DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Democratic lawmaker criticizes GOP's Kaepernick ad

Democratic lawmaker criticizes GOP's Kaepernick ad

Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu (Calif.) on Thursday called on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to “fire those who were responsible” for a GOP ad featuring activist and former NFL player Colin Kaepernick.

Lieu retweeted a post from the veterans advocacy group VoteVets that included a link to a Yahoo News story alleging Kaepernick's skin had been darkened in the ad.

“Dear @GOPLeader Kevin McCarthy: I served with you in the California legislature and now in Congress. I do not believe you are a racist,” Lieu tweeted Thursday. “If the below is true, then I hope you will fire those who were responsible.”



The ad, reportedly sent on Wednesday by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) — which serves to get Republicans elected to the House of Representatives — shows a photo of Kaepernick and includes a mug with the “Betsy Ross” flag, which has recently been the subject of controversy after Nike scrapped plans for its “Betsy Ross” flag-themed sneakers.

“WHO DO YOU STAND WITH? DONALD TRUMP AND THE BETSY ROSS FLAG OR ANTI-AMERICAN FLAG COLIN KAEPERNICK?” the ad said, according to Yahoo News.

NRCC communications director Chris Pack told Yahoo News that “the photo was not darkened.”

Other groups, including VoteVets, have continued to rip the NRCC for the ad, tweeting Thursday that if the group intentionally darkened Kaepernick’s skin, “then forget apologies — they ought to be forced to explain to America why they believe darker skin makes someone look worse, in their eyes.”

“Any answer they could give would be un-American,” the group said.



https://thehill.com/homenews/house/45259...kened-in-gop-ad

smfh

This kind of crap is why so many hate the GOP. They just don't get it... Or they do and don't care.

Colin Kaepernick's skin appears darkened in Republican campaign fundraiser ad

WASHINGTON — Former NFL star Colin Kaepernick did not look like himself in a fundraising email that was sent by the National Republican Congressional Committee on Wednesday. The message included a picture of Kaepernick that appeared noticeably altered to make his skin darker, an attack ad tactic that has been used before and is considered by many as racist.

One Democratic operative who saw the NRCC’s Kaepernick ad described it as “disgusting.”

“House Republicans are running on racism, plain and simple. It’s disgusting, it’s offensive and it should be fireable, but there’s no accountability in the Republican Party,” the operative said.

The NRCC is one of the main Hill committees run by the two major political parties. It is dedicated to electing Republicans to the House of Representatives. The message the group sent to supporters advertised a “Betsy Ross mug” and referenced Kaepernick’s opposition to the slavery-era flag.



“WHO DO YOU STAND WITH? DONALD TRUMP AND THE BETSY ROSS FLAG OR ANTI-AMERICAN FLAG COLIN KAEPERNICK?” the message asked.

Pictures of President Trump and Kaepernick appear side-by-side in the message. The photo of Kaepernick appears to have been altered to make his skin several shades darker than it is in original copies of the image. In an email to Yahoo News, NRCC communications director Chris Pack insisted, “The photo was not darkened.”

Spokespeople for Kaepernick did not immediately respond to requests for comment on this story.

The NRCC email advertised a mug emblazoned with a 1770s era flag that supporters would receive in exchange for a $25 donation. It was a clear reference to the announcement by Nike that it wouldn’t sell a shoe model featuring the 18th century flag, which Kaepernick said he found offensive because it was used during slavery. Kaepernick, who has an endorsement deal with Nike, has become one of the more prominent African-American activists focused on racial justice. He last played in the NFL in 2016 and famously began a protest against racial oppression and police shootings by kneeling during the national anthem at games. His protests spread, and Kaepernick became a lightning rod, drawing criticism from President Trump.

Kaepernick became a free agent in 2017 and has remained unsigned. He filed a grievance against the NFL accusing it of keeping him from the league due to his activism, and the two sides reached a confidential settlement earlier this year.



Political ad makers have previously been accused of darkening African-Americans’ skin in photographs to appeal to racist sentiment. In 2015, a study of negative ads that aired against Barack Obama in the 2008 election showed that the campaign of Republican candidate John McCain consistently darkened Obama’s skin in commercials. That study also showed McCain’s skin was lightened in some ads and found those images appealed to “stereotypes” and negatively affected some voters’ impressions of Obama. During that same race, the campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton was also accused of darkening Obama’s skin in ads, and liberal critics described it as “using racism” and “race-baiting.” There is a wide body of evidence indicating racial prejudice is stronger against African-Americans with darker skin, and multiple other studies have echoed the finding that some voters respond negatively to candidates with darker skin.

The NRCC’s Kaepernick ad comes as the campaign committee has faced criticism for its tactics from even within the Republican Party. In June, The Hill reported GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney told the NRCC’s chairman, Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., that “Republicans raised questions about the NRCC’s strategy during a closed-door meeting.” Their concerns included the NRCC’s usage of Trump-style mocking nicknames in political attacks on Democrats. On June 4, former Republican congressman Tom Rooney tweeted a simple message at Emmer in response to the juvenile jabs.

“This isn’t you,” Rooney wrote.

A spokesperson for Emmer declined to comment and referred the matter to the NRCC. Thus far, Emmer and other Republican leaders have defended the NRCC’s approach. GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy issued a statement to The Hill in June that praised Emmer and his team for “doing what it takes to win.”

“They’re on offense and not letting Democrats get away with promising their voters action but coming to Washington and conforming to the new Democrat Socialist agenda,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NRCC’s Kaepernick ad.

Earlier this month, Emmer similarly defended the committee’s tactics to the Minnesota Star Tribune and noted his position is “literally measured by wins and losses.”

“Our job is to define the other side of the aisle,” Emmer said. “Our guys are being as aggressive as they can to get these stories placed.”

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story and headline said the photo “was” noticeably altered. After it appeared, the NRCC provided a statement to Yahoo News denying that the photo was darkened, and the story was updated to reflect that.

https://news.yahoo.com/republican-nrcc-darken-colin-kaepernick-skin-ad-134501694.html

I actually have a bigger problem with Nike deciding that it wouldn’t sell a shoe model featuring the 18th century flag, because Kaepernick said he found offensive because it was used during slavery.

This is a great example of how the left goes too far. Ordinary folks, i.e. the majority of voters, are good w/equality and fairness for all. However, when you start forcing nonsense down our throats, such as not being able to display the flag from when our country was founded, you've once again too far and have instead alienated the very people you are asking for support.

Kaep has worn attire that promotes Fidel "Freaking" Castro and balks about a shoe w/an 18th Century American flag.

Get outta here w/the garbage!

Deplorable people have an addiction and will continue to separate the masses by posting BS like this. Pfft.. the trump era. Moving on.

Am I reading this post right Vers? Are you saying there is somehow a comparison to be made between an ad making a person of color appear darker and a company deciding to pull a product? And on top of that, it is in your mind worse that a company would decide whether or not to run a product, than it is to make someone appear more menacing by changing their skin color?

Its amazing how Libs are always able to find to whine about.

yeah leave racism alone its the american way!

Haven't people done this in political ads since nearly the beginning of the color photograph? Their candidate is on one side in bright color, the other candidate is on the other side, usually in reduced brightness/contrast, if not just plain black-and-white.

If they had photoshopped just Kap's skin to be darker, then maybe you'd have a point, but even the white guy behind Kap is darker. They have been doing photos like this for decades, and now we are suddenly outraged by this?

My gawd! Democrat Mike Alvarez changed his opponents skin color to red! What an overt racist!

I gotta call BS on your whataboutism. These are political opponents running for office.

So, it's okay to do that but only if the other person is running directly against you? Is that what you're saying?

Your showing a negative political add of a GOP candidate in red face as a whataboutism to racial post on the internet.... Lol ...ok bro, whatever go for it.

It's either wrong or it isn't. Which is it? I'm glad you've learned the word "whataboutism", but in order for that word to have any meaning, I would have to think it's actually wrong in both cases, but since one side has done it in the past, then I'm just okay with the other side doing it as well.

That's not the case. I've pointed out that both side have done it for ages, and nobody has had a problem with it. Suddenly Trump does it, and now not only is it wrong, but it's also somehow racist. I point back to a previous example of the same thing and asked if this is also now racist, and you've excused it away.

Total false equivalency. Complete and utter.

And saying it's either right or wrong is a bogus argument.

Murder and stealing are not equivalent. They are both wrong. Trying to draw a false equivalency between murder and theft and saying "it's either right or wrong, which is it?" .... BS argument.

How is it a false equivalency? Both are political ads, both are taking the one-side versus the other-sde approach. I get that Kap isn't a direct candidate, but does that even matter? The ad is even saying, our side/their side. The only real difference is Kap happens to be a PoC, so now suddenly it's an issue. If it was Megan Rapinoe, and they did the exact same thing, it wouldn't be an issue.

Woosh. If you don't get the difference between 'black man' being portrayed as 'blacker' to make him a more threatening character --- and a red wash over one 1/2 or 1/3 of the advert .... idk. Happy Friday to you.

Oh I know what the difference is.

You have made an excellent case.

Now you must consider your audience.

Meh, Donald Trump didn't darken the photo, nor did the leader of the Republican party.... somebody else might have played with it.

Doesn't look like they intentionally made his skin darker, the whole photo looks grainier.

It's outrage over silly things like this that cause people to mock the far left. And I don't blame them.

You are right - it wasn't Trump. But someone signed off on what they did, and the photo has been altered and while it's not a sophisticated photoshop where just him/his skin has been altered, I'd say the darker grainier look is very intentional. Also agree there are much bigger issues to look at. But let's not say that making a black guy look more sinister by making him blacker is the same as a red wash over an image and text.

Okay fine, here's an image of Mitt Romney, where they made the image darker to make look him more "sinister". It has nothing to do with race, it's just what is always done in political ads.

j/c:

This is one of the dumbest politcal threads I've ever seen. And there have been quite a bit of dumb ones.

Nope.

I'll keep it simple:

--The flag is not racist.

--Kaep supports a man who was far more oppressive than the US government.

--Nike exploits the hell out of poor people in third world countries.

I almost always support the left and minorities in these debates, but damn man.........sometimes the left goes much too far and it only serves to alienate folks.

Btw---I didn't even comment on the image being darkened because I don't know if it was intentional or not, but that's an old political ploy.

The funny thing I find about all of this is that on social media everyone seems to be concentrating on what Kaep said instead of being mad at Nike for taking those shoes off the shelf. It's hilarious.

The dark shadows so you can't really see his eyes is the most obvious part.. well that and the way it contrasts with how they made it so grainy that he looks pallid, he looks almost dead.

I thought that was Obama and Mitch McConnell...

Well not back then.

Wasn't msnbc making Trump orange on their coverage?

And Trump sued Bill Maher for saying his mother was an orangutan.

A few thoughts here:



1. As if bigots ever needed a darkened picture for motivation.
2. LA Times did it with OJ, too. Happens all the time. Nothing to see here, folks. Well.... nothing new for me to see.
3. Well... didn't see that one, but why should it surprise anyone?

This is how we have rolled since newspapers were printed on these shores.

Maybe, in another hundred years-

[shrugs]

Do you think the first flag of the United States was racist and therefore not be depicted on attire?

Come on, bro.....Gotta choose your battles.

Wait a minute...

I'm actually lost right now.
Totally lost.

I'm trying to make the connection between your line of questioning, and my observations about photomanipulation as it pertains to social propaganda.

I think you are trying to talk to me about Kaepernick and flags, but I was responding and sharing about something entirely different.

Please re-read the 'quoted' content at the top of my post.
Please note how I numbered each element in that quoted content.
Then, please note how I numbered my responses to correlate with the numbered issues in the quoted content.

THAT is how narrowly focused my post was.

To be truthful, Vers- I don't know what you're talking about this time. I really, really don't.
...and I mean this with all sincerity.


Dude- What da what?

Never mind, it isn't worth it.

Ya right. The real difference is you think it’s ok to use a private citizen’s point of view and image (kap, who isn’t even running for public office) as a trump era political statement portraying that private citizen’s image and doctoring that image as a vicious subliminal message. You have no clue what the difference is. That’s obvious.

j/c:

I think it would be freaking awesome if one of Nike's competitors, such as Under Armor, started manufacturing huge amounts of apparel w/Betsy Ross' flag on it. Tee shirts, sweatshirts, shoes, socks, hoodies, shorts, etc.

I'd buy some. Support our country while voicing my opinion of Kaep and Nike.

It’s a free market and I know as a fact that there are regulations to displaying the original 13 star flag But I wouldn’t expect anything less from any of us. After all it’s a free country right? You can show your support or peacefully protest for your causes right? Well that is unless you’re Kap.

What? Kaep has been arrested for protesting? I missed that. When did this happen?

Whatever bro.