Monday, October 11, 2010

Schweikert: nothing else is working, so it's time to lie

In his never-ending quest to gain a seat in Congress, Republican David Schweikert has gotten desperate -

He's loaned his campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money (much of it from his neighborhood-destroying vulture investing) to his own campaign...

He's gone juvenile, spending money on "counter" signs to be posted next to Harry Mitchell's signs, and then crying foul when the Mitchell signs are moved after he put up the insults.

All of this has put him close to or ahead of Mitchell in various polls (some of questionable provenance, but even the credible polls put him close to Mitchell), but none of his games or the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of outside group (RNCC or corporate) spending has put him over the top.

So now he is resorting to outright lies.

In the video, Schweikert claims that Mitchell has voted for Obama-era budget bills repealing the Bush-era tax cuts on capital gains that Schweikert supports.

Yet, Mitchell hasn't.  In fact, he is cited in this Chicago Tribune article from March 2009 as one of the Ds standing in the way of the Obama budget, standing in the way because of the rollback of specific tax cuts.

Mitchell has also voted against Obama-era (2009 or later) budget and appropriation bills here, here, here, herehere, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

When he's voted against budget/appropriations bills, he has consistently cited concerns over D.C. spending, and just as consistently, he has voted against tax increases, even ones that were just a rollback of Bush-era tax cuts targeted at the wealthy.

That's just the truth, something that David Schweikert has little use for, apparently.

Thanks to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion for the heads-up on this, and the history lesson.


Thane Eichenauer said...

Ah Harry Mitchell the often-labelled moderate Democrat. It will take more than repeating how moderate and reasonable Harry Mitchell is to persuade the majority of voters on CD-5 to vote for him. His vote for what Republicans call Obamacare seems to me to be enough to tip the scales against his re-election. Alas, Harry could not bring himself to vote against the bill as did 34 actual moderate Democrats.

No amount of bipartisan deck chair rearranging (with Rep. Ron Paul) is enough to sweeten Mitchell's sour voting record.

cpmaz said...


What the Republicans call "Obamacare" is virtually meaningless pap that most progressives hope *doesn't* survive the many lawsuits.

We want single-payer or at least a robust public option. If what did pass earlier this year is set aside by a judge, that will increase the chances of getting it, too.

As for Mitchell being "moderate and reasonable," well, he is. Though I would call him "conservative Democrat and reasonable."

But I'm just a bleeding heart liberal.

Stop HB2639 said...

Considering the countless constituents often complaining about how conservative Harry is, I would have to agree that he is pretty moderate. Harry voted for the health-care bill after several days of deliberation. (The title Obamacare is cute, but will conservatives continue to call it that once they accept it, embrace the wonderful news laws, and decide they actually like it?) Anyway, Thane's prediction is weak, especially since the voters are in fact on record voting against Schweikert, not Mitchell. In addition, I must ask Thane if Mitchell would be doing any better had he voted "no"... looking at the 34 who voted no, I doubt it.