The Reviews Are In on Lowden’s Attack Ad:
... “D” on the “Truth Test” ... “Hard to Take Seriously” ... “A Practically Fact-Free Attack On Reid” ... “Absurdity” ... “Big Lie” ... “Flat Wrong” ...
Less than a week after she launched the first attack ad of the 2010 Senate campaign, news sources in Nevada and around the country have taken a look – and they see this ad for what it is: proof that Sue Lowden will say or do anything in this campaign -- no matter how shameless – to score political points. They confirm – time and again – that her ad is riddled with false attacks and ridiculous hyper-partisan rhetoric.
It’s no surprise though, given the fact that Sue Lowden has already been criticized for crossing the line in an earlier television ad where she attacked the late state Senator Jack Vergiels.
INDEPENDENT SOURCES DE-BUNKED LOWDEN’S “PRACTICALLY FACT-FREE ATTACK” AD
Jon Ralston Gave Lowden’s Ad A “D,” Saying, “This Ad Is Really Hard To Take Seriously.” During a March 5 “Reality Check,” Jon Ralston analyzed Lowden’s ad: “This ad is really hard to take seriously. These are basically poll-tested lines … and Republican talking points strung together. And it starts with an attempt to show Lowden as ‘average mom,’ using a metaphor that doesn’t even apply to health care reform. There is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ bill. Indeed, people would have several options. And this ‘government health care’ canard is a classic example of the ‘big lie’ technique – say something enough, and it becomes accepted. But as PolitiFact and many other independent sources have pointed out, most Americans would still be covered by private insurers.” He ended by saying’ “After an A- I gave her on her first ad, Lowden drops down on the Truth Test to a D on this one.” [Face-To-Face, 3/5/10]
Ralston De-Bunked Individual Claims In Lowden’s Ad. During a March 5 “Reality Check” of Lowden’s ad, Jon Ralston said, “Each side can cherry pick numbers to spin a case on health care reform – you saw that during the recent summit – but there are some unbiased sources to cite that tell the real story. ‘Raises taxes’? Consumer Reports looked at this and has a simple answer – not unless you are very affluent. So, maybe that’s why Lowden is so upset. ‘Bureaucrat between you and your doctor’? As, again, Consumer Reports points out, that’s already true – an insurance company bureaucrat, or a Medicare bureaucrat. This is no more intrusive. ‘Weaken Medicare’? The Department of Health and Human Services has done a detailed analysis that rebuts this claim, as well as that claim about expanding the deficit. It can easily be found online at CMS.HHS.gov. And of course Medicare, that’s not government-run health care? That’s worth saving? … ‘Kill jobs’? I don’t even know where this comes from. Numerous sources, including business groups and the Council of Economic Advisors, say otherwise … After an A- I gave her on her first ad, Lowden drops down on the Truth Test to a D on this one.” [Face-To-Face, 3/5/10]
FactCheck.org Called Lowden’s Ad “A Practically Fact-Free Attack On Reid.” On March 5, FactCheck.org analyzed Lowden’s ad, calling it “A practically fact-free attack on Reid.” They said Lowden’s “one-size-fits-all” claim didn’t fit the Senate’s bill, which “builds on our system of private health insurance, provided through employers or purchased individually. And in fact … would likely present individuals with more choices than they have at present.” They said her claim that reform would “put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor” was “flat wrong … nobody would be forced to clear their treatment with the government under either the House or Senate bill.” They said her claim that reform would “weaken Medicare” contradicts the AARP, who praised the bill for improving the program. They noted that they had already examined the charge that health reform would “kill jobs” and wrote, “the nonpartisan experts we talked to don’t believe the employer mandate is going to trigger the evaporation of many jobs as a percentage of total employment.” Finally, they noted that Lowden’s defense for the claim that health reform would “push us further into debt” is based on “a partisan source” and that the non-partisan CBO actually says the bill will reduce the deficit over ten years. [FactCheck.org, 3/5/10 (emphasis in original)]
LOWDEN WAS ALSO THOROUGHLY MOCKED FOR HER “ABSURD” ATTACK ON “GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE” THAT SHE SAYS WOULD “WEAKEN MEDICARE”
Pollster.com Editor: “The Absurdity Of This One Is Really Remarkable.” In a March 5 post, Pollster.com editor and publisher Mark Blumenthal previewed an upcoming column on the health care debate and wrote, “I want to pass along one item that may be included but that, either way, I can’t let pass without comment. It involves the television advertisement featuring Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden now airing in Nevada … Now I worked as a political consultant for about 20 years, and I’m not naive about the, shall we say, exaggerations that are common in campaign advertising. But the absurdity of this one is really remarkable (emphasis mine):
As a mom I know one-size-fits-all clothes don’t fit, aren’t comfortable and are seldom a bargain. So why does Harry Reid want to force one-size-fits-all government health care on us? Harry Reid thinks Washington knows best, but I think we the people know best. Harry Reid’s big government health care plan will raise taxes, put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, weaken Medicare, kill jobs, push us further into debt. I’m Sue Lowden and I approve this message because government run health care is wrong. Need I say more?” [Pollster.com, Mark Blumenthal, 3/5/10 (emphasis in original)]
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: Lowden’s Ad Puts Her In The “They’re Not Embarrassed” Category Of Health Reform Opponents. On March 5, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said, “‘They’re not embarrassed’ theme isn’t just for distinguished longstanding members of the Senate. It’s also apparently for anti-health reform people who want to join the Senate for the first time. Take Sue Lowden. She’s a Nevada Republican who hopes to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the fall. Sue Lowden’s new attack ad against Harry Reid is perfect. It’s perfect. I could not have made up anything more illustrative to show you how not embarrassed the opposition to health reform is right now. It’s perfect. It was like a golden gift to me today. Check this out. This is Sue Lowden’s strategy against Harry Reid. Her strategy is to come out strong against government-run health care as a means of defending Medicare -- which is, of course, government-run health care. You see? It’s perfect. It’s perfect.” After playing part of Lowden’s ad, Maddow said, “Because why? Don’t let Harry Reid weaken our country’s largest government-run health care system because government-run health care is wrong. Sue Lowden for Senate. She is against the thing she wants to save. Of course, she is totally unembarrassed about it.” [MSNBC, The Rachel Maddow Show, 3/5/10]
LOWDEN HAS ALREADY DRAWN BIPARTISAN FIRE FOR AN AD IN WHICH SHE ATTACKED A FORMER OPPONENT WHO HAD RECENTLY PASSED AWAY
Sun: “Widow Of Former State Senator Outraged Over Sue Lowden’s Ad.” In February 2010, the Sun reported, “Halina Vergiels, the majority leader’s widow, said she first saw the commercial Sunday. ‘I’m absolutely outraged,’ she said. ‘My husband never profited from anything in the Legislature. If anything, we lost money. I’m just flabbergasted. I think she should take it off the air and owes me an apology, and owes my husband’s name an apology’ … Halina Vergiels said that after Lowden defeated her husband ‘he always tried to help her, support her. He spoke kindly of her ... I know they’re of different political parties, but I always thought she was a classy person.’” [Las Vegas Sun, 2/16/10]
Vergiels’ Former Colleagues, Republican AND Democrat Alike, Criticized The Ad. In February 2010, the Sun reported, “Former colleagues of a longtime state senator are criticizing Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sue Lowden over her latest campaign ad, which references her 1992 campaign to unseat the late John “Jack” Vergiels. In the advertisement Lowden tells the audience that she ‘took on a powerful politician and defeated him because he taxed us while enriching himself’ — a reference to Vergiels’ vote to raise lawmakers’ pensions. The increase was reversed before it took effect … State Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno, said, ‘It would’ve been a terrific ad without that reference ... We’re just sensitive to it because he has recently passed. We’d prefer that kind of stuff stay out of it, but that’s not what campaign guys do.’ ‘Sue Lowden showed an insensitive side to her character with her ad,’ said Sen. Bob Coffin, D-Las Vegas. Asked if she should keep the ad up, Coffin said, ‘It depends on her humanity. If she’s not a humane person, she will leave it up.’” [Las Vegas Sun, 2/16/10]
The Reviews Are In on Lowden’s Attack Ad:
... “D” on the “Truth Test” ... “Hard to Take Seriously” ... “A Practically Fact-Free Attack On Reid” ... “Absurdity” ... “Big Lie” ... “Flat Wrong” ...
Less than a week after she launched the first attack ad of the 2010 Senate campaign, news sources in Nevada and around the country have taken a look – and they see this ad for what it is: proof that Sue Lowden will say or do anything in this campaign -- no matter how shameless – to score political points. They confirm – time and again – that her ad is riddled with false attacks and ridiculous hyper-partisan rhetoric.
It’s no surprise though, given the fact that Sue Lowden has already been criticized for crossing the line in an earlier television ad where she attacked the late state Senator Jack Vergiels.
INDEPENDENT SOURCES DE-BUNKED LOWDEN’S “PRACTICALLY FACT-FREE ATTACK” AD
Jon Ralston Gave Lowden’s Ad A “D,” Saying, “This Ad Is Really Hard To Take Seriously.” During a March 5 “Reality Check,” Jon Ralston analyzed Lowden’s ad: “This ad is really hard to take seriously. These are basically poll-tested lines … and Republican talking points strung together. And it starts with an attempt to show Lowden as ‘average mom,’ using a metaphor that doesn’t even apply to health care reform. There is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ bill. Indeed, people would have several options. And this ‘government health care’ canard is a classic example of the ‘big lie’ technique – say something enough, and it becomes accepted. But as PolitiFact and many other independent sources have pointed out, most Americans would still be covered by private insurers.” He ended by saying’ “After an A- I gave her on her first ad, Lowden drops down on the Truth Test to a D on this one.” [Face-To-Face, 3/5/10]
Ralston De-Bunked Individual Claims In Lowden’s Ad. During a March 5 “Reality Check” of Lowden’s ad, Jon Ralston said, “Each side can cherry pick numbers to spin a case on health care reform – you saw that during the recent summit – but there are some unbiased sources to cite that tell the real story. ‘Raises taxes’? Consumer Reports looked at this and has a simple answer – not unless you are very affluent. So, maybe that’s why Lowden is so upset. ‘Bureaucrat between you and your doctor’? As, again, Consumer Reports points out, that’s already true – an insurance company bureaucrat, or a Medicare bureaucrat. This is no more intrusive. ‘Weaken Medicare’? The Department of Health and Human Services has done a detailed analysis that rebuts this claim, as well as that claim about expanding the deficit. It can easily be found online at CMS.HHS.gov. And of course Medicare, that’s not government-run health care? That’s worth saving? … ‘Kill jobs’? I don’t even know where this comes from. Numerous sources, including business groups and the Council of Economic Advisors, say otherwise … After an A- I gave her on her first ad, Lowden drops down on the Truth Test to a D on this one.” [Face-To-Face, 3/5/10]
FactCheck.org Called Lowden’s Ad “A Practically Fact-Free Attack On Reid.” On March 5, FactCheck.org analyzed Lowden’s ad, calling it “A practically fact-free attack on Reid.” They said Lowden’s “one-size-fits-all” claim didn’t fit the Senate’s bill, which “builds on our system of private health insurance, provided through employers or purchased individually. And in fact … would likely present individuals with more choices than they have at present.” They said her claim that reform would “put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor” was “flat wrong … nobody would be forced to clear their treatment with the government under either the House or Senate bill.” They said her claim that reform would “weaken Medicare” contradicts the AARP, who praised the bill for improving the program. They noted that they had already examined the charge that health reform would “kill jobs” and wrote, “the nonpartisan experts we talked to don’t believe the employer mandate is going to trigger the evaporation of many jobs as a percentage of total employment.” Finally, they noted that Lowden’s defense for the claim that health reform would “push us further into debt” is based on “a partisan source” and that the non-partisan CBO actually says the bill will reduce the deficit over ten years. [FactCheck.org, 3/5/10 (emphasis in original)]
LOWDEN WAS ALSO THOROUGHLY MOCKED FOR HER “ABSURD” ATTACK ON “GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE” THAT SHE SAYS WOULD “WEAKEN MEDICARE”
Pollster.com Editor: “The Absurdity Of This One Is Really Remarkable.” In a March 5 post, Pollster.com editor and publisher Mark Blumenthal previewed an upcoming column on the health care debate and wrote, “I want to pass along one item that may be included but that, either way, I can’t let pass without comment. It involves the television advertisement featuring Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden now airing in Nevada … Now I worked as a political consultant for about 20 years, and I’m not naive about the, shall we say, exaggerations that are common in campaign advertising. But the absurdity of this one is really remarkable (emphasis mine):
As a mom I know one-size-fits-all clothes don’t fit, aren’t comfortable and are seldom a bargain. So why does Harry Reid want to force one-size-fits-all government health care on us? Harry Reid thinks Washington knows best, but I think we the people know best. Harry Reid’s big government health care plan will raise taxes, put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, weaken Medicare, kill jobs, push us further into debt. I’m Sue Lowden and I approve this message because government run health care is wrong. Need I say more?” [Pollster.com, Mark Blumenthal, 3/5/10 (emphasis in original)]
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: Lowden’s Ad Puts Her In The “They’re Not Embarrassed” Category Of Health Reform Opponents. On March 5, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said, “‘They’re not embarrassed’ theme isn’t just for distinguished longstanding members of the Senate. It’s also apparently for anti-health reform people who want to join the Senate for the first time. Take Sue Lowden. She’s a Nevada Republican who hopes to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the fall. Sue Lowden’s new attack ad against Harry Reid is perfect. It’s perfect. I could not have made up anything more illustrative to show you how not embarrassed the opposition to health reform is right now. It’s perfect. It was like a golden gift to me today. Check this out. This is Sue Lowden’s strategy against Harry Reid. Her strategy is to come out strong against government-run health care as a means of defending Medicare -- which is, of course, government-run health care. You see? It’s perfect. It’s perfect.” After playing part of Lowden’s ad, Maddow said, “Because why? Don’t let Harry Reid weaken our country’s largest government-run health care system because government-run health care is wrong. Sue Lowden for Senate. She is against the thing she wants to save. Of course, she is totally unembarrassed about it.” [MSNBC, The Rachel Maddow Show, 3/5/10]
LOWDEN HAS ALREADY DRAWN BIPARTISAN FIRE FOR AN AD IN WHICH SHE ATTACKED A FORMER OPPONENT WHO HAD RECENTLY PASSED AWAY
Sun: “Widow Of Former State Senator Outraged Over Sue Lowden’s Ad.” In February 2010, the Sun reported, “Halina Vergiels, the majority leader’s widow, said she first saw the commercial Sunday. ‘I’m absolutely outraged,’ she said. ‘My husband never profited from anything in the Legislature. If anything, we lost money. I’m just flabbergasted. I think she should take it off the air and owes me an apology, and owes my husband’s name an apology’ … Halina Vergiels said that after Lowden defeated her husband ‘he always tried to help her, support her. He spoke kindly of her ... I know they’re of different political parties, but I always thought she was a classy person.’” [Las Vegas Sun, 2/16/10]
Vergiels’ Former Colleagues, Republican AND Democrat Alike, Criticized The Ad. In February 2010, the Sun reported, “Former colleagues of a longtime state senator are criticizing Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sue Lowden over her latest campaign ad, which references her 1992 campaign to unseat the late John “Jack” Vergiels. In the advertisement Lowden tells the audience that she ‘took on a powerful politician and defeated him because he taxed us while enriching himself’ — a reference to Vergiels’ vote to raise lawmakers’ pensions. The increase was reversed before it took effect … State Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno, said, ‘It would’ve been a terrific ad without that reference ... We’re just sensitive to it because he has recently passed. We’d prefer that kind of stuff stay out of it, but that’s not what campaign guys do.’ ‘Sue Lowden showed an insensitive side to her character with her ad,’ said Sen. Bob Coffin, D-Las Vegas. Asked if she should keep the ad up, Coffin said, ‘It depends on her humanity. If she’s not a humane person, she will leave it up.’” [Las Vegas Sun, 2/16/10]
