The Devil In Ms. Dole

Posted by on . 21 comments.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole is paying the ultimate homage to the leader of her party, Sen. John McCain. She has apparently decided to walk hand in hand with McCain, by wholeheartedly embracing his guttersnipe campaign tactics. That way McCain won’t be the only Republican to lose the election as well as every last shred of reputation.

Dole is in a close re-election race in North Carolina, and recent polls show her trailing Democrat Kay Hagan. So Dole has decided to unleash utter filth in a campaign ad.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s latest advertisement suggests her Democratic opponent, Kay Hagan, is a godless heathen.

“A leader of the Godless Americans PAC recently held a secret fundraiser for Kay Hagan,” the 30-second spot says, showing footage of the group’s members talking about their atheist beliefs on cable news.

“Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras. Took godless money,” the ad concludes. “What did Kay Hagan promise in return?”

At the very end of the ad, a voice sounding like Hagan’s says: “There is no God.”

To put that last slimy bit in proper perspective, the “There is no God!” statement is accompanied by a picture of Hagan. The “clear implication is that the voice is Hagan’s”.

The facts:
— The voice saying “there is no God” at the end of the ad is not Hagan’s, but a voice impersonator’s. That alone would make the ad thoroughly despicable even if the charges levied by the ad were otherwise true. But they aren’t. Not by long shot.
— Far from being a godless heathen, Hagan is not just a member but an elder at the First Presbyterian Church in Greensboro. She teaches Sunday school.
— That fundraiser was co-hosted by 40 people. One of them is a representative of the Godless America PAC.

The bottom line would seem to be that Kay Hagan has not exactly sold her soul to the godless. But Liddy Dole? She very much seems to have sold her soul to the devil.

(In case you missed the reference in the title, The Devil in Miss Jones is a pornographic film. I guess I’m suggesting that Liddy Dole’s is an act of political pornography.)

Comments

  1. kiel says:
    October 30, 2008 at 9:58 am

    Utterly, undeniably horrid. Even worse than the ads run by the RNC in MN making the skin of a congressional candidate in the 3rd district, who is of Indian heritage, look darker than it really is and intoning, “He is not one of us.”

    These people are the lowest of the low. Lower.

    And just for the record, if there is a God, s/he sure as shootin’ doesn’t have any money, so “godless money” is redundant.

    You know, if the election goes as I hope it will, every time I hear someone complain, I’m going to start screaming, “If you don’t like it, get out!” just like they have done to every opposing voice over the past 8 years. I don’t believe that, but it’ll feel good to blow off some steam.

  2. don says:
    October 30, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    this campaign is over ,some republican candidates have resorted to the death throws of knashing of teeth and whailing in pain . it is an absolute sham to see publicly elected people reduce themselves to the lowest of low . i rebuke mrs dole and hope she either has enough integrity to publicly apologize or step aside and live the rest of her days happily in solitude. the people of north carolina are not represented fairly by these statements. in effect we are nationally smeared and demeaned . we will vote nov 4 to show america mrs dole is no longer representing us . i wish it were possible to remove her from this state..goodbye and good riddance mrs dole

  3. John says:
    October 30, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    It just goes to show you that the GOP will stoop to the lowest of the low. The GOP has become lower than pond scum, lower than the belly slime of a slug. The next thing you know, they will arrange an attack and blame it on terrorists. This is how the GOP and that Nazi Karl Rove work. I would call them all scum but then I would be insulting scum.

  4. matt says:
    October 30, 2008 at 8:58 pm

    NC voters removed her from the state when they elected her in 2002. One of the reasons she is toast is that she lives in DC and doesn’t visit NC much. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

  5. Merrill Love says:
    October 30, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    It is absolutely appauling to know that there are americans out in this great country of ours that think they have to use thier religion to get elected. How weak of mental capabilities must you have to think that just because someone endores a religion means that they are better than someone that doesnt. I can start a list that I will never finish filled with names of people that endorsed a religion just to get votes and then never did anything for said religion. You must be a fool to support anyone that does this. Those people should be treated with distrust. Religion is used as a smoke screen so that the simple people dont see or care about the real issues that we need to attend to. Why do you think religion came about? To control the masses? To all the people out in our great country know this, one out of every five people you see, meet, work with, talk to, hang out with, fight the fires at your houses, patrol the streets, and pratice medicine are people that are atheist or agnostic. To the person that was trying to link thier christian god to my country you got it all wrong. The forefathers of this nation were all masons, freemasons, and athiests. So when you see a reference to god by one of them they were not talking about your christian god, and by the way they saw the evil influence religion can have upon a government and put a clause in the constitution to protect the masses against that influence. I tend to ask myself how american are those people that refuse to uphold the constitution because of thier belief system. If your religion comes first then you are unamerican. Protecting our constitution is the most important and patriotic thing an american should do. Its what makes us americans. Its that constitution that protects your right to believe or not to believe. In alot of places on earth people get stoned in the streets for not believing in one deity or another, be greatful that you are allowed to practice your religion here.

  6. Steven R. Sulko says:
    October 31, 2008 at 7:26 am

    [no way]

  7. Lottie says:
    November 2, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    It’s interesting to see so many people reporting on this and failing to recognize or acknowledge the implicit bigotry toward atheists both in the ad and in Kay Hagan’s response. Both imply that there is something inherently wrong with being atheist and that associating with atheists is an act of poor judgment; that atheists the scum of the earth, the worst of the worst. This mindset is a clear indication of ignorance, bigotry and hate on the part of both candidates. Those who report on it without mentioning the bigotry of these two candidates are complicit as well.

  8. sarabeth says:
    November 3, 2008 at 2:44 am

    It’s interesting to see so many people reporting on this and failing to recognize or acknowledge the implicit bigotry toward atheists both in the ad and in Kay Hagan’s response. Both imply that there is something inherently wrong with being atheist…

    Not at all. They only acknowledge that there are political repercussions in America today from being perceived as a godless heathen.

    Perhaps those who reported on it saw this as self-evidently obvious?

  9. Lottie says:
    November 3, 2008 at 6:44 am

    They only acknowledge that there are political repercussions in America today from being perceived as a godless heathen.

    That’s not all they do. The ad plays on the existing bigotry, fear and misconceptions about atheists in the U.S. Hagan’s response was, in essence, “How dare you accuse me of not being bigoted toward atheists!”

    That is promoting and reinforcing bigotry. If we were talking about an organization that represents the civil rights of Blacks, Hispanics or Jews, for instance, this wouldn’t even be up for debate because the bigotry would be blinding!

    If this were about any other minority, Kay Hagan could have called it what it is without jeopardizing her career and the media would have been all over it! I’m not handing any of them a pass to be or behave like bigots just because it’s socially acceptable in the U.S. to hate atheists or because speaking out against that hatred would damage a politician’s career.

  10. sarabeth says:
    November 3, 2008 at 7:39 am

    Yes. The ad exploits “the existing bigotry, fear and misconceptions about atheists in the U.S.” That doesn’t make the ad bigoted.

    When Hagan protests that the ad is inaccurate (to protect herself from “the existing bigotry, fear and misconceptions about atheists in the U.S.”, that doesn’t make her bigoted either.

    It just means that the Dole campaign and Hagan both recognize the existence of this bigotry.

  11. Lottie says:
    November 3, 2008 at 8:22 am

    I disagree. Doles ad said, in essence, “Look at Kay Hagan! She’s palling around with atheists. That means you can’t trust her and shouldn’t vote for her.”

    That’s bigoted.

    Kay Hagans response was, in essence, “How dare you accuse me of not being as bigoted toward atheists are you are?!”

    That’s bigoted.

    But even agreeing with you for the sake of argument, I don’t see exploiting bigotry or cowing to it as any better than bigotry itself. In fact, I think it could easily be argued that it’s worse because bigotry is often a result of ignorance, whereas your argument puts Dole and Hagan in of a position of knowing better but going along with it anyway for the sake of political gain.

    That’s what I call slimy.

  12. Lottie says:
    November 3, 2008 at 8:26 am

    I meant to add that I appreciate your ability to debate this issue without getting irate and nasty. There’s been a lot of that surrounding this issue and I don’t think it does anyone any good. We should be able to disagree passionately but civilly, and I just wanted to acknowledge your doing so. Thank you for that.

  13. matt says:
    November 3, 2008 at 8:40 am

    I meant to add that I appreciate your ability to debate this issue without getting irate and nasty.

    that’s my job really.

    look, i’m jewish for the jokes, but an atheist at heart. i think you’re being oversensitive here. hagan is free to defend herself from blatantly inaccurate charges without making rhetorical space for atheists.

    did you want her to add a “not that there’s anything wrong with that” at the end?

    If this were about any other minority

    how about muslims? obama is accused of being one every day, and i don’t remember his campaign making a point of saying “so what if he is?”

  14. Lottie says:
    November 3, 2008 at 8:58 am

    Matt:

    You may think I’m being overly-sensitive and I think you’re being overly flippant:

    did you want her to add a “not that there’s anything wrong with that” at the end?

    Hagan could have said that the charge of her being atheist is false, but that she represents and welcomes input from all constituents, not just those who share her religious beliefs.

    how about muslims? obama is accused of being one every day, and i don’t remember his campaign making a point of saying “so what if he is?”

    And I don’t recall Obama filing suit and swearing off Muslims as if that’s worst possible thing a person could be and how dare anyone say something so “egregious and shameful” about him.

  15. matt says:
    November 3, 2008 at 9:41 am

    I think you’re being overly flippant

    i haven’t even started flipping.

    Hagan could have said that the charge of her being atheist is false, but that she represents and welcomes input from all constituents, not just those who share her religious beliefs.

    is a campaign ad the best venue for this?

    And I don’t recall Obama filing suit and swearing off Muslims as if that’s worst possible thing a person could be and how dare anyone say something so “egregious and shameful” about him.

    moving the goalposts? he’s been the subject of email campaigns, op/eds, and more. i’ve never heard him/his campaign do anything other than deny. why is it ok if he does it? shouldn’t he be spending political capital to make space for muslims?

    or are atheists more in need of defending than muslims?

  16. Lottie says:
    November 3, 2008 at 10:04 am

    is a campaign ad the best venue for this?

    Why not? Besides, she didn’t have to take out another campaign ad to make that statement.

    And I’m not moving the goals. I’m sticking with what I’ve said along. I’ve never had a problem with Hagan denying that she’s atheist. I do have a problem with her responding to the charge as if it’s the worst possible thing a person could be accused of. Obama didn’t do that, and that was my point.

    Same goal as always with me.

    i’ve never heard him/his campaign do anything other than deny. why is it ok if he does it? shouldn’t he be spending political capital to make space for muslims?

    From Obama’s website:

    Barack Obama is a committed Christian. He was sworn into the Senate on his family Bible. He has regularly attended church with his wife and daughters for years.

    But shameful, shadowy attackers have been lying about Barack’s religion, claiming he is a Muslim instead of a committed Christian. When people fabricate stories about someone’s faith to denigrate them politically, that’s an attack on people of all faiths.

    Obama calls the attack shameful, not because he was called a Muslim, but because using it as a smear is an attack on Muslim’s (all faiths) as well.

    or are atheists more in need of defending than muslims?

    There’s quite a difference between asking to be defended and asking not to be thrown under the bus.

    i haven’t even started flipping.

    Don’t expect me to engage when you do. I’m happy to discuss this honestly and rationally, but I will not take part in a pissing match. I certainly hope you have something more substantial than that with which to end this discussion.

  17. matt says:
    November 3, 2008 at 10:27 am

    obama’s website doesn’t seem to defend atheists. in fact, that’s about as weak a statement as i can imagine in that instance. maybe you’re giving him a more favorable reading than you’re giving hagan…

    that would roughly be shocking to me.

  18. Lottie says:
    November 3, 2008 at 10:33 am

    Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think you’re deliberately missing the point and arguing for the sake of it.

    Thank you for your time.

  19. Lottie says:
    November 3, 2008 at 11:26 am

    Although your claim that Obama does not “defend” atheists is non sequitur in this context, I thought I’d go ahead and share this just for the record:

    Read Obama’s 2006 “Call to Renewal” address. While affirming his own Christianity as well as his belief in separation of church and state, he called on secularists to respect religion. He also said this: “In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality , I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they’re some one they’re not . . . Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

    Washingtonpost.com

  20. matt says:
    November 3, 2008 at 11:16 pm

    he gets called a muslim multiple times/day every day. and you found a clip from…two years ago.

    that’s excellent work. and timely.

  21. sarabeth says:
    November 4, 2008 at 3:43 am

    It occurs to me (idly, you understand) that Lottie may not be entirely objective about this issue, given the very strong feelings she obviously has about atheist bigotry.

    From where I sit, it seems clear that
    a) What Liddy Dole mounted was essentially a Swift-boat operation
    b) Lottie’s basic take is that Hagan’s pushback shouldn’t have focused just on self-defense, that she should have also made room for high-mindedness

    But it’s still a close race. Beating Dole is a little more important right now than mollifying atheists (there’s time enough for that later). And taking the high-road against Swift-boat style attacks may not be the most politically pragmatic policy.