In a revealing article in today's Herald, Jerry Cornfield looks into the slimy lies told by the Democrats against Senator Val Stevens.
It's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the ads were lies, clearly accusing Stevens of something she never did, but Democratic challenger Fred Walser said, "I'm OK with them, absolutely. In my opinion, those statements are accurate."
Note that Walser does not say how the ads are accurate, in the face of evidence proving the contrary. Since Walser himself is a convicted liar with a long history of lying to protect himself and his friends, however, this should come as no surprise.
Of the ad run against him that points to the Fred Walser web site I run, I said, "No one's accused us of misrepresentation." I meant, of course, specific claims of misrepresentation. Walser says, "I was highly offended by the Republican Party ad that wasn't even accurate," but he is completely incapable of saying how any of it is inaccurate, because none of it is.
I'd like him to tell us how it's inaccurate. Which part? That he was convicted of lying and sentenced to a year in jail, 240 hours of community service, and $20,000 in restitution? That if he doesn't fulfill the obligations of his parole, that he could be in jail even before election day? That he is, literally, a crook? Nope, all of that is true. And everything else on there is a quote from the news media.
I think a lot more voters will be offended by your crimes and history of lies, Walser, than will be offended by the Republicans telling the truth about you. But right now I make an offer: Fred Walser, come on to Sound Politics and explain in what way the ad against you was inaccurate. I promise to let you have your fair say. You could just send me an e-mail and I'll publish the whole thing verbatim. And if you won't do that, then go on to one of the liberal web sites, like Goldy's. I'm sure he'd welcome you.
Will you do it, Walser? I won't hold my breath.
Senate Democratic Campaign Committee chair Karen Keiser echoed Walser's latest lies, saying, "There's a bright line between personal attack and political speech. I thought that (Republican piece) was a personal attack and totally a misrepresentation. Telling the public that someone's political opinions are extreme is not a personal attack."
Again, she cannot say how it is a misrepresentation, and if she thinks informing the public about Walser's proven -- and admitted -- lack of integrity is a "personal attack" then she's in the wrong business.
And yes, it is perfectly fine to attack Stevens' political views. The problem is, of course, they didn't do that: they attacked views she doesn't hold, and pretended they were hers.
Attacking a Republican for what they didn't do: perfectly fine. Attacking a Democrat for what is proven they did: personal attack.
Sounds a lot like the Obama campaign, frankly.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the modern Democratic Party.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 24, 2008 07:13 AM | Email ThisCornfield, though, made sure we knew it was a misdemeanor, but forgot to mention the one year deferred sentence.
Walser has a face made for radio. No way is that a mailer a positive- that is either one.
Posted by: swatter on September 24, 2008 07:27 AMI also wished he would have asked the Dems to explain how Walser was not accurate, and how their anti-Stevens mailer was accurate.
No way is that a mailer a positive- that is either one.
Positive for who? And there have been more than two mailers.
Posted by: pudge on September 24, 2008 07:31 AMI knew his record, and knew that it revealed more than enough flaws in him -- whether character flaws or some other, I don't know -- that I believed him unqualified to serve the public in any position of power. He has many times abused his power, and he should not be Senator.
But when he started telling bald-faced lies about Stevens, that's when my negative opinion of him moved from "professional" to "personal." Either he does not care about the facts and willfully ignores them, spouting off about them with knowing ignorance, or he knows the facts and is intentionally lying. In either case he is intending to deceive the public.
Posted by: pudge on September 24, 2008 07:38 AMOne unfamiliar could be left with the impression that they were attacking what she actually said, rather than explicitly claiming she meant something she clearly didn't mean.
Posted by: pudge on September 24, 2008 07:49 AMWhen I said Walser had a face made for radio, it was in reference to his lack of having a photogenic face. He didn't look like it was someone anyone would trust in office. Ergo, no way could those two mailers be a positive for Walser.
Posted by: swatter on September 24, 2008 07:54 AMNo, not at all, just wondering what you meant. You're the one being sensitive here. :-) If you were referring to the anti-Walser piece being negative for Val, then I'd honestly want to know in what way. I am always curious to see how people take the pieces.
There were only two recent mailers in particular that was discussed in the article.
No, there were three. Hence part of my confusion. The Democrats put out two against Stevens last week, and then there was one against Walser. The links for all three are in the sidebar (marked "PDF").
Ergo, no way could those two mailers be a positive for Walser.
This also contributed to my confusion, since his face was only on one of the mailers.
Posted by: pudge on September 24, 2008 08:18 AM
I hope Val and the rest of the legislature realize that when Grace and her DV mafia come knocken, you best give her the same stiff arm many of you already give to your constituents.
He's your buddy, doing what he does best.
enjoy. LOL
http://reason.com/blog/show/128950.html
It's disgusting to even see his name out there as a candidate for ANYTHING!!! The Washington Dems have reached a new low having a 'D' beside the name of Fred Walser.
Coming up with a candidate such as Walser to go against Val Stevens is really scraping bottom. Yep, he's proven himself to be 100% pure scum!
No matter what Val Stevens voted for or against in her tenure in our state senate, she doesn't deserve the insult of having a baffoon as a candidate. If he is elected to office, then there truly IS no hope for Washington State! We're doomed!
Posted by: KnowsWALSER on September 29, 2008 05:26 PMIt sounds like you have had some dealings with the ever manipulative/deceptive Walser. He's definitely a guy with some skeletons in his closet. Without doubt he is not the kind of person who should be elected for any public office. It is astonishing there are people who endorse this pathetic candidate. People are fooled by the fact he used to be a Chief of Police, and fail to recognize Walser abused this position of power to manipulate, deceive, and cover up what HE is really about. He is an example of a cop "who lost his way". Please inform readers and voters about the REAL Walser.
Posted by: Valentina Heart of a Lion on September 30, 2008 09:58 PM