First it was Blanche Lincoln. Then it was Robbie Wills.
Now we can add Tim Wooldridge to the list of candidates who are basing their ads on a belief that voters are too dumb to separate truth from fiction.
Ooooh, the scary narrator voice tells us to “look at the source” for the quote in Chad Causey’s latest ad. That source is Blue Hog Report, of course, and we all know that blogs are completely and utterly unreliable. I mean, that filthy, lying blog must have just absolutely made up the quote, because there’s no way that a blog could, say, reprint a GOP “undorsement” of a candidate in a post about that candidate’s opponent, right?
The quote in Causey’s ad: “Wooldridge launched remarkably personal attacks on Chad Causey”
The quote, in context, as printed in BHR’s May 25 post:
Calling this GOP statement an endorsement of Chad Causey doesn’t seem as apt as calling it an anti-endorsement (an undorsement?) of Tim Wooldridge.
REPUBLICAN STATEMENTSensing a momentum shift as third-place primary finisher David Cook endorsed his runoff opponent, Tim Wooldridge launched remarkably personal attacks on Chad Causey last week.
(emphasis added)
So, yes, please DO “look at the source.” Because the source got the quote from a GOP mailer that based its statements on direct quotes from Wooldridge. (Maybe Wooldridge is just peeved that BHR continues to point out that he is a homophobe and is not a carburetor.)
Wooldridge’s ad continues by saying, “The whole ad [from Causey] is not true,” and it splashes a nifty “Not True” graphic across Causey’s claim that Wooldridge voted in favor of three pay raises for himself as a state senator. Ignoring for a second that saying “the whole ad is not true” is incorrect inasmuch as Chad Causey tells us at the end that he is Chad Causey, here are the bills in question:
- HB1156 (2001). THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT FOR THE ORDINARY EXPENSES OF THE EXECUTIVE, JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES FOR THE 2001-2003 BIENNIUM. That appropriations bill raised the salaries of many state employees, including a raise from $13,101 to $13,442 for state senators. Wooldridge voted in favor of the bill.
- HB1050 (2003). THE GENERAL APPROPRATION ACT FOR THE ORDINARY EXPENSES OF THE EXECUTIVE, JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES FOR THE 2003-2005 BIENNIUM. That appropriations bill raised the salary for state senators from $13,751 to $14,067. Wooldridge voted in favor of the bill.
- HB1050 (2005). THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT FOR THE ORDINARY EXPENSES OF THE EXECUTIVE, JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES FOR THE 2005-2007 BIENNIUM. That appropriations bill raised the salaries for state senators from $14,412 to $14,765. Wooldridge voted in favor of the bill.
The only thing “Not True” in Causey’s commercial is a typo stating that the second bill was in 2001 instead of 2003. The general idea that Wooldridge voted in favor of pay raises for himself three times? True.
Causey’s ad also claims that Wooldridge voted against tax relief for veterans. The bill in question was HB1628 (2005), entitled “AN ACT TO INCREASE THE STATE INCOME TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENLISTED ARMED SERVICES MEMBERS.” That act would have expanded the existing exemption from taxes on income for from the first $6000 that an enlisted soldier earned to the first $9000. Wooldridge was one of only TWO senators to vote against this bill.
Wooldridge’s ad goes on to have the candidate say, “You can’t build yourself up by tearing down another man. I’ve lived my life that way, and I’m not gonna change because of a campaign.” Wooldridge neglects to mention his belief that you can, however, build your conservative cred by suggesting that employers should be free to fire homosexual employees on the basis of their sexuality.
The, according to Mr. Scary Voiceover, we get “THE FACTS.”
- “Tim helped our veterans, never himself. ” Well, (a) the bill he voted against was for enlisted soldiers who were still receiving pay for being soldiers. (I use the term “soldier” here, but this applies equally to Marines, airmen, and sailors. The distinction is not lost on BHR.) So Wooldridge’s claim, without citation to back it up, does not address Causey’s claim. Sleight-of-hand is so vaudeville, Tim. Also, (b) “never himself?” Really? Because we just showed where you voted to give yourself more money. Ah… perhaps you are suggesting that the pay increases were de minimus and didn’t really “help” you. Sneaky. A lie, but a sneaky lie.
- “Tim lowered tuition for our children.” OK. Good for Tim. It has nothing to do with his message that Chad Causey’s ad was a lie, but whatever.
- “Tim put doctors in free clinics in rural areas.” Really? All by himself? (Sorry, I reverted to sarcasm because I was sick of pointing out irrelevancy. It’s a defense mechanism against boredom.)
Finally, Wooldridge says that he “hope[s] you learn the facts.” Now THERE’S something BHR agrees with him on! We hope you learn them, too. In fact, we’ll even go so far as to actually present them to you, which is something Wooldridge would probably do as well … if the facts were actually in his favor.
I honestly cannot understand how politicians in 2010 can think that they will get away with lying about or distorting their records. Everything is available if you look in the right place, and there are blogs and other media who are in the habit of fact-checking most anything we hear. Assuming that voters were stupid in the days before the Internet might have been a safe bet; in 2010, the only person stupid in that scenario is the guy telling the lies.