Vance poziva republikance da prestanu da se plaču zbog kontroverznog oglasa o napadu u Ohiu

Vice President JD Vance urged fellow Republicans to cease criticizing a controversial campaign advertisement in Ohio’s gubernatorial race, arguing that the party should focus on winning the November 3 midterm elections rather than debating the ad’s content. Speaking in Cincinnati on Wednesday, Vance stated that he was "a little bit disgusted" by members of his own party who were complaining about the spot, which features the estranged mother of Democratic candidate Amy Acton calling her a liar. Vance, who is campaigning alongside Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, said that politics is a difficult profession and that elected officials should prioritize victory over moral objections to campaign tactics. The advertisement, released on social media on Monday evening and subsequently aired on television, features Donna Arthur, Acton’s mother, asserting that her daughter has "lied her entire life." Arthur claims that Acton fabricated stories about growing up in poverty and homelessness. The video does not mention that Arthur’s husband, Cledith Arthur, was charged with raping Acton when she was a child. Acton and her brother, Philip Stearns, were removed from their mother’s custody during a 1978 court proceeding involving the charges against their stepfather. According to Acton, she has not spoken to her mother since that time. The Arthurs fled Ohio, and Cledith Arthur was never prosecuted on the rape charge; he died in 2004. Ramaswamy’s campaign took credit for the advertisement on Tuesday and announced plans to spend approximately $4 million to increase its distribution across the state. Campaign spokesperson Connie Luck defended the strategy, stating that the ad highlights discrepancies in Acton’s narrative. Sources close to the campaign indicated that internal testing suggested the advertisement performed well with undecided voters. Ramaswamy, who trails Acton by nearly four percentage points in recent polling, characterized the ad as part of a broader pattern of information regarding Acton’s history. He noted that Acton has avoided debates and evaded direct questioning. The release of the ad triggered immediate backlash from both parties. Within the Republican coalition, several prominent figures distanced themselves from the tactic. Senator Jon Husted, who is running for re-election in Ohio, told the Associated Press that he would not have run such an advertisement. Frank LaRose, the Ohio Secretary of State and a candidate for state auditor, expressed similar reservations, though he emphasized that candidates ultimately decide their own messaging strategies. Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, a Republican known for advocating for survivors of sexual assault, labeled the spot the most offensive advertisement of the election cycle. She stated that while she had supported Ramaswamy previously, the ad represented a deep lack of decency. Conservative commentator Meghan McCain described the advertisement as dastardly. Additionally, an aide to Senator Mike Lee of Utah deleted a post sharing the video after reviewing the underlying allegations. Donald Trump, when questioned about the controversy on Wednesday, said he knew nothing specific about the production of the ad. He remarked that it was unusual for a mother to harbor such hatred toward a daughter but suggested the incident was unrelated to Ramaswamy personally. Meanwhile, Acton’s campaign responded with its own counter-advertisement released on Tuesday. The thirty-second clip features Philip Stearns recounting childhood abuse and directing blame at Ramaswamy. Stearns describes the use of sexual assault as a political talking point as a despicable low. He accuses Ramaswamy of displaying contempt for both Acton and the state of Ohio. Vance addressed the criticism directly during a rally for Ramaswamy. He asserted that media outlets and Ohio Democrats were fixated on the advertisement because Ramaswamy had the audacity to challenge Acton’s credibility. When asked by journalists if he believed the ad was appropriate, Vance replied that it was not his primary concern. Instead, he framed the issue as a test of Republican resolve, suggesting that complaining about the ad distracted from the actions of congressional Democrats. This stance aligns with a political philosophy attributed to Vance by associates, who describe his approach as refusing to back down under pressure. They argue that yielding to critics only emboldens them to demand further concessions. David Lublin, a professor at American University’s School of Public Affairs, observed that while attack ads are standard in U.S. politics, the intensity and boundaries of such attacks have expanded. He noted that using family members against political opponents is not unprecedented, citing instances where relatives testified against Robert F. Kennedy Jr. prior to his confirmation as Health Secretary. However, the specific nature of the trauma involved in the Acton-Ramaswamy dispute has drawn sharper condemnation. Acton, in interviews, has stated that she hopes her story of recovery from abuse serves as an inspiration. She referred to Ramaswamy as an out-of-touch billionaire whose antics were unsurprising given the circumstances. The controversy unfolds in the final days of a competitive race in Ohio, a state traditionally viewed as solidly Republican but currently showing signs of shifting voter sentiment. Vance’s defense of the ad underscores his willingness to shield allies from criticism, a trait that has defined his political trajectory since his 2022 Senate campaign. At that time, he similarly declined to condemn certain colleagues despite public outcry. With thirteen days remaining until the election, the Ramaswamy campaign continues to amplify the advertisement, betting that the negative messaging will sway enough voters to secure a victory in the governor’s mansion. The reaction within the Republican base remains divided, with some viewing the ad as a necessary tool in a tight race and others seeing it as a violation of ethical norms that risks alienating moderate voters.