POL- Brutal Campaign Ad
 

Just saw the most negative attack ad I've seen in a long time. It's also the most brutally effective ad I've seen in a long time.

hxxp://www.jerrykilgore.com/contents/media/videos/ads/stanley1.shtml

Further thoughts in a dola post.

saving Cam from the dola :)

Out of all the things that the state government does, executing prisoners is probably extremely low on the list of things that would effect your life. It would be ironic if this had a huge impact on the campaign, but I guess that's politics.

This is the worst dola ever.

bah, that's what I get trying to dola when I'm hosting a show.

further thoughts...

I was expecting Stanley to say something like "I don't trust Tim Kaine to deal with the type of criminals who killed my son." I didn't expect him to say Tim Kaine volunteered to represent his son's killer. That came out of left field.

I talked with Larry Sabato, political science professor at UVA. He was the moderator for the last debate between Kaine and Kilgore, and he said he was amazed by the number of people who wanted him to ask the candidates about the death penalty.

Not sure how many undecideds there are now (I believe most polls show it hovering around 10%) but this is a commercial that could play a big impact. I just wonder if the Kilgore campaign's released it to early (election day is in 28 days).

I think the Hitler reference was what took me by surprise. I mean, really. Godwin's Law has finally hit political ads.

It's no LBJ ad of a girl picking flowers with a mushroom cloud in the background.

John Adams defended the English soldiers accused in the Boston massacre because of his firm belief that everyone has a right to counsel. That concept found its way into the Bill of Rights.

Of course, Virginians don't think too much of John Adams.

What a disgusting commercial.

Yeah, that was the shocker for me.

And, oh yeah...dola.

Heh, that's what I was going to mention.

to be fair, when you read the original article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Kaine himself brought it up.

hxxp://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031785245334&path=%21editorials%21commentary&s=1045855934999
I agree that most voters will not have seen this statement, and it's inclusion is probably the weakest point in the ad.

To digamma, there's a difference between believing everybody's entitled to counsel, and trying to stop an execution of a convicted killer. Kaine took Mark Sheppard's case on appeal, and tried to block the killer's execution, not convince the court of his innocense (something else the ad doesn't make clear, to it's disadvantage).

Believing everyone has the right to counsel and believing that everyone has the right of life aren't completely different concepts. Kaine is actually very principled with regards to his belief that only God should be able to take someone's life.

The ad is not clear on that point, but I'd still argue that due process under the law doesn't end when the jury announces its guilty verdict. It includes sentencing and the appeals process.

I don't know the circumstances under which Kaine took the Sheppard case, his motives in taking the case or his history on the death penalty issue, but the ad's initial statements reek of hand-waving freakoutery of the worst kind: "Don't vote for Tim Kaine. He defends murderers."

I'll stand by my initial assessment.

Hmmm.

Interesting, seeing as I'm now a resident of Virginia and have to figure out who the heck I'm going to be voting for (and I know NOTHING on either candidate).

Of course, opposite to what Kilgore probably wanted, I'd use that ad to support Kaine, as I too am opposed to the death penalty. I don't want to start the debate on for or against the death penalty, just pointing out that based on that ad (if that's all an election were based on), I'd vote Kaine.

/tk

You get a star from me for "post of the day".

Initial thought after seeing the ad: It's a sign of how messed up politics and voter behavior is in this country that an election can be decided by one of the most insignificant issues of the race. And how nice that in the middle of the ad the father was able to squeeze the word "liberal" like it was a dirty word. Forget about how we educate our children, spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money and invest in economic development; it's all about the death penalty.

Reaction after reading some of the background information: This ad wasn't about the death penalty at all. It's about religion. Kilgore isn't trying to say that Kaine is anti-death penalty. He is trying to say that Keane is Catholic and not like the rest of us. I'm sure it will be an extremely effective strategy; Virginia is 14 percent Catholic and less than 1 percent Jewish, but is 69 percent protestant. This ad isn't about crime; it's about "personal values," which means religion.

I think this is an example of religious intolerance at its best -- it's OK for my religion to allow us to put people to death, but if your religion says it's not OK, then you're the one with something wrong with you, not me. And we make fun of the Muslim world for having elections and politics determined by religion.

It would certainly appear that Kaine took the case for personal ethic reasons, whether they be religious in nature or in dedication to his profession or both. The ad makes it sound like Kaine took the case because he is unprincipled, when in fact it would appear that he took the case because he is very principled.

I agree with Cam's assessment that the ad is "brutally effective." But can anyone make the case that the ad isfair? The ad doesn't necessarily lie, but it would appear to tremendously distort the truth.

God bless America.

Hilarious to me that it seems like the guy is saying "I can't believe that someone who opposes the death penalty opposes it in EVERY case!"

I'm Jerry Kilgore... and I just made in ad that makes Joe Canadian support my opponent!

You're just saying that because you were there ;)

SI

From what little I know about your politics, I think you're much more compatible with Tim Kaine than with Jerry Kilgore.

And I think you're right, in the sense that those who oppose the death penalty will be much more likely to support Kaine after seeing this ad. I guess that's a risk the Kilgore campaign is willing to take.

Jerry Kilgore helped out with the High School Tennis team at my wife's School, when she was part of the team. She says he's definately lost that southern *twang* that she said he used to have.

Holy crap. If he's lost the twang, I'd hate to have heard him way back when.

It seems pretty silly that some people view the difference between the death penalty and life in prison without parole as a difference between being hard or soft on crime.

Also, as I recall, all of the soldiers that Adams defended were acquitted or received only a relatively minor punishment.

I haven't even looked at the specific add you linked yet...

[rant]But, I have been DISGUSTED by Kilgore's ad strategy over the last several weeks. I have seen probably 6 commercials of his... 5 of them smeer Kaine (often on stupid issues imo) and say NOTHING about what he is actually going to do. I was shocked on Sunday when I saw an ad where it actually talked about what Kilgore would do and little to nothing about Kaine...

Kaine on the other hand I have seen 2 or 3 ads all of which talk about what Kaine plans to do and hardly if at all mention Kilgore.

Me being one of those "undecideds" who does not automatically vote for a party, this is enough to make me vote for Kaine. I honestly know VERY little about the candidates (besides the fact that I know that I feel Warner has done a very good job and I associate Kaine with Warner) to make an informed decision and very likely won't bother because of how much I despise Kilgore's methods in this campaign...

[/rant]

Someone's right to counsel does not apply to the appeal process? Why is it in place then?

Interesting... looks like the negative slant is recent.. all of his earlier ads focus on what he's going to do...

That's a good question. Until the Warren court decided it, indigent defendants weren't even guaranteed a free lawyer. Since then, courts have held that their is no right to appellate counsel. As a result, almost all of the death penalty appellate work is done pro bono. I don't know how you can condemn a person for offering quality legal service to someone who is going to be executed. That is just bizarre to me.

I think you are overestimating the modern political climate. I have little doubt that this was fairly considered, and that perfectly sensible people decided that this message would gain votes for the candidate, or at least cost votes for his opponent. And I suspect they are right about that.

Political messages frequently boil down to the shortest, pithiest statement. Which one works better on talk radio to you?

#1 - He voluntarily defended murderers! Vote against him!

#2 - He respected every Amercian's fundamental right to be treated fairly by the judicial system, including at the appellate level, where defendants are not afforded public counsel. In keeping with the appropriate role of an officer of the court, he maintained his duty as a pro bono representative of the condemned man, to ensure that he received a fair and appropiate sentence. In that, he did a service to our civil society, and ought to be applauded for it. Vote for him.



I don't claim to know much of anything about the candidates (I see a few ads from DC stations, but have not followed the race much)... but I have some general idea what people respond to. I'm leaning toward #1 above.

Just wanted everyone to know that I will be cancelling out Cam's Kilgore vote in the upcoming Virginia gubernatorial election... ;)

I was probably just being glib in what I said before, because I agree with what you are saying. I just think it is sad that appellate defenders of condemned prisoners aren't openly applauded at every occassion. They do hard, unrewarding work for a noble cause. To attack someone for that just seems so wrong to me.

I wonder if it's a difference in television markets. I don't watch a lot of tv, but the only Kaine ad I've seen recently is a negative ad by Kaine accusing Kilgore of wanting to take money from education. It ends with a little girl looking into the camera and saying "Hey Jerry, pick on someone your own size". :D

So an interesting development today... Kaine has come out and said even though he's personally opposed to the death penalty, he won't stop any executions if elected governor.

hxxp://www.wvec.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8D64RAG5.html
So what are we to believe now? The governor in Virginia has the authority to commute any and all death sentences, or to declare a moratorium on the death penalty.

Frank Keating, when he was governor of Oklahoma, had to go through something similar every time there was a scheduled execution. He's Catholic, just like Kaine, and it seemed like there was a story each and every execution about the Catholic Church and the death penalty. Keating said that the Church's stance on the death penalty wasn't doctrine, and he disagreed with it, therefore there was no moral quandry about carrying out an execution.

In the case of Kaine (or other anti-death penalty governors), is there a moral obligation to NOT carry out these executions? I'm not sure how to put this without attacking Kaine, but doesn't it seem a little weird to say "I believe the death penalty is murder, but I won't use my authority to stop a murder from taking place"?

I guess it's the politically sound thing to do, but it still kind of bugs me. I think I'd rather just have Candidate A say "Fry 'em all" and Candidate B say "No death penalty for anyone".

I'm shocked, SHOCKED at this turn of events. :)

Actually, I think my wife gets dibs on cancelling my vote, so you can cancel someone elses. :)

Cam,

well.. since we're talking about the Virginia Governor's race...

Do you know of a good, central site that objectively (or as close to it as you can get) lays out each candidate's platform?

I'm with you. Grow a pair, you sissy liberals! If you're going to take a principled stance against the death penalty, good for you. Stand up for it, don't bob and weave about it.

It's my understanding (and this understanding may be faulty) that there's enough wiggle room in most mainstream religions for this to not be a moral problem, at least if one wanted to view it "technically".

Therefore I think such a question has to revert back to a personal view on the death penalty. And there I think that yes, it would be nice, and perhaps resonate well with voters, if candidates would just be clear on their views (i.e. "I don't have a problem with executing people" and "I feel it is morally wrong to execute people").

However, as others have noted, candidates have to be exceptionally careful how they phrase these statements, since these statements can be great fodder for attack ads.

Personally, I think that if you're an anti-death penalty candidate, the best possible sound bite you can give is: "Until the legal system can guarantee that we're not going to accidentally execute people later found to be innocent, I think we have to suspend executions."

To (roughly) quote the main character from American Dad:

"You will not have an abortion. That's the ONE way we conservatives don't like killing something."

Sad to say, but no.

I think a pro-Kaine blog is called Raising Kaine. Commonwealth Conservative seems to be a big pro-Kilgore blog. Don't have any links right off hand.

I agree mostly. I beleive that a judge, for instance, takes an oath to support the constitution and laws. And that whether a judge is for or against the death penalty should not affect the way that she rules.

If, as a judge, you cannot personally hand down a death sentence, then you should not have taken the oath of office and become a judge. The job demands that you leave your personal beliefs (whatever they are) at the door. Otherwise, you give people an excuse to disrespect the judiciary.

The governor, if I am not mistaken, has the discretionary authority to commute any and all sentences. And that power is in his sole discretion. I don't think that he is right when he says that "it is the law" that he does not have that power.

In that way, I agree that he should stand up for what he believes. Of course, politicians make compromises all of the time in order to get elected, but I don't know if I respect someone who is willing to compromise on this issue, when his reasons for believing it seem so strong.

If I'm ever elected governor (which will never happen, BTW), I will commute all death sentences into life w/o parole. As long as state law gives me the power to do it, I would feel morally obligated to do it.

cool. I'm glad you guys didn't see my comment as a personal attack on anyone, and I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking that.

But regrettably, in most cases, part of "being electable" is watering down most of your principled stances. The electorate, at large, demands it -- as we (even the ones who are generally open-minded about whom to vote for) generally tend to look for things we don't like about candidates, rather than what we do like. At the moment, I think this problem faces Democrats more than Republicans, as many Ds are worried that they will lose the center if they come out too "pro-gay" or "weak on crime."

Can there be a better barometer of this kind of thinking than flag burning? Tond of elected officials will tell you privately that they abhor the notion of censoring political expression in any form, and that banning flag burning is exactly that. Then, they sigh and go vote for the anti-flag-burning legislation of the day because it's just too difficult to explain to John Q. Voter why you'd vote against Old Glory.

And then, of course, we whine and complain when our elected officials engage in a political culture of convenience, and decide what to say based on which way the wind blows. We say we don't like that, and then we routinely re-elect the same group of clowns back into office with positively alarming frequency.


What were we talking about again?

People who commit capital offenses think that there is a big difference between life w/o parole and death.

I am pro-death penalty, but I have no problem with a guy like Kaine protecting the consititutional rights of someone accused (or convicted) of a crime. he is protecting all of our rights when he does this. He is also helping to ensure that the person is actually guilty. I would rather let 100 guilty men go free than incarcerate one innocent man and all that. I would applaud this guy as John Gault suggests. I also find this guy Kaine refreshing in that he is principled[sp]. I like that he believes in something enough to do the unpopular thing (I guess like John Adams).

(I just hope that the guilty guy's rights are not violated so that we can execute them. I happen to believe in the death penalty as a good general and specific deterrent and as punishment.)

I understand where you're coming from, but this isn't a flag. This is a person. This is standing by and watching (what you believe to be) a murder take place when you have the power to stop it.

With all due respect to judicial clerk, I don't think that's principled at all.

Maybe he views the will of the people as more important than his personal view. Maybe he thinks the "city of man" must be obeyed before reaching the "city of god." I do not know whether his stand is political or principled, but I don't think his views are irreconciable with either.

Does the difference between whether or not you could potentially be executed for a murder stop anyone from committing a murder? I could be convinced that is the case, but personally, it seems as though if I'm going to murder someone, the punishment if I get caught isn't really a deciding factor of whether I follow through. Granted, I don't have the proper mindset to murder anyone (I hope).

I'm pro death penalty as well. There are plenty of open and shut cases where it can be used without concern that you are executing an innocent person. And I have no problem with a lawyer defending a murderer. That's how our justice system is supposed to work.

That's frustrating... as someone who is not deep into politics, especially when you narrow it down to state and local politics, this is something that is severely lacking...

Ahwell.. all I know is I have a VERY sour taste in my mouth for Republicans as VA Governors because of Gilmore.

I think this is right. I have tremendous respect for elected officials who have an appreciation for the structure of government are willing to prioritize the importance of institutional roles over their personal opinions.

I recall Russ Feingold taking all sorts of flack from liberals for voting to confirm John Ashcroft as AG. He said that while he disagreed with everything Ashcroft stood for politically, Ashcroft was basically a competent and qualified person and that the role of the Senate in confirming cabinet members should be essentially deferential. That the President should be given a good deal of leeway in who he hires to serve in his administration.

This is the sort of thing that John Roberts spent most of his confirmation hearing talking about: judicial humility. It's one thing for a judge to have opinions, but there is a particular role that judges are meant to play in government and they should confine their opinions to the service of that role. I think that applies to many positions in government outside the Court. I only with more politicians could prioritize the health of the institution of government above their day-to-day political agenda.

Yeah, that whole Car Tax nightmare was a good move :rolleyes: . How'd Warner do finishing out his term, I though he was doingfairly competent, pretty much as best as could be expected when i left in 2004.