It's hard to blog on anything other than Huffman when he makes the bulk of the news. We hate to give him such an unfair advantage with all the extra coverage, but the other candidates are uninteresting in comparison. Sorry about that, gents.
Here's another Huffman hit piece, this time attacking Mike Hellon. Mike luckily wasn't subjected to the disfigured computer-modified picture like Randy Graf. In fact, Mike's picture was pretty good.
The attack points came from Project Vote-Smart which asks the candidate to check the statements to which he agrees. Two of the three attack points come from boxes Mike did not check. We find it ironic that Huffman would zero in on unchecked statements considering he refused to answer any of the questions. In fact, one could have a heyday attributing positions to Huffman on unchecked statements. Furthermore, Project Vote-Smart states the following:
The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asks candidates which items they will support if elected. It does not ask them to indicate which items they will oppose. Through extensive research of public polling data, we discovered that voters are more concerned with what candidates would support when elected to office, not what they oppose. If a candidate does not select a response to any part or all of any question, it does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is opposed to that particular item.
Project Vote-Smart posted this on Steve Huffman:
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE HUFFMAN HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2006 NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE HUFFMAN REFUSED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WHEN ASKED TO DO SO ON 2 SEPARATE OCCASIONS BY:
John McCain, Republican Senator
Geraldine Ferraro, Former Democratic Congresswoman
Michael Dukakis, Former Democratic Governor
Bill Frenzel, Former Republican Congressman
Richard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President
Now, for the attack points. This piece is so irrational that it is difficult to figure out how to break it down for analysis. So, I will simply address one statement in the paragraph along with the three bullets.
Claim: "He recently joined groups like Howard Dean in attacking the National Republican Congressional Committee."
Fact: We are unaware of any alliance with Howard Dean. Mike recently joined with all three Republican candidates in the race (except Huffman) to denounce the NRCC's interference with the election in which the NRCC contributed over $250,000 in advertising for Steve Huffman's campaign.
Claim: "Supports public funding for abortions.'
Fact: Mike left the following phrase unchecked which, according to the survey note, does not indicate agreement.
f) Prohibit public funding of abortions and to organizations that advocate or perform abortions.
Because "f" was not checked, Huffman makes the case that Mike opposes the statement. This conclusion is false and contrary to what is explained in the survey.
Claim: "Will not vote for a Constitutional Ammendment to protect traditional marriage."
Fact: Mike's response is consistent with the claim as shown below.
No i) Do you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and woman?
Claim: "Opposes mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs."
Fact: As indicated below, there is no check indicating that Mike opposes mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs. The claim in the Huffman ad is, therefore, false.
a) Support mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs.
Only one of four points in the ad has any validity.
Steve Huffman's mailer is easy to declare a negative advertisement.
From Project Vote-Smart:
Project Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any negative campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.
I guess they haven't seen Steve's ads.