61 Days: Elizabeth Dole is Mudslinging Again

DAY 61

Despite her pledge to run a positive campaign, Elizabeth Dole’s been slinging political mud for months. In a post-primary fundraising letter in May, Dole attacked Kay in her typical drive-by fashion – no facts, no backup, just Dole’s desperate attempt to keep her seat. Yesterday Dole outdid herself with the first candidate-approved-attack ad aimed at Kay, likening her to a “yappy dog.” In the commercial, Dole also resorted to name-calling, more drive-by attacks and notably, “I’m Elizabeth Dole and I approved this message.”
Of course she did. With her experience bankrolling negative ads at the NRSC and her campaign six years ago, she’s a pro.

Dole Promised To Run Positive Campaign; Take Responsibility For Her Ads. At the North Carolina Bar Association candidates forum on June 21, 2008, Dole said, “I will run a positive campaign for reelection. I’ll take responsibility for my campaign’s political advertisements.” [NC Bar Association Forum, 6/21/08]

May 2008: Dole Sent Direct Mail Attacking Kay Hagan. Shortly after the primary election ended in North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole’s campaign sent out a direct mail piece attacking recently nominated Democratic candidate Kay Hagan as a “special friend to special interests.” The mail piece also accused Hagan of increasing taxes and spending in the North Carolina Senate without providing any back-up to prove their claims. [Dole Fundraising Letter, 5/2008]

“Dole Ad Attacks Hagan’s Character.” The Charlotte Observer reported, in an article titled, “Dole’s ad attacks Hagan’s character,” that Elizabeth Dole’s campaign launched an attack ad. The report noted that the ad was “Dole's fourth of the campaign but first to criticize Hagan. Both the Republican and Democratic senatorial campaign committees, as well as other outside groups, have been on the air with attack ads.” [Charlotte Observer, 9/4/08]

In First Negative Ad From Either Candidate, Dole Depicts Kay Hagan “As Little More Than A Yapping Dog.” The Associated Press reported that “in the first attack ad condoned by either candidate,” Dole’s ad, “depicts her rival as little more than a yapping dog.” Furthermore, the report noted that “Hagan has not aired any attack ads.” [Associated Press, 9/3/08]

Dole Campaign Ad “Not Clear.” The Associated Press reported that “Dole's 30-second advertisement begins by saying, ‘They call her 'fibber Kay' Hagan.’ It's not clear who ‘they’ are: A spokesman for Dole claimed it was a common refrain on the campaign trail, but the origin of the moniker was not attributed to anyone.” [Associated Press, 9/3/08]

Dole Ad Says “They Call Her ‘Fibber Kay’ Hagan,” But “Who The Heck Are ‘They?’” In his Decision 2008 blog, Greensboro News and Record reporter Mark Binker noted that Dole’s first negative television ad begins with the line, "They call her 'fibber Kay' Hagan,” but the Dole campaign does not offer any evidence describing who “they” are. Furthermore, Binker wrote, “I’m not going to say I’ve talked to all 9 million residents in North Carolina, but I get around. Until the ad aired, I never heard anyone use that moniker.” [Greensboro News and Observer, Decision 2008 blog, 9/3/08]

DURING HER 2002 CAMPAIGN, DOLE BROKE HER SAME PLEDGE AND WENT ON THE ATTACK

Dole Decried Negative Campaigning In 2002. In January 2002, Dole said, “Everywhere I go, people say let’s change the tone and not have any more of this negative attack business in North Carolina. I don’t think people want this. I don’t think they relate to it.” After Dole’s campaign had begun running negative ads against Democratic candidate Erskine Bowles in 2002, Dole said, "I had hoped that we could change the tone of politics." Dole said. [Raleigh News and Observer, 2/9/02; Associated Press, 10/15/02]

In 2002, Dole Pledged to Run Positive Campaign. At her 2002 campaign kick-off, Dole pledged to run “a positive campaign worthy of the challenges we confront and the sacrifices being made in defense of American democracy.” She said, “Today, politics has a purpose. The people of North Carolina deserve better than name-calling and finger-pointing. My positive campaign will reflect that desire.” [Charlotte Observer, 2/24/02]

Dole Attacked Opponent’s Wife In 2002. During the U.S. Senate campaign in North Carolina in 2002, Dole attacked the wife of Democrat Erskine Bowles in a television advertisement. Dole’s campaign attacked Crandall Close, the wife of Erskine Bowles, for a textile company that her family owned. The New York Times described the ad: “Mimicking the animation in a commercial for Mr. Bowles, an advertisement for Mrs. Dole said the company laid off workers in North Carolina even as it exported jobs to Mexico and China.” The Associated Press noted that the Dole campaign was using the textile company “in the political attacks against Bowles.” [New York Times, 10/17/02; Associated Press, 10/20/02]

Raleigh News & Observer: Dole Ad Attacking Bowles’ Wife Was A “Stretch.” In 2002, the Raleigh News and Observer reported that Elizabeth Dole’s campaign ad criticizing the wife of Democratic candidate Erskine Bowles was “a stretch.” Furthermore, the paper wrote that “Dole is pointing the finger at Bowles while obscuring her own record supporting free trade,” and that, “Dole continues to support President Bush's push for additional lifting of trade restrictions.” [Raleigh News & Observer, 10/9/02]

Negative Ad By Dole Campaign Included False Implications. The Raleigh News and Observer reported that a negative ad by the Dole campaign attacking Democratic candidate Erskine Bowles “implies that Bowles has a track record of raising taxes and that she doesn't. In fact, both candidates have supported tax increases.” [Raleigh News & Observer, 10/4/02]

Dole Campaign “Stretch[ed]” The Truth To Attack Bowles On Social Security. Dole’s 2002 Senate campaign attacked Democrat Erskine Bowles in a television advertisement in which Dole said, “The Erskine Bowles plan is to do nothing, and that will either cut benefits or raise taxes by trillions of dollars.” The Raleigh News and Observer reported that “it was a stretch to suggest that Bowles in some way wants to cut benefits or raise taxes.” [Raleigh News & Observer, 9/21/02]

Charlotte Observer Editorial: North Carolina Voters Expected More The “Distortion And Half-Truths.” In an editorial in October 2002, the Charlotte Observer wrote, “North Carolina voters anticipated a clean, vigorous election campaign marked by frequent debates on important issues…what they're getting instead is a steady diet of distortion and half-truths told over and over - prime examples of The Big Lie.” The editorial pleaded with both campaigns to “stop airing ads that distort your opponent's positions.” [Charlotte Observer, 10/10/02]

Winston-Salem Journal Editorial: Mud-Slinging In North Carolina Senate Campaign “Is A Sorry Tradition In Politics.” In an editorial in the Winston-Salem Journal, John Gates wrote that “the recent mud wrestling between U.S. Senate candidates Erskine Bowles for the Democrats and Elizabeth Dole for the Republicans suggests that candidates can no longer compete on the basis of character and position on issues.” [Winston-Salem Journal, 9/29/02]

USA Today: Prominence Of Negative Attack Ads “Stain” 2002 North Carolina Senate Race. In a column titled “Negative ads stain Senate race in N.C.” for USA Today, Walter Shapiro wrote that “Dole is certainly not a conscientious objector in the hand-to-hand combat of the ad wars.” Furthermore, he wrote, “Sadly, what unites Bowles and Dole more than anything are their morally facile justifications for the negative attacks. Both candidates take on a tone of injured martyrdom as they claim that the other side's tactics were the triggering event for a tit-for-tat response.” [USA Today, 10/17/02]

AS CHAIR OF THE NRSC IN 2006, DOLE CHAMPIONED NEGATIVE ATTACK ADS

Under Dole, NRSC Spent Over $19 Million On Negative Attacks. During Dole’s tenure as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee during the 2006 election cycle, the NRSC’s independent expenditure spent $19,233,051.64 on attacking Democratic candidates. [Federal Election Commission, Accessed 8/19/08]

Under Dole, NRSC IE Spent 98% Of Funds On Negative Attacks. Of the $19,528,341.14 that the NRSC’s independent expenditure spent during the 2005-2006 election cycle, 98% of those funds, or $19,233,051.64, was spent attacking Democratic candidates. [Federal Election Commission, Accessed 8/19/08]

During The 2006 Election Cycle, Dole Transferred $100,000 To The NRSC. Between 2005 and 2006, Elizabeth Dole’s campaign committee transferred $100,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. [Federal Election Commission Press Release, 3/7/08]

NRSC Ads Were Criticized By Fellow Republicans For Being Too Negative. The NRSC was criticized for launching what the Boston Globe called, “a harsh ad campaign” against Stephen Laffey in the Rhode Island Republican primary. Rhode Island GOP chairwoman Patricia Morgan expressed reservations about the level of negativity in the ads and said that she viewed the ads “as a personal attack on Laffey, which she considers an unfair tactic that is counter to the kind of campaign she associates with Chafee [the NRSC-favored candidate].” In response to the NRSC’s tactics, Senator Chafee said, “my preference would be positive, factual, issue-oriented ads.” [Boston Globe, 9/14/06; Providence Journal, 10/24/05]

Under Dole Leadership, NRSC Launched Attack Website With “Racial Overtones.” The NRSC, under the leadership of its chairwoman Elizabeth Dole, launched an attack website titled “Fancy Ford,” in which the NRSC attacked the personal life of Tennessee senatorial candidate Harold Ford. The website was noted for its “racial overtones.” [The Hill, 3/9/06; Chicago Tribune, 8/31/06]

Dole Defended Third Party Negative Ad That Had “Serious Appeal To Racist Sentiment.” Just days before the 2006 election, Dole defended a television ad by the National Republican Committee against Tennessee senatorial candidate Harold Ford that former Republican Senator Bill Cohen described as having “a very serious appeal to racist sentiment.” According to Dole, “[the ad] does carry messages” and “it’s based on research.” [Meet The Press, 11/5/06; Houston Chronicle, 10/24/06]

NRSC Ads Were Called “Vicious.” During the Republican primary race in Rhode Island, attacks between the two candidates were perceived as intense and overly negative. Victor L. Profughi, a retired political science professor at Rhode Island College and a pollster who has studied the state’s politics for 40 years, commented, “I’m searching for the right word – vicious. I’ve never seen a race that was anything like this in Rhode Island.” [New York Times, 9/10/06]

THIRD PARTY GROUPS RAN ADS AGAINST DOLE’S OPPONENT IN 2002

NRSC Ran Negative Ads For Dole In 2002. In Dole’s 2002 campaign, the National Republican Senatorial Committee ran at least three negative ads against her opponent and spent over $1.1 million on the ads through October 14, 2002. [Winston-Salem Journal, 10/16/02]

NRSC’s Negative Ads “Exaggerated.” According to USA Today, the NRSC saturated “the airways with a classic exaggerated negative commercial,” which charged Dole’s opponent, Erskine Bowles, with making $4 million as a New York corporate executive while his firm was being sued for “mismanaging worker retirement funds.” The NRSC also ran ads tying Bowles to President Clinton. [USA Today, 10/17/02; Raleigh News & Record, 7/2/02]

Ads By NRSC On Dole’s Behalf Pulled By Four Stations. The NRSC ran ads accusing Dole’s opponent, Erskine Bowles, of “hurting Connecticut pensioners” as a result of past investments. Four television stations pulled the ads from the air after the Bowles campaign proved they were false. [Charlotte Observer, 6/11/04]

Republican Leadership Council Attacked Dole’s Opponent And Dole Said Nothing. In Dole’s 2002 campaign, a third party group called The Republican Leadership Council ran a radio ad attacking her opponent Erskine Bowles, which associated him with President Clinton in order to make the charge that Bowles “will say anything – even if it’s not true.” [Raleigh News & Record, 1/1/02]

---Disclosure: I am Kay Hagan's Online Communications Director---