Hoekstra Ad May Be offensive, But Is Certainly Inaccurate

You’ve probably seen or read about the ad that former Rep. Pete Hoekstra ran during the Super Bowl yesterday. Our own Mako Yamakura sure has gotten a burr in this saddle regarding this one – or, as Pete might say, a tack on his rickshaw seat.

Allow me to expand upon what Mako only slightly alluded to his second post regarding Mr. Hoekstra.

Whether the ad is or is not racist or offensive can be a matter of opinion.

What is a FACT is that Mr. Hoekstra’s premise is total rubbish. Check out “the chart that should accompany every discussion of deficits” and consider:

Do you know who voted for Medicare Part D (often described as a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies)? And whether you believe that or not – it is an absolute fact that it was not paid for and has been projected by the CBO to add $558 billion to the deficit over the first ten years.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra

Do you know who did not vote for this deficit ballooning program?

Sen. Debbie Stabenow

Do you know who voted for the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001?

Pete Hoekstra.

Who voted against those tax cuts?

Debbie Stabenow

Who voted for the additional Bush Tax Cuts in 2003?

Pete Hoekstra

Who voted against the Tax Cuts in 2003?

Debbie Stabenow

Who voted for going to war in Iraq, ultimately costing approximately $1 trillion, thousands of American soldiers lives, as well as the untold sacrifices of American servicemen and women and their families?

Pete Hoekstra

Who voted against the authorization?

Debbie Stabenow

Who voted for TARP in 2008?

Pete Hoekstra

Who voted against TARP?

Debbie Stabenow!

So regardless of whether or not you think the ad is racist or offensive – do not miss the fact of Pete Hoekstra’s voting record as it pertains to spending/the deficit.

And, by the way, if you look at those votes for the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 & 2003 as a positive and don’t consider it “spending”, then you must make sure you never say that The Stimulus signed by President Obama in early 2009 was ~$787B in wasteful spending because greater than 1/3 of that amount was tax cuts and, therefore, not “spending” under your definition.

So I guess I am saying that Hoekstra’s IS offensive. It’s offensive to anyone who cares about facts.