It didn't take long. It never does. The Alida for a Better Minnesota has declared that
Jeff Johnson is Emmanuel Goldstein:
The liberal group Alliance for a Better Minnesota has volleyed its first televised attack at Republican gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson.
The ad, which focuses on Johnson’s spending record, argues that the Hennepin County commissioner is too conservative for the state — a primary theme in ABM’s campaign against him.
“Tea Party Republican Jeff Johnson voted to cut education so he could give millions in tax breaks to corporations,” the ad states. “Johnson’s Tea Party agenda would put Minnesota families at risk.”
Of course, that's misleading. Don't take my word for it, though -- even the "PoliGraph" folks at Minnesota Public Radio
wouldn't accept that particular conflation:
The ABM spot focuses on Johnson’s tenure in the Minnesota House from 2001 to 2006. Specifically, the group says Johnson voted for an education bill in 2003 that cut school funding when compared to projected spending in the coming fiscal year. (Johnson’s campaign argues that the bill actually increased funding from the prior biennium.)
ABM links Johnson’s vote on a 2003 education funding bill to a completely unrelated amendment Johnson voted against in 2005.
That amendment would have cut corporate tax loopholes and used the money for property tax relief. Eighty-one legislators, including a handful of Democrats, voted it down.
Emphasis mine, in all cases. PoliGraph's verdict?
The Alliance for a Better Minnesota’s ad is accurate in the sense that it correctly characterizes the positions Johnson took in 2003 and 2005 on an education bill and an amendment to rollback corporate tax breaks.
But the ad misses the mark is by linking the two votes. The ad makes it sound as if Johnson voted for a bill that trimmed education funding to expand or sustain corporate tax breaks.
In fact, the two votes are unrelated. As a result, the ad is misleading.
Misleading is a polite way of saying "crap."
No comments:
Post a Comment