Phantom, barely-legal attack ads... Something to share Debicella?

A shadowy, right-wing extremist group called the American Action Network is taking advantage of a loophole in campaign finance laws and running factually incorrect ads against both Jim Himes and Chris Murphy.

The group is anonymously funded and is attempting to take over the elections by promoting corporate special interests.


There is no way of knowing which organizations funded the ads and the considerable airtime in which they are being run.

One thing we do know is that the group is headed by Fred Malek, who is a former Nixon official with a record of fraudulent and anti-Semitic behavior. He has previously been fined $250,000 by the Connecticut Exchange Commission after voting Connecticut pension laws. In the Nixon White House, he led the effort to remove Jewish employees from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nice guy...

Who is funding these ads???


Surely all candidates, from any side of the political spectrum, should be denouncing this sort of electoral-law-dodging? It might be technically legal, but its hardly the sort of issues-based politics the voters deserve...


Ok, so this is isn't STRICTLY a Debicella Deception - but there's no way he's not aware of a group so outrageously attacking his opponent. There can be no proof of his involvement, as the very nature of this group makes it unaccountable, undemocratic and utterly against voter interests.



American Action Network is headed by Fred Malek, a former Nixon Administration official with a record of anti-Semitic and fraudulent behavior. While an employee in the Nixon White House, Malek led the effort to remove Jewish employees from their positions at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He also paid $250,000 in fines to the Security and Exchange Commission for violating Connecticut pension laws.

It doesn't add up.

So, here's Debicella's big plan:

Federal spending for 2011 is projected to be $3.8 trillion dollars. GDP for 2011 is projected to be $15.2 trillion dollars. Debicella's plan would cap spending at 20% of GDP, so, if he had his way, federal spending in 2011 would total $3.04 trillion dollars. If the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were permanently extended (as per Debicella's vision) tax revenues in 2011 would equal $2.584 trillion.

BIG PROBLEM: This would leave a $456 billion gap between spending and revenue.

Could it be that Debicella's plan to combat the deficit would itself institutionalize deficit spending??? Sure seems like it.

When Dan Debicella talks about his his plans for reducing the deficit, he fails to mention that these very same plans would result in a permanent deficit. Debicella's plan would not end government borrowing, it would continue it. Forever.

To illustrate:

Who is he trying to kid?

Is Dan Pro-Life? Pro-Choice? ....Or just Pro-Dan?

Dan Debicella refers to himself (aaall the time) as a 'fiscal conservative and a social moderate'. He certainly has strong views and many people would disagree with him.

Unfortunately for Dan, he himself seems to be one of those people.

Here's Dan on Ideas At Work and Beyond, July 8th 2010:

“I’m personally pro-life, but I don’t want the government forcing my beliefs on other people. And quite frankly, I hope that we can do away with abortion. I hope that, given where birth control is today, that we get rid of all unwanted pregnancies because it’s a horrible thing for a woman to go through. But I firmly believe that I don’t want government telling women what to do with their bodies, and just because I’m personally pro-life I’m not going to force that on other people.”

A few weeks later, a less conservative audience, a whole new view...!




Here's Dan on the Lisa Wexler show, September 6th 2010:

The relevant section starts at 42:13 when Debicella said:

"And this is something that is obviously very very controversial. I'm personally pro-choice, so I actually do believe that every woman has a right to an abortion. The question becomes, do you want tax dollars going to pay for it when our country is pretty much so split 50/50 between pro-choice and pro-life. So this is an area, where I think as we move forward with trying to reduce spending this is an area we can look at to say, if people want to get abortions - everybody should have the right to, but let's not force tax payers who don't believe in it to actually fund it."




Is Dan ever going to make his mind up? Or is he just going to keep saying whatever his audience wants to hear? Unless he's voting to deny emergency contraception to rape victims based on these same undecided 'principals'..

Debicella forgets his own views. Again.

At the AARP-sponsored debate earlier this week, Dan told the audience that he would never consider privatizing social security accounts.

He said "Supplemental ideas are what I’ve talked about, not replacing Social Security with private accounts".


In front of the seniors this would affect, that's his view.
On the Lisa Wexler show on September 6th, it was another story:



“Well, this is something I wouldn’t support a full privatization like President Bush had originally proposed. I actually do think we want Social Security there to make sure that no senior is in poverty—because that’s the purpose of it, no senior is in poverty. Now, would we have an optional system where you would have the option (to) take some portion of your funds and invest them? I think that is something we should look at.”






Maybe he should write these little things down?

Mailout Edition 2: Debicella gets dates, people, facts, wrong

Second round of glaring inaccuracies in the Debicella mailout:

Click here to see the full-size version.


Let's focus on what Debicella refers to as the Wall Street 'bailout':

Wow. Where to start?


ERROR ONE

The "bailout", actually the Troubled Relief Asset Program (TARP), was passed by Congress in 2008. It became law before Himes entered Congress.




ERROR TWO

The bill was supported by President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Himes' predecessor, Chris Shays.





ERROR THREE

Since being elected to Congress, Himes has helped write a new law to prevent future bailouts. Debicella's stance on this issue is to hope banks act responsibly....

Mailout Edition 1 - Debicella will blame Himes for pretty much anything

You might have seen the Debicella mailout below and, chances are, you didn't really pay much attention. Neither did the Debicella campaign.

There are so many errors, falsities, deceptions and mistakes that it needs several posts to deal with. If there are so many wrong points on one side of one document, what else is there in the wider campaign?

Click here to see the full-size version.

Lets start with federal spending and the deficit:

ERROR ONE

To say Himes "voted for a 22% increase in spending" is simply not true. Two-thirds of federal spending in the financial year of 2009 was on programs like Medicare and Social Security - these are funded automatically so NO ONE votes for them every year.

ERROR TWO

The figure also includes appropriations spending for the Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction Appropriations bills from the financial year 2009. These were voted for - by Himes' Republican predecessor Chris Shays in September 2008.

ERROR THREE
Debicella also forgets that his nice figure includes the one-time emergency spending under the Troubled Asset Relief Programme (TARP). This was supported by Shays and signed into law by Bush.



What else does Debicella wrongly blame on Himes??

Debicella doesn't care what you think

This one doesn't even need an introduction...

Interviewer: Would you vote for a bill that was unpopular with your constituents?


Debicella: Uh yes, and in fact I already have. I voted on several occasions up in, er, Hartford, for bills that most people would look and say "Jeez, I don't support that"


Well, at least he's being honest for once.