Good point, but I’m a little surprised I haven’t heard a Republican say this about Hillary before. Maybe they haven’t had a chance because she’s spent so much time hanging out with Gingrich and voting for their stupid war. 
This ad is infuriating, but let’s be honest: the man doesn’t have a chance in hell. Knowing that it won’t help him does make it a little more palatable.
Well, Spencer could hardly stand on his own record. After all, his major elective office was as Mayor of Yonkers when it became the only city ever to go bankrupt in New York State history (AFAIK). Another Republican for fiscal integrity!
Where are the Republicans who complain that the Democrats are shrill, combative, and divisive?
They’re busy aggressively shrieking about wedge issues.
And class warfare. Don’t forget class warfare.
they’re doing wedgies, too??!!?!!?!?
the bastids!!!
I missed how they were connecting her to OBL. Are they saying she’s intentionally weakening security so he can attack the US?
If so, can’t she sue Spencer for slander? Or is it allowed in political ads?
I mean, there’s gotta be a law against making accusations like that.
I have to disagree with the OP. This is not a new low. Republicans (and in fact politicians of all stripes) have been sinking this low for decades, at least.
I remember an ad from 1972, in which a bum popped out from a man hole, and said something like “Vote for the Democrats, so we can bring back sewars and gutters!” I was only 10 at the time, but I was aghast at the incredible level of stupidity in that.
Oh, no – I meant that I was surprised it took the Republicans to stoop that low for this election cycle.
Thanks for checking up on the ideological purity of that post, mhendo. And note that you didn’t issue any condemnation at all. Someone who doesn’t know you better might be forgiven for interpreting that as a tacit approval of the ad. 
*We did. * Tonnes of them, right after Desert Storm in 1990. Oh, after that, when W invaded? Meh, not so much. A few tad ends of old useless rusted out crap left over from before and a a few other items that are rather doubtful. So you have to define when.
But if the question was “Did we find WMD in Iraq?” without giving a time period, then the correct answer is Yes. And, even if we are talking about post W’s little invasion, then a nitpicker would also say yes, because those few ends of outdated worthless rusted out crap still were WMD, like it or not. And then again, SH had modified quite a few of his missles to be longer range- which was illegal, and they *could * be considered as WMD. So, you have to define “WMD” to get a good answer.
Now, if the question was worded correctly- “Did we find significant WMD* in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion?”, then the answer would be “No”, of course. But if there was a poll that got a result that 50% of Americans believed that we found WMD in Iraq, you’d have to know how the question was worded in order for the result to be meaningful.
Too many of these poll memes are tossed around without us knowing how meaningful they are. I have :dubious: as to this one.
- and a good definition of WMD
Are you sure that wasn’t one of Pat Paulson’s ads from The Smother’s Brothers Show during the '68 election?
I’d like to take this opportunity to say…
Gooooooooooooooooooo Hillary!
I was pretty unaware of politics in '68. And I remember seeing it during the daytime. In the house we lived in in '72. And it was a slam against McGovern, I’m pretty sure.
You’re welcome.
Of course, any reasonably intelligent person would have inferred my attitude to the ad from what i wrote about your post.
The difference being, of course, that i didn’t make an explicit statement in which my attitude to the ad was follwed by what appeared to be a caveat regarding the candidate’s chance of winning.
I don’t really think it’s a big deal; it just struck me that your post implied that the ad’s nuttiness was a reflection of the guy’s poor chance of victory. In a better world, one not populated by Republican voters who actually swallow this shit, the ad’s nuttiness would be the cause of this guy’s poor chance at victory. Potential Republican voters would see it and decide that the guy had no credibility whatsoever.
Unfortunately, as we’ve seen in multiple races over the past few years, associating the Democrats with being unpatriotic and in bed with the terrorists only seems to energize the Republican base, not turn it off.
mhendo, I think you’re reading too much into what John Mace said. I understand why you would, but you probably shouldn’t focus so much on whether or not he offers sufficient condemnation for the various GOP evils. John Mace might be wrong sometimes, but he has integrity.
Absolutely. I happen to like the guy, and although i don’t always agree with him i think he offers intelligent and often persuasive reasons for his positions. In fact, had he been someone who i thought was an idiot, i may not even have commented on his post, but just let it go as the usual blather.
You’re probably right that i’m reading too much into it, though, so i’ll stop.
Better get used to it. Its all they got, and they are going to hammer away at it.
“Apply directly to the forehead!” WHACK! “Apply directly to the forehead!” WHACK!..
And so forth.
The Big Cold Wet Trout of Truthiness!