Following a televised debate on Sunday, former Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz acknowledged that certain aspects of her latest attack ad against Democratic primary frontrunner Rep. Chris Murphy were “inaccurate.”
The ad has sparked a back-and-forth between the Democratic candidates, who are both gearing up for the Aug. 14 primary in Connecticut.
In the 30-second ad, which is viewable here, Bysiewicz takes aim at campaign contributions Murphy has received since being elected to Congress in 2006. Bysiewicz claiims Murphy has received more hedge fund donations than any other Democrat in Congress.
This claim, as her campaign acknowledged, was inaccurate. However, as reported by CTNewsJunkie.com, Bysiewicz says the overall message stands: Murphy has received significant financial backing from Wall Street.
From 2006 to 2011, Murphy has accepted more than $700,000 in contributions from financial entities, although not all of that was straight Wall Street cash, according to OpenSecrets.org. In fact, as CTMirror.org points out, the category is broad because it includes many Connecticut-based financial houses as well as insurers within Hartford.
"Here's the larger point," Bysiewicz spokesman Jonathan Ducote told CTMirror.org. "There is a whole series of data points we were trying to demonstrate. He has benefited from Wall Street cash to the detriment of the middle class."
Murphy’s campaign has argued that the ad should come down, citing the fact that it contains the inaccuracies.
Murphy told CTNewsJunkie.com the following:
“If Susan is continuing to insist on running the ad it reflects a denial of reality that is both sad and a little frightening.”
What is your take on this ad? Should Bysiewicz remove it and apologize because a portion of it is incorrect? Or should she continue to run the ad because, as her campaign puts it, the overall message of the ad is accurate? Take our poll and share your thoughts in the comments.
The grass roots organization we have built for my campaign is large, organized and well-informed. Voters, not special interests, run it. I hope you'll take a look at my campaign and consider joining us. We have people from all over CT helping because they believe, as I do, in the power of the people to govern, in the US Constitution, and in the ingenuity of the American entrepeneur. We will fix what's broken and restore the economy if we work together. Check out my web site at www.novakforcongress.com
You incorrectly state I'm seeking to create low paying jobs. You're fabricating that and have NEVER heard it from me. I support just the opposite. Small business make up the majority of American jobs and form the backbone of our economy. We need to stop hurting these businesses through over-regulation and high taxation. Our corporate income tax is the highest in the world. That drives American businesses to invest overseas and foreign businesses to avoid investing here. You are correct when you say "more people are going to need government services if things keep going the way they are." THAT is exactly why we must change what we're doing. More of the same will only produce more failure! I'm sure you've heard the expression "garbage in, garbage out." We need to kick out the incumbents responsible and support real reform. You wrote: " "job creators" need to stop stamping their feet like babies because they need to take part in the recovery without being paid for it." You can't be serious? I worked in Communist China and this is the type of statement typical of that government. Are you proposing communism for America? China calls its policy the "iron rice bowl." I DO NOT support communism.
"In his first three years of presidency, President George W. Bush imposed 28 major regulations at a cost of $8.1 billion. Obama imposed 106 major regulations at a cost of $46 billion. “This is almost four times the number—and more than five times the cost—of the major regulations issued by George W. Bush during his first three years,” according to the report." The report it refers to is from the US Government Accountability Office, of the GAO, and is posted on Heritage.org. President Obama has added billions in compliance and regulatory cost that hurt American businesses and our forces jobs overseas. Heritage also reports: "Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said the report explains why job creators are struggling to put Americans back to work under an increasing regulatory burden. “Our government can create the environment for the private sector to grow jobs. But under this administration, it won’t. Small businesses, and not the government, are the primary driver of job creation in this country,” Issa said. “This report explains why job creators say they are struggling to put Americans back to work under an ever increasing regulatory burden.” Check out Heritage Foundation's reports. They use USG data and elaborate on how this Administration is hurting American workers and destroying our economy.
What regulations did the voters in Connecticut you talked to, who complained about government regulation, complain about?
The quote actually reads: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
Accusations of runaway regulation by the Obama administration have become a common line of attack from conservatives who warn over-regulation is stifling job creation per FactCheck.org.
You can check it out at www.gao.gov. Are you going to claim that the Obama Administration is lying about the data? Or, now that your falacious argument is exposed will you back down and recognize the truth? I suggest readers acquaint themselves with The Heritage Foundation, a top notch think tank in Washington, DC. Their data comes directly from the U.S. government and everyeone has an opportunity to check it out. I am off to other things now.
I've learned to multi-source news. I don't rely on our major networks for the story anymore. I try to find the bigger picture. It doesn't take that much effort. Mass media is corporate owned. Corporations have special interests. Don't rely on them.
I want to know what regulation(s) has President Obama implemented that the business owners in Connecticut that you spoke to say are hurting their businesses?
EPA/AR Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards cost $19-90 Billion EPA/AR National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. cost $10 Billion EPA/AR National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Source Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters cost $3 Billion EPA/SWER Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers cost $0.6-1.5 Billion DOT/NHTSA Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors cost $2 Billion DOT/FMCSA Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents cost $2 Billion DOT/FMCSA Hours of Service cost $1 Billion These are just seven actual proposed job-killing regulations. There are many more! Look it up........
I don't need a list of regulations passed I want to know which regulations the business owners she spoke to in ct complained about as killing their businesses. This is the third and last time I'll ask. I don't understand why this is a difficult question to both understand and answer. .
Try to use more than one source and also learn a bit more about the importance of these regulations. Try this source: www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/.../eparesp/R6_AR_r... In case you won't bother to read it, I'll pull out a paragraph the spotlights the importance of the regulation......And mind you, this was in 2008...before Obama became president. "On March 12,2008, the EPA revised its national ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone to provide increased protection of public health and the environment. The EPA lowered the primary 8-hour ozone standard from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm to protect against health etlects associated with ozone exposure, including a range of serious respiratory illnesses and increased premature death from heart or lung disease. The EPA revised the secondary 8-hour ozone standard, making it identical to the primary standard, to protect against welfare effects, including impacts on sensitive vegetation and forested ecosystems. History shows us that better health and cleaner air go hand-in-hand with economic growth. Working closely with the states and tribes, the EPA is implementing the standards using a common sense approach that improves air quality and minimizes the burden on state and local governments".
President Obama studied at Columbia and Harvard. For reasons that completely escape me, I cannot understand why he would not be very proud of the subjects he obviously mastered. Why is our President hiding what he studied from the American people? I thought BHO promised the most transparent administration ever? obviously mastered at those two Ivy League Universities. Could it be our President isa
So what has vicious Suzie or Murphy actually done or tried to accomplish in that light for Connecticut citizens ? Chris Shays actually went to jail protesting against a corrupt probate judge.