I knew when I saw that Cassidy was sitting on a large war chest that the attack ads that contain outright fabrications or overly simplistic explanations would start coming out. And not even 48 hours later:
Hmmm ... let's go over these claims:
Cassidy campaigns as if earmarks are the biggest problem in Washington these days. Earmarks are the source of much of the money that is currently spent by the federal government to rebuild our state in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike, Mr. Cassidy. You really want to do away with them?
I'm not going to address the gas taxes Don may or may not have voted in the Louisiana Legislature, mainly because they offer no evidence for these claims other other Louisiana Legislative Journals 2000-2007. I don't have the time to go through SEVEN years of the Legislative Journals with a fine-tooth comb. My guess is that the Cassidy people didn't either, and just threw that up there.
That $13.6 billion in new gas taxes charge? The roll call cited is the wrong vote! The ad cites Roll Call 454, which was a Motion to Recommit the Bill with Instructions.
The actual vote they wanted to cite - Roll Call 455 - extended the Alternative Minimum Tax patch to ensure that middle-class taxpayers didn't get caught by the AMT, which would have raised their tax liability significantly. It paid for the loss of the revenue by limiting the deductions taken by oil and gas interests, which have been doing quite well the last few years, which means, Mr. Cassidy, it ain't a tax. Nice try, though. Also, I don't think the middle-class families of Louisiana will have a problem with that vote.
The charge that Don doesn't support alternative energy? Again, they get the Roll Call Vote # WRONG, as well as the Bill #. Can the Cassidy campaign even shoot straight?
Hey Cassidy campaign ... the roll call vote you're looking for is 599, and the bill # is H.R. 6899. Now, Don did vote against that bill, so let me allow Don to explain from a press release sent out the day after the vote:
"Last night, I voted against H.R. 6899 because it did not contain revenue sharing provisions for states if they opt in to open up their waters for drilling. While this bill is a step in the right direction because it includes offshore drilling in its approach, Louisiana fought long and hard for revenue sharing and these provisions are important for encouraging other states to opt in to open up more areas for drilling."
"However, I was proud to vote for the Peterson-Abercrombie bill as a better alternative. The bill expands offshore drilling, provides states which choose to drill offshore with revenue sharing, and increases the use of alternative energy. Though the bill ultimately failed, its bi-partisan approach and its similarities to H.R. 6899 give me hope that Congress will be able to work together and pass a comprehensive energy policy that sets America on the road to energy independence."
