ICYMI: 2nd CD ad from DCCC

5 thoughts on “ICYMI: 2nd CD ad from DCCC”

1. The ads are just getting silly!

   Hypocrisy?

   This Sunday one aired on “Hardball,” said Glenn “Voted against Wall Street Bailout twice.” TWICE?

   TARP was passed Oct 2008 which was actually the Emergency Economic Stablization Act. Glenn Voted “FOR” the “Disapproval Resolutions” of the 2nd half of the spending of TARP on Jan 22nd AFTER the Senate had already approved the money and it was being spent. The votes – being resolutions – were purely symbolic.

   Saying Glenn voted against the Wall Street bailout is just wrong and misleading at best. Having a commercial saying he voted against it TWICE is dishonest. It took all of 5 minutes to check this out. It also turns out that another version of his ad doesn’t mention “twice”. The one WVEC used a while back didn’t have this. Maybe I’m losing my mind in thinking the Dems would be honest.

   Remember to apply the truth-o-meter to all of these ads and as far as Cash for Clunkers you would be hard pressed to find any large car dealer who would turn down a program that helped people buy cars. Remember it was part of the stimulis which Glenn Nye and nearly all the Dems voted for… Now who is the real hypocrit?

2. Of course, if he had not participated in the program, his customers would have gone elsewhere and he would have been out of business. The dealership did not get the money, the carbuyers did.

3. I agree, Cash for Clunkers was a business decision for Scott, but he is also running for Congress, so he must be held to a higher standard.

   To rail against the stimulus while having taken advantage of is hypocrisy. A smarter tactic would have been to mention Cash for Clunkers himself and talk about how horrible a position it put him as a businessman. That would have deflected all of the attacks and made it impossible for this ad to run.

   The clincher, however, is that cash for clunkers gave his business 440k to reimburse (not profit) for the discounts. Rigell to date has put over 1.5 million of his own money into his campaign. To say he couldn’t afford not to participate is disingenuous to say the least. If Rigell truly has the conservative convictions he claims, he could have made his own cash for clunkers program and swallowed the 440k loss like he has swallowed a 1.5 million loss for his Congressional campaign. I’m not suggesting he should have or even that it would have been smart, but Rigell said he had no choice. As I see it, he had three;

   1. Participate
   2. Don’t Participate
   3. Use his own wealth to make his own program

   Number 1 is clearly the smartest choice, but a smarter one is to not give such a blatant appearance of hypocrisy.

   1. By that logic, must every congressman who opposes the Bush tax cuts have used the old tax rates or be branded hypocrites?

      Everyone can pay more in taxes than they are required to do. How many congressmen have railed against “tax cuts for the rich” and paid only the taxes required of them?

4. That is a stretch Warren, taxes are different that a government incentive program for businesses. the point is that logic and standards change as soon as you run for Congress.

   Taking the bailout via cash for clunkers was necessary for Rigell’s business, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is hypocritical to attack the stimulus while you made use of it.

   By Rigell’s own definition given on WVEC, the stimulus does work. He said he knew cash for clunkers would give him a momentary uptick, he said a stimulus is a momentary increase in activity. Rigell admits the stimulus temporarily stimulated the economy and in turn, his business.

   Overall I think the stimulus was a failure, but that doesn’t change the fact that Rigell is being hypocritical.

   Alas, the things one must do when forced to listen to GOP consultants.

Comments are closed.