Death penalty attack is a vile political tactic

[JimboDaMan]

This from a Bush-supporting newspaper in VA.

Death penalty attack is a vile political tactic

Bristol Herald Courier

Oct 14, 12:21 AM EDT

Jerry Kilgore should apologize for a vicious new attack ad that suggests his political opponent would not support the death penalty for the world’s most notorious genocidal villain Adolf Hitler.

Whether Tim Kaine would or would not approve of the state-sanctioned killing of a vile dictator long departed from this Earth is immaterial to his fitness to serve as Virginia’s governor. The ad takes Kaine’s words out of context and suggests that no devout Roman Catholic is qualified to be the state’s top executive. Most reprehensibly, by reducing Hitler to mere grist for the campaign machine, the ad trivializes the Holocaust and dishonors the memories of those who died. Kilgore should apologize to Kaine, to Virginia residents and to all people of Jewish descent.

Virginia needs a governor who is focused on solving the state’s legitimate problems rather than smearing his opponent on an issue that is a tough call for many people of faith, as well as many other reasonably thoughtful individuals. By approving this ad, Kilgore showed a stunning lack of judgment that voters should consider as they go to the polls.

The Kilgore camp’s startling television and radio spots on the death penalty began airing around the state Tuesday. The stark, emotional ads feature Stanley Rosenbluth, whose son and daughter-in-law were murdered in 1993, and Kelly Timbrook, whose police officer husband Rick was killed in the line of duty in 1999. Their voices and faces show the utter agony of their losses, not diminished by time. That they want vengeance is clear, even understandable. But their legitimate pain does not give the Kilgore camp license to twist the truth until it verges on a lie or to use the death penalty as a wedge issue in a neck-and-neck race.

The dishonest representation of Kaine’s position on the death penalty involves comments he made to a group of reporters and editors at the Richmond Times-Dispatch in September. During a lengthy question-and-answer session, a political reporter asked Kaine if he could name anyone who deserved the death penalty. The reporter then asked specifically about Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Idi Amin.

Kaine answered with a defense of his religious beliefs, "I think God grants life, God should take it away."

Later, Kaine said he would uphold the state law in spite of his personal beliefs – a small detail that doesn’t surface in the Kilgore ads.

Notably, never once did Kaine mention Hitler. The only reference to the despised dictator came from the reporter posing the question. Kilgore’s ad doesn’t make that critical distinction.

In it, Stanley Rosenbluth says somberly, "Tim Kaine says that Adolf Hitler doesn’t qualify for the death penalty. This was the ... worst mass murderer in modern times. I don’t trust Tim Kaine when it comes to the death penalty."

Voters should see Rosenbluth’s words for what they represent – the anger of a bereaved father who is being used by an unscrupulous and desperate campaign.

[Redskins Diehard]

I guess this is what they call "timely" news.

[Thiebear]

I don't agree with the death penalty also.. and as the Governor I'd let them do Life in prison . I might say I'd uphold the law, but I'd find reason after reason after reason to justify life in prison. For Everyone that didnt already have Life in prison.. If you were life in prison already... meet sparky.

[Destino]

It is a disgusting ad. Sadly until voters stop voting those that rather launch dishonest hateful ads into office over those that talk about their stances on the issues....it will continue.

[portisizzle]

It is a disgusting ad. Sadly until voters stop voting those that rather launch dishonest hateful ads into office over those that talk about their stances on the issues....it will continue.

Why are the ads going so negative? I am a bit suprised.

[Thiebear]

They are going negative because they both suck. So when you are equal you have to go deep negative to get the other guy looking worse than you.

[twist]

Why are the ads going so negative? I am a bit suprised.

Negative ads work. People are more willing to believe bad things about their representation, and more likely to be swayed by negativity. Negativity keeps moderates at home and your base fired up, so you can represent fewer and fewer people, focus on simple issues, and never really talk about what your interested in doing once you get in office. People are also less likely to get wind of what you actually supported when in office, and since you’re the incumbent, you’re more likely to win by default.

Negative adds come from political cash, they are ways of distracting the voter, so that representatives can and will represent the businesses that bought them. In the last election the candidate that raised the most money won on almost every single occasion. This is how they won, and this is probably why you get answered with a form letter when you write your representation.

George W. Bush ran two of the most expensive and negative political campaigns ever. They had one thing in common, they worked.

[dreamingwolf]

eh they dont have to suck for there to be negitive ads. The real reason negitives ads exist can be found in the thread starters post. When you support one candidate the only negitive ads people rant about are the ones done by the guy they dont like. So, both candidates throw out negitive ads to embolden their bases not to win over swing voters.

Aslong as people pretend only their guys opponent runs negitive ads then negitive ads will continue to be run with effectiveness.

[Cskin]

They are going negative because they both suck. So when you are equal you have to go deep negative to get the other guy looking worse than you.

Thiebear is right... most of the negativity comes from the fact that both are miserable politicians that lie through their teeth. Kaine is a bleeding heart liberal who never saw a tax he didn't like..... and Kilgore is a faceless boob trying to run as the good ole' boy from SW Virginia that hasn't a platform to run on.

Virginia would do itself proud to boycott the election alltogether and simply ask Mark Warner to stay on.

[nelms]

Thiebear is right... most of the negativity comes from the fact that both are miserable politicians that lie through their teeth. Kaine is a bleeding heart liberal who never saw a tax he didn't like..... and Kilgore is a faceless boob trying to run as the good ole' boy from SW Virginia that hasn't a platform to run on.

Virginia would do itself proud to boycott the election alltogether and simply ask Mark Warner to stay on.

You're right. This has to be one of the weakest pair of candidates for VA governor I can ever remember.

[JimboDaMan]

eh they dont have to suck for there to be negitive ads. The real reason negitives ads exist can be found in the thread starters post. When you support one candidate the only negitive ads people rant about are the ones done by the guy they dont like. So, both candidates throw out negitive ads to embolden their bases not to win over swing voters.

Aslong as people pretend only their guys opponent runs negitive ads then negitive ads will continue to be run with effectiveness.

wolf, if Kaine has done anything even in the same league as this I'd be interested in having you post some examples.

Kaine is running mostly on the strength of being lt. governor during Mark Warner's highly sucessful governorship. The extent of his contribution to that success is completely unknown, at least to me. I can't get real worked up about the guy. But I can get disgusted by dishonest tricks by unethical politicians, such as using this poor man in his misery to make false statements about about your opponent so if necessary you can claim you personally never told lies. So if you know of anything even close to that level of cynicism and dishonesty that Kaine has done, please let me know.

[Larry]

Negative ads work. People are more willing to believe bad things about their representation, and more likely to be swayed by negativity. Negativity keeps moderates at home and your base fired up, so you can represent fewer and fewer people, focus on simple issues, and never really talk about what your interested in doing once you get in office. People are also less likely to get wind of what you actually supported when in office, and since you’re the incumbent, you’re more likely to win by default.

Negative adds come from political cash, they are ways of distracting the voter, so that representatives can and will represent the businesses that bought them. In the last election the candidate that raised the most money won on almost every single occasion. This is how they won, and this is probably why you get answered with a form letter when you write your representation.

George W. Bush ran two of the most expensive and negative political campaigns ever. They had one thing in common, they worked.

I also agree (negative ads work), but I get there by a different reasoning.

A lot of politicians work very hard at saying things that leave a lot of room for the sucker, I mean, voter, to interpret. He won't say "I promise to stop illegal immigration", he'll say "Imigration is a complex issue, and we need to carefully balance the needs of our economy, and our nations tradition place as a welcoming place for imigrants, while protecting our national traditions and securing our communities."

That way, a lot of people will think that the candidate agrees with them.

(That's also why unknown candidates look so good in the polls. Colin Powell, in the polls, was getting something like 70% of the vote, back when nobody even knew which party he might run with. Everybody assumed that Powell agreed with them.)

Perot got the same effect. As long as he was a goofy-looking millionaire who didn't like either party, then people liked him. But eventually, they demanded that he tell people what his positions were.

And every time Perot took a position, he lost votes, because people who thought he agreed with them, found out that he didn't.

Which is also why most politicians put a lot more effort into defining their opponents than they do into defining themselves.

-----

I also think part of it is campaign finance laws.

If The Associaltion of Vietnam Veterans Who Went to Hanoi runs a commervial that says "Vote for Kerry", then their ad counts as a campaign contribution to Kerry, and it counts towards the total he's allowed to spend.

If the same group runs an ad that says "Bush was AWOL", then it doesn't count as a Kerry ad. (Gee! I didn't tell anybody who to vote for!)

[dreamingwolf]

Jimbo, as much as I would like to have a dialogue with you about this it simply would be a waste of time. Come back when your willing to see negitive ads for what they are, and that both partys do the same thing.

Larry, thats absolutely the reason for negitive ads I couldnt agree with you more. Its not to tell people what you are about, but to pin on your enemy what you want people to think they are about. I disagree alittle bit about who you say the target audiance is though, I still think neg ads are designed to fire up the base or atleast thats who they really effect IMO.

[BlueTalon]

There's not enough information included in that article to come to any conclusion. But IF a reporter asked a candidate who claimed to be anti-death penalty if that candidate would support the death penalty for Hitler, and IF that candidate responded to that question by saying something to the effect of "I'm against the death penalty in all circumstances", THEN it is a legitimate topic for the campaign. And bringing that information to light in a campaign commercial would be an accurate portrayal -- it might be a negative ad, but it wouldn't be a smear.

[Destino]

eh they dont have to suck for there to be negitive ads. The real reason negitives ads exist can be found in the thread starters post. When you support one candidate the only negitive ads people rant about are the ones done by the guy they dont like. So, both candidates throw out negitive ads to embolden their bases not to win over swing voters.

Aslong as people pretend only their guys opponent runs negitive ads then negitive ads will continue to be run with effectiveness.

Can you point out the Kaine negative ads? I'd like to do a side by side. I'm not trying to be smart but I live in Northern VA and haven't seen any. If you know of one let me know.

[Teller]

Negative ads do work, and that's why they're used.

I'll tell you though...I live in WV and work in MD, neither of which impress me very much in terms of state government. A couple weeks ago on the way to work, I listened to the Kilgore/Kaine debate on C-SPAN radio. You guys that live in VA are VERY lucky to have two such well-spoken, knowledgeable candidates for governor. We should be so lucky in the WV.

Speaking of which, have you VA'ers heard anything lately about George Allen's possible run for president in 2008?

[dreamingwolf]

whats the point really destino? Are you really trying to seem objective? I know youve seen kaine ads littered with lies, but yet you claim youve never seen them. Why? cause your guy doesnt lie in your eyes. There is no way possible to have a dialogue on this, cause people who only assualt on guys negitive ads are so blinded by party alligiance that it will only appear to them that the other guy has negitive ads.

If you are really interested then look up the ad by kaine called "slice". Now you cant just watch it, cause Im sure with your political stance you will just say well thats not so negitive that other guy is just a scum bag. You have to do the leg work on it(or just know va politics) to really understand the deception going on.

is kaine evil for that ad or any of the other ones hes run, hell no. He probably had nothing to do with it beyond saying he approved of it(probably without ever seeing it). This is a common politicing, and every party and politician uses it. Most only think its the other party who does it.

I would have considered this thread honest if it was just an assualt on negitive campaigning altogether, but really what its just a shot at one partys enemy. Im not sure theres anyway to stop negitive ads, even though they are dishonest theres enough truth in them that allows the deception to be remotely acceptable.

[dreamingwolf]

Negative ads do work, and that's why they're used.

I'll tell you though...I live in WV and work in MD, neither of which impress me very much in terms of state government. A couple weeks ago on the way to work, I listened to the Kilgore/Kaine debate on C-SPAN radio. You guys that live in VA are VERY lucky to have two such well-spoken, knowledgeable candidates for governor. We should be so lucky in the WV.

Speaking of which, have you VA'ers heard anything lately about George Allen's possible run for president in 2008?

I think Va always puts up pretty decent govenors regardless of party, Im suprised all presidents havent been Va governors

Allen has a hard road to pave to the white house. I dont think hes even a remote pick for the neo-humanists, so while I would put a bet on him being in the race for the nod theres little to no chance he gets the nomination.

[DjTj]

whats the point really destino? Are you really trying to seem objective? I know youve seen kaine ads littered with lies, but yet you claim youve never seen them. Why? cause your guy doesnt lie in your eyes. There is no way possible to have a dialogue on this, cause people who only assualt on guys negitive ads are so blinded by party alligiance that it will only appear to them that the other guy has negitive ads.

If you are really interested then look up the ad by kaine called "slice". Now you cant just watch it, cause Im sure with your political stance you will just say well thats not so negitive that other guy is just a scum bag. You have to do the leg work on it(or just know va politics) to really understand the deception going on.

is kaine evil for that ad or any of the other ones hes run, hell no. He probably had nothing to do with it beyond saying he approved of it(probably without ever seeing it). This is a common politicing, and every party and politician uses it. Most only think its the other party who does it.

I would have considered this thread honest if it was just an assualt on negitive campaigning altogether, but really what its just a shot at one partys enemy. Im not sure theres anyway to stop negitive ads, even though they are dishonest theres enough truth in them that allows the deception to be remotely acceptable.

I guess you're talking about the ad with the cake where it talks about all of Kilgore's tax cuts.

There's definitely a good number of negative ads on both sides, but the death penalty one does seem to be a little bit worse than the rest, because they're basically attacking Kaine for his religion.

When you say that Kilgore is going to cut a bunch of taxes, so that will limit funding for education, that seems to be a reasonable political issue and something that you might see in any race anywhere in the country. However, when the ad is saying don't vote for Kaine because he is Catholic and Catholics don't believe in the death penalty, it seems a little bit extreme.

[dreamingwolf]

I guess you're talking about the ad with the cake where it talks about all of Kilgore's tax cuts.

There's definitely a good number of negative ads on both sides, but the death penalty one does seem to be a little bit worse than the rest, because they're basically attacking Kaine for his religion.

When you say that Kilgore is going to cut a bunch of taxes, so that will limit funding for education, that seems to be a reasonable political issue and something that you might see in any race anywhere in the country. However, when the ad is saying don't vote for Kaine because he is Catholic and Catholics don't believe in the death penalty, it seems a little bit extreme.

See this is why I say negitive ads are directed to the bases and not to the swing voters. The swing voters will have skeptism about these ads, cause they know that its just business as usuall. The bases however will run with it like its gospel, whether pro or con to the candidate.

take for example DjTj, he says the ad attacks kaine for being catholic.

heres the text of the ad:

Jerry Kilgore TV Ad: "Stanley"

Stanley Rosenbluth: Richard was our first born. We had a great relationship. Married Becky. Everything they did, they did together, it was like two peas in a pod. Mark Sheppard shot Richard twice and went over and shot Becky two more times.

Tim Kaine voluntarily represented the person who murdered my son. He stood with murderers in trying to get them off death row.

(Text on screen: Tim Kaine opposes the death penalty even in extreme cases. Times-Dispatch 9/25/05)

No matter how heinous the crime, he doesn't believe that death is a punishment. Tim Kaine says that Adolf Hitler doesn't qualify for the death penalty. This was the... the worst mass murderer in modern times. Being as liberal as he is and the death penalty, he's not representing everybody in the state.

(Text on screen: Get the facts: www.KaineRecord.com)

I don't trust Tim Kaine when it comes to the death penalty. And I say that as a father whose had a son murdered. And the people of Virginia are entitled to know just what Tim Kaine is and what he stands for.

(Text on screen: We can't trust Tim Kaine.)

Jerry Kilgore: I'm Jerry Kilgore candidate for Governor, and my campaign sponsored this ad.

(Text on screen: Jerry Kilgore For Governor; Paid For By Virginians For Jerry Kilgore)

------------

Maybe its just me but unless they flash on the screen "catholics suck"(which would probably win chomo over to Kilgore ) , there is nothing in that ad that addresses his religion. Now the bases are giving this ad alot of play, and its passing on alot of lips. Its hotter than the only whore on the street without crabs.

I

[Ignatius J.]

I guess you're talking about the ad with the cake where it talks about all of Kilgore's tax cuts.

There's definitely a good number of negative ads on both sides, but the death penalty one does seem to be a little bit worse than the rest, because they're basically attacking Kaine for his religion.

When you say that Kilgore is going to cut a bunch of taxes, so that will limit funding for education, that seems to be a reasonable political issue and something that you might see in any race anywhere in the country. However, when the ad is saying don't vote for Kaine because he is Catholic and Catholics don't believe in the death penalty, it seems a little bit extreme.

I don't know the add that well, but I think I disagree with this sentiment. When you are electing a leader his views on issues that you feel are important are fair play. He does not support the death penalty because of his religion. The degree to which his religion effects his choices that he will make while on the job are relevant.

I happen to have a lot of sympathy for his position, so that add would not make me think twice about electing him.

But my guess is that religion is a big deal to Kaine. As such his religion will probably play some role in his actions as governor. At the very least it might play a role, and is therefore fair game for political discussion.

I think the bigger issue is that (if I'm reading this right) Kaine has said that he would not let his religion effect his decisions regarding the death penalty. If the attack add insuinated otherwise despite Kaine's statements then I think the issue is not that his religion was attacked, but that the add was decietful.

[JimboDaMan]

I think Va always puts up pretty decent govenors regardless of party, Im suprised all presidents havent been Va governors

Allen has a hard road to pave to the white house. I dont think hes even a remote pick for the neo-humanists, so while I would put a bet on him being in the race for the nod theres little to no chance he gets the nomination.

Well, Warner's done a great job cleaning up the poop his predecessor Gilmore left, Gilmore was useless. But Allen before him was pretty good. Makes things interesting since the guv can only serve one term, a constant search for fresh blood to run the state.

As far as political ads bending the truth, there I agree that all parties are guilty. My point here was that a certain politician, not a party, has carried things far past any acceptable limit. Not just bending the truth, but lying, and using an emotional plea feeding off this poor man's misery to boost his own ambition.

BlueTalon, the transcript of what Kaine said is as follows (from factcheck.org):

Michael Hardy, Times-Dispatch editorial board: You couldn’t conceive of a case where the person, because of his behavior and criminal conduct, deserved the death penalty? What about Adolf Hitler, do you think he should be executed? Should have been executed? Joseph Stalin? Idi Amin?

Tim Kaine: Well you know, when you say deserve, it’s…(long pause)…you know, God grants life, and God should take it away. Horrible heinous things deserve incredible punishment, you bet. God grants life, God should take it away, that’s my religious belief. Except in the kind of rare instance of self defense, I mean, a person who, you know, kills someone in self defense, or a nation that, that wages a just war, that is essentially to defend itself or, or others, that would be an exception but…

Hardy: Your conviction is so deep that you cannot name one person in history, because of his malefactions and criminal behavior, deserved the death penalty?

Tim Kaine: Well no, I, the way I answered your question is that they may deserve, you, they may deserve it, of course they may for doing something heinous, they don’t deserve to live in civilized society, they may deserve the death penalty. You know, I look at the world, most nations have decided not to have a death penalty, and, and many are very safe, I don’t think, I don’t think it’s needed to be safe.

And from the Kilgore ad:

Tim Kaine says that Adolf Hitler doesn’t qualify for the death penalty.

Is there a way to read this other than that Kilgore is a liar hiding behind that poor man's tragedy?

edit: In Ignatius J's post reminded me Kaine has repeatedly stated that capital punishment is the law and he would have no hesitation upholding it.

[dreamingwolf]

... that the add was decietful.

ok buddy, please dont tell me that you think that every political ad is truthfull. Tell me that you believe every political ad(negitive or not) is decietfull. Please, I want to believe you have your eyes open.

I think larry hit the nail on the head earlier when he said the more honest they are the less likely people will be to vote for them(well in so many words), and larry is absolutely correct about that.

[dreamingwolf]

Is there a way to read this other than that Kilgore is a liar hiding behind that poor man's tragedy?

edit: In Ignatius J's post reminded me Kaine has repeatedly stated that capital punishment is the law and he would have no hesitation upholding it.

jimbo is this the first election you have ever seen? Since the dawn of democracy the other guy has been calling the other guy a liar. Is this really what has your pantys in a wad?

Sheesh get over it.

[JimboDaMan]

jimbo is this the first election you have ever seen? Since the dawn of democracy the other guy has been calling the other guy a liar. Is this really what has your pantys in a wad?

Sheesh get over it.

Careful, wolf, one might get the idea you have no integrity at all.