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.

Fox News thinks Debicella should get his facts straight

Seems we're not the only ones incredulous that Dan Debicella would just guess wildly at his opponents viewpoints!

Even Fox News makes it clear that they've done their research and can't believe Debicella hasn't. Presenter Greta VanSusteren said to Himes that she hopes Debicella "goes back and looks at your letter, as I did".

How embarrassing. Looks like there's going to be a lot more CNN in the Debicella household from now on.

At what point does a misquotation just become a lie?

Because we think this gets pretty close!

The Debicella campaign got very excited recently, drawing attention to a comment Jim Himes made at a New Canaan town hall meeting on August 12th. Himes was asked about his views on the tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 a year and replied, "I'm still looking at it - I would say let them expire."

A direct statement against any extension of the tax cuts right? Erm, nope. The Debicella campaign conveniently forgot the rest of the response.

Here's the full reply, with the only part Debicella remembered underlined:

“Here’s where I am right now (on the Bush tax cuts). I think for under $250,000 for households, under $200,000 for individuals, I think we need to contemplate at least a one or two year extension of the tax cuts. The last thing we need to do now is take dollars out of the pocket of our middle class. On the ones that are in excess of $250,000, I’m still looking at it. I would say let them expire but for one thing, which is that there are a lot of small businesses running their tax returns into personal tax returns at that level—this gentleman here—so I need to look at that small business tax cut…" 




Quite a different story from the one Debicella wants you to hear.

Debicella seems to have decided that the best way to win a debate over economic issues is to simply change his opponent's views until they are less popular than his own. Misleading? Doesn't matter. False? Who cares.

What does it say about his own policies when he feels they only look credible in comparison to fictional statements?