Ricketts, Adelson families compare Clinton to Nixon in first super PAC ad

[TomCADem]

Source: CNN

The super PAC funded by two major Republican donors, the Adelson and Ricketts families, is beginning its first advertising push since it relaunched with a searing new spot comparing Hillary Clinton to a Republican president: Richard Nixon.

Word emerged this week that those two families, among the biggest backers of the Republican Party but not yet Donald Trump contributors, would finance their own super PAC to help not just Trump but also GOP Senate candidates. The group, Future 45, is aiming to raise $25 million, but it is unknown how much of their money will be spent outside of anti-Clinton spots in Senate battleground states -- an intentional move to boost down-ballot Republicans.

* * *
The PAC did not immediately respond to questions about whether the ad will run on television or digital. But CNN reported Thursday that the group plans to run television ads in six states with competitive Senate races: Florida, Nevada, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Iowa.

The super PAC, envisioned to be a leading presidential spender on the Republican side, gradually grew dormant earlier this year after Trump won the nomination. But the Ricketts and Adelson families -- seeing a path to the Senate majority for Republicans if Trump can remain competitive -- just this week chose to pony up for their own group; the Ricketts family has dedicated $1 million, and the Adelsons are expected to give at least $5 million to Ricketts political organizations.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/future-45-first-ad/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Nixon? Is that all they've got?

Trump is being compared to Hitler and Mussolini. Nixon was no prize but he doesn't measure up (or down) to those guys.

[fleabiscuit]

4. LOL, was thinking the same thing.

Those even old enough to remember Nixon are getting sparse. Like those old fools. Let them waste it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Hey, I'M old enough to remember Nixon!

And he was a real piece of work... but he looks like a fucking statesman compared to Trump.

[jberryhill]

6. He won two elections

Let's say that 72 came down to a choice between Nixon and Wallace? Who would you pick?

[Frank Cannon]

16. I would vote for Nixon's skeletal remains over the current lunatic.

At least Nixon knew why we didn't want to use nuclear weapons.

[Iliyah]

2. Turning against their own?

[Feeling the Bern]

3. So Clinton okayed the coverup to a breakin designed to destroy the GOP candidate's campaign

then lied about it for 18 months?

Really?

[Moonwalk]

7. She's going to improve our relations with China?

Oh, yeah, these ads are sure to get Millennials to change their minds about voting for her

[Frank Cannon]

17. She's also going to start the Environmental Protection Agency.

And she's going to sign off on the Occupational Safety and Health Act to protect employees in the workplace.

Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me. Thanks, Republican douchebags!

[DLnyc]

8. Wow, Adelson backing a Nazi!

Irony is dead

[jmowreader]

9. Richard Nixon?

You mean the president who signed the Clean Air Act, signed the Clean Water Act, ended the draft, signed Title IX, signed the Occupational Safety and Health Act, established detente with the Soviets and opened China to the world?

Said Hunter Thompson of Nixon: He was utterly without ethics or morals or any bedrock sense of decency. Sadly enough, Donald Trump, the candidate for the office Nixon soiled, is worse than Nixon. Because, as far as I know, Richard Nixon never set up a mechanism to launder money and evade taxes - but Donald Trump did. As far as I know, Richard Nixon never swindled grandmothers out of their retirement savings. Donald Trump did. And as far as I know, Richard Nixon was never in cahoots with organized crime figures or Russian oligarchs. Yup, you guessed it: Trump did that shit.

[malthaussen]

14. Actually, Mr Nixon did do some of those things...

... or at least is under strong suspicion of having done so. Don't think he swindled grandmas, though. As for being in cahoots with Brezhnev, well, there is that whole detente thing (that's a joke).

-- Mal

[mdbl]

10. So this ad compares the democratic candidate

to the second most popular republican president of all time?
Very interesting, but stupid. At least she wasn't compared to the most popular republican president of all time. He was a bigger piece of work than nixon. Yes, I'm talking about Iran-contra reagan.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. "seeing a path to the Senate majority"

Huh?

Don't they already HAVE the Senate majority (for the past 6 years)?

We know that Democrats are pushing hard to REGAIN the majority in the Senate but it seems the GOP is conceding the Senate?

[Mamajami]

12. The e-mails is all they have...and that is about to fizzle in view of this latest news.

FBI released interviews with Clinton aids. THERE IS NO "THERE" THERE.

...snip

In the interview with the FBI, Lazar claimed it only took him 20 minutes to infiltrate Powell’s account. He also admitted to having lied to Fox News about hacking Clinton's account.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/297561-fbi-releases-interviews-with-clinton-aides

[malthaussen]

13. That's pretty funny.

Don't vote for the Democrat, she's too much like a Republican!

-- Mal

[lark]

15. Not a great ad.

Yes, this could resonate with old white folks, especially Independents, but for middle aged and younger not much at all.

[Nitram]

18. What is interesting to me is that the add isn't aimed at conservatives.

It's aimed at peeling away conflicted liberals.

[Liberalagogo]

19. Why not compare her to more recent criminals

Like say, Reagan and Bush, Sr.


Or Bush Jr and Cheney?


Or will that hurt too many wingnut fee-fees?