Schrader ad falsely attacks Bruun on Social Secuirity

Kurt Schrader released a misleading ad attacking Scott Bruun’s record on Social Security.

“Kurt Schrader has become so desperate that he’s resorted to lies while ignoring his own abysmal record. Bruun has a clear record of supporting seniors and will fight for reforms that protect Social Security for all generations, while Schrader has voted for $500 billion in Medicare cuts that will hurt Oregon seniors. It’s clear Schrader is trying to change the channel from his own record of failed policies and reckless spending.” said Alee Lockman, Scott Bruun for Congress spokeswoman

Schrader’s Claim: “Scott Bruun’s the one who wants to privatize Social Security.”

The Facts: Bruun does not support privatization: “I do not support privatizing Social Security.” (Straight Talk, “August 7, 2010: Republican State Rep. Scott Bruun,” KGW, 08/07/2010)

“Bruun, saying that he was calling for putting ‘options on the table’ rather than definitely calling for Social Security privatization, called the federal budget ‘an absolute disaster.’” (Herb Swett, “Congressional candidates debate,” Keizertimes, 09/20/2010)

Bruun believes benefits must be maintained for those who are soon to be recipients: “As far as social security, Bruun said he doesn’t think there should be any change in benefits.” (Lindsay Keefer, “Candidates speak at Chamber forum,” Woodburn Independent, 09/12/2010)

Bruun believes in reform, not privatization: “The people who talk about privatizing are talking about changing the whole system. I’m not talking about changing the whole system. I’m talking about fixing the system that exists.” (Straight Talk, “August 7, 2010: Republican State Rep. Scott Bruun,” KGW, 08/07/2010)

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 09:18 | Posted in Measure 37 | 14 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • rural resident

    He may or may not support it, but if he’s part of a Republican-led Congress, he’ll vote for it. Or else.

  • Bob Clark

    Dirty politics seems heavier this election year in Oregon maybe because the dominant powers (Public employee unions and their Democratic party puppets) are definitely be challenged much harder than in years past. Even Speaker of the Oregon House, Dave Hunt (D), has resorted to sending out fliers with blatant lies mostly as a research project to see to what degree the Oregon electorate can be fooled with outright lies and half truths. Then there’s Chris Dudley who is being taunted by the Dems and the public employee unions because he did what many professional ball players do, which is to follow the advice of their accountant and to move residency to places with low income tax rates. (For example, Derek Jeter long time New York yankee short stop makes his residency in Florida and not New York no doubt for tax purposes.)

    In Bruun’s case, Schrader is using the same cliches out of the national Democratic party as is David Wu. David Wu made the same weak case against his opponent Rob Cornilles. Others that Wu used were: Blame it on Bush and sock it to the so called rich.

    • rural resident

      You’re right, Bob. As we all “know,” only the Democrats lie and play dirty politics. Republicans always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in their speeches and advertisements.

  • valley p

    Lets turn this around. If Scott Bruun is being honest, and he opposes cutting/privitizing, another word for cutting, SSI and Medicare, then he is not serious about cutting government or balancing the budget. In other words he does not think spending is “out of control” And to add to that he probably opposes cuts to defense spending. So which is it?

    If you take 80% of the budget off the table for cuts then you are not serious about cutting, and you are not serious about governing. You are another George Bush.

    • Also, Such As

      His ad also says he opposes cuts to Medicare. So, where is all this cutting going to come from?

  • Ha!

    Scott Bruun was for privatization before he was against it.

    Just like he was for the sales tax before he was against it.

    Go, Schrader, go!

  • a retired professor

    He’s talking about “fixing the system that exists.” Well, what is he talking about? Cutting benefits? No? Then what?

  • Founding Fathers

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4QjzCoLvF0

    About 2 minutes in, he says that he wants a “private element”, but “i am not talking about privatizing Social Security, because that’s what they push back on.”

    So, in other words,”listen to my talking point as I choose to frame it without thinking to hard about what I really mean, because people won’t like what I really mean.”

  • Anonymous

    All one has to know about Scottie is that he is disciple of the defeated Gordy Smith.
    Learned well how to talk outta both sides of his mouth. IOW, a RINO! Beware!

    • Founding Fathers

      The problem with the the GOP isn’t too many RINOs, it’s too many HIPPOs, and in HIPPOCRIT.

      • Omen

        FF’s take sounds like a pile of Pelosi

  • bet365

    I confirm. It was and with me.
    You have hit the mark. In it something is and it is good idea. I support you.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Ha!*:

    Just like he was for the sales tax before he was against it.

    *Bob T:*

    You’re not being very honest. There’s a difference between being for a sales
    tax in general (as an additional tax, or as a replacement tax), and being
    okay with it only if part of the deal is that either the income tax or property
    tax goes away. Many Oregon voters are against it because they know it will
    be one of the so-called “three legs” of the stool. But they’d be for it if it
    replaces one of the other two. i.e. is not the worst of the three. So would
    such a person be for it, or against it?

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

  • valley p

    “There’s a difference between being for a sales
    tax in general (as an additional tax, or as a replacement tax), and being
    okay with it only if part of the deal is that either the income tax or property
    tax goes away.”

    Sure, and there is a difference between being intentionally vague and putting an actual proposal on the table that can be discussed and criticized and considered on its merits. Bruun is being about as vague as one can get. That way you can read into what he says whatever you want to believe, and so can someone who thinks the opposite of you. Smart politics, but not much use once you get elected and have to put ideas on the table.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)