New ad compares Obama, congressman to Rob Ford
Updated 2:09 p.m. ET, 12/2/2013
(CNN) - A Republican congressional candidate in New York released a new ad Monday that lumps President Barack Obama and incumbent Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop in the same category as Rob Ford, the embroiled mayor of Toronto who admitted to using crack cocaine.
"Tired of politicians?" the ad's narrators asks, as the screen features side-by-side images of Bishop, Obama and Ford.
[twitter-follow screen_name='politicalticker'] [twitter-follow screen_name='KilloughCNN']
"Then look at George Demos. He's not a politician," the narrator continues, referring to the GOP congressional candidate.
Demos, a former federal prosecutor for the Securities and Exchange Commission, is running for the GOP nomination to challenge six-term Bishop in New York's 1st Congressional District, which covers the eastern end of Long Island.
Demos also ran for the seat in 2010, but lost in a crowded Republican primary. He announced another bid in the 2012 cycle but dropped out of the race before the primary.
Bishop declined to comment on the ad.
Rob Cole, an adviser to the Demos campaign, said the ad doesn't exactly compare Obama and Bishop to Ford.
"I wouldn't say that we're comparing them...We're just saying these three people are politicians," he said. "I just think people are fed up with politicians, and that's the point."
He bemoaned "corruption in politics" and pointed to a House Ethics Committee investigation of Bishop. The congressman has been under fire for allegedly soliciting a $5,000 campaign donation from a supporter in return for helping the supporter's family get a permit to set off fireworks at their son's bar mitzvah celebration.
In July, Bishop said, "I welcome a fair-minded review of the facts because I have done nothing wrong."
The New York Observer first reported the ad.
The ad itself is ridiculous, and I think they forgot one thing when they add Rob Fords picture. His popularity with the voters of Toronto has gone UP!!!!
Stupid gets redefined every day.
If the GOP put half as much effort into helping our country as they do into trying to distract voters from the FACT they have NO POLICIES THAT WORK, imagine how much better things would be.
But it'll never happen, because the GOP is a party of losers – and their voters are an incredibly prideful and dumb pack of imbeciles who don't have the stones to admit they've been played for fools.
"how did Republicans change the rules to force a government shutdown? "
Normally, when the Senate sends a bill to the House and the House leadership refuses to allow a vote, a majority of the House's members can file what is called a "discharge petition" that forces the bill to the floor for a vote. Prior to the shutdown, the Senate sent a clean continuing resolution to the House, which Boehner and the most ridiculous GOPers/Teatrolls did not want to come to the floor for a vote because IT WOULD HAVE PASSED, which would have avoided the shutdown. Therefore, on the night of the shutdown, the House GOP/Teatrolls voted to change the rules so that a majority of the House could NOT bring a discharge petition to force a vote on the Senate's continuing resolution. They changed it so that ONLY Boehner or "his designee" could allow a vote on the Senate's continuing resolution. This allowed them to force the shutdown to happen (as punishment for them not getting what they wanted) AND to prevent anyone but Boehner or "his designee" from bringing the shutdown to a stop. Thus, they caused the shutdown AND prolonged it.
@ Sniffet...No...We just filtered the BS ( or lies). It was a pretty easy choice after that.
"I wouldn't say that we're comparing them..."
They cannot even deliver an ad without lying! Of course you are comparing them! What is the point of putting them together unless you are implying a theme of some sort? From anti-abortion "clinics" that pretend (lie) to be medical offices to disclaimers (lie) like the one above, why do radical right groups have to lie about what they represent?
President Obama used a sound bite to describe the affect the ACA would have on policies when he said folks could keep their plans.
Granted, it would have been more clear if he had said folks could keep their plans if they conformed to the minimum standards for plans specified in the law. In other words, if you have a junk policy, you will have to get a new one. Given that most providers take a variety of insurances, chances are, you will keep your doctor.
Is it the President's fault that insurance companies decided to not reissue those plans with the minimum standards for the same price? No – that was a business decision made by the insurance companies. It's not his fault that these companies have been ripping off Americans for decades.
" if there is a color associated with obama at this point it is red, not black."
He's a Republican? How many circles do you have to talk yourself in before you get dizzy?
The reality is this: In the past, insurance companies managed their profits by keeping out of the risk pool policy holders who would use their insurance the most: those with pre-existing conditions, those who got sick, those who gave birth to a special needs child, those who suffered a catastrophic accident or illness (by setting caps), and the like.
With Obamacare, insurance companies now have to cover everyone – which is why the minimum standards were devised. With greater reliance on preventive and best-outcome practices (which insurance companies, hospitals and doctors devised) – not to mention the addition of all the new policyholders paying premiums – the risk will be distributed and the majority of Americans will gain the benefits of having access to healthcare. This healthier populace will increase productivity, which translates into a more reliable workforce and greater, more sustainable profitability for private and public companies.
Has the rollout been bumpy? Yes. Can the website be fixed? Given we sent a man to the moon, I would say Yes.
Should President Obama been more clear about the affect of the ACA on junk insurance policies? Yes.
Should people have known that their policies renew every year and that their insurance company has NEVER been obligated to renew it in exactly the same form? Yes.
This will get worked out – and what the GOP/tea bags are REALLY worried about is that folks will soon feel the direct positive impacts of Obamacare and vote accordingly.
Obamacare needs healthy young people buying insurance to create a sustainable risk pool (BTW, this is what health insurance companies have been doing since their inception). But the GOP is actively discouraging young people from signing up.
With that in mind, here's something to consider from the UnitedHealthCare website regarding student health insurance (FAQ page):
Q. I'm young and healthy. Why do I need health insurance?
A. Despite your age and health, you never know when a serious injury or illness will strike. You're not invincible. And if you don't have insurance, who'll pay your bills? Do you have the money to pay $1,500 to fix a broken leg or $3,000 to stay in the hospital? Insurance gives you the peace of mind that, yes, most of your medical bills will be covered in case something happens.
If insurance companies are encouraging young, healthy people to buy health insurance, why isn't the GOP?
Does the GOP want young people to suffer financial hardship? Isn't the GOP encouraging irresponsibility by telling people to not buy insurance?
Why is the GOP so actively working AGAINST people's self-interest?
*crickets*
Follow up question from the UnitedHealthcare website FAQ:
Q. If I get sick but don't have the money to pay, won't doctors and hospitals treat me?
A. Yes, most doctors and hospitals will treat you, but they will aggressively pursue collection of your unpaid medical bills by turning your account over to a collection agency. Yes, some hospitals write off a certain amount of care each year, called "indigent care," but if you or your family fail to meet strict requirements, they'll come after you to pay.
Somebody will pay - either you as a paying patient in the form of higher medical bills, or taxpayers.
"how did Republicans change the rules to force a government shutdown? "
Google H.R. 368 to learn how the GOP guaranteed the shutdown would happen – a shutdown that closed National
Parks World War II monuments and affected the benefit pay of fallen soldiers.
Source: There's an article from the International Business Times that explains how the GOP made a small rule change to their procedures that not only guaranteed there would be a government shutdown, but made it impossible for anyone except the House Majority Leader (Eric Cantor) able to call for a vote on the continuing resolution that would end the shutdown. Here's the added language:
"Resolution 59 may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.”
Previously, clause 4 of rule XXII could be brought up by any member of the House of Representatives to push a bill forward despite disagreements.
So these supposed "defenders of freedom" changed the rules so no one but Cantor could call for the vote on the Continuing Resolution.
And they have the nerve to say President Obama is a "dictator!"
Sniffit
" if there is a color associated with obama at this point it is red, not black."
He's a Republican? How many circles do you have to talk yourself in before you get dizzy?
-------
Red INK Sniffy... red INK. Or Soviet red... take your pick.
ThinkAgain
-–
President Obama used a sound bite to describe the affect the ACA would have on policies when he said folks could keep their plans.
Granted, it would have been more clear if he had said folks could keep their plans if they conformed to the minimum standards for plans specified in the law. In other words, if you have a junk policy, you will have to get a new one. Given that most providers take a variety of insurances, chances are, you will keep your doctor.
-–
Yes, and if he had told the truth instead of lying, Obamacare never would have passed and been law. He had to lie in order to get it passed. They even debated this in the White House because they knew Obmaa was out there lying to people.
--
Is it the President's fault that insurance companies decided to not reissue those plans with the minimum standards for the same price? No – that was a business decision made by the insurance companies. It's not his fault that these companies have been ripping off Americans for decades.
-–
Yes, it is the fault of Obama and his law. Companies do not just decide to throw millions of their customers overboard. You see that is bad for business. I guess lefties don't quite grasp that concept. And offer a vastly different and far more costly policy for the same price? Really? So now it is up to the insurance companies to run their business in a manner than drives them out of business eventually? I suppose you expect Mercedes to drop their prices to the levels of Kia too? No different. Your statements illustrate how absolutely clueless those on the left truly are. It is clear reality never makes an appearance in your world.
Sniffit
--
" if there is a color associated with obama at this point it is red, not black."
--
He's a Republican? How many circles do you have to talk yourself in before you get dizzy?
--
red as in red ink, red as in communist red. please try to keep up.
can't you understand most american people don't want a socialist/communist state here?
_____________________________________
Can't you understand that it is only the small unthinking TEA Party lunatics that actually THINK that is happening? The very use of "socialism" and Obama in the same sentance works as well as calling someone a Nazi- it is a failed argument.
For once- argue with facts and logic!