Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 12:23 pm by Darryl
Just a few days ago the National Republican Congressional Committee released an anti-Burner ad that was both illogical and misinformed.
Now the Reichert campaign has released an ad in a similar vein. (A You Tube version of the ad is here.)
After weeks of Darcy Burnerâ€™s negative campaigning, the Seattle Times cried foul for falsely attacking Dave Reichertâ€™s support of veterans.
The video cites this 9/24 article and quotes from the article, “Burner’s charges hurt by inaccuracies.”
The only problem is, that’s not what the article says! Nowhere does the article “cry foul” against Darcy. Instead, it reports that the Reichert campaign was “crying foul.”
In fact, the author, Jonathan Martin, doesn’t take a stand on who is correct and who is incorrect. What the article does say is, “[a]ds against both candidates contain inaccuracies” and prints pros and cons claimed by both campaigns. The print edition even sports the subtitle, “[c]laims by both sides are open to contention.”
The words “charges” and “hurt” don’t even appear in the article. You know, as in the quote “Burner’s charges hurt by ‘inaccuracies,’” a quote that they specifically attribute to the Seattle Times on 9/24/2006. The Seattle Times didn’t say any such thing.
In other words, Reichert’s ad “misquotes” the Seattle Times by…umm…making up new words and constructing a phrase that doesn’t appear in the article!
(What the hell is going on here, have the Reichert people been taking lessons in political bullshitting from Mike!™ McGavick?)
I want to take issue with the main claim against Darcy. Did Darcy falsely attack Dave Reichert over his lack of support for veterans? As the Seattle Times article points out, there is disagreement about whether Reichert’s two party-line votes increased funding or decreased funding for the V.A. The answer appears to be both. As Zach Silk pointed out, “[t]he five-year VA budget adopted by Congress initially boosts health-care funding, but then cuts it back over future years….”
There is more to this issue than just those two votes, as I pointed out following Reichert’s appearance on KUOW. Reichert voted against the TRICARE bill that would qualify National Guard and Reserve personnel for the same military health plan coverage that active duty troops receive. Given that 40% of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are drawn from the National Guard and Reserve, Reichert’s vote against the TRICARE bill clearly falls under the heading of Reichert not supporting the troops.
So, the Reichert people may feel the political need to protest such claims, but Reichert’s voting record shows that his support for veterans is…um…lacking.
Back to the ad…
Now Burnerâ€™s in bigger trouble, pushing a tax plan that punishes millions. Higher taxes on families. Taxes on marriage, on death.
“Tax plan?” What tax plan? Darcy has not published a plan, per se. Burner talks about her philosophy on taxes here. Where did the Reichert people get this incorrect impression of a (frankly, ludicrous sounding) “tax plan?” David Postman gets to the bottom of this claim for the NRCC ad; it is based on a very general statement (not a “plan”) that Darcy once made about letting some of the tax cuts expire. This issue is, of course, that many of the Bush tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans.
In the mean time, Reichert (along with the Republican-controlled congress) has pushed the concept of “deficit spending” to unprecedented and outrageous extremes. The U.S. is $8.5 trillion in debt and going further into debt by $1.7 billion every day. Reichert and company have engaged in fiscally reckless tax cuts for the rich while spending has snowballed.
No wonder Reichert had to invent a non-existent “tax plan” for his opponent.
Burner wants the job, but has no experience, no public service. Calling for taxes we canâ€™t afford.
In fact, Darcy Burner has a strong record of leadership, leadership training, and public service. Let’s put it this way, Darcy joined the Civil Air Patrol and quickly moved up through the achievement ladder, earned the highest CAP award, and then was elected the “Cadet of the Year” one year; she ended up in a wing staff command position while a cadet (which is unprecedented).
Reichert, on the other hand, spent 17 years in the King County Sheriff’s department before his first promotion to a leadership position. Ultimately, Reichert’s tenure as the King County Sheriff was blemished by “issues” of mismanagement covered by a series of Seattle P-I articles, more recently by this article, and expanded upon by Michael Hood.
So, who is the natural leader here? Who has the greater leadership potential?
Dave Reichertâ€™s keeping taxes low, with experience to back it up.
It would seem the following phrase would better describes Reichert’s role as a Republican Congressman: “Dave Reichert’s keeping taxes low for the rich; ushering America to fiscal disaster.”
Reichert’s ad shows misinformation, shaky claims and just plain ol’ made up shit. Who is engaging in negative campaigning here?