Freezers Are For Cash, Not Clones!

David Weigel | December 4, 2006

Liberal blogger Tim Tagaris (of Ned Lamont fame) is in New Orleans boosting the campaign of Karen Carter, a liberal Democrat trying to unseat crooked Rep. William Jefferson. How's Jefferson battling the allegations that he hid bribes in his freezer and commandeered FEMA resources to evacuate evidence from his home? Like this.

Finally an answer to that modern Sphynx's riddle: "Who's the most loathsome person in D.C. now that Santorum's gone?"

Oh, and this is a pretty amusing example of what happens to your campaign when you've never run a competitive race before and no one wants to help you out. Jefferson's district is 64 percent black; maybe a little less since Hurricane Katrina. Almost all the images in the ad are stock footage of smiling white couples, babies and doctors. Compare that to Carter's ad.

Comments

|12.4.06 @ 4:42PM|#

Uh, oh David...you said something bad about a Democrat!

3, 2, 1...Cue smoke coming out of John's ears...

|12.4.06 @ 5:03PM|#

3, 2, 1...Cue smoke coming out of John's ears...

No No.....it won't be a problem because he is implicitly endorsing another Democrat instead....

John's worldview is safe...for now. Now if Jefferson's opponent was a GOPer....that would probably cause said smoke.

|12.4.06 @ 5:48PM|#

The same sex girls in that ad where hot.

Ryo|12.4.06 @ 6:28PM|#

As opposed to the opposite sex girls?

|12.4.06 @ 6:50PM|#

Jefferson is so revolting that Rolling Stone actually included him among their "Ten Worst Congressmen." (Yes...he was the lone Democrat on the list)

|12.4.06 @ 6:51PM|#

He's pretty loathsome, but the ad is just an ordinary comparison piece saying she's more liberal on social issues. Where's the loathsomeness? Just the very fact of being modestly more socially conservative. And the white faces probably aren't accidental: Carter is definitely counting on majority support among the 34% white population of the district, to overcome Jefferson's residual loyalty among blacks. Regardless of the amateurish production values, its a deliberate attempt to cut into her lead among those more socially conservative white voters.

|12.4.06 @ 7:20PM|#

I thought y'all favored negative campaigning?

|12.4.06 @ 7:55PM|#

I think, Zeno, that negative campaigning is favored so that the candidate's true colors (no pun intended) can come out; whether by the attacker or the person reacting to the attack.

In this case, Jefferson has further shown his "loathsome" colors.

|12.4.06 @ 7:56PM|#

It's funny.....until the end, I actually had no idea whose ad it really was!

sean|12.4.06 @ 8:01PM|#

I didn't know whose ad it was either. I don't see what was so loathsome about it. Did you expect to come out and say "I am not a crook" or something?

|12.4.06 @ 8:39PM|#

It's hard to see what is loathsome about this ad. Jefferson is loathsome because he is a crook and did not have the decency to resign from Congress when he was caught, but if he is determined to run again, an ad pointing out genuine differences on issues strikes me as about the least offensive possible type of ad he could have run. He would have increased his loathsomeness if he had run an ad full of lies about his crimes and would have increased it even more if he had tried to insinuate that Carter was herself crooked, but at least in this ad, he did neither of those things. But then again, since Rick Santorum has never been accused of personal corruption, your definition of loathsomeness must be different from mine.

David Weigel|12.4.06 @ 9:10PM|#

My two cents: attacking gays, scientists and desparate pregnant women to obscure your record of criminality is, yes, loathsome.

|12.4.06 @ 11:33PM|#

Are we still buying the repeatedly disproved claim that the procurers of partial-birth abortions (as opposed to early-term abortions, the procurers of whom I will concede frequently are desperate) are "desperate pregnant women?" And considering that they have what seems like 99% of elite newspapers, universities, businesses, and bien-pensant thinkers on their side, I think embryonic stem cell scientists are hardly likely to join the list of severely persecuted groups.
The ad was made on behalf of a bad man, but it was quite moderate in tone. I don't think it can be described as an "attack" on anyone except Karen Carter, and even then a very mild one. It doesn't say that she hates our children or wants to destroy our society; it simply lists three issues on which her and Jefferson's positions differ. What else are political ads for? And as Terrorific and Sean point out, since I doubt Carter's own ads emphasize her social liberalism, it actually provides a useful service for those voters (no doubt rare in southern Louisiana, but still) whose views on these issues are also liberal.
And I hereby pledge that if the liberal were the corrupt one and the relative conservative were the honest one, and this were in a liberal district and the liberal ran an issue-based ad highlighting her liberal views, I would have no problem with it and would not consider it loathsome.

|12.5.06 @ 12:23AM|#

The tone of the ad might be moderate, but he is espousing Santorum-like opinions. That was 75% of the objectionableness of Santorum.

|12.5.06 @ 12:24AM|#

That ad "attacked scientists" ? Really?

|12.5.06 @ 6:56AM|#

Really, the most loathesome thing about that ad was his creepy face declaring he approved of that message.

Sam Franklin|12.5.06 @ 7:06AM|#

I am still not convinced that it was illegal for Jefferson to have the money. I am still not convinced he promised to do anything he wasn't already going to do in exchange for the money. here at Reason, that is a complete defense.

D.A. Ridgely|12.5.06 @ 8:07AM|#

I don't know who is currently most loathsome but, except for a brief stay in a gated community in the Virginia suburbs, the most oafishly amusing person in D.C. remains Marion Barry. (Second link is to primo Barry quotes.)

|12.5.06 @ 8:40AM|#

"Jefferson is so revolting that Rolling Stone actually included him among their ';Ten Worst Congressmen.'"

Is that the same issue of RS with the article by Paul Krugman explaining how "the rich" are destroying the country?

|12.5.06 @ 9:10AM|#

Bad form, Jefferson! You're not supposed to tell the white folk that blacks hate gays. Say that sh*t in private!

|12.5.06 @ 9:17AM|#

To everyone complaining that the ad wasn't loathsome, David Weigel never said that the ad was loathsome; he said that Jefferson is loathsome. This is a relatively honest ad: it highlights policy differences between Jefferson and his opponent. What are those policy differences? Jefferson is proudly anti-science, pro-life and anti-gay rights, which makes his policy loathsome to civil rights libertarians but perhaps not so bad to theocrat 'libertarians.'

|12.5.06 @ 10:19AM|#

I never claimed to be a libertarian. I should the management would be glad that some non-libertarians read and (generally) enjoy the site.

|12.5.06 @ 10:26AM|#

I seem to be sticking up for all the jerks today: Most of those Marion Barry quotes are fraudelent.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/barry.htm

Skeptic Tank should have been more skeptical.

|12.5.06 @ 12:12PM|#

anti-science, pro-life and anti-gay rights

OK, I'll bite. How do "civil rights" libertarians justify taking my money by force and using it to fund their pet projects? I think abstinence education is a great idea, and I guarantee that it has saved as many lives as ESC-based therapies have, but you don't see me attacking people for being against federally-funded abstinence education, do you?

|12.5.06 @ 12:34PM|#

crimethink,

Great question. I wouldn't expect an answer, though.

David,

"attacking gays, scientists and desparate pregnant women"

Are you being serious?? Attacking? Really? Why didn't you post that ad, it would have been more exciting.

James,

"Are we still buying the repeatedly disproved claim that the procurers of partial-birth abortions... are "desperate pregnant women?"

Well said. It does make it sound scary, though. Attacking Desperate Pregnant Women! Chills.

Garth|12.5.06 @ 12:39PM|#

I find it odd that no one has yet noted that it is highly unlikely that Carter voted in favor of human cloning. Such a bill coming before a legislature would have been front page news for a month or more. I think the main problem with the Jefferson ad is that it is entirely misleading by phrasing his complaints against his opponent in the way that it did.

Garth|12.5.06 @ 12:42PM|#

Sorry. Forget my comment.. I went back and rewatched. The production of the piece made the topics convoluted and made methink it said what I initially interpreted it as saying... Kinda sneaky in a way.

But I will still say that I suspect the bill was about embryonic stem cell research rather than human cloning... but you never know.

BTW FWIW I am in favor of human cloning.

A.M. Mora y Leon|12.5.06 @ 1:02PM|#

My candidate for most loathesome: anti-free trade Sherrod Brown. So darn dumb he could pulp a library just by walking past it.

|12.5.06 @ 4:15PM|#

"attacking"???

Knee-jerk much, Weigel? Who hired you, anyway?

Note to TPTB @Reason: We can find plenty of left-libertarian hysterics elsewhere on the internet; you do us no favors.

|12.7.06 @ 10:38AM|#

What can you do to help Karen Carter out? The corrupt racists are attacking her big time in order to keep cozy boy Bill Jefferson in power!

We need Democracy and we need people to be free to speak up against injustice if we are going to rebuild our communities!