Lesson for the GOP (including you, Tommy Thompson): If you live by the high-priced lie, you better watch your butt

GOP slug Dan Lungren says: "What I'm trying to do is transform the system so people participating as candidates can be held responsible for what is said." Ha-ha-ha!

by Ken

My goodness, this would be hilarious if it were . . . no, let's go with hilarious. Here's the start of a report by the NYT's Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman, "Mauled by Ads, Incumbents Look to Declaw Outside Groups":

WASHINGTON -- An expansive onslaught of negative political advertisements in Congressional races has left many incumbents, including some Republicans long opposed to restrictions on campaign spending, concluding that legislative measures may be in order to curtail the power of the outside groups behind most of the attacks.

While Democrats have long denounced a 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the gates on unlimited spending on advertisements, some Republicans are now growing more disenchanted with the system that has allowed the barrage of ads, often by shadowy groups, and the effects it has had on what they see as a sullen and disenchanted electorate.

"Once we get back, those that do get re-elected will all be commiserating about all the negative ads," said Representative Joe Heck of Nevada, a Republican who faced ads accusing him of voting against a rape crisis center and against money to help victims of domestic violence, among other things. "And that will start the groundswell for reform."

Representative Dan Lungren, a California Republican and the chairman the House Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over campaign finance issues, has been a target of negative advertisements. He has drafted legislation that he said would force more responsibility for the tone and messages of the campaign onto the candidates and the political parties and away from the third-party groups. The staff of Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, is also working on proposals.

The 2010 Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was expected to be an unalloyed advantage to Republicans, who have a deeper bench of rich individuals and corporations willing to finance candidates.

The decision has appeared to benefit Republicans over all this election cycle, as Republican money has poured into the presidential contest. Democrats say their third-party allies have also been outspent, by about two to one, in Senate campaigns. But the impact of Citizens United has come with complications, with some Republican incumbents in the House at a disadvantage. . . .

Oh, there's more, like Representative Lungren, in his capacity as chairman of the House Administration Committee, explaining the aim of the bill he intends to craft when (if?) he gets back to D.C.: "What I'm trying to do is transform the system so people participating as candidates can be held responsible for what is said."

And, oh yes, there's that loathsome slug Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX),

who runs the group charged with electing Republicans to the Senate [and] has said he thinks it would be worthwhile to examine the campaign finance system after the election.

"Revisiting the federal fund-raising restrictions and coordinated limits on both parties, and even smaller, common-sense steps like requiring electronic filing for federal candidates are a few good things that could be looked at next year," he said in an e-mail.

Can you believe it? In the entire history of mankind, has any group of humans ever done more to smash the concept of political accountability than the House and Senate Republicans?

Of course that was before it began to dawn on these slugs that He Who Lives by the High-Priced Lie May Also Take It Up the Butt. Oh, I don't expect much in the way of meaningful reform. As the NYT reporters note, the expectation that Citizens United would be a massive boon to the vaunted GOP lie machine (OK, they don't use those exact words) has proved generally correct. But notice how touchy the R's become when, at least in their own view, they're the victims -- bearing in mind always that there's no screeching self-styled victim like a Republican screeching self-styled villain.


MEANWHILE, WILL TOMMY THOMPSON SPEARHEAD
A GOP CLEANSING -- BY ENDING HIS CANDIDACY?

The logic seems impeccable to me. Now that we've gotten to the point where it has to be assumed that every word out of the mouth of every Republican is a lie, doesn't someone have to take a stand and draw the line somewhere? And who better than that loathsome toad former WI Gov. Tommy Thompson, now the GOP candidate to retiring Dem Sen. Herb Kohl.

I can see it now. A solemn Tommy addressed the assembled press contingent:

Thank you for coming, ladies and gentlemen. I'll be brief. In the wake of the shocking debacle of my campaign's "Dangerous Path" TV ad shockingly impugning the patriotism of my opponent, I have come to the realization that I am too dishonest and corrupt to live, let alone occupy public office. Accordingly, I am ending my candidacy for the U.S. Senate and withdrawing from all forms of government service.

I am not withdrawing entirely from public life, however. I will continue to salt away all the corporate cash I can in my D.C. influence-peddling office.

If you're not caught up on the scandal of the Thompson campaign's appalling "Dangerous Path" spot, you can check out a new post by Eugene Kiely for the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org, "Smearing Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin Senate Race."

A false and vicious TV ad attacks Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin for voting against "honoring the victims of 9/11." The fact is, she voted to award three Congressional Gold Medals to honor the victims of the terrorist attacks in New York City, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

So what's the ad talking about? It cites her 2006 vote against a ceremonial resolution on the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11 -- which Baldwin opposed because she said the GOP-drafted resolution "politicized" the anniversary by praising controversial legislation, such as the USA Patriot Act.

The ad, called "Dangerous Path," is yet another attempt to cast Baldwin as an extremist in Wisconsin's close Senate race. (We recently wrote about another TV ad sponsored by a pro-Israel group.) This ad -- sponsored by her Republican opponent, former Gov. Tommy Thompson -- says her "far left approach leaves this country in jeopardy."

Thompson's ad features military veterans and shows an image of the hulking ruins of the World Trade Center in New York. One of the veterans says Baldwin "had the opportunity to vote to honor the victims of 9/11 and she voted against it." Another says, "It's a slap in the face to every one of their families and anyone who has ever served in the United States military." . . .

What this is, however, according to FactCheck.org, "is a case of cherry-picking a vote to distort the facts. Baldwin did honor the victims of the terrorist attacks."

What the smear job did, in brief, was to take a vote on what the Kiely report calls "a ceremonial House resolution" in 2006, in anticipation of the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Rep. Tammy Baldwin was one of only 22 House members to vote against a proposed tribute. What the Thompson-campaign ad leaves out, however, is her reason for doing so. Kiely quotes a Capital Times report from Sept. 14, 2006:

Baldwin and other Democratic critics said the resolution drafted by Republicans praised controversial legislation like the USA Patriot Act and a border security bill.

Baldwin contended the GOP "disgracefully politicized what should have been a solemn and sincere resolution."

"Instead they converted the resolution into an endorsement of the Patriot Act, punitive immigration bills, and other highly controversial measures, which many of my constituents oppose," she said in a statement explaining her vote.

She added it was disrespectful to the Sept. 11 victims and families to be "playing election year politics" with the anniversary.

Oops!

Of course Tammy can always be counted on to support legitimate 9/11 commemorations.

I suppose the Thompson-campaign brain trust is contemplating the necessity of some sort of weasel-worded non-apology. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if instead the governor came through with the sort of announcement I've fantasized above? Isn't it time for somebody to draw the line in the bullshit?

#