Here’s a different way to respond to false accusations: Set up your spokesperson to look like a news reporter and state the facts, as confirmed by Politifact. In other words, cut the ominous (or patriotic) music, stare into the camera and treat viewers like adults:
Anyone who visits Dangerous Intersection knows that I have serious reservations about Barack Obama (e.g., see here), but this Romney ad is full of provable lies. For conservatives, getting Barack Obama out of office has become a sacred quest, which translates to the means justifies the end. It is quite predictable that Democrats will have their own buckets of falsehoods. All of this brings to mind Jonathan Haidt’s admonition that morality “binds and blinds.” And see Haidt’s discussion with Bill Moyers here.
Erich, I am a Democrat and have never told a “bucketful of lies.”
I think one of the problems with media–and internet bloggers–is an obsession that there are naturally “two sides to every story.”
That means for every Holocaust, there must be a denier; for climate change, a denier; for evolution, a denier, ad infinitum. Life, like science, sometimes just has one side, one answer and anything else is made up bullshit like the Faux News “fair and balanced.” I can simply say “1+1=3!” because someone else said “1+1=2” and deserve to be heard because I claim there is a qualified opposing viewpoint.
By giving lipservice to the “two sides” mantra, one opens up an unnecessary, often misleading and dibilitating debate about issues which are simply one sided. Some vile stuff just doesn’t deserve to be spread like manure to grow whatever might form from the stink. Sometimes, 1+1=2. Sometimes one’s prejudices or preferences or obsequiousness to “fairness” in reporting or commenting creates needless havoc in the world of reality.
The Obama ads aren’t any more honest. Heck, this is why I’m happy about Citizens United. The independent ads tend to be a lot more factual than the candidate ads.
Adam, give a few references to some of the independent factual political ads you write about. And some dishonest candidate ads. If these ads are on YouTube, let’s see the ads.
Also since you have a tendency to do a quick Google search for sites that are biased to your belief, try to avoid those that tend to post right wing drivel and discussions on such ads without linking to the ads, let’s go straight to the donkey’3 (or pachyderm’s) mouth.
And the Kochs say, right back at ya:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-o8LkGkrCoY
Let’s analyze Koch’s rebuttal.
“Koch takes exception to the President engaging in inappropriate personal attacks on private citizens for exercising their constitutional rights to speak out on issues of public policy”
Actually, the attacks are completely appropriate. The Koch brothers use a lot of their money to influence elections. The purchasing of political influence is corruption, not free speech.
The Koch brothers have founded and heavily financed the front group “Americans for Prosperity” and the Cato institute.
“Oil refining is just on part of what we do” (in calling Ms. Cutter’s description of them as secretive oil billionaires as deceptive).
In addition to refining oil, Koch industries manufactures petrochemicals, control and chemical processing system and a host of oil industry related products. Much of their wealth derives from the oil industry.
“for 50 years, we have always been open and direct about our free market views”.
For at least 40 years, however, they have kept their electioneering, and political manipulations through ALEC, as well as AFP, quite secret, and have hidden their anti government views in secrecy by claiming privacy rights when it suits them.
“Our political system is based on free markets and economic freedom, not government handouts”
Read this to see how Koch industries avoids government handouts.
More deception: “Americans for Prosperity has tens of thousands of contributors and the ad is AFP’s creation”
They forgot to mention that David Koch is the chairman of AFP.
“The Washington Post and FactCheck.org also declared Obama’s prior ads attacking us to be ‘slick, misleading’ and ‘slippery'”
– More sleight of hand here as the campaign ads in question were describing the oil industry, and the American Petroleum Institute.
“major producer of biofuels” (counteracting a claim that they oppose clean energy).
The fact is that Koch industries recently bought two ethanol plants. Ethanol is anything but clean energy, as it produces a considerable amount of waste by products.
“We oppose all subsidies even those in industries in which we operate”.
LMAO on this one. If they are so opposed to subsidies, why do they accept so many of them. (Noted in several of the articles already linked.
In response to Ms Cutter’s claim that “they oppose higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks” the Koch video answers “We strive to operate in the most efficient and productive manner possible, which benefits society in the long run, while the presidents policies warp the market and harm society”.
This is more of a reference to the Koch Brothers support of the American petroleum Institute, which has lobbied against fuel efficiency standards. The Koch reply doesn’t dispute Koch’s opposition to fuel efficiency standards but invokes an ad-hominem attack against Obama and his policies.
Additionally, Koch Industries has mounted a major PR attack, style after Microsoft’s “Get the facts” promotion that is completely FUD filled idiocy.
C’mon Adam, considering you are acting as a PR shill for Corporate fascism, you’re not very convincing.