Says mailers are half-truths, supports Meyer
To the editor:
I used to think that voting against “politics as usual” meant voting against the incumbent. Nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the House District 9 election if, like me, you define “politics as usual” as dishonest and negative campaign tactics like we have seen from Ann Meyer’s opponent.
To that point, I would like to address one of the more egregious claims I have seen on mailers and advertising that says that Ann voted against coverage for pre-existing conditions. What Ann voted against was a secondary amendment that required an up or down vote without modification. While one part of that amendment included pre-existing condition protections, it was mostly full of partisan fluff and as such it was doomed to fail. Suggesting that Ann voted against coverage for pre-existing conditions based on her vote against that amendment is the equivalent of saying you don’t like chocolate because you won’t eat a pound of dog excrement even though I mixed in a few chocolate chips.
So why would members of either party put forward an amendment with no chance of it passing? So they can plaster half-truth claims on mailers and TV ads. Ann’s opponent has said on multiple occasions that he is not a politician… it sure doesn’t look that way.
I will be voting for Ann Meyer because she has done a great job in her first term in the Iowa House. I will also be voting against “politics as usual” and encourage you to do the same by joining me in supporting Ann Meyer.