Saturday, August 12, 2006

False Chabot Ads Back On

I meant to post this last week. I was watching TV and sure enough there were those false U.S. Chamber of Commerce ads praising Chabot for a vote he never cast. Chabot and the Chamber first admitted the mistake weeks ago, the Chamber pulled the ads, and now they're back on.

Here's the Cranley press release on the subject.

This whole commerical issue is just ridiculous. How would the U.S. Chamber of Commerce really make a mistake about this, admit to it, and then somehow permit the ads to go on more stations across the country, including those in Cincinnati?

Here's the first post on it back in July.


At 4:26 AM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(The first part of this comment is also posted at the original entry for this topic)

It is easy to see how the Chamber of Commerce and the labor organization that attacked Chabot for his vote could be confused, as he voted FOR the original version of the bill in the House (which passed by ONE VOTE-- arguably his), then he subsequently voted against the conference committee version of the bill which became law.

Cut and paste the following to see the roll call listing at the site of the clerk of the House for each vote:

(Chabot: Aye)

(Chabot: Nay)

If he were John Kerry, he would be pilloried for this as a "flip-flopper," having voted for and against the "same" bill.

In the Looking Glass world of Politics, one can take both the Chamber's and the Working America group to be partially correct, since, had the bill not squeaked by in the first instance when he voted for it, there would have been no House version to be reconciled and it might have failed to come up for that second vote: the vote in which he changed his position for reasons unexplained by himself or his chief of staff.

Of course, in praising the Law, the Chamber fails to note how while saving some lucky seniors some money it provides a wonderful full retail price windfall for drug and insurance companies. Thanks to Republican Deficit spending, the seniors grandchildren and great grandchildren will get stuck with the check for this benefit.

Like the blogger, I am utterly baffled at what the Chamber of Commerce thinks its doing. Has it concluded that telling an open lie that some might nevertheless believe is better for the candidate they support than telling the truth? That worked for the Administration in conflating Sadam and Osama in the minds of the public, so perhaps they figure there is nothing to be lost, since people who support the drug benefit might think that Chabot voted for it, while people who are true Chabot believers will know that it was a case of Steve standing up to “budget busting entitlements” in the teeth of the President. One can understand why Steve would want to swim as far away from the President as possible (though not far enough to miss any money the national Party may want to send his way through visits by Laura and “Deadeye” Dick). It is the apotheosis of the Ronald Regan doctrine of “telling them what they want to hear,” but in this case, “crafting” messages for different audiences that are diametrically opposed. The goal, of course, is to get “just enough” to hold the first district seat, and I am convinced that the Republicans both local and national will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal.

At 11:54 AM EDT, Blogger Ohio's First District said...

You're absolutely right. Thank you for posting insightful comments on this topic. I welcome many more.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home