Justice Jeremiah Wright?

Justice Jeremiah Wright? October 1, 2008

A shady independent group is running a new ad against Obama, based on Supreme Court judges. First This topic is certainly a a fair one, well within the boundaries of legitimate debate. Except that this ad really says nothing about judicial philosophy. Roe v. Wade does not even warrant a mention, which makes me wonder about the real agenda of these people. There is no talk of Obama’s position on abortion, or the likelihood that he would nominate strongly pro-Roe justices.

It seems that the ad is designed solely to help McCain and smear Obama by talking about some of the people he has been associated with in one form or other, including shady businessmen, radicals from the 1960s, and yes, Jeremiah Wright. The line here is that Obama chose as his pastor a man who blamed 9/11 on America. At that point, I just wanted to bang my head on my desk, for — as has been pointed out a million times now — mainstream Republican-leaning religious leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell used similar language. What has this to due with judges? Absolutely nothing. Yet again, we have the abortion issue being used to score cheap political points (in this place, guilt by association) by people who dearly do not care about abortion. The main speaker in the ad is wearing a rather prominent cross, clearly placed there deliberately. In these circumstances, this comes across as a highly offensive exploitation of a core symbol of our faith.

And does McCain really want to talk about shady business dealings from the past? In the middle of a financial crisis, does he really want to be reminded of his past relationship with Charles Keating?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mark DeFrancisis


    When Intrade has it 65/35 Obama and RCP shows Obama with 350+ electoral votes, do not be surprised.

    If the numbers get much worse for McCain, I’d even expect the ugliest imaginable–like his campaign charging untoward sexual advances toward Sarah Palin by Obama, or, worse yet, coordinating a 527 that alleges that Obama has so far raped 10 white Chicago female minors.

  • Is there anything inaccurate about this ad?

  • JohnH

    “But McCain…” isn’t an argument.

    From a bit of googling on Ms. Long, it looks like she’s been active in pro-life legal work for some time now, not just someone who popped up during this election season. I’m just guessing that perhaps her wearing a cross is sincere. How is she or her organization “shady”?

    Here’s a debate from last year that she participated on abortion and the U.S. court system:


  • Realist

    What would you expect?

    They’ve gone into in full blown panic mode.


    Blue on Blue, Heartache on Heartache . . .

  • Policraticus

    Is there anything inaccurate about this ad?

    This is typically a superficial question in politics. We’re not doing investigative reporting here. Rather, the ad is intended to prompt its audience to infer conclusions (intending these conclusions to be negative with respect to Obama) that are not explicitly stated in the ad nor are necessarily “accurate.” This is a very simple partisan recipe cooked within both parties. Not particularly alarming, just as Obama’s ads on McCain’s home ownership were not inaccurate but were intended to manipulate their audience into inferences that are negative with respect to McCain.

  • Poli.-

    Sorry to be so superficial, but I think it is a fair question given the tenor of MM’s post.

    The question is whether the ad is accurate. From what I can tell it is. MM calls the ad a smear. Is it really? The message of the ad is “Obama has associated with some pretty repugnant folks in the past, by doing so he has shown poor judgment, and that poor judgment may cause him to select questionable individuals for the Supreme Court.”

    Given what I know about Obama, the concluson that Obama lacks the character or judgment to be president is a reasonable one.

    Now, if you or MM wish to make the case that McCain also lacks the character or judgment to be president, have at it. But McCain’s character flaws, such as they are, have nothing to do with whether the information contained in this ad is accurate.

  • Mark DeFrancisis

    My funny Alexham

    My favorite Alexham

    Is your reason a bit laughable?…

    Is your demeanor a tad inaffable?…

    You’re a real wingut work of art….

    Stay Feddie Stay…

  • jonathanjones02

    Mark: why not engage an argument or opinion as respectfully as you can, instead of ridicule? It would make your future substantive points more credible.

  • digbydolben

    The Republicans are going to get much, much worse: I’ve seen it all before; I am a former South Carolinian who saw the way Dubya got the nomination away from McCain in South Carolina in 2000, and, let me tell you, the Democrats don’t have the stomach to do what Republicans can do to their opponents.

    This is essentially a fascist party, who practise the politics of the very “Big Lie” against their opponents. There are some decent Republicans left, for sure, but most of them will be voting for Obama–as the electoral map is beginning to indicate–after eight years of ineptitude in foreign affairs, of cozening the super-rich while preaching a populist ideology of class-hatred, of law-breaking on a breathtaking scale (wiretaps, torture, distortion to Congress and our allies of intelligence information, bribes by lobbyists, e.g. Abramoff, etc.).

    Their party’s leader has made himself far more liable for impeachment than Clinton ever was, and the American people know it. (See that map of polling again.) They also know that a McCain administration would be Bush redux, with possibly an even less internationalist and more militarist foreign policy.

    Obama and his followers may expect a landslide.

  • I’ll wait for Digby or Mark to explain exactly what information in the ad is inaccurate or constitutes a “lie,”

    I suspect I’ll be waiting a while for that to happen. The name calling, however, will no doubt continue.

    When your candidate of choice is Obama, there’s little one can do but engage in name calling.

  • Realist

    The dumbest thing the Republican Party ever did was to smear McCain out of the race in 2000. He was mopping the floor with Bush in the primaries and would have won nationally in a cake walk. The PEOPLE loved him but the Religious Right and Big Money poobahs of the party had already pre-anointed Bush who could be counted on to act as their puppet. McCain (who was still a maverick at the time and unususlly decent for a Republican) was interfering with The Fix and had to be quickly disposed of despite the will of the people. Thus the invention of the “black lovechild”. Oh my . . . if residents of the Palmetto State thought a black lovechild was bad, what will they think about having a black President? Such perfect karma–God really does have a sense of humor.

  • Mark DeFrancisis


    You (along with the ad) have not presented anything close to a cogent argument.

    Ayers? You better watch closely who attends the PTA meetings you and your spouse attend.

  • Video no longer available.

    9/11 = blowback

  • Realist

    EEEGADS Texas turned pink overnight!!! Who’da Thunk.


    Slip Slidin Away . . .
    Slip Slidin Away . . .

  • little gal

    “The message of the ad is “Obama has associated with some pretty repugnant folks in the past, by doing so he has shown poor judgment, and that poor judgment may cause him to select questionable individuals for the Supreme Court.”

    Just wait…Tony Rezco is getting ready to sing. And guess who the persons of interest are? None other than the current sitting governor of Illinois and Barack Obama.

  • Realist

    McCain showed poor judgment when be became involved in the Keating 5 scandal and more recently in picking Tina Fe . . . sorry, I mean Sarah Palin as a running mate. And then there was this:

    The fundamentals of our economy are strong
    ~ John McCain, 9-15-2008