their names would have had to have been attached. By setting up a super PAC under the post-Citizens United rules, Mr. Ricketts avoids having most viewers make the connection to him and his businesses, including the Chicago Cubs. This ad may never appear, but the dozens of super PACs can be counted on to find other ways to pollute the campaign.

Racism is cultivated in the family....and passed on. These Davis' are not good people.

[Teatownclown]

[Teatownclown]

oink oink.... http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-republican-ad-maker-fred-davis-offers-regrets-20120629,0,4302003.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart&id=I0_1341237407956&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com

Bitchslappingthelittleinhofebasturd... another example of the types of people making America a second tier country....

[Conan71]

Davis is an idiot.  All Romney needs to do is run against Obama's record.  He doesn't need associations with Wright, Flager, Dorhn, Ayers, etc. to win.

[Hoss]

Davis is an idiot.  All Romney needs to do is run against Obama's record.  He doesn't need associations with Wright, Flager, Dorhn, Ayers, etc. to win.

While I don't think it will be a landslide, I dont' predict Romney will win.  Especially if he tries to run on the economy vs his Bain record/ObamneyCare.  The swing states are starting to gravitate more towards the incumbent.

Romney's record as a flip-flopper of the greatest caliber will hurt him.  His pandering to the ultra-right wing sect of the GOP is costing him indie and moderate votes.  And women.  He has Santorum to blame for that during their jab-and-counterpunch attacks during the primary.

Latest polls has the President's job approval rating at 46 percent.  Not stellar, but what was Bush's before he left office?