Fred Walser, Karen Keiser, and Democrats Continue their Lies

In a revealing article in today's Herald, Jerry Cornfield looks into the slimy lies told by the Democrats against Senator Val Stevens.

It's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the ads were lies, clearly accusing Stevens of something she never did, but Democratic challenger Fred Walser said, "I'm OK with them, absolutely. In my opinion, those statements are accurate."

Note that Walser does not say how the ads are accurate, in the face of evidence proving the contrary. Since Walser himself is a convicted liar with a long history of lying to protect himself and his friends, however, this should come as no surprise.

Of the ad run against him that points to the Fred Walser web site I run, I said, "No one's accused us of misrepresentation." I meant, of course, specific claims of misrepresentation. Walser says, "I was highly offended by the Republican Party ad that wasn't even accurate," but he is completely incapable of saying how any of it is inaccurate, because none of it is.

I'd like him to tell us how it's inaccurate. Which part? That he was convicted of lying and sentenced to a year in jail, 240 hours of community service, and $20,000 in restitution? That if he doesn't fulfill the obligations of his parole, that he could be in jail even before election day? That he is, literally, a crook? Nope, all of that is true. And everything else on there is a quote from the news media.

I think a lot more voters will be offended by your crimes and history of lies, Walser, than will be offended by the Republicans telling the truth about you. But right now I make an offer: Fred Walser, come on to Sound Politics and explain in what way the ad against you was inaccurate. I promise to let you have your fair say. You could just send me an e-mail and I'll publish the whole thing verbatim. And if you won't do that, then go on to one of the liberal web sites, like Goldy's. I'm sure he'd welcome you.

Will you do it, Walser? I won't hold my breath.

Senate Democratic Campaign Committee chair Karen Keiser echoed Walser's latest lies, saying, "There's a bright line between personal attack and political speech. I thought that (Republican piece) was a personal attack and totally a misrepresentation. Telling the public that someone's political opinions are extreme is not a personal attack."

Again, she cannot say how it is a misrepresentation, and if she thinks informing the public about Walser's proven -- and admitted -- lack of integrity is a "personal attack" then she's in the wrong business.

And yes, it is perfectly fine to attack Stevens' political views. The problem is, of course, they didn't do that: they attacked views she doesn't hold, and pretended they were hers.

Attacking a Republican for what they didn't do: perfectly fine. Attacking a Democrat for what is proven they did: personal attack.

Sounds a lot like the Obama campaign, frankly.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the modern Democratic Party.