Tennessee Democrat Party Serves as Mouthpiece for National Liberal Democrats in Spreading Falsehoods

NASHVILLE, TN - Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Robin Smith today urged Tennessee broadcast media to refuse to air the Democratic National Committee’s inaccurate and malicious advertisement titled “100,” an ad that not only is false but also may represent an illegal campaign expenditure on the part of the Democrat party.

The Tennessee Democrat Party, which receives financial funding directly from the DNC, continues to walk in lock-step with the extreme liberals on the national level in promoting the slanderous and likely illegal advertisement on its website. That advertisement includes video of a terrorists’ roadside bomb attack on two American soldiers, footage not unlike that often used by Al Qaeda in its recruiting videos, as Democrats seek to exploit the attack to promote Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for president.

“The national media have already said the ad’s claim is a lie. As long as the ad is included on the Tennessee Democrat Party’s website, Tennesseans ought to question whether the state Democrat party represents Tennessee Democrats’ mainstream values of patriotism and fair play or whether the state Democrat Party will continue as another mouthpiece for the liberal national Democrat Party and its far-left handlers,” said Smith.

This is the second time within weeks that the Democrats have attempted to minimize John McCain’s service to his country as a Prisoner of War after being shot down in Vietnam. Earlier, press accounts shrilled that McCain was a “blatant opportunist” in speaking as a veteran in addressing the Global War on terror.

“The Democratic National Committee, which produced the slanderous ad attacking John McCain, pays the TDP spokesman’s salary, begging the question of whether the party speaks for Tennessee Democrats, or speaks for ultra-liberals like Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama,” said Bill Hobbs, communications director for the Tennessee Republican Party.

A letter from the RNC’s Legal Counsel details the problems with the “100″ ad, which was produced by the Democratic National Committee. The advertisement falsely and maliciously accuses Sen. McCain of stating that prolonging the Iraq war for “100 years” would be “fine” with him. The DNC ad makes that accusation by taking Sen. McCain’s quote completely out of context and by pairing it with combat images – including images of American soldiers being blown up by a terrorist’s roadside bomb.

In response to an audience member’s question in January in New Hampshire about the length of time America might stay in Iraq, Sen. McCain said the following:

“Maybe 100. We’ve been in South Korea - we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, and equipping and motivating people every single day.”

“To represent, as the DNC does, that this statement reflects any support by Senator McCain for prolonging the Iraq war is a malicious falsehood, which is only underscored by the accompanying visual images in the advertisement, which show explosions, burning military equipment, and on-screen text stating ‘Over 4,000 Dead’,” said RNC Legal Counsel Sean
Caircross.

The RNC believes the DNC has made an illegal coordinated contribution to the two Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with this ad, and says the ad’s main legal problem is its willful misrepresentation of McCain.

The nonpartisan FactCheck.org recently characterized the DNC’s accusation as “a serious distortion,” and called it
"a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage ‘endless war’ based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.”

Organizations such as the DNC have a legitimate First Amendment right to participate in political debate, but the DNC has no right to knowingly and willfully spread false information in a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people. Because the DNC is not a legally qualified candidate for public office, it therefore enjoys no right of access to the airwaves and broadcasters are under no legal obligation to air the ad - but do bear responsibility for monitoring the truthfulness of the ad.

“The Tennessee Democrat Party has endorsed the slanderous ad by publishing it on the party’s website,” Hobbs said. “Tennessee voters, Republican and Democrat, deserve to know whether the Tennessee Democrat Party truly represents Tennessee’s Democrats or is just a wholly-owned subsidiary of the unpatriotic far-left fringe that now runs the national Democratic Party.”

-30-

RNC Legal Counsel Sean Cairncross letter: http://www.gop.com/pdf/dnc_distortion.pdf

Media And Non-Partisan Groups Agree That Democrats “Mischaracterize And Distort” Sen. McCain’s
Comment:

The New York Times Reports That Democrats “Mischaracterize And Distort” Sen. McCain’s “100 Years”
Comment. “But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain’s six-minute exchange on Jan.
3…" (Kate Phillips, “McCain Said ‘100′; Opponents Latch On,”
The New York Times, 3/27/08)

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder: “[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they’re fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.” (Marc
Ambinder, “100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq,” The Atlantic’s “Marc Ambinder” Blog,
www.theatlantic.com, 3/31/08)

The Associated Press: “[Sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.” (Calvin Woodward, “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq,”
The Associated Press, 2/29/08)

Fox News’ Carl Cameron: “[M]cCain has never said he wants war and never advocated 100 more years of war-making in Iraq. In January, he indicated at a New Hampshire town hall meeting that maintaining a postwar presence in Iraq would be
fine…" (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)

National Review: “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain ‘wants to fight a 100-year war,’ in Obama’s words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse…” (Editorial, “The 100 Years War,”
National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

Lancaster Intelligencer Journal’s Joe Hainthaler: “Yes, Senator Obama, you can misunderstand your opponent’s point on purpose to score a cheap political point with your party’s anti-war crowd, and you can do so over and over and over again. But, in doing so, you expose yourself as not quite the fair-minded, non-partisan leader you say you hope to be.” (Joe Hainthaler, “Obama’s Hundred-Year War On Mccain,”
Lancaster [PA] Intelligencer Journal’s “Always Right” Blog, www.lancasteronline.com, 4/1/08)

USA Today: “[Sen. McCain’s] offhand comment about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for ‘100 years’ has been distorted (he said that meant as long as troops weren’t getting killed or
wounded)…" (Editorial, “5 Years After ‘Shock And Awe,’ A Shallow Debate On Iraq,”
USA Today, 3/18/08)

National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez: “Haven’t we been listening to talk of ‘100 years’ of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “100-Years’ Sideshow,”
National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

Roll Call’s Morton Kondracke: “Well, the charge that McCain wants to carry on the war for 100 years is a total canard.
… What McCain said was, yes, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years on the same basis we have been in Korea ever since the end of the Korean War or Germany ever since the end of the second world war as long as our troops aren’t being shot. And it seems perfectly reasonable. And so they [Sens. Clinton And Obama] are mischaracterizing what he said badly.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer: “But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: ‘Dems to hammer McCain for ‘100 years.’” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,”
The Washington Post, 3/28/08)

• Krauthammer: “As Lenin is said to have said, ‘A lie told often enough becomes truth.’ And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it…” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,”
  The Washington Post, 3/28/08)

Richmond Times-Dispatch: “Leftists claim the comments mean McCain supports a century of combat. Their hyperventilating criticism suggests they either did not read his words or deliberately are distorting them.” (Editorial, “100 Years,”
Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/1/08)

Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org Calls DNC Attacks On “100 Years” Comment A “Serious Distortion” And “A Rank Falsehood.” “The DNC’s message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an ‘endless’ war in Iraq. DNC: We can’t afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. … On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush’s call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying ‘Make it a hundred!’ That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3.
…There’s little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it’s a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage ‘endless war’ based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.” (Factcheck.Org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 3/25/08)

Non-Partisan Politifact.Com Calls Obama Attacks On “100 Years” Comment “False.” “Obama twisted McCain’s words in the Cleveland debate. He said, ‘We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.’ As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama’s statement False.” (Politifact.Com Website, www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/08)

• Politifact.Com’s Bill Adair: “It’s really a distortion of what McCain said. McCain was talking about a peace time presence in Iraq that would continue. He even said as long as 1,000 years, not a war that would last that long. And so, the line that Obama and some other critics of the war have been using is really not an accurate description of what McCain said.” (Fox News’ “The Big Story,” 4/2/08)

Slate’s Christopher Beam: “In context, McCain’s statements seem clear: He doesn’t want the war to continue for 100 years. But he’s willing to keep a few brigades there as long as they’re not getting killed.
… [F]or Obama and others to paint McCain’s stance as a war without end doesn’t quite hold up.” (Christopher Beam, “The ‘100 Years’ War,”
The Slate’s “Trail Head” Blog, www.slate.com, 4/1/08)

Columbia Journalism Review’s Zachary Roth: “[L]ately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s ‘100 years’ notion. But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them—about exactly what McCain said.” (Zachary Roth, “The U.S., Iraq, and 100 Years,”
Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)

The Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs: “The charge that John McCain wants to wage a ‘100-year war’ in Iraq has become a recurring theme of the Obama campaign. The candidate has made the claim several times on the campaign trail, as has Susan Rice, one of his top foreign policy advisers. McCain has never talked about wanting a 100-year war in Iraq.” (Michael Dobbs, “McCain’s ‘100-year war,’”
The Washington Post, 4/2/08)