There's a few ads out there running against Rob McKenna for governor, and bizarrely, every single claim they make is a lie.
One, called "Clean Up", shows a guy cleaning his garage and saying McKenna is "not who he says he is" because he "lobbied to increase his salary," "all while" he "tried blocking a 12-cent increase in the minimum wage." All three of those things are false. He didn't "lobby" to increase his salary in early 2007, he responded to a request from the citizens' salary commission about a possible wage increase and he supported it. He also never tried to block an increase in the minimum wage in late 2010: he gave a proper opinion that the law did not require an increase. And the "all while" is false too, since those two things happened about four years apart. In fact, when he was giving a legal opinion about the minimum wage, he opposed a salary increase.
Another video, called "Meet", asks us to care that a Republican worked to get Republican presidential candidates George W. Bush and John McCain win, saying that this is somehow at odds with being a moderate. That's patently stupid, of course, since there's nothing contrary about being a moderate Republican and wanting the Republican candidates to win, but it gets worse: it flat-out lies by saying McKenna filed a lawsuit that would have denied women access to birth control and cancer screenings. No such lawsuit has ever existed. You simply cannot rationally or honestly claim that not giving something to someone is "denying access" to it. By that "logic," government denies me access to a '68 Shelby Mustang.
When the only way you can attack a candidate is to tell lies, it tells me you don't have anything true to attack the candidate on.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 20, 2012 06:23 PM | Email ThisI understand the courts have allowed lying in political campaigns, but has anyone tried to collect damages resulting from those lies?
Posted by: doug on September 20, 2012 09:26 PMI'd really like to know how being opposed killing 50 million babies is an "attack" on "decades of progress". Only a warped mind calls it "progress".
And it is also full of lies.
Of course sometimes, MOST times, lies are all they have.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on September 20, 2012 09:28 PMRagnar: yes, the anti-Koster ad is pathetic too. The "war on women" crap is reaching new depths.
This may be a tipping point in this race if McKenna can come up with a strong rebuttal and throw it back at Inslee. Jay Inslee brought it on himself - who had clever in disguising his lies up until now.
If the Republicans would stop behaving stupidly, they would have the Dems consistently on the ropes, because they are recycling the same failed ideas as before and they believe their constituents are stupid.
Posted by: KDS on September 20, 2012 10:08 PMThen RINO Rob's claim to being a Republican ought to be sending you into orbit.
Posted by: Hinton on September 21, 2012 07:50 AMAnd when you say that every Republican President for over 100 years, except for Reagan, is a "RINO," then you're saying the Republican Party is something other than what it obviously is. Even if you disagree with my list, it's still most of them are, in your view, a RINO. That's obviously incorrect, because the term "Republican" has no meaning if it doesn't include at least MOST of the top leaders of the party for our entire lifetimes.
The party has since the turn of last century been a party that includes conservative Republicans like Taft and Taft and Reagan, and "pragmatic" Republicans like Roosevelt and Nixon and, yes, McKenna. To say McKenna is not a Republican is to deny the long history of the party.
Was Abraham Lincoln a RINO?
Posted by: ivan on September 21, 2012 11:43 AMDon't be stupid. Everyone knows that Lincoln was an early champion of states rights and limited federal power -- cornerstones of the true Republican party.
Posted by: scottd on September 21, 2012 12:48 PMRepublicans, you just can't win this one. Why do you even bother?
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on September 21, 2012 02:35 PMWe'll both see in just about 45 days who is correct.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on September 21, 2012 03:14 PMThanks for that. That notion of purism on the part of so many conservatives on the right so often leaves the door open for demos when they don't really represent the true demographics of they constituants.
I don't know what the statistics are but it seems far more likely that leftists are willing to hold their noses and vote for the farthest left candidate. Conservatives, by not doing the same, abandon the field to those whose views are far more repulsive, yet in their view are less subject to their "protest" non-vote.
It's a double whammy that makes blue states appear even more blue than they really are.
Besides...hmmm...threads about leftists lying...
Posted by: scott158 on September 21, 2012 03:43 PMI dunno. In the description below, guess who I'm writing about, Inslee or McKenna.
Was Lincoln in the pocket of the tribes?
Did he call Scott Walker's badly-needed-here efforts "terrorism?"
Was he afraid to take on the public employee unions?
Did he sell out Clark County in their federal lawsuit to address the megacasino scam?
Did Lincoln claim that Collective bargaining for public employees was a "right?"
Did he trash the Boy Scouts for an issue that was none of his business?
Did he decide to screw us by blowing a $100,000,000 a year hole in our local economy by yoking 65,000 families to pay tolls on a bridge we don't need, don't want, can't afford and aren't being asked about that's being jammed down our throats entirely for the purpose of getting loot rail just across the river?
No? Then he's not a RINO.
But isn't it just a tiny stretch to compare McKenna with Lincoln? You know... a little teensy bit?
Posted by: Hinton on September 21, 2012 03:56 PMAnd when there is more agreement with the leftist positions than disagreement, then yeah... it's easy for me to conclude RINO Rob is that... and that neither I, not my family will ever vote for a label that is as meaningless to McKenna as it is meaningFUL to me.
Posted by: Hinton on September 21, 2012 04:01 PMAnd I do want McKenna to win, but I would never encourage someone to vote for someone they feel they cannot, in good conscience, vote for. Feel free to not vote for McKenna; I would not ask you to do otherwise. I am only saying he is as much a Republican as anyone else, just as many other non-conservative Republicans before him over the past 100+ years.
It would be interesting to know this information about the polling, with a caveat - McKenna loses 1 point for the King County vote counting/ballot stuffing - which could occur again, but almost all-mail voting could impact that one way or the other, but the 1 % potential fraud factor is probably a decent ball park estimate.
Posted by: KDS on September 21, 2012 05:43 PM..and KDS, you're right. Don't look at those polls and believe them, b/c so often they are found to oversample democrats for the express purpose of making the race look like something it's not in order to discourage people. It's all they have, b/c Obama has not a good economic record to run on.
"If Obama is re-elected, think about the mess HE will inherit!"
Posted by: Monterey on September 21, 2012 11:36 PMOk, pudge... school me.
All you've done with that observation is reinforce my observation: the issues I brought up have NOTHING TO DO WITH "CONSERVATISM."
Opposing the tribal lock on the democrats or any candidate for that matter, isn't a conservative issue.
Implementing badly needed reform and eliminating the idiocy of collective bargaining with public employees is not a conservative issue... it's an issue of our fiscal survival.
Refusing to join with Clark County on a suit we look more and more likely to win is not a conservative issue, especially when he's doing it in the name of political expedience out of some bizarre and misguided hope the tribes won't hammer him. It's the leftists down here that want that swamp built... and now, so does he.
Supporting the destruction of small business and low income commuting families in Clark County because of his support of tolls as high as $1300 a year to start for the indefinite future? Not a conservative issue.
This isn't about "conservatism" unless, of course, the labeling issue has hypnotized you.
The label I'm referring to, which you, in fact, use quite frequently, is the label "Republican."
On the issues that impact me and my family, McKenna is in lock step with Inslee. They are precisely and exactly the same on those issues. .
Does that make Inslee a "non-liberal democrat?" Of course not. RINO Rob's movement on these issues is ALL to the left. And that makes him as Republican as my garden gnome.
I and many others seem to be unlikely to support his efforts to out-democrat Inslee with our votes. And when he loses because of his hard-left lurch, it won't be because I didn't warn him.
Repeatedly.
Posted by: Hinton on September 22, 2012 12:31 AMWith Inslee, you are guaranteed to have legislation that goes against your beliefs and interests.
With Inslee, you guarantee that the poor polices of the past twenty years will be strengthened and more deeply entrenched.
With McKenna, there is hope that we will pull back from the "California Abyss", or at least slow our headlong rush into it.
Principled arguments like yours resulted in Clinton as president and almost produced Gore as president.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 22, 2012 05:32 AMAnd we all know how poorly that worked out!
and almost produced Gore as president.
Bush, on the other hand, was a huge success for the economy and the country. I was especially moved by the tribute paid to him at the last Republican National Convention and how eagerly he is sought after to assist in today's campaign.
Posted by: scottd on September 22, 2012 07:45 AMThe media sure are spinning and backpedaling desperately to try and gloss over this administration's incompetence with foreign policy and the failure to heed warnings of an impending premeditated terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11.
Hope and Change.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 22, 2012 07:49 AMCompared to Obama, he absolutely was. Unemployment averaged around 5% during his term despite a recession when he took office and the worst terrorist attack in our history. The tax cuts he implemented were followed by years of solid economic growth. He tried to rein in Fannie/Freddie to avoid the housing collapse and was blocked by Democrats every step of the way. Not pushing harder for that was his biggest fault, in hindsight, but the housing crisis was certainly not his fault.
Posted by: Palouse on September 22, 2012 08:02 AMThe Bush Economy -- that's a surefire vote-getter. I wonder why we're not hearing more about that on the Republican campaign trail.
Posted by: scottd on September 22, 2012 08:21 AMSadly, we are still hearing a lot about the Bush Economy. Obama is still blaming Bush even four years later. Obama, especially with a sympathetic Congress in his first two years has had ample time and chance to change the economy and has not done so.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 22, 2012 08:49 AMPosted by scottd at September 22, 2012 08:21 AM
Because you and others have succumbed and been sucked into the misinformation from the corrupt media and don't care about the truth. In addition, Romney is able to do better and knows how to begin to fix this colossal mess, exacerbated by Obama.
Palouse is correct - by comparison - the Bush economy was better and the housing bubble burst can be blamed mostly on the Democrats. Primarily Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who enabled toxic loans for housing by those who could never keep up with payments. They are soon to be both out of politics into lobbying - in the DC never-ending revolving door of corruption. Of course, the repeal of Glass-Stegal signed into law by Pres. Clinton opened the door for the toxic loans to occur.
That is the rest of the story that doesn't go away.
Posted by: KDS on September 22, 2012 08:58 AMIndeed we are -- but not from Republicans. Why is that?
Of course, the repeal of Glass-Stegal signed into law by Pres. Clinton opened the door for the toxic loans to occur.
... and it opened the door for many other financial disasters. I mostly agree with you on this point -- although Clinton didn't enact that law by himself. Has Romney pledged to restore Glass-Stegal? I might even vote for him if he has.
Posted by: scottd on September 22, 2012 09:08 AMProbably because only Leftists would be so jaded (read deluded) as to think that everything that happened under Bush was all Bush's fault and everything that has happened under Obama was also all Bush's fault.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 22, 2012 09:17 AMThat's simply not true. First of all, everything you wrote seems to me to be conservative vs. liberal. But perhaps more importantly, on everything you mentioned, there's not a damned thing any governor can do without a solidly Republican legislature, which he likely won't have.
I don't know anything about the Clark County suit so I won't comment on that, but the rest is, yes, conservative vs. liberal, *and* there's nothing he could do about it with a Democratic legislature anyway.
The label I'm referring to, which you, in fact, use quite frequently, is the label "Republican."
Yes, and EVERY PRESIDENT who has had that label in more than 100 years -- except for Taft (I forgot him, heh) and Reagan -- has supported things MORE liberal (or in your language, less "Republican"), than the things you listed.
On the issues that impact me and my family, McKenna is in lock step with Inslee.
Then don't vote for him. But he's still, very clearly and obviously and historically, a Republican. Your label "RINO" is stupid.
Pretty much, yes, if you're inclined to give blame/credit for economic conditions. If not for the recession, which he clearly didn't cause -- we know this because despite Obama's and the Democrats' repeated claims over four years that Bush caused it, they never once actually told us HOW Bush caused it -- Bush would be remembered for the good economy he did help create with his tax cuts, the recovery culminating in FY 2007 with a small deficit and high employment and GDP and revenues.
I was especially moved by the tribute paid to him at the last Republican National Convention and how eagerly he is sought after to assist in today's campaign.
Like Clinton was in 2000 and 2004? Ohwait. Don't be stupid, please.
The Bush Economy -- that's a surefire vote-getter.
For intelligent voters, yes. No one intelligent honestly blames Bush for the recession, any more so than they blame Clinton for the recession Bush inherited.
But we're talking honesty here. Obama and the left blames Bush for the recession he inherited, saying he squandered a surplus even though the loss of revenues from the recession alone was greater than the surplus, giving all the blame to Bush and none to Clinton, but even though Bush gave us a good recovery by the end of his four years, when it's Obama's turn, four years later 100% of the blame still goes to Bush.
There's no honesty in the Democrats when it comes to the economy. None whatsoever. Just like they lied about how not increasing the debt limit would mean default, just like they lied and said lowering our credit rating would mean catastrophe (and now Obama calls it no big deal), etc.
Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2012 10:06 AMBack to McKenna, he is articulate enough to be effective as a campaigner. However, one thing he failed to bring up yet is that why Gregoire was not at his fund raiser last week. Inslee is trying to distance himself from her, but it is a facade - he will only double down on the status quo if he wins. McKenna should seize upon this opportunity.
Posted by: KDS on September 22, 2012 10:45 AMPreach it, brother!
The Bush Economy -- that's a surefire vote-getter. I wonder why we're not hearing more about that on the Republican campaign trail.
Bush tax cuts vs. Obama stimulus
By any metric, the Bush tax cuts were more successful than Obama's policies have been. If anyone is pursuing "failed policies of the past," it is Obama.
CHART
--- But Bush did indeed cut taxes, most notably in 2003. Did that policy "fail"? How did it's results compare to Obama's record?
It's true that the private sector has added 4.6 million new jobs over the past 30 months. But during the 30 months after the Bush tax cuts went into effect in August 2003, the private sector actually added even more jobs - 5.3 million according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Survey.
Moreover, the new jobs added under Obama have been lower-paying jobs, reducing real median household income by more than $2,000; the Bush tax cuts, in contrast, enabled the private sector to add more jobs while simultaneously increasing real median household income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder -- Households by Median and Mean Income: 1967 to 2011.
As a result, under Obama in the last three years, 2.7 million more Americans fell into poverty. In contrast, during the three years following the enactment of the Bush tax cuts, the number of Americans in poverty actually fell, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Table 2. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2011.
In addition, during Obama's first three years, more than 11 million more Americans went on Food Stamps. That's more than four times as many as were added during the three years following the Bush tax cuts, according to the USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs (Data as of August 30, 2012).
--- By any metric, the Bush tax cuts were more successful than Obama's policies have been. If anyone is pursuing "failed policies of the past," it is Mr. Obama, stuck in the Great Society mindset, hurtling pell-mell toward the tax cliff of January 1, 2013.
***There are far too many links in the article than I care to imbed. Since I don't cater to the lazy, read the whole thing and click for the facts, yourselves.
Loud lefty memes die hard... just ask Harry Reid.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on September 22, 2012 12:06 PMSimple. A certain segment of the population is dumb enough to believe lies when they are repeated often enough. For example, "the policies that got us into this mess", without ever identifying one. Democrats would have people believe that cutting taxes caused the financial crisis, and there are people who will buy it.
Posted by: Palouse on September 22, 2012 07:47 PM"The unqestionably best possible count (though not the final legal count) we did in 2004 showed a Republican won the governor's race."
Yes, that's true, pudge, but then King Ciunty Elections folks intevened to make sure her Higness, Queen Chrissie, won. And that's exactly what will happen in 2012: KCE will make sure Inslee gets the votes he needs to replace the Queen down in Olympia. In short, Republicans for governor can't win because the vote-counters in King County will prevent it.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on September 23, 2012 10:04 AMDon't forget that Ron Sims is no longer around as King County Exec, Dow Constantine will have a much harder time trying to replicate the 2004 fraud since there will be greater public scrutiny and new election rules "coincidentally" put in place by Ron Sims after the voter uproar over the stolen 2004 election.
Posted by: FurryGuy on September 23, 2012 03:34 PMSorry, but I don't have any faith in King County elections - they're just corrupt.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on September 25, 2012 10:43 AM