Obama Campaign Threatens Stations Airing NRA Ads

[Skiprr]

In a case of, "I like the Constitution better if I can interpret it the way I choose to," Obama Campaign General Counsel, Robert Bauer, is coming within rock-throwing distance of dismissing the First Amendment while trying to prevent the NRA from protecting the Second.

A whole flurry of stuff happened during the past several days about this. Here's the nutshell description, with linkies:

The NRA prepared and purchased TV and radio spots highlighting Obama's record with respect to firearms.

The Washington Post (depending partialy upon FactCheck.org) published an unfavorable "analysis" of the NRA's veracity in those ads, giving them "three out of four Pinocchios." (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tr ... _in_e.html)

CNN chimed in and, while slightly toned down from the Washington Post piece, adjudged the NRA ads "misleading." (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ore_20006)

Baurer, Obama's General Counsel, pounced and sent threatening letters dated September 23 to news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio calling the NRA ads "false, misleading, and deceptive" and pointing to the Washington Post article as his sole evidence. (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ObamaLetterNRAAd.pdf, PDF file) Messages in his short letter include: "For the sake of both FCC licensing and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement" [1973 case law cited]; "Because you need not air this advertisement, your station bears responsibility for its content when you do grant access" [1950 case law cited]; "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising' may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility" [1978 case law cited]. Friendly sounding letter, no?

The NRA responded to the Washington Post with a pretty conclusive rebuttal of the facts and their sources. (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/wp_res ... amaads.pdf, PDF file)

NRA-ILA published information that shows FactCheck.org is not as objective and thorough as many would think. (http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel ... x?ID=11574, online article)

The NRA Counsel sent a brief memo to the news agencies that had received Baurer's threatening letter. Conversational and non-threatening in tone, the memo included the NRA's factual response to the Washington Post, and an article disclosing the bias of FactCheck.org. (http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nra_me ... amaads.pdf, PDF file)

Brooks Jackson, who authored the FactCheck.org piece with D'Angelo Gore, was extremely upset about the NRA ads. Jackson told FOX News: "They are lying. This is what they do. This is how they make their money. Do these people have no shame? They are just making this up. I just wish that they would tell the truth." He said that their ads were "one of the worst examples of lying" that he had "ever seen." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427347,00.html, Fox News online article, September 24)

Obama campaign representative Bill Burton told FOX News that "These ads are just complete crap." When Megyn Kelly asked "Has [Obama] ever supported a ban on handguns? ... And he never has?" Burton said flatly "no." He added that "All the points in these ads are just flatly false." (Ibid; read that whole Fox News article by John Lott; some good stuff.)

The Thursday, September 25 NRA-ILA post about the situation: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsRel ... x?ID=11588

The Friday, September 26 lead article about it titled "Campaign and DNC Launch Assault On First Amendment": http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=4192

[tallmike]

The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."

Perhaps so, but believing something doesn't make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... obama.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am an NRA life member and I trust factcheck.org to give me the straight answers more than an NRA ad. Factcheck is very careful to be sure they are non-partisan and they dont have an agenda here. NRA has an agenda and they are not shy about misquoting their opponents in order to further their agenda.

If we allow our side to be dishonest and distort facts in an attempt to further our agenda we are not helping our cause.

[KFP]

I have to say that I read through a lot of this last night and do not believe that factcheck is operating in an unbiased manner. I would encourage you to read various sources and check the info for yourself rather than rely on only one source.

[SCone]

Shows you just how "free" the press really is when t comes to liberals.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I am an NRA life member and I trust factcheck.org to give me the straight answers more than an NRA ad. Factcheck is very careful to be sure they are non-partisan and they dont have an agenda here.

Based upon what, their claim to unbiased? Look at this paragraph from the link you gave us.

Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

If factcheck.org relies upon campagin rhetoric for the "facts," then this alone is proof of its unreliability. You bet he changed his tune and has lied throughout his campaign! This is true not only on firearms issues, but even to his alleged lack of knowledge of Jeremiah Wright's, racist, anti-American teachings of the last 20+ years. Obama's statements and voting record since he was a state senator prove he is rabidly anti-gun, especially when it comes to handguns.

I used to use factcheck.org and snopes.com (f/k/a Urban Legends) as a source, until it became obvious neither were without political bias. Let's face it; the only reason any of us would try to use a single source to verify anything is laziness. (Me included.) We simply don't want to do the work to check the facts. In my articles on http://www.TexasCHLblog.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, I try to always include links to reliable sources so people can verify what I'm saying. factcheck.org may be accurate on some issues, people and events, but it has been shown to be biased on others. The above-linked article on Obama is an excellent example.

I have come to learn that if I want to quickly put an issue to rest in my mind, without regard to accuracy, then I can use factcheck.org, snopes.com, or any other single-source "Oracle." But if I want to know the truth and not what others want me to believe, then I either do the research myself, or read the work of others that have cited their sources and I check those sources.

Chas.

[KBCraig]

I am an NRA life member and I trust factcheck.org to give me the straight answers more than an NRA ad. Factcheck is very careful to be sure they are non-partisan and they dont have an agenda here.

I used to trust factcheck.org too, until this past primary season. Some of their "facts" about Ron Paul were blatant lies that didn't even require in-depth research to disprove.

It's sad to see a trusted source go under. I remember when Fox News was an excellent resource, instead of just "propaganda from the other side".

[bdickens]

What? The NRA has biases? Well no ... no kidding! Here's a newsflash for you: every organization has biases. Only thing is, some try to hide them behind a smokescreen of pretended "objectivity" while promulgating the most vile sort of lies, distortions and propaganda imaginable. It should be obvious to anyone what the NRA's biases are and that they don't try to hide them.

I'd sure like for those who accuse the NRA of "misquoting their opponents in order to further their agenda" to provide some evidence of that. Osama, I mean Obama (what's the difference?), has a voting history as a State, and later US, Senator that is a matter of open public record. It should be an easy enough matter for the Keepers of Truth to research that record.

[nitrogen]

It would really help Obama if he'd come out and be straight on the issue.
The fact that he won't means I have no idea what he'll do. I have to judge what he'll do in the future based on what he's done in the past.

In that case, we're in big trouble.

[Skiprr]

I'll excerpt from my original post:

Brooks Jackson, who authored the FactCheck.org piece with D'Angelo Gore, was extremely upset about the NRA ads. Jackson told FOX News: "They are lying. This is what they do. This is how they make their money. Do these people have no shame? They are just making this up. I just wish that they would tell the truth." He said that their ads were "one of the worst examples of lying" that he had "ever seen." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427347,00.html, Fox News online article, September 24)

It would be difficult for me not to interpret that bit as an emotional, distinctly biased rant. Brooks Jackson and FactCheck.org are not an objective fact source.

[tbranch]

...I trust factcheck.org to give me the straight answers more than an NRA ad. Factcheck is very careful to be sure they are non-partisan and they dont have an agenda here.

Are you serious? FactCheck is run by Annenberg. Annenberg and Obama go way back. Don't assume that they are not biased.

Tom

[srothstein]

Tallmike,

I used to think of factcheck.org as pretty good for their research and unbiased. In this election campaign, they have appeared more biased than I have seen in the past. I noted this on this issue and on the reports from the debate.

But here is one example (and I apologize to all for quoting the whole thing but I wanted to show their logic) of where I see bias:

False: Obama says he does not support any such handgun ban and never has. He supports "reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns" (not manufacture) and has said a ban is not "politically practicable."

The NRA bases its claim on a disputed 1996 questionnaire that Obama's Illinois state Senate campaign filled out for the nonprofit voting group, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. On it, somebody filled in the word "yes" in response to the question, "Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" But the Obama campaign said that the survey was actually filled out by his then-campaign manager who "unintentionally mischaracterized his position," adding that Obama never saw the survey.

As we wrote previously, an amended version of the questionnaire was later submitted to the group, with Obama's handwritten notes on it providing more detail on some of the answers. Obama clearly saw and handled this version personally and did not alter the question about banning the sale and manufacturing of guns. Nevertheless, his aides maintain that the gun-ban answer was a mistake and didn't reflect Obama's true position.

Whatever his position may have been in 1996, in 2003 he submitted another survey form to the same group avoiding a yes-or-no answer to the gun ban question and stating a position similar to his current stance. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama's answer read:

Obama, 2003: While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law."

In February 2008, the Associated Press reported that Obama said, "[T]here are people who say, 'Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state – we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." Even more recently, on April 16 at a Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Obama said,"I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

Note that the claim is marked as false when it asks if Obama supports now, or has ever supported, a ban. The discussion shows he clearly has supported the ban in the past, so it cannot truly be false. The organization shows that Obama even marked the answers himself on the update, so the original survey was not an error. They chose to believe the current campaign staffers who deny the obvious fact of Obama's handwriting. They might have labeled it misleading as they did other things if they wanted to believe he has changed, but it is not false.

But then, you have to ask if he still supports a ban. He did not answer that he does not support it. He said it is not politically feasible at this time. This certainly implies to me that he still supports the ban, but I suppose that could be my mistrusting nature. And then the article says he has a lot of hunters in his state so he has no intention of taking away people's guns. Again, this could be my distrustful nature, but it certainly implies he will leave what he thinks of as hunting guns while still banning handguns.

So, an unbiased review of the NRA claim might have concluded it was misleading. It might have concluded it was true or it might have said that Obama's position was unclear. I would even accept as unbiased a review that concluded Obama had supported a ban but had changed his position.

But there is no way an unbiased review could conclude that the claim that Obama supports now, or has supported in the past, a complete ban on handguns is false. That is why I am convinced the review was biased in favor of Obama or against the NRA.

As a second point, I will note that Obama has strong ties to the Annenberg Public Policy Center that pays factcheck's bills. I will freely acknowledge that this does not, in and of itself, prove any bias. I have argued many times that an independent researcher can get their money from anywhere and still remain independent. The facts and reviews in this article and the debate fact checking make me think otherwise in this case. It could also just happen to be the inherent bias of the reviewer. I do not know who the reviewers support int his election as individuals. But they are clearly not as unbiased in the case of McCain versus Obama as they have been in many other campaigns.

[tbranch]

As a second point, I will note that Obama has strong ties to the Annenberg Public Policy Center that pays factcheck's bills. I will freely acknowledge that this does not, in and of itself, prove any bias.

Brilliant! Maintain ties to the "unbiased" people who will be checking your facts! I give him credit for being smart but not all of us will be fooled.

Tom

[anygunanywhere]

All of us are biased.

I freely admit so.

Our grandson is the smartest, cutest, most adorable child ever born of two humans.

I married the finest woman ever to say "I do."

The second amendment means exactly what it says. Any attempt to circumvent the second amendment is unconstitutional and should be met with the full objection of all free PEOPLE.

Anygunanywhere

[Charles L. Cotton]

Annenberg Foundation donated $100,000 to Brady Center, as per their own website.

Chas.

Grants Database » Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Grants Database

Print this page Email this page
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence


$100,000 for efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry.

Program Area(s): Civic and Community
Date Awarded: September 2005 (FY 2006)
More Information: http://www.bradycenter.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Additional Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Grants

for efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry

http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/gran ... _id=312386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[anygunanywhere]

How unbiased can you get?

Anygunanywhere