DCCC Attacks Scott Rigell…and Glenn Nye…Again
By D.J. Spiker | Monday, October 4th, 2010 | PoliticsJust saw an admittedly effective ad by the DCCC on Scott Rigell and the Cash for Clunkers. It calls Rigell’s stance against bailouts hypocrisy. The problem?
Glenn Nye voted for Cash for Clunkers, not to mention continually trying to take credit for voting against the bailout when he wasn’t even in Congress.
Doesn’t anyone at DCCC do any research before putting out these ads? This is the second time the DCCC has attacked it’s own candidate, first on extending the Bush tax cuts, now on Cash for Clunkers. What’s next?
Keep up the great work guys, November can’t come soon enough!
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...entrenched on the right as a member of the Establishment, proudly tattooed member of the Republican Party, bartender by trade serving both sides the libations needed to continue the debate and discourse. College student, ten years late, majoring in Public Policy and Administration with an eye to serving the conservative and Republican movement in the public or private sector. ducit amor patriae You can find D.J.on facebook, Twitter, or contact via email at gosport.conservative@gmail.com. You can find D.J.on facebook, Twitter, or contact via email at gosport.conservative@gmail.com.
Comments
31 Responses to "DCCC Attacks Scott Rigell…and Glenn Nye…Again"
These guys are all over the place. I often wonder if Nye is even running a campaign. Bad staff, canceling events, showing up late, the list goes on and on. But, then comes the DCCC, or other PACs loading in money to Nye, and I can’t seem to figure out why. I thought they were going to triage, but it seems like they are dumping in money to at least make an effort. I just can’t see any of that making a difference. I know people all across the district, and the overall message I get is that Scott Rigell is going to win this thing, and he’s going to win it big. You hearing the same thing?
As if those who read and post on this forum actually represent a cross section of the district. Fact is, the country club republicans spouting the same pablum that created fiscal and economic chaos will vote for Scott Rigell; business oriented republicans, moderates, and centrists who realize we avoided collapse by the skin of our teeth don’t want those guys in charge again. Nye will suit us just fine. The irrational exhuberance of the Bush Presidency created conditions that are not quickly reversed. But reversed they have been, and now we can build on that change and create a solid foundation for a decade of quality job growth and prosperity for all of us, not just the high net worth, wealthy republicans like Scott Rigell.
Mike, do you have a scary mask picked out for Halloween or do you need suggestions?
Get over it gentlemen. The fact remains that Scott Rigell did take in about $440,000 in federal cash during Pres. Obama’s Cash for Clunkers program. If he felt so bad about participating in this voluntary program, then maybe he should turn the money back over to the taxpayers….
Yes, the same Scott Rigell that wrote the $1,000 check to Obama for America in March of 2008. It seems that this so called RINO has historically been a DEM supporter. Don’t try to cover it up now. Oh and over 80% of Virginia’s 2nd District citizens realize that the recent PUSH POLL was bogus too.
This video sums it up pretty well and was backed up by WVEC Channel 13: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvmtGww20QE
@Scott Rigell, I know you’re on here, but are too reluctant to comment… I suppose one of your cronies will have to respond for you.
You did a great job by standing up the Sierra Club last night. I’m referring to the meeting that you were invited to at the Renaissance Academy in Virginia Beach. This is becoming a common trend for you… Perhaps there was a more important event over at the country club.
Actually, the Scott Rigell I knew was a pragmatic, common sense business man who contributed to causes, like the Yes Campaign, that were essential to the prosperity of the region. The person he had to become to win the republican nomination controlled by the right wing of the Party, is doctrinaire, radically supportive of the same tactics that doomed the Bush Presidency, and committed to Cantor/Boehner and the country club republicans interested only in more cash flow for the ultra rich. Bring the old Scott back!
Hi, VBRF- Your comment is untrue. Scott didn’t stand up the Sierra Club, I was there along with his daughter, Mallory, to speak on his behalf. Next time, please introduce yourself- I always enjoy meeting another member of the BD family.
Scott had a previously scheduled event, and I was glad to be there for him. Congressman Nye, you’ll notice, did not stay for any of the questions, and was there for a total of ten minutes before he was out the door. I stayed long after the meeting ended to talk with members as Scott’s surrogate, and enjoyed every moment of it.
The ads are just getting silly!
This Sunday one aired on “Hardball,” said Glenn “Voted against Wall Street Bailout twice.” TWICE?
TARP was passed Oct 2008 which was actually the Emergency Economic Stablization Act. Glenn Voted “FOR” the “Disapproval Resolutions” of the 2nd half of the spending of TARP on Jan 22nd AFTER the Senate had already approved the money and it was being spent. The votes – being resolutions – were purely symbolic.
Saying Glenn voted against the Wall Street bailout is just wrong and misleading at best. Having a commercial saying he voted against it TWICE is dishonest. It took all of 5 minutes to check this out. It also turns out that another version of his ad doesn’t mention “twice”. The one WVEC used a while back didn’t have this. Maybe I’m losing my mind in thinking the Dems would be honest.
Remember to apply the truth-o-meter to all of these ads and as far as Cash for Clunkers you would be hard pressed to find any large car dealer who would turn down a program that helped people buy cars. Remember it was part of the stimulis which Glenn Nye and nearly all the Dems voted for… Now who is being disingenous.
There is a distinct difference in being represented and actually being there.
The attendees were looking to hear what Mr. Rigell had to say, not third party correspondence…
I noticed that you were not able to contradict my comments regarding the 440k received from “cash for clunkers” and the 1K dollar check to Obama… The truth does sting a little. So what do you have to say on behalf of your candidate?
Sorry for jumping in but I’d like to assist…March ’08?
I believe that Hiliary Clinton was surging at that time. Hell, I would’ve given to the Mike Barrett for President campaign if it was against Hiliary Clinton. Shortly after that, Rev Wright’s anti-american rants would surface.
As for Rigell taking money, wasn’t the incentive to help consumers buy cars? By not participating in the program, he would not have been able to give the best to the middle class. Rigell saved his customers (the middle class) $440K. Kudos to Rigell for helping the middle class.
Obama help the car dealerships? Hell he was shutting (GM) car dearlerships down whether they were profitable or not.
Gotta joke for ya…How do you stump a Democrat during a debate? Ask them how to create a job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uilFn6mgm4
VBRF, I suspect you don’t know me very well. I have no problem with the $1000 Obama donation, especially in light of the fact that Scott’s given half a million dollars to Republican candidates over the years! Scott responded to why he made the donation, and his response satisfied me (but then, I’m considered a RINO).
As for Cash for Clunkers- he wouldn’t have voted for it, but he did participate in it, as I imagine most dealerships did. I think John’s answer covers it pretty well.
Lastly, the Sierra Club knew in advance that I would be there representing Scott, and I am thrilled to have his ear on environmental issues.
John Jackson is hilarious; his idea of creating jobs is to give tax breaks to billionaires so a penny can trickle down. It did not work then and it will not work now. The irony is that since not everyone on this forum is a billionaire, but many still beliive in trickle down economics, who is fooling whom?
@Jessica, It simply doesn’t matter what your opinion is regarding Scott Rigell’s 1K donation to Pres. Obama. Just because several other car dealers were participating in the Cash for Clunkers program, didn’t make it the right thing to do. This was clearly a waste of over 3 billion tax payer dollars. Destroying perfectly good automobiles was absurd to begin with.
The truth of the matter is, your ship sank after the primary and you jumped onboard the Scott Rigell band wagon. It had to have hurt finishing dead-last with 2%.
Everyone knows the democrats are desperate, and the fact that they’ve again brought up cash for clunkers shows just how desperate they are. They’re grasping at straws. There’s little need to demonstrate how vacuous a cash for clunkers attack is (it didn’t provide dealers with extra revenue, it just sacrificed future sales for higher short term sales). The point is that if this is the best they can do to defame Rigell, they should pack their bags and stop wasting money immediately.
John,
Democrats are wonderful at creating jobs; it’s just that all their new jobs are in the public sector.
I am on the Rigell bandwagon, but I must say that the thing about the 1k donation that bothered me was that I was smart enough to recognize that Obama was a bigger threat than Hillary (both for McCain and the country). So why didn’t Rigell?
@ Kingsmoothie, Look at the timing of Rigell’s donation. At the time he donated, Hillary had just won mini super Tuesday, which was Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island Democratic primaries. At the time, Hillary had the momentum and seemed like she was going to win. I remember thinking Obama looked mild by comparison, at the time. Scott has said repeatedly that it was an anti-Hillary donation. He maxed out to Romney during the primary, then voted for and gave $2,000 to McCain during the general.
I’m not suggesting Rigell is one, but check out the definition of the term “broken glass Republican” here: http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/broken_glass_republican_1/ It refers to those who would walk across broken glass to vote against Clinton. Although the Hillary threat looks pale in comparison to Obama now given what we know today about what Obama was done, she looked like the greater evil at the time.
@VBRaven seems to be a little BITTER and is re-litigating old issues settled in the GOP Primary.
Scott Rigell is up, leading in the polls, and its clear that the DNC is going to pull out all stops to go negative. They should, they are scared.
This election is about jobs, nothing more, nothing less. It’s why in 2010 Rigell’s message of being a businessman is working so well. With national unemployment at 10% and not going away, this is quickly turning into a “throw the bums out” kind of election.
LC, by march of 08, Hillary was a real concern but Obama was a known far left threat. Obama is in one way much like Rigell. Obama was the establishment pick. The dem establishment knew they could exploit Obamas organizing network, his race and financial connections to grab the white house so they betrayed Clinton. Deja Vu all over again for Scotty.
Bryan, The cry that the obama donation was settled in the primary is not working bro. I call your bluff. Donating to a well known pro abortion socialist was a bad idea, not a conservative idea. Bad judgement is nothing new for Scotty.. if making bad compromises is what you wish for then vote for Scott.
@Mike Barrett, I’ve been working all night on our 2012 Presidential campaign slogan… how about this? “Build a road, Create a job!” Tomorrow I’ll be working on Brian Kirwin’s endorsement. Hey, don’t lose faith…we can always blame those damn rich fat cat Republicans. During the Democratic Primary, we’ll go after Barrack Obama’s $5.5 million he made last year. Oh, help me out, I forgot…who’s fooling who?
@George – You’re a winner!
@Turbo – You cannot say that you’d seen this coming back in early 2008…the Clinton machine had been well established for decades, attempted to ram HillaryCare in the early 90s and we’d never imagined something worst than that. No one understood the association Obama has with the 400+ communist, socialist, community organizations, Center for America Progress think tank and every union in America.
From the right, it’s difficult to choose between Comrade Clinton and Comrade Obama, they both look Red to Conservatives. From our perspective, even John McCain is too liberal for us so it’s a matter of degrees. Hopefully, you know these are analogies. Heck, the liberals created a whole party to compete with conservatives: http://www.votejoinrun.us. What’s wrong with conservatives not wanting Hillary Clinton to run against a Republican for President? Heck, I was on that bandwagon?
Yes John; the republican mantra of tax cuts for billionaires so they can buy better wine has warped your view. As an entrepreneur and CEO of a business, frankly I need all americans to participate in prosperity so they can buy products and services, support their families, and create demand for more businesses. That is what is now occuring in this country as we recover from vodoo economics and the Bush administration’s deplorable preference for tax breaks for multinational corporations so they could invest overseas. Frankly, how any republican could vote to return to the policies that created fiscal chaos is truly beyond me.
mike, just for the record, I am on record raising concerns about obama circa late 07.
http://www.i-bmw.com on the members only ‘JoMomma’ non motorcycle discussion. Sign up and rea for yourself.
Hey Boss, This damn Brian Kirwin won’t return my calls, I’m still working on his endorsement. Also, you need to get over your “Penis” envy; it’s OK if someone has more cash than you. There will always be someone who loves you just as you are.
Let me get this straight…“frankly I need all americans to participate in prosperity so they can buy products and services, support their families, and create demand for more businesses.” After the “Obama Tax Hikes”, your $0.175 gas tax and the massive overhead cost for the liquor stores, where does my prosperity money come from? Especially after the government is finished helping themselves to what money I do have?
“Bush Voodoo Economics” that should be a great campaign slogan. We’ll throw it in there with the racist, witch and wrestling woman. It explains our economic situation so well. That’s why you’re the boss.
@turbo – I can see where someone would not have seen this coming. To a normal person, the Clinton machine was strong in March ’08. This type of Presidential conduct is unprecedented but I’ll take your word that you’d foreseen this.
@ George- how can I take you seriously when you don’t even take a moment to check the Primary numbers? I did not finish last, and I garnered almost 5% of the vote.
@George – What ever happened to being a gentleman? You sir are not! @Jessica, thank you for all that you are doing to actually be a part of changing Congress. I am willing to bet @George just sits on his butt and complains!
As far as Cash for Clunkers – what was he supposed to do? Let the competition sell all of the cars, and then have to lay off employees? Get real!
Taking tax payers money to profit by selling cars sounds just like a car salesman trick! A real statesman would never have accepted the money. Ford motor company did not participate in a bailout and their dealers should have bowed out receiving cash for clunkers. Scott Rigell showed his true colors!
Cash for Clunkers is now officially old news- beating it over the head again and again will not change the fact that Scott Rigell was our primary winner and is our Republican candidate.
What everyone is missing is the fact the Scott Rigell did not make $440,000 dolars from cash for clunkers. He had to pay each car buyer $3500 – $4500 dollars (the trade-in) and then get reimburst from the government. Net profit from cash to clunkers? $0! The program may have been voluntary, but the buyers would have bought somewhere. Why not protect your employees.
@Ray, “Net profit from cash to clunkers? $0!” I don’t think so. C4C was a focused, $3 billion government spending program designed to benefit ONE industry – new car automotive dealers and manufacturers.
With $3500 – $4500 ‘credit’ per vehicle, dealers could offer a more-than-typical amount (for a true clunker) to customers in trade-in allowance. THAT part of the deal was a wash to dealerships.
But don’t kid yourself the car sale was unprofitable. EVERY car is sold at a profit to the dealership through markups, manufacturer incentives, upgrades, and dealer prep and delivery fees. And, if you finance the car, sellers increase their profits in the finance office with loan fees, interest, and add ons to your contract (life/ disability insurance, bump interest rates, offer maintaince programs, sealant protection, etc., etc., etc……)
If Scott collected $440,000 C4C dollars from the government, and if the average C4C amount was $4,000, then Scott moved over a 100 cars during the program. With a 10-20% profit margin and average price of a new car at $30,000 (source: carsearch.com) … Scottie easily racked up a cool half million dollars (separate from the $440,000 rebate from the government).
Not sure where your “zero profit” came from, but if it came from the Rigell camp, well …
“There’s a mark born every minute, and one to trim ‘em and one to knock ‘em” – Con man motto
Sorry, meant to write: EVERY car is sold at a profit by the dealership …
Having troubles getting the edit link to work.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.