But being able to create a source annonymously, cite it, and then have it disappear, is a quaint twist. I doubt if it is illegal. It's just what Republican has come to mean.

Rex Simmons....lies.....ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!!

That is so ridiculous.

Hopefully we can get this thing pulled. That's like blaming DailyKos for everything written on their site (um, O'Reilly?).

If an unhappy McDonald's customer griped about McDonald's while buying a soda at Burger King, and Burger King turned around and put together an ad which said "McDonald's admits its own food sucks" - the suits be lined up around the block to protect the McDonald's brand. 

That's what's going on here.  The RPV & the Hugo campaign are distorting a statement made by your customer and attributing your customer's statement to your brand. 

I think an election law complaint, a civil cease and desist, and contact with the media running the ad are ALL in order - from RK. 

Just my 6 cents.

When Kilgore ran his "Despicable 'Hitler' Ad", it cut his credibility off at the knees and gave TK a massive boost.

When Allen dared challenge the honor of Jim Webb and the US Marines by assaulting handpicked writings from his fact-based novels, it allowed Webb his first and only direct personal assault against Allen "the fish rots from the head".

Now, Tim Hugo has taken an unprecedented step by misquoting an anonymous blogger, they could have been posted by a republican operative or by members of Tim Hugo's own campaign.  Whether they were or not is irrelevant and this kind of mis-representation is the rough equivalent of citing quotes off the wall of the men's room.

These are Bathroom Wall politics that Virginia Voters have rejected before and will continue to reject by removing the dishonorable Tim Hugo from office.

Rex Simmons survived a hard-fought primary against a passionate opposition.  Now he faces the Bathroom Wall politics of Tim Hugo, and the voters deserve better.  When Kilgore, Allen and other Republicans use their Rovian character assassination tactics against the voters of Virginia, they choose in favor of honest governance, and good judgment.

That choice is again before the voters and they will elect Rex Simmons Delegate in the 40th in November.

Hugo is disgusting.

RAISING KAINE STRONGLY ENDORSES REX SIMMONS FOR HOUSE OF DELEGATES!!!!!!

Is that clear? Now, what part of "unethical" don't you understand?

P.S. Oh, by the way, are you arguing that Republican primaries are always nice, staid, well-mannered affairs?  Should we dig up all the comments and diaries from, let's say, Hanger vs. Sayre?  Now wouldn't THAT be fun?

Tim Kaine and Mark Warner have proven to Virginia that Democrats can lead, govern, and put Virginia first. Republicans obstruct and put ideology and party before the good of the Commonwealth.

Despite Republican obstruction Warner and Kaine addressed the most critical problems in Virginia and made Virginia the best managed state in the nation, the best state for business, and the best place for kids to prepare for success in life.

This year, Virginia voters will have a chance to decide between the reactionary ideological past or the pragmatic, successful future. Tim Kaine needs Democratic allies in the House and Senate, and there is a blue tidal wave ready to wash over Virginia this November delivering supporting majorities in the Senate and potentially the House as well.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have put party first, and have nothing left but the same kind of Rovian tactics that failed when Kilgore and Allen used them in the past.

Tim Hugo's failed attack is more of the same that has cost Republicans in recent years and promises to cost more. Virginia voters will choose Democrats across the Commonwealth in November, and Rex Simmons will be among a freshman class in a new Democratic majority that will help Tim Kaine lead Virginia into a brighter future marked by responsible governance and pragmatic solutions to real problems.

Ben says it was Nate, not anonymous, not a Republican, couldn't have been anyone else.

It's possible that Hugo thinks the accusations of lying and cowardice are especially stinging because he can cite "www.raisingkaine.com" and viewers will associate that brand with people who wouldn't be expected to insult Simmons.  Or, it's possible that Hugo is just getting a private kick out of being able to use his enemies' words against Simmons.  Nevertheless, the words came from this blog, and even a completely precise citation to the pseudonymous diary would begin with "www.raisingkaine.com."  Hugo didn't say "Lowell Feld said," or "One of the front pagers at RK said."

If we ever do see a day when blogs are cited like newspapers, it'll probably mean that the blogosphere has been civilized via experience and libel suits.  I'd rather put up with the occasional creep like Hugo, than give up the anarchic information-wants-to-be-free way the blogs have of unearthing truth in sharp contrast to the way the corporate-owned media tries to market truth to us like one more bar of soap.  Glenn Greenwald at salon.com says this much more persuasively and eloquently than I.

Suppose I were (hypothetically) running against Ben for dog catcher.  Could I post a comment here that Ben was actually a "cat fancier" and then start an ad campaign against Ben-the-Cat-Fancier citing only Raising Kaine as my source?

PS -- I have no idea whether or not Ben fancies's cats.

As far as the effectiveness of the ad goes, I think it's a pretty weak ad.  No offense, but I don't get the sense that RaisingKaine is a known brand -- so its force as an appeal to a known authority won't be especially strong for most viewers.  As an average viewer, unaware of the blogosphere I might think that Hugo just made the quotes up himself.  What exactly would that say to me about Hugo as an ordinary voter? 

To the extent that the ad encourages people to check out this website and find out what RaisingKaine is all about, I suspect the ad itself might backfire.  (e.g. the reality is that Hugo's ad is, at best, misleading.  It does not reflect on him very well).

Hugo also doesn't come across as a particularly charismatic presence either in the ad.  The picture that he uses is not especially flattering: e.g. double-chins, unctuous used-car salesman like smile, kind of high pitched whiny voice.  The picture says "trust me at your own peril".  Not exactly someone who I would personally feel comfortable giving the keys to my tax dollars. 

The only part that might sell with the base is the illegal immigration pitch at the end of the ad.  Obviously this is an issue that will drive some voters to the polls.  The issue cuts both ways in Northern Virginia -- although in the outer suburbs it could be a useful pitch.  On the flipside, the ad offers nothing to fiscal conservatives, or "meat and potatoes" voters who are primarily concerned with repealing the abuser fees, and finding viable long-term fixes to the transportation problem.

So much of this obviously comes down to getting the die-hard supporters out to the polls.  To the extent that Hugo is able to get voters to see beyond his vote on the abuser fees and his failures on transportation, I guess it could help him.  But I'm not exactly clear what else he's selling.  The converts and volunteers are already on the bandwagon, but as an undecided voter, I'm not sure that his ad really gives me a reason to vote FOR him.  On the flipside, it's not the kind of ad that would seem to really depress vote on the other side of the equation.  It might have the opposite impact and drive people to support a man, Simmons, who they believe has been defamed in the TV ad by a sleazy politician.

If Simmons runs his own ad he can go mostly positive -- make transportation the signature issue.  Perhaps he could even raise the Abuser Fee issue and Hugo's vote.  That is something that has really ticked off a lot of people.  (e.g. Just tell me who voted for that stinking measure, and I will be sure to turn out and vote AGAINST that person.  I know a lot of people who feel this way -- especially among folks who are unlikely to turn out for a local election.  One great reason to call attention to Hugo's vote).

Btw, Great pic of Simmons and family in the above diary -- it would be great to see this used in an advertisement.  The picture says: I am an honorable family man, someone who can be trusted with your money, and someone who can be trusted with issues that matter to families in my district.  Quite a contrast with the floating picture of Hugo in his own TV ad. 

By way of explanation, let's go back to the Washington Post example.  If Hugo were to cite to an article or a WaPo editorial, then citing to "the Washington Post" would be appropriate.  But the Diaries on Raising Kaine are more analagous to letters to the editor, where WaPo readers express their own opinions.  If a political ad uses a letter to the editor as its source it is not appropriate to cite to WaPo.  The ad should cite to the specific letter (letters to the editor are always signed), including the name of the author.

In terms of the Hugo ad, the citation to Raising Kaine indicates that the quotes come from Lowell, Rob or Brian.  Because the ad does not say that the quotes are from a posting on the cite, it is misleading.