Misleading

Walt Minnick is at it again.

This isn't the first time the Idaho congressman has used carefully crafted language to fit within a technical definition of the truth while leaving a different impression.  Embroiled in a brouhaha with FactCheck.org over his first television ad of the campaign season, Minnick and his campaign staff would have you believe that he has always opposed bailouts, but that isn't really so.  In fact he lambasted then-Congressman Bill Sali, his opponent in September of 2008, for taking the exact position that he is now touting as his.

The issue here is a television ad that author, journalist and long time Idaho political observer Randy Stapilus described as, "One of the smoothest Republican campaign videos of the year."  Not bad, except Minnick is an incumbent Democrat.

In the ad Congressman Minnick says, "I've had to say 'no' far more often than I've said 'yes.' I've said 'no' to more government spending; 'no' to President Obama's big health-care plan; 'no' to Wall Street bailouts."

This quickly drew the attention of FactCheck because, of course, Minnick was not in office in the fall of 2008 and couldn't have voted against the bailouts.  Minnick spokesman John Foster objected, getting FactCheck to run a correction:

"We originally reported that Minnick’s ad said he 'voted' against the bailout. His campaign manager John Foster objected, pointing out that what Minnick says in the ad is: 'I’ve said no' to Wall Street bailouts. "It’s true that, as a candidate in 2008, he did denounce passage of the bill. He would have been more accurate to say in his ad that he 'spoke out against' the bailouts."

The Idaho Statesman's Dan Popkey reports that "Foster had preemptively defended the ad, the first of the campaign, telling the Statesman on Tuesday, 'We were very careful with the language,'" and including FactCheck Director Brooks Jackson's email response, "We posted a correction. We still think it's pretty cheeky to say you 'said no' to something you had no say in at the time. But as Minnick's campaign manager says, language matters."

Popkey's piece also included a statement John Foster said he provided to FactCheck that wasn't published:

Walt has a consistent and clear record against Wall Street bailouts, even going so far as to publicly denounce them in a statement to the Treasury Secretary during a hearing of the Financial Services Committee. For Walt this is about more than just a vote. It is about making it clear to the people of Idaho that he has always stood against these kinds of bailouts. His record has always been clear on the issue, and the ad properly reflects that.

"Always" is a tough word, but if "language matters," and it does, perhaps this should have been more carefully crafted because it isn't true to say that Walt has "always stood against these kinds of bailouts."

In an Idaho Statesman article published September 20, 2008 entitled "Simpson rips Sali for stance on economic crisis," Dan Popkey reported on the positions taken by Idaho's all Republican congressional delegation on the economic crisis, and specifically those of Representatives Mike Simpson and Bill Sali, Minnick's opponent in 2008.

But Sali, a freshman, called for a halt on federal bailouts, which have already reached more than $600 billion. Sali on Thursday sent a letter to Bush's point men in the crisis, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Co-signed by 30 other members of the conservative Republican Study Group, the letter was sent as Paulson and Bernanke and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox were meeting with congressional leaders about their plan to buy mortgage assets that can't be sold by banks and other institutions.

"...we urge you in the strongest terms possible to refrain from conducting any additional government-financed bailouts for large financial firms," wrote Sali and his colleagues. "Regardless of precautions taken, the risk to taxpayers and to the long-term future health of our economy remain just too great to justify."

No more bailouts, period.  That was Sali's position at the time.  A position so extreme it elicited this scathing response from his colleague, Rep. Mike Simpson,  "What's his answer: to let the economy go down?" Simpson said.  "Sometimes Bill puts himself in a philosophical position that's untenable that he can't get off of."

Two days later, a giddy Minnick campaign released a statement attaching themselves to Simpson's statement and lambasting Sali for his "no bailouts" position.

Here's the full press release:

Congressman Minnick would like you to believe that he's "always" been against bailouts, but it isn't exactly true and lambasting your opponent for the very position that you are now touting as yours is indeed "cheeky."

Why release an ad that required carefully crafted language and a preemptive defense?  Why not just tell the plain truth?  Isn't that what Idahoans are clamoring for?

Comments

[thepoliticalgame]

For as many times as you hear Minnick's camp say 'words matter,' they must not if they had to so carefully craft this campaign ad to mislead voters the way they have in the past with Minnick's military service. At least with his Vietnam service flub there wasn't the standard 'was for it before he was against it' theme...

[Sisyphus]

Perhaps your last few questions were rhetorical but I'd entertain the possibility that it may have been intentional. There's no downside for Walt on this issue.

[thepoliticalgame]

It's unfortunate that there is a downside to telling the truth.

[Bubblehead]

Cool, MG. Now the Labrador campaign has a Twitter link up to this article on their website. Good job... I'm sure you'll be very happy with a Congressman Labrador. How do you think he would vote on a repeal of DADT?

[MountainGoat]

Bubblehead, first let me relieve you of a very common misconception: DADT is not the only issue I happen to care about. In fact it's not even in my top five. Just like everyone else, gay people care about a whole range of issues and just as you're quick to point out that LDS voters don't always vote in lock-step, I will point out that neither do gay people.

Go ahead and shoot the messenger but perhaps the Minnick/Foster camp shouldn't have been so careless with the truth and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[Bubblehead]

MG - I apologize for using that example; I have to sheepishly admit that I had forgotten you are gay, and had just grabbed the most recent example of a "progressive" vote that Rep. Minnick had cast that a Congressman Labrador would be unlikely to copy. I withdraw it and replace it with "SCHIP funding". (I'm really bad at remembering things like that about people; when I characterize you, it's as the "detailed research blogger" more than anything else.)

That being said, my point still stands -- since a true progressive has about a zero chance of ever winning a Congressional election in ID-1, I'm not sure how much good it does for a progressive blogger to do the Republican Party candidate's oppo research for them. Sometimes the lesser of two evils really is the better choice. (On the other hand, it's not really that damaging for Walt to have your opposition publicized; his supporters can just point out, as I did over on the Labrador for Idaho Facebook page, that Walt must not be that liberal if the liberal bloggers don't like him.)

[MountainGoat]

I find it hilarious that, to you, pointing out where Minnick deviates from the truth is "oppo research." Generally, the truth can only be a weapon against someone who isn't telling it.

I don't accept that we have to settle for the status quo or the lesser of two evils because it's the best we can hope for. Minnick won in 2008 by running to the left of Sali and tagging him "too extreme for Idaho." Since then, on issue after issue, he's taken Sali's position or moved to the right of Sali. If Sali was "too extreme for Idaho" then, what does that say about Minnick now?

Bottom line and in case it isn't perfectly clear, I don't shill for any party or person. I do advocate for the issues and principles I care about and will continue to point out where I believe elected officials or candidates get it wrong. You're welcome to shill for whomever you choose. I choose not to.

[thepoliticalgame]

It isn't opposition research when it is merely filling in the holes in Minnick's background that the trad. media chooses to overlook or has simply taken Minnick's version as the whole truth mistakenly.