An interesting twist
I posted yesterday on Lamar's refusal to give the Dems billboards that it felt were a "personal attack". Here's the Dems somewhat unusual twist on the situation:
While Lamar's form contract reserves to the company the right to refuse to run a billboard advertisement, Lamar's conduct in this instance raises serious questions about whether the company is unlawfully or improperly using corporate resources to favor or benefit the Republican Party or Rep. Schmidt.
So by refusing to display a personal attack on a political opponent, Lamar is "unlawfully" benefitting Republicans? Neat twist, eh? By the way, I'm not defending Rep. Schmidt's comments on the house floor, but she did apologize and had her unfortunate remaks striken. Yet the Democrat's billboard won't say this. The entire text for the ad:
"Shame on You, Jean Schmidt: Stop Attacking Veterans. Keep Your Eye on the Ball -- We Need a Real Plan for Iraq"
"Stop Attacking" suggests that it has happend more than once, and is still occuring. We know this to be untrue - it was once, and she apologized. So what we have is a classic personal attack - misleading or dishonest verbage combined with the omission of her apology and the striking of her remarks (also known as lying by omission). Yet the Dems would have you believe that they want the public to be informed:
Rep. Schmidt's constituents are entitled to know what she is saying on the floor of the U.S. House and the DNC has a right to tell them.
If that's what they really believe, then they should tell the whole story. Failure to do so is dishonest, and yet again displays why the Democrats don't deserve to regain power ever again.
