Jody Wagner Still Repeating VEA's False Information 72 Hours After It Made Correction!

As we reported yesterday, Democrat candidate for lieutenant governor Jody Wagner repeated a falsehood against Republican incumbent Bill Bolling that the Virginia Education Association started earlier this week, but which it soon corrected. However, more than 72 hours after the Bolling campaign outed the false information and the VEA corrected it, Ms. Wagner continues peddling the falsehood on her Web site. Not only that, it's a falsehood predicated on a bill that did not exist! Ms. Wagner, who couldn't get her budget figures correct as Governor Tim Kaine's finance secretary, which has led to repeated budget deficits, has proven her aptitude for researching voting records isn't much better than her math skills. The bill in question is SB 1285, which Wagner said was introduced in the 2004 General Assembly. In fact, it was introduced in 2005. A high-up in state government, such as a cabinet officer, should know high number bills signify odd years anyway.

But what is truly remarkable, is that Ms. Wagner continues to claim Mr. Bolling voted against the legislation, which involved raising teacher salaries, even though he voted for it! Not only that, he voted for it in committee and voted for similar legislation in 2003 (Bolling news release).

As we've mentioned before, this is a pattern of liberalism, where facts don't matter. If a liberal candidate wants her opponent's record to mean something other than what it is, that's what she will campaign on, regardless of the truth. We documented another example a few weeks ago — super liberal Tom Shields, running for the House of Delegates against incumbent Republican John O'Bannon in the 73rd district, claims Delegate O'Bannon has never held a town hall meeting or mailed a constituent newsletter, all to the contradiction of the physical evidence. Yet, he too, persists in falsehoods.

People expect hard campaigns. Vigorous differences which manifest themselves in "negative" advertising are a part of political life. Candidates can, and do, interpret positions of their opponents as ineffective, costly, counterproductive, and even as good, "but not as good as my plan." Even a fact or two can be open for interpretation given certain circumstances.

But a voting record on a particular bill? Newsletters, when they've been printed and mailed? Don't they have anything better to offer than the arrogance that they think they can get away with it?