One Step Closer, the independent attack group that we told you about earlier this week, is having an press event today at 10:30...and, OMG, guess who is going to be there?
From the press release:
Todd Bridges, formerly of "Different Strokes" and Bernadette Stanis, formerly of "Good Times" will visit Mel Wells at One Day at a Time to encourage voters to participate in the elections process.
Meanwhile, check out their ad:
Comments (27)
That's a pretty low blow...
Posted by Dave![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://blogs.phillynews.com/dailynews/nextmayor/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 9, 2007 10:23 AM
oh geez
gotta love the rich urban accented voiceover...
nice touch to a bad ad.
Posted by Robert | May 9, 2007 10:23 AM
These ads could actually backfire and drive supporters to Nutter. Reliable voters are likely to see these ads for what they are...a sleezy attempt to manipulate the less informed. Fortunately, I think voters have wised up to these tactics and will punish the people behind them.
Posted by Anonymous | May 9, 2007 10:32 AM
This is right out of Fattah's playbook, has anyone investigated the link? Why doesn't it mention his own stop and frisk plan?
As far as the ad itself, it's despicable and ugly race bating.
Posted by Roman | May 9, 2007 11:01 AM
Ladies and Gentleman,
This race is officially about RACE. Wow! This ad will be very effective. It doesn't matter if any of it is factual remember the masses in Philly don't read. We are more the "it was on TV so it must be true" crowd.
Posted by philly on the rise | May 9, 2007 11:07 AM
Masses anywhere are bought into negative ads. I guess the country doesn't read according to you, they fell for Kerry's negative ads.
Even though they only bought 90,000 dollars worth of ad space. How did this rancid 527 get on the air yet the "credit herion" ad against Knox didn't?
Knox loves to throw his money on everything that's why.
Posted by Patricio | May 9, 2007 11:40 AM
This is a LIE - there is NOTHING unconstitutional about a "stop and frisk" plan - it has continuously been upheld by the US Supreme Court! In fact, nothing could be more constitutional than what the US Supreme Court has dictated. As far as the "no reason" to stop - this is also a LIE. There needs to be "reasonable suspicion" which derives from "specific articulable facts" that are "more than a hunch"
This ad attempts to insigh a fear of a police state and disregard for people's civil rights - the truth is - what Nutter is advocating is no different than what ANY police officer can already do.
Posted by Michael | May 9, 2007 11:43 AM
From a human nature standpoint, it's interesting to see just how low people are willing to go for political power. Fattah's comment during the debate and this ad show what desperation with a faulty moral compass will drive people to do.
Posted by Anonymous | May 9, 2007 11:47 AM
Race baiting?
Let me get this right. If this ad is being done by people that are concerned about the connection between a history of civil rights abuse and a policy that Nutter is proposing, that equals race baiting?
The consitutionality of various crime plans, or their potential for abuse of civil rights, is debatable - but the right of people to be concerned about those issues is not debatable. It is a fundamental right.
I guess that the entire civil rights movement was race baiting as well, eh?
Posted by D.E. II | May 9, 2007 11:51 AM
There are legitimate concerns about how the program is implemented, but the Supremem Court has clearly ruled that it is constitutional. The ad is intended to play on uninformed people's worst fears. It's not simply raising questions...
Posted by Anonymous | May 9, 2007 12:02 PM
"uninformed people's worst fears."
Ah, now I get it. People that disagree with you are "uninformed?"
Like it or not, there are questions about the consitutionality of S&F policies precisely because of the variability in how they would be implemented and the potential for abuse. You guys really do sound an awful lot like A. Gonzales.
Sure, it's campaign rhetoric - just as it is when Nutter dismisses concerns by telling us he's black. But where do you come off telling others that their concerns about abuse are invalid?
Posted by D.E. II | May 9, 2007 12:12 PM
DEII: There is no debate over whether stop-and-question-and-frisk is constitutional. It is. Ask Larry Sherman if you don't think so.
Posted by Anonymous | May 9, 2007 12:19 PM
I'm surprised that no one -- neither the media nor any of the other campaigns -- has focused on the seemingly obvious ties between the "independent" One Step Closer 527 and Fattah's campaign. From the involvement of Street advisor Shawn Fordham to the ploy of enlisting 70s and 80s era African-American entertainers on the campaign trail (first "Shaft", now Willis ... likely coordinated by Street ally and Welcome America head Clifton Davis of "Amen" sitcom fame), one has to seriously question the independence of this 527.
Posted by Anonymous | May 9, 2007 12:43 PM
1) I think the edit that I referred to in this post will take the reference to constitutional rights out of the ad.
2) I hadn't thought of the Clifton Davis connection. Very clever.
Posted by Wendy | May 9, 2007 12:47 PM
Is this legal? They make it look like Michael is speaking the last lines, and they say that stop and frisk can be used at any time for any reason? At what point do we reach the line of slander?
Posted by Anonymous | May 9, 2007 12:59 PM
More on the fairly transparent link between One Step Closer and Fattah -- Marcia Gelbart's story on the 527 yesterday noted that the PAC's biggest project to date has been voter registration with Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit Action Network ... whose presence in Philadelphia has been coordinated by ... wait for it ... Fattah and Mayor Street!
Posted by Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:01 PM
D. E. II, please go back and read my posts in the "stop and hug" blog. Most of the people in this blog are deftly sidestepping the issue of race. It isn't about whether or not stop and frisk is constitutional it's about Nutter handing over moral and judicial power to police officers who may abuse it. Look at page 7 of today's Daily News and tell me if that Black Man in the hospital is thinking about the U.S. Constitution!
Posted by Son of Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:11 PM
That ad was an utter disgrace. Michael Nutter is the ONLY ONE who will take charge and do what needs to be done to keep EVERYONE safe! Fattah aka John Street wannabe should be ashamed of himself. The race card has been played again by this pile of garbage but this time it won't work! We are ALL smarter than that!!!
Posted by Disgrace | May 9, 2007 1:34 PM
That ad was an utter disgrace. Michael Nutter is the ONLY ONE who will take charge and do what needs to be done to keep EVERYONE safe! Fattah aka John Street wannabe should be ashamed of himself. The race card has been played again by this pile of garbage but this time it won't work! We are ALL smarter than that!!!
Posted by Disgrace | May 9, 2007 1:35 PM
People who don't carry guns have nothing to fear. Fattah is more concerned with protecting the rights of criminals than making our City safe.
Posted by CM | May 9, 2007 1:45 PM
Call Fattah (215-829-1620) to tell him to stop playing these dirty political games.
Posted by CM | May 9, 2007 1:50 PM
Hey Genius, what about the non police officer's and private citizens in this city with legal permits, should they carry all their paperwork with them at all times? I mean police NEVER make mistakes right? Just a thought??????
Posted by Son of Anonymous | May 9, 2007 1:53 PM
i don't see anything intrinsically offensive about the ad. i don't agree with it, but it's making the worthy argument that nutter's plan crosses the line with regards to civil rights. and it's using an example of the civil rights struggle to send the message, "we've come too far as a people to take a step back." again, i disagree with the argument, but it's not like the ad is saying, "michael nutter says he's black, but he's not one of 'us.'"
i think we need to distinguish between ads that are ad hominem attacks and ads whose messages we simply don't agree with.
Posted by jordon | May 9, 2007 2:00 PM
oh by the way, in case you think i'm a fattah volunteer...
nutter '08!
Posted by jordon | May 9, 2007 2:00 PM
Now they could have produced an ad that says 'Do you REALLY trust the police to carry out Michael Nutter's plan without abusing it?' Show pictures of ppl who have been beat by PPD now and in the past and headlines about ppl who have been shot by police. Then..'If you don't trust the Philadelphia police then don't vote for Nutter.' That would have been honest and more to the point.
Anyway the quote below is from Fight for Room 215.
"The ad is misleading: Nutter has never proposed to 'let police suspend constitutional rights in some neighborhoods.' Everything Nutter has proposed is legal under the constitution and the city charter -- the relevant decision is Terry vs. Ohio. In fact, the 'stop, question, and frisk' searches are called 'Terry searches.'
There is legitimate debate about the impact of Nutter's plan, both on crime and on the communities it touches. But the constitutionality of the plan has never been in question. "
Moreover you can read the caselaw for yourself at findlaw . com
In short 'stop and frisk' does NOT violate anyone's constitutional rights. The plan also does not give police NEW powers. The ad lies.
Posted by philly on the rise | May 9, 2007 3:05 PM
Is stop and frisk constitutional when Fattah proposes it? Just wondering since he believes in the policy just like Nutter. Fattah is leading the attack against a proposal that he has endorsed in his policy paper. Anyone here defending Fattah's position should read up on his crime fighting ideas before accusing Nutter of being an advocate of unprovoked racial profiling that is going to have any and every black person in the city being frisked.
Posted by sj | May 9, 2007 4:04 PM
How many of you have arbitrarily stopped because of who you are or who you are with? As an young African American during the 50's and 60's I can personally say it not a nice feeling. However, unless someone can come up with a superior solution...
PS (please do not say tougher gun laws)
Posted by Chaz | May 10, 2007 8:12 AM