Apparently, both George Allen and Jim Webb signed an agreement with the League of Women Voters to not use the video from last Monday’s League-sponsored debate for campaign purposes. (Note to CBDA: perhaps you could have had the 2nd District candidates sign a similar statement in lieu of the no-taping rule.) It looks as if the video is being used, in violation of the agreement. An ad that started running last week shows clips of Webb. The ad was authorized by George Allen and paid for by Friends of George Allen.
The League of Women Voters, of which I am a member, has requested that the ad be removed. I agree, especially since the LWV is a bipartisan organization. (And it really is -I attended a LWV meeting this afternoon and one of the people mentioned that she was going to place her “Vote NO” sign next to her “Allen” sign.)
It is important that candidates honor their agreements. Friends of George Allen should remove the ad.
UPDATE: Here is the AP story on this.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Jane, you are confused b y a lack of facts. Josh and Lowell at RaisingKaine does NOT ban anyone except for persistant obscenity/profanity.
I was not banned for saying negative things about Webb during the primary; in fact they continued to promot by opposition view to the front page and debate me openly, honestly, and politely on the issues.
Stop spreading FUD and falsehoods about an excellent community of people who like open discussion and integrity in their government. BTW – RaisingKaine pre-dates Lowell’s employment by the Webb campaign and he has been nothing but honest about making disclaimers with every post about his relationship with the campaign.
Yeah, ha ha ha Jane, Webb isn’t venal enough to run the country into bankruptcy so the already well off can do even better. He actually thinks we should be able to pay for the mess we’re in. Ha ha ha, so goddamn funny.
~
There are two issues with the LWV footage. First, Allen agreed to something, and how he’s broken that agreement. That simple. (And really, George Allen not being trustworthy? Shocker.)
That said, it’s a ridiculous restriction that doesn’t serve the public’s interests. In fact, the only interest it could possibly serve is that of a candidate who says something incredibly stupid or embarrassing in the debate, and doesn’t want to see that moment flashed on 30 second spots for the remainder of the campaign. The LWV should get rid of that clause for future debates, and not let any candidate slip it back in.
Legal agreements don’t apply to free-ranging buckaroos like Ol’ George Allen. Nor do those pesky guvment financial disclosure statements that he was supposed to file. Laws and Legalities, courtesy and truthfulness…ha! That’s for people that ain’t got connections and swagger. Welcome to George Allen’s Virginia suckers.
Jane – I would have to disagree with your assessment of the LWV. Our membership is bipartisan – I mentioned lady that I met today for the first time only in the context of the placement of the Vote NO sign. I know other members who are Republicans as well. Take a look at the League’s website. We are committed to citizen education, and often sponsor debates for this.
Was RK wrong to use the footage? Absolutely. And I said so before. But they posted the entire debate, not a clip. And they removed the link when asked.
Everyone in Virginia had equal access to view the debate. To argue otherwise is to not acknowlege that the League went to great lengths to get stations to pick up the broadcast., recognizing that this debate would be the first time many Virginians had the opportunity to see both candidates.
Allen’s ad has had its desired effect. He should take it down.
“We”
That makes you a bit biased on this issue, Vivian. Dontcha think?
We – as in We, the members of the LWV.
If you are implying bias on the usage of the footage, you are wrong.
oh…it’s mere coincidence that you’re siding with the organization of which you are a member.
Of course I’m siding with the LWV. They are correct. The Allen camp is wrong. Plain and simple. If the LWV were wrong, I think you know I’d say so.
They are wrong, and so is the CBDA.
The CBDA is wrong. The LWV is not. The difference between the two is significant: the CBDA is holding what amounts to a private debate. The LWV held a public debate, airing it in every market in Virginia. You cannot compare the two.
And I go back to the agreement: if the candidates didn’t want to sign it, they shouldn’t have. Allen is an attorney, right? Surely he knew what he was signing.
So what value do you see in that restriction, Vivian?
I think the LWV laid out why they have this restriction:
Wow. There’s a strong defense of a vibrant political debate – don’t worry about what you say, we won’t let people have pictures of you saying it! Except for, you know, that one time where it’s broadcast for most anyone to see. Nice.
Perhaps they can craft a clause that restricts candidates from saying anything negative about the other – I’m sure the debate would be even more popular, then.
And in the end, do you really thing you got George Allen to be more honest with that? No, you didn’t. It doesn’t accomplish anything.
Wow. There’s a strong defense of a vibrant political debate – don’t worry about what you say, we won’t let people have pictures of you saying it! Except for, you know, that one time where it’s broadcast for most anyone to see. Nice.
Perhaps they can craft a clause that restricts candidates from saying anything negative about the other – I’m sure the debate would be even more popular, then.
And in the end, do you really think you got George Allen to be more honest with that? No, you didn’t. It doesn’t accomplish anything.
Vivian,
Your patience with crackpots using your comments section, especially the anonymous crackpots, is amazing.
Your point about Allen breaking his word can’t be beaten with logic and reason. So, what we see from Allen’s most unhinged/desperate supporters is bluster and childish they-did-it-first denials. No one but such a blind partisan would see Allen’s broken promise as permissible.