(from Fact Check)

Summary

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has launched an ad claiming Florida Republican Clay Shaw took part in a “drug deal” when he voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, more commonly referred to as Medicare Part D. We find the DCCC’s evidence of this flimsy at best.

The ad claims that Shaw bought drug company stock before the legislation passed, sold it after, and put “profits in his own pocket.” That’s true, but the shares the ad refers to were in a company that could not have profited from the legislation. Its anti-cancer drugs were covered by Medicare even before the legislation was passed, and the company even told shareholders there was a risk that the legislation might hurt sales.

The DCCC might have had a better case if it had referred to the one other drug-company stock that Shaw owned, and which the ad doesn’t mention. That company’s sales may indeed have been helped by the legislation. Shaw’s paper profit on that stock, however, is no more than $4,268.15 and perhaps considerably less. Furthermore, Shaw’s Florida land holdings already make him one of the wealthiest members of the House.

We leave it to readers to examine the facts and judge for themselves whether Shaw’s vote to expand Medicare was part of a “drug deal” motivated by personal profit, as the DCCC ad implies.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea – a country he now regards as part of the “axis of evil” and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons.

(read more.)

For perspective:

2000: Rumsfeld is a director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: Rumself declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change

(from FactCheck.org)

Summary 

Republicans are tagging Democratic opponents across the country for wanting to “give Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants.” But nobody’s proposing paying benefits to illegals, not until and unless they become US citizens.*

(*emphasis mine)

The charge is a mischaracterization of part of the immigration bill that passed  the Senate last May with a healthy bi-partisan majority, 62-36. Among hundreds of provisions in the bill is one that would allow naturalized immigrants to count taxes paid while they were still illegal towards their Social Security accounts – if and when they become citizens.

The measure has become a popular campaign issue for Republicans, particularly incumbent House members who raise it against their Democratic challengers. We have counted 29 GOP ads attacking Democrats with various versions of this misleading claim. Similar misconceptions about the measure were spread as part of a chain e-mail last spring and summer. 

Along with this latest swarm of ads comes some related mischaracterizations, including a claim that the Senate plan “pays foreign workers more than Americans.” The Senate bill does have provisions to ensure that guest workers are paid no less than Americans. But no guest worker could be hired if a US citizen accepted the job.

(Read the entire article here.)

Does it upset me that a Congressman (regardless of party) is a sexual predator who goes after kids?
Yes, it does.

Does it bother me that people like Matt Drudge are so politically biased that they are blaming the victims?
Yes, it does.

Does it bother me that members of his own party covered it up for a year?
Fuck yeah.

His party members knew about it, and not only did they know about it, but they covered it up.

If you were offended by the priest debacle, you should be offended by this. There is no difference.

A man goes after underage kids, they report it to their superiors, and the superiors keep it quiet.

They should ALL be punished for it. Every single one of them.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you… The Liberal Media.

Democrats Ask, Do You Feel Safer?

But a party web video strains some facts about homeland security.

A Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ad that appeared on the Internet this week attacks the record of “Bush and the GOP” on homeland security, but makes some factual stumbles.

It claims terror attacks have increased four-fold under Bush, which isn’t true. The official count jumped due to a much broader definition of what constitutes a terrorist attack.

The ad says “law enforcement” spending has been cut $2 billion, but that refers only to cuts in aid to states and localities and ignores a big increase in spending on federal anti-terrorism activities.

It says that only 6 percent of cargo containers are being inspected.  That’s about right, but its also a big improvement from three years earlier when the figure was only 2 percent. Also spending has increased seven-fold.

The ad’s biggest stumble was political, not factual. It correctly noted that millions of illegal aliens have entered the US in recent years. But the ad’s images of bazooka-toting terrorists and Osama bin Laden, associated with men furtively crossing the border, drew objections from Hispanics and the DSCC quickly took the ad off their website.

(from FactCheck.org)

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness?

Summary

Ralph Reed, former national executive director of the Christian Coalition, is making several false and misleading claims about Casey Cagle, his opponent in the race for the Republican nomination to be lieutenant governor of Georgia. Cagle is attacking Reed as well, with tough accusations about Reed’s ties to convicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Those we find accurate, save for one made-up newspaper quote.

Reed falsely accuses Cagle of “failure to pay his taxes,” which isn’t so. Reed also accuses him of “unethical banking conflicts” for being both a banker and a state senator working on banking legislation, but that’s common in many state legislatures. Reed also falsely attributes to Cagle a quote – “everybody does it” – which actually came from a newspaper editorial and not Cagle. And Reed’s ads refer snidely to “millionaire Cagle,” even though Reed himself is a multi-millionaire worth more than twice as much as his opponent.

Cagle’s ad accuses Reed of taking millions from Abramoff to help casinos and working with Abramoff to deny legal protections to women and children in garment factories in the Mariana Islands where forced abortions and forced prostitution have been reported, all charges that are well documented. We found only one misstatement in Cagle’s ad, which uses a phony newspaper quote to imply that Reed confirmed acceptance of money from Indian casinos. In fact, Reed still denies that he knew the money he got from Abramoff came from gambling, despite ample evidence to the contrary contained in a recent Senate report.

(emphasis mine; from FactCheck.org)