First Hugo, Now Cooch: More Deceptive Republican Advertising

By: Lowell
Published On: 9/27/2007 6:37:03 AM

This would almost be unbelievable if it weren't so par-for-the-course by Virginia Republican politicians these days:

Last week, Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II (R-Fairfax) sent voters a manila envelope that bore the warning: "Notice: Your new Fairfax County income tax payment is due."

The sender, identified in bold letters, was the "Fairfax County Income Tax Authority."

There is no such branch of the county government, nor is there a county income tax.

When voters opened up the envelope, they found a flier from Cuccinelli attacking his Democratic opponent, Janet S. Oleszek, on taxes.

Cuccinelli charged Oleszek, a member of the Fairfax County School Board, with supporting the creation of a state sales tax on Internet purchases.

"Vote no on Janet Oleszek. She'll just raise taxes," the mailer stated.

Even though the lip of the envelope said it was authorized by Cuccinelli's campaign, some residents are disgusted.

"I expect this kind of shady stuff from a business operating on the fringes but not from a state senator," said Kala Leggett Quintana, a Burke community activist who says she is an independent. "Anyone who's been doing their job should not have to resort to this kind of garbage or trickery and can rest on their record. He lost my vote."

The "Fairfax County Income Tax Authority?"  If that's not deceptive, I don't know what is.  Oh wait, I almost forgot about this:  Tim Hugo taking words from a user diary attacking a Democrat and attributing them to Raising Kaine as a whole, even though we strongly endorse that Democrat (Rex Simmons).  Is the phrase "ethical Virginia Republican politicians" an oxymoron or what?

P.S. By the way, Janet Oleszek says that Ken Cuccinelli is extreme. For those who doubt that, see the image above of Cooch speaking on behalf of his far-right-wing friend, Faisal "Abdurahman Alamoudi" Gill.

Comments



Time for another Post article (jsrutstein - 9/27/2007 5:52:28 PM)
Lowell, I don't know if you had a hand in getting the page A-1 placement in last Saturday's Post on the Hugo ad scandal, but I think whoever did manage that feat should call up that reporter to do a follow-up on Cooch's ad.  I'd really like to hear from the academics who know about negative advertising.  In general, it's supposed to depress the opponent's support and discourage turnout.  I have a feeling, however, when the electorate is already boiling mad, even an accurate negative ad placed by the incumbent might backfire and bring out more voters for the challenger.  In this case, voters who might otherwise welcome information that the challenger is more pro-tax than the incumbent might not only be angered by Cooch's deceptive way of delivering the message, they might also be distracted enough by the ploy that they pause long enough to think past their reflexive anti-tax emotions and realize that there are other equally, if not more, important issues.  No one likes paying taxes, but no one likes inadequate services, clogged roads, and crumbling infrastructure either.  I sense Cooch and his ilk have reached the bottom of the dirty tricks barrel.  Go Janet!