TV Ad Depicts Cartoon Nancy Pelosi Being Tortured

Scenes from Right Change's
"The Attack of the 50-Foot Pelosi" TV Ad:

Have we become so inured to all the violent imagery and talk being directed towards Democrats that we can accept seeing a cartoon depiction of the Speaker of the House being hit multiple times with laser-like beams and writhing in pain in a TV ad and simply shrug it off?

The commercial is by a group called Right Change (Pittsburgh City Paper's Chris Potter has background on them here) and it's part of an $83,000 ad buy in the Pittsburgh and Johnstown media markets.

Titled "The Attack of the 50-Foot Pelosi," it's pro Republican Tim Burns in the special election race for the late US Rep. John Murtha's seat. According to Right Change, "The ad uses new technology for political ads with humor and cutting-edge animation."

I'm so glad that "new technology" was used to depict torturing (possibly to death) an elected official. I'm guessing that "humor" is to be found because it's an animated piece that has a (straw man) monster.

Of course there's nothing really new in describing a strong woman as a "monster." It's actually pretty old hat even by South Park standards (Barbra Streisand was made into a mechanical Godzilla-like monster on the show over a decade ago).

I'm guessing that it was deemed perfectly acceptable to depict Nancy Pelosi WRITHING AND SCREAMING IN PAIN because she is a "monster" from San Francisco.

Ha ha!

But I don't accept that.

What's next?

A cartoon Pelosi being shot with cartoon bullets spilling cartoon blood?

Would that be alright?

Is it somehow more acceptable to try to kill the Speaker of the House with magical Tim Burns buttons than with guns?

Can you imagine the uproar that would be had over an ad that had similarly depicted Sarah Palin (or even George Bush or Dick Cheney)?

Now here's where I fully admit that I have not personally seen this ad on the air and that I only heard about it because my sister, Gina, saw it aired multiple times on KDKA TV and she was floored by it and kept telling me to check it out.

I called KDKA today hoping to ask someone there what standards they had for the ads they run. (Obviously they have some standards. They wouldn't run ads that, say, contain nudity or profanity. )

Someone at the station had to view the ad and approve it. (I once knew a woman who worked for NBC whose sole job was to make sure that their ads didn't conflict with their network programming content -- no diet product ads after a story on famine, for example.)

I was eventually directed to a woman who I assume is in their advertising department who said that I could not quote her and who hung up on me. Nice! (Yes, I gave my full name and identified myself as a blogger.) She seemed to think that my beef should be solely with the ad agency and the account and not the station.

Well, I've been blogging for nearly six years now and in all that time and in all my Photoshops I have managed to somehow never depict an elected official -- or anyone else for that matter -- being lasered and screaming in pain, and yet a television station has no problems broadcasting this on the public airwaves.

If you have a problem with this -- if you haven't been numbed to the outrageousness of it -- maybe you might want to consider calling KDKA and telling them that it is not acceptable to torture any politician -- even a cartoon one -- in a television commercial.

Their switchboard number is: 412-575-2200 (It rings for a very long time).

UPDATED: Heard it (was out of the room) on WTAE TV (local ABC affiliate) this morning: Main desk at 412-242-4300, Email here

Caught part of it on WPXI TV (local NBC affiliate) last night: Phone: 412-237-1100

Finally, here's the full ad in all its gory:

UPDATE: I just saw it on air on KDKA (5/14/10, 4:44 PM).

UPDATE 2: Heard it (was out of the room) on WTAE TV (local ABC affiliate) this morning: Main desk at 412-242-4300, Email here

Caught part of it on WPXI TV (local NBC affiliate) last night: Phone: 412-237-1100

Saw it three times on KDKA TV on yesterday's afternoon news.

UPDATE 3: LINKS TO THIS POST:
Shakesville "Oh My Aching Sides" (by Melissa McEwan)
A Spork in the Drawer "Not-So-Random Question" (by Spork Incident)
Crooks and Liars "Mike's Blog Roundup" (by Bluegal)
Politics Daily "Pelosi Takes the Heat: 'If I Were Not Effective They Wouldn't Care About Me'" (by Melinda Henneberger)
.

Barbara Hafer Drops Out

Via PoliticsPA:

“Today I am announcing I am withdrawing my petitions and will not be seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for the U.S. House in Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district. We had a spirited campaign for who would make the best nominee in the special election, but in the spirit of Jack Murtha I believe now is not the time to continue this race. I look forward to finding other ways to continue to serve the public and change this state and this country for the better.”

.

Run, Barbara, Run!

It's great to hear that Barbara Hafer will be in the running for Rep. Jack Murtha's seat in the 12th Congressional District. Currently, only 2 out of 19 US Representatives from Pennsylvania are women.

Let's change that!

From Jeanne K. C. Clark:

Barbara is a strong women's rights supporter, as I'm sure you know. She has served the Commonwealth well, for two terms as State Auditor General and two terms as State Treasurer. She has amazing crossover appeal, always attracting both Democratic and Republican support, and strong name recognition. She is an amazing campaigner and terrific fundraiser. And she would be a formidable opponent to any of the Republicans who are currently eyeing the race.

Unexpected opportunities like this seat don't come around often, and they usually go to the most likely white male insider. This time, it can be different. But we need to act fast. You can be sure the that the usual guys are lining up their supporters. We need to make our voices heard -- right now.

Please join me in writing to TJ Rooney, Chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and Governor Ed Rendell, urging them to support Barbara Hafer for the 12th Congressional District. Urge them to do everything they can to make Barbara Hafer the next member of Congress from Pennsylvania.

You can reach TJ Rooney by email at tjrooney@padems.com You can write to Governor Rendell from his web site at http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Governor/govmail.html

Together, we can put another great woman from Pennsylvania in Congress!

.

RIP John Murtha

John "Jack" Murtha, 1932 - 2010
Rep. John "Jack" Murtha, PA's longest serving Member of Congress passed away today. There are numerous online obituaries for Murtha, but I like this from Think Progress best:

During the Bush administration, Murtha became a forceful, outspoken voice for Iraq redeployment. In November 2005, the former Marine and Iraq war hawk came out and called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal in Iraq. His stance was a turning point in the war debate, clearing the way for more Democrats to speak up. “The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home,” he declared.

Of course, there's already speculation as to who will be elected to serve out his term.
.

"Stupak" makes it in to the Urban Dictionary

Does "stupak" mean:

"A medical condition (subset of sepsis) resulting from unsafe - unnecessarily so - back alley abortions as a result of the "Stupak Amendment" to the 2009 Health Care Reform Bill."

Or is it:

adj: imposing religious beliefs of one group on another, especially through legislation or financial pressure.

How about:

To do something ridiculous, silly, moronic, stupid, asinine, idiotic, etc.

You can vote up your favorite definition here.

Personally, I'm torn between the first two defintions, but for this post, I want to remind everyone that here in Western PA we have three very stupak Democrats:

Mike Doyle, Jason Altmire and John Murtha all voted for the Stupak Amendment.
.

More News

CNN projects Altmire over Hart AND Murtha over Russell.

Now THIS Is News

Get a gander at this endorsement:

12th Congressional District: Republican Bill Russell vs. Democrat incumbent Jack Murtha

Mr. Murtha, seeking his 18th House term, has become a lot of people's favorite whipping boy. Just this month, he was eviscerated for -- GASP! -- confirming there are racists and rednecks in our midst. And his sharp words following the Haditha killings in Iraq might not have been the most artful but they certainly did force a change in basic tactics, as did his call for U.S. forces to leave Iraq. The military still has no better champion. It's no contest. Re-elect Jack Murtha.

Any guess as to which paper this is? Right - it's THE TRIB. Dickiecougarmellonscaife's little paper that could is endorsing Democrat Jack Murtha over his Republican Challenger Bill Russell.

William Russell

Last night on KDKA I heard John Steigerwald interview Peg Luksik, William Russell's campaign manager. Russell's running against Representative John Murtha (D-PA).

They raved at this news:

A JAW-dropping political miracle may be on the horizon. No, I'm not talking about the second coming of the Obamessiah. I'm talking about the long-deserved comeuppance of troop-smearing, pork-feasting, scandal-tainted Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania.

The 18-term congressman's challenger, staunch conservative Republican newcomer William Russell, raised nearly $670,000 in the second quarter. Earmark king Murtha scraped together a measly $119,000.

And they danced the standard anti-Murtha dance; Abscam, Haditha, Congressional Pork and so on.

Turns out that the numbers might not be as peachy as Frau Malkin ranted. According to Talking Points Memo, Russell's been using a firm called BMW Direct for its fundraising.

The Boston Globe had a good piece on BMW Direct. The piece is about a candidate running against Barney Frank, a guy named Charles Morse.

Yet the political fund-raising firm that ran Morse's campaign finances reported that it raised more than $700,000 for his race, much of it from GOP contributors across the country eager to help defeat a Massachusetts liberal - and some of it donated well after Morse abandoned the race.

A review of campaign reports shows that, rather than spending that money in the Fourth Congressional District, 96 percent of the funds raised in Morse's name were used to pay a politically connected direct-mail firm in Washington, BMW Direct Inc., and a coterie of BMW Direct's affiliates and contractors. The firms specialize in national fund-raising appeals on behalf of conservative Republican candidates and right-wing causes.

Talking Points Memo has a rundown on Russell's finances:

In the most recent quarter Russell raised $669,534, almost all from out-of-state donors who presumably are on BMW Direct's list of self-styled conservatives with a good track record of responding to direct-mail fundraising.

At the same time, he spent $442,990, almost all of it on expenses related to the direct mail effort and paid to BMW Direct and its affiliates (some of which share the same downtown Washington office).

The only expenses that appear to be spent on an actual campaign totaled about $20,000 for Web site design, a low-budget video and a campaign consultant based in Pennsylvania rather than Washington.

He reports having $269,953 in cash on hand. But he also reports debts totaling $242,521 -- almost all for direct mail expenses to BMW Direct and its vendors.
So that leaves him only about $27,431 ahead -- not much for a guy who's raised a total of nearly $1 million this election cycle.

It also turns out that Russell failed to get the necessary signatures to get on the ballot as a Republican. From the Post-Gazette:

Mr. Murtha had faced a challenge from former Army Lt. Col. William Russell, who moved to the Johnstown area so he could run as a Republican. But Commonwealth Court ruled last week that he failed to file the required 1,000 signatures on his nominating petition and removed him from the ballot, clearing the way for Mr. Murtha to run uncontested for his 18th term.

A million dollars raised for a candidate not on the ballot. SOP for BMW Direct

Murtha Coverage in the P-G

I met Jerome Sherman in early January. He seemed like a nice enough guy, so I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt in his article today of Congressman Jack Murtha.

But whoever writes the headlines, that person I got a serious problem with.

First, the headline:

John Murtha: How a lifelong hawk became a dove, too

Veteran Congressman still champions military even though he opposes Iraq war

Notice something? Yea I am sure you do - the parallel phrase structure of the two headlines.

"hawk" is (nearly) set in opposition to "dove"

and then

"champions military" is set in opposition to "opposes Iraq war"

I say "nearly" for the first line because it does say he's a hawk AND a dove.

It's the second line that's most egregious. The implication is that someone who opposes the war can't possibly "champion" the military. This isn't 2003, folks. According to a recent (5/29-6/1/07) poll done by ABC News/Washington Post, only 37% of the American people thought that the Iraq war was "worth fighting." 61% said it was "not worth fighting." If we stretch the logic of the P-G headline writers to that poll, a majority of the American people don't "champion the military" because they oppose the war.

It's absurd at its face. And yet it's there in black and white on the pages of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

But since it's my understanding that article writers do NOT write the headlines, this one can't be pinned on Jerome Sherman.

The rest of the article, however, can be. The piece is, roughly speaking, a biography. But it seems to be written to position Murtha as a flip-flopper on the one hand, while also undermining his credibility with a smear on 'tother. Look at how Murtha's past is set up in opposition to his current views on the Iraq war. Paragraph six and seven:

"I thought it was important that we stood up to communism," he said recently. "And if the Congress and the president said it was the right war, I thought it was the right war."

Today, 40 years later, Mr. Murtha, the senior congressman from Pennsylvania, doesn't express similar confidence about President Bush's military decisions. He has become one of Congress' loudest and most prominent critics of the war in Iraq, calling for a rapid redeployment of more than 150,000 U.S. troops.

If it was good enough for LBJ, why wasn't it good enough for GWB?

Then comes the criticism of the Congressman, first he's called a coward ("He's lost his nerve.") by a fellow Marine who served in Vietnam, though Sherman never says he served with Murtha in Vietnam - something to remember. So after the Jean Schmidt smear resurfaces, Sherman trots out another swiftboat smear.

It's from the Cybercast News Service. Why would a real news source (the P-G) even bother with a fake news source like CNSNews? Sherman writes:

The Cybercast News Service, an online news organization, last year ran a report questioning whether Mr. Murtha deserved two Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam, even though Marine records confirm that he was wounded.

Especially since Sherman's own paper published this in May, 2002:

Choby [who was running against Murtha at the time] criticized Murtha, the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress, for not turning over medical records proving he's entitled to his two Purple Hearts. Murtha spokesman Brad Clemenson insisted his boss deserved the medals.

Marine Corps casualty records show that Murtha was injured in "hostile" actions near Danang, Vietnam, on March 22, 1967 and May 7, 1967. In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation.

No mention of CNS being owned by the right-wing Media Research Center, is there? No mention that CNS was originally called the "Conservative News Service" is there? No critical review of the source of the smear, is there? Nope, it's just there.

We have to wait more than 40 paragraphs to read:

The Johnstown Marine was wounded twice during his tour of duty, both times in helicopters. On one occasion, he was in an H-34 "Seahorse" that made a hard landing to avoid enemy fire, throwing passengers from their seats. Another attack came in mid-air. A bullet pierced the helicopter and sprayed him with shrapnel.

He was eventually awarded two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star with Combat "V," and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.

Even before he came out against the Iraq war, Mr. Murtha faced questions about his medals from political opponents. The 2006 Cybercast News Service report interviewed some of those old rivals, citing discrepancies in how Mr. Murtha has described his wounds.

According to documents in the Marine Corps' public archives in Quantico, Va., Mr. Murtha received "lacerations" on his cheek and near his eye. He says he also hurt his knee and scratched his arm.

It takes that long to see that the CNSNews criticisms were from Murtha's political rivals. Hardly an objective source.

It's also interesting who Sherman gives the last word to. Get a gander:

"A war initiated on faulty intelligence must not be followed by a premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable," he wrote in an epilogue to his book.

Now, Mr. Murtha rejects that idea, and he hopes to use his power of the purse as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to force the Bush administration to change course.

"I made a mistake. I admitted I made a mistake," he said. "I couldn't get anywhere just by talking to [the Bush administration.] I had to say something publicly, and I think it's made the difference."

Many anti-war advocates credit Mr. Murtha's switch as a turning point in the debate about the war, citing his credibility as a conservative lawmaker with a good track record on defense issues.

Mr. Stokes [who had served with the 1st Marine Regiment in Vietnam], 75, doesn't see it that way: "If I saw Jack, I'd tell him what I really thought about him. But I don't need to see it in the newspaper."

This is balance?

Santorum's Back!

What is it about Republican blowhards being weeks behind the news and/or not getting the simple facts straight?

Recently there was Ruth Ann Dailey's absurdly stubborn refusal to see the reality staring at her in the face - the Speaker Pelosi jet "scandal". Then there's Jack Kelly most every sunday.

Now EX-Senator Man on Dog enters the arena of spin and half truths. Here's the first paragraph:

It is disappointing that Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, is portraying his efforts to cut funding for troops deploying to Iraq as an attempt to fix problems with our military when he previously told the liberal organization MoveOn.org that his real motivation was to ensure that the military "won't be able to continue" with its new Iraq strategy to secure Baghdad.

First off, Murtha wasn't talking with Moveon.org with that now famous interview, but with the one-time similarly named though unconnected Movecongress.org. The interview can be found on this page. The name of the blog may has been changed to "Stand Up Congress" but the URL (if you'll notice) still says "Movecongress.org."

And how do I know that moveon.org and movecongress.org are NOT the same organizations?

Says so here in an article from 2 1/2 weeks ago in the Washington Post. They ran a correction that reads:

A Feb. 25 article incorrectly said that the antiwar Web site MoveCongress.org is affiliated with the liberal activist group MoveOn.org.

Seems that the writers of that article in the Washington Post made the same mistake that our former junior Senator made - only they made it two weeks earlier. And how do I know this? Ariana Huffington pointed out the error so in her criticism of that Washington Post Article the very next day (February 26):

MoveCongress is not, in fact, "affiliated" with MoveOn. Indeed, if the Post reporters had bothered to check out the MoveCongress site, they'd have found a note announcing a name change contest designed to help the fact-check-challenged media avoid any further confusion.

Now that Lil Ricky's working for a big think-tank, doesn't he have anyone to fact-check over there? Doesn't anyone read the Washington Post?

Now from Ricky's column, he writes:

Instead of pursuing victory in Iraq, Rep. Murtha supports a premature U.S. withdrawal that would endanger America.

Uh, Rick? So do a majority of Americans. From CNN:

Nearly six in 10 of those polled want to see U.S. troops leave Iraq either immediately or within a year.

It also turns out that at the time of that Washington Post article, a majority of Americans actually favored Murtha's plan for "creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq" 58 to 39 percent.

Such meaty deconstruction in just the first few paragraphs! Do I need to continue?

Rick, your problem isn't with Congressman Murtha - whatever the strenghts or weaknesses of his plan. Your problem is with the American People.

But then again, it always has been.