June 13, 2017 12:00 PM
Congressional Leadership Fund Releases Final Anti-Ossoff Ad in #GA6
Brian Freeman at Newsmax has reported that the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican Super PAC with affiliations with U.S. House Republican Leadership, has released its final ad as part of its $7 million campaign against Jon Ossoff.
The ad chastises Ossoff for avoiding two debates (Atlanta Press Club and CNN), misrepresenting his national security credentials, and for living outside the district. The ad also states that Ossoff would be a rubber stamp for Pelosi.
About Author
lawtonsack
Lawton is a graduate of Georgia Southern University (the GSU) with a degree in Information Technology. He has held numerous positions within the Georgia Republican Party throughout the years.
6 Comments
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Also, FFS who thinks “He showed up at some debates, but not other debates,” is actually a good closing argument?
If there’s been one constant in this campaign, it’s been the GOP just throwing stuff at the wall against him without ever making it a coherent message.
Twenty bucks says it’s not their final ad.
I think you’d be safe betting 100 bucks
Well, just one more week of ads (from both sides) that insult our intelligence. In the interest of “equal opportunity”, let me point out one from each campaign:
—One of Handel’s ads (run by a third-party operative) says she favors a balanced budget amendment. Uh…wasn’t that defeated back in the 1990s, when Republicans had a bigger Senate majority (55-45) than they do today (52-48)? So, anyone out there think a balanced budget amendment could get through the Senate today—even if all 52 Republicans voted yes? Given that almost all of the 48 Senate Democrats are liberals, anyone think that one-third of them would defect from Schumer’s grip and support it? Even if such an amendment could pass Congress—and get ratified by 38 states (a big “if”—it might have a problem in some states like, em, California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York)), exactly what good would it do? I mean, Trump isn’t proposing a balanced budget even if he gets 8 years in office.
—One of Ossoff’s ads mentions $600 billion in wasteful spending—golly, that is a lot in a $4 trillion budget. But if Congress hasn’t been willing to cut that amount of spending to date, why would they consider doing so if Ossoff won—especially being in the minority party?
—Voters should also be skeptical of ads that say John Doe would vote for increased spending. Well, can anyone think of any recent presidency where federal spending has gone down (as in down overall from the beginning of his term to the end)? And I mean down overall, including everything. How can overall spending really go down when entitlements for the elderly (Medicare and Social Security) make up over 40% of federal spending (Trump says he won’t touch that), defense is something like 20% (Trump wants to increase that) and another 6% is interest on the debt. If one is basically not willing to cut anything out of that 70% of the budget, then spending will continue inexorably up, whether ABC votes for increased spending or not.
Lets just take that balanced budget amendment for a second. First, referring to federal spending and such in the accounting terms of a “budget” is wrong. You cant budget when you create currency at will. There is no category for money out of thin air on a ledger. That being said, if you balanced what people consider to be the deficit, you’d be removing 13 TRILLION from the economy. Think about that for a second and what it would do to the economy. That money all comes out of the private sector via reduced payments for social safety net (which in turn get spent), infrastructure and other research and common good spending. Even over 10 years that would be catastrophic for the economy. Anyone politician who favors a balanced budget amendment is dangerously ignorant of what they are talking about.
Besides, they are always going to make an exception for military spending so it is really just code for cutting social spending.