« MAJORITY WATCH | Main | Webb is the Favorite »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b13369e200d834f9617d69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judy Feder:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

ifthethunderdontgetya

I like the ad. I think we're getting a wave. Karl Rove and his October surprise? Just a bluff to try and stop the wave.

Make abortion illegal? Why is that in there?

What happened to talking about the issues people care about: transportation, education, and healthcare

not gretchen bulova

I didn't say she hadn't run a good campaign, just that the DCCC wasn't going to be an enormous help.

Not Larry Sabato

Sorry, I misunderstood it as a diss.

Too bad that the information in the ad is all half truths and out-right lies. Frank Wolf should sue the woman. The bill that she sites as his vote on weakening ethics reform has nothing to do with ethics and is STILL pending in the House. LOOK IT UP! It is a transportation bill. TOO bad she is such an out and out liar. Anybody read what the Examiner says regarding how she has badly stumbled in her accusations about Cong. Wolf's ethics? There is no one who can question this man's ethics. He will beat her and then you all can breath a sigh of relief that this man, who has done so much for northern Virginia, will be back in Congress to represent our interests.

Not Dan Scandling

"The bill that she sites as his vote on weakening ethics reform has nothing to do with ethics and is STILL pending in the House. LOOK IT UP! It is a transportation bill."

Um, actually I did look it up (in the ad they site HR 168) and this is what I found... H Res 168: To implement the recommendations of the bipartisan House Ethics Reform Task Force. House Passage Vote: 9/18/1997: Passed: 258 - 154 (Roll no. 413).

So, with all due respect, the bill they site was in fact a vote on ethics that passed in 1997, not as you claim, a transportation bill that is still pending.

If you're going to call the woman a liar, fine, but at least check your facts first.


Rob Whitney

Ben--

Every Democrat is using that line. It is the DCCC mantra in the field right now.

Bwana

NDS-

You should have dug a little deeper before you call folks to question about fact checking-like look at the final roll call vote of the bill you cite.

If the vote you cite is the vote Ms. Feder is referring to in the advertisment, then she is wrong about Frank Wolf voting against it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1997/roll413.xml

Now you understand that the house resolutions are renumbered each term, so there could be a house resolution 168 during each term of congress.

If you look at the advertisement above, it gives the date of the H-168 as being 5-22-2006...and that may be well the bill that the anonymous poster referred to.

pitin

That is a great ad, wasn't really sure about how good she was doing, but I'm now convinced it's a toss-up.

But Ben, c'mon, we all know that signs are a horrible metric to measure campaign viability.

Not Dan Scandling

Bwana said: "If the vote you cite is the vote Ms. Feder is referring to in the advertisment, then she is wrong about Frank Wolf voting against it"

But if you watch the ad (and listen to it) you'll see that what it actually says is that Frank Wolf voted to weaken ethics laws, not that he voted AGAINST the bill. In this case, a vote in FAVOR of the bill was a VOTE TO WEAKEN ETHICS LAWS. So, no offense and with all due repsect...I have indeed checked my facts, and I suggest others do the same.

Not sure about the reference to /52/2006...I just googled "Frank Wolf" "Ethics" and "HR 168" and got what I was looking for.

In any case, let's just put this whole thing to bed right now:

In March of 2006, Wolf voted against an Ethics Committee Investigation of the Abramoff Scandal [HRS 746, CQ #746, 3/30/06]

In 2005, Wolf voted to weaken House Ethics Rules to protect Tom Delay [HRS 5, CQ #6, 1/4/05]

Wolf Voted to weaken House Ethics Rules for lobbyists[HRS 5, CQ #4, 1/7/03]

Wolf Voted twice in 2005 against creating a bipartisan Ethics Task Force[HRS 213, CQ #106, 1/14/05] [HRS 153, CQ #70, 3/15/05]

Wolf Supported a measure to prevent citizens from filing ethics complaints[HR 168, CQ #413, 9/18/97]

It's quite a record for someone running on a platform of "ethics reform."

Doug in Mount Vernon

pitin,

You are so right about signs.

In Mount Vernon, Webb signs outnumber the Allen signs at least 5-1, but I don't think the margin will be that big.

:-)

Bwana

NDS-

Then you ought to look at the entire advertisement.

In the frame where she charges "weakens ethics laws", the source is quoted as HR 168 5/22/2006.

One would think if she is going to continue to attack the man-just as she has been doing since the early summer-she would take the time to offer real truth.

If all the stuff you quoted was so powerful, why not cite that?

Instead, she mis-sourced what she put in her ad. wouldn't it be better to come clean and admit the mistake?

Doug in Mount Vernon

"There is no one who can question this man's ethics."

REALLY!!????

Because he's been in there for 26 years he thinks he's somehow entitled to be free of questions about his words and his actions?!!

I don't THINK SO!!

He SERVES US. We don't owe him anything except our votes if we believe he's doing a good job.

Some of us think he's doing a piss poor job, and that he doesn't deserve to be re-elected. And yes, some of that criticism can fairly be directed at his ETHICS.

It's time for Frank Wolf to stop acting like he thinks he's the right hand of God, and to start respecting ALL of his constituents. Wolf was my Congressman for seven years, and he NEVER felt like my representative.

He loves to tout his "human rights" work. Well, human rights start at home, Frankie.

Not Dan Scandling

Bwana:

"Then you ought to look at the entire advertisement.

In the frame where she charges "weakens ethics laws", the source is quoted as HR 168 5/22/2006."

Yes, I conceded the point. There was an error in the ad (it appears) and I even addressed it directly in the last comment by saying I wasn't sure what that was about. I didn't create the ad so I'm not sure what you're asking me to "come clean" about. No one is denying there's some kind of typo in the ad. although it's seems rather obvious that the mistake is in the date of the bill not the bill itself.

Do you really think it does the Wolf people any good to haggle over a typo in the ad when the underlying premise of the criticism against him is true?

In any case, there's nothing misleading about what is being said in the ad...regardless of whether the citation happens to be wrong.

Bwana

NDS-

Clearly you think nothing is misleading about it...but I imagine we will just have to disagree on that one.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

BlogAds

NLS Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Facebook Fan Page

    SiteMeter

    Blog powered by Typepad