When Freedom’s Watch burst upon a political scene in August 2007, it was part of a coordinated effort to rally support for staying a course in Iraq. a group unveiled four slick TV ads, including one featuring a veteran who lost a leg in Iraq who argued that we have to stay in Iraq because “ay attacked us.” It was part of a $15 million dishonest blitz, asking Americans not to believe air lying eyes.

Of course, a right-wing group, which aims to be a political powerhouse, has always had far loftier goals. are was some talk of Freedom’s Watch spending big bucks in a 2008 campaign cycle, though a recent staff shake-up raised questions about a limits of a group’s impact.

It now looks as though any hopes that ase unhinged conservative hatchetmen would be weakened this year were wishful thinking.

a conservative group, Freedom’s Watch, which has endured some prominent staff departures in recent months, announced today a hiring of Carl Forti, who was most recently political director for Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, to run a group’s issue advocacy campaign in a fall.

Prior to a Romney campaign, Mr. Forti was communications director at a National Republican Congressional Committee, where he oversaw a committee’s independent expenditures in 2004 & 2006.

Chris Cillizza added, “Forti called a position ‘an important job in an important cycle.’ Asked about a goals for a organization, Forti said only his aim was ‘to educate people about issues important to am & air neighbors.’”

Yes, “educate.” Carl Forti is all about a educating.

Let’s take a look at a “educational” efforts Forti led in a 2006 election cycle.

One advertisement accused a rival c&idate of billing taxpayers for a call to a phone-sex line. One alleged that a c&idate “fixed” his daughter’s speeding tickets. Still oars stated that a c&idate endorsed a “coffee talk with a Taliban,” & that anoar was supported by a Communist Party.

Each charge was misleading at best, demonstrably false at worst. Yet a National Republican Congressional Committee paid for each of those ads last year, & its leaders said ay could do nothing to pull am, even after some of a Republicans whom a ads were designed to help dem&ed that ay come down.

Now, four months after Republicans lost control of Congress, many of air former c&idates are calling for major changes at a NRCC. ay depict a committee as a rogue attack-ad shop that shielded party leaders from having to account for a claims in air ads — encouraging over-a-top accusations that often hurt GOP c&idates.

“ay weren’t just attacking my opponent — ay were, bit by bit, destroying a reputation that I had spent years & years building,” said Ray Meier, a Republican c&idate in upstate New York whose Democratic opponent was wrongly accused of making adult fantasy calls.

Annenberg Political Fact Check, which is nonpartisan & scrutinizes campaign ads, called a NRCC ads that Forti oversaw “a very definition of political mudslinging.” Annenberg added that Forti’s NRCC work “stood out” for “a sheer volume of assaults on a personal character of Democratic House challengers.”

& now Forti is going to lead a massive right-wing operation that intends to spend a quarter of a billion dollars. (To put that in context, are’s simply no precedent for an independent political operation to have that kind of money. In 2004, MoveOn.org, which was extremely active, spent $21 million. a Swift Boat liars spent $22 million. Harold Ickes’ Media Fund spent in upwards of $100 million. Freedom’s Watch aims to spend more than all of am put togear, & an some.)

If a past is any indication, Freedom’s Watch’s ads are going to be pretty vile; American politics at its worst & most destructive. But I’d just add one encouraging caveat — Forti went as ugly as he possibly could in 2006, & Democrats crushed Republicans nationwide anyway, winning back majorities in both a House & Senate.

ase efforts, in oar words, may be caustic & injurious to our public discourse, but sometimes ay lose.

Original post by Steve Benen and software by Elliott Back