Adwatch: Taking aim at sale of insurer

Sacramento Bee ^ | 10/11/6 | Amy Chance

[SmithL]

McClintock's latest attack ad uses Garmendi footage out of context

State Sen. Tom McClintock, running for lieutenant governor against state Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, has a new ad attacking his opponent. Following is the text of the ad and analysis by Bee Political Editor Amy Chance.

• TEXT: Sue Watson: We lost our home.

• ON SCREEN: The truth about John Garamendi's record as insurance commissioner.

• Vince Watson: As insurance commissioner, Garamendi sold our insurance company to a junk bond king and foreign bank. They made billions while elderly and handicapped policyholders were financially devastated.

• Announcer: And, after years of lawsuits and investigations, the federal judge in the civil fraud case called John Garamendi's testimony "devoid of credibility."

• Sue Watson: John Garamendi didn't protect us; how can you trust him to protect you?

• ON SCREEN: Can you afford to trust John Garamendi again?

• John Garamendi: "I'm not prepared at this time to answer that question."

• ANALYSIS: This ad is similar to one run by the state Republican Party on McClintock's behalf earlier this year, with one significant exception -- the footage of Garamendi declining to answer a question at a legislative oversight hearing.

The use of that footage is completely misleading, a transcript of the hearing on the Senate's Web site shows. The question Garamendi was responding to at the time didn't have anything to do with Executive Life. Instead, he was answering a query from state Sen. Jackie Speier, who wanted to know whether the state law regarding how motorists get claims estimates from body shops should be changed.

[SmithL]

The new ad by state Sen. Tom McClintock in the race for lieutenant governor criticizes John Garamendi's record as insurance commissioner.

[sappy]

I'm still voting for him!

[Right Cal Gal]

Me too. I work at a law firm that deals with insurance regulatory issues in California. Garamendi is an idiot - there's no WAY I'd put him in a position to make decisions for the whole state (if, say Ah-nold is out at the Kennedy compound).

[albee]

McClintock has my vote as well!

I met him once and was impressed.

Nothing phony about that guy.

[sappy]

I agree.

[calcowgirl]

PING!

McClintock Ping List.
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list

[calcowgirl]

...the footage of Garamendi declining to answer a question at a legislative oversight hearing.

Who cares what the question was--why would he decline to answer?

Garamendi said he was misled and would have found a different buyer if he'd known the assets were being sold to a bank associated with the French government.

So, he was either corrupt or stupid. Neither fares well for him.
Folks should have gone to jail for the Executive Life debacle.

[SmithL]

Folks should have gone to jail for the Executive Life debacle.

Maybe, but saying so is hurtful.

[calcowgirl]

Last year, U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz ruled that a French luxury goods firm fraudulently acquired the company's assets and awarded Executive Life policyholders $190 million. But the judge also was skeptical of testimony by Garamendi and his lieutenants in the case, saying at one point that their accounts were "devoid of credibility."

[calcowgirl]

...saying so is hurtful.

Oh, my! Did I bruise someone's self-esteem? LOL.

[SmithL]

Did I bruise someone's self-esteem?

I'm not prepared at this time to answer that question, either.

[dpwiener]

The use of that footage is completely misleading, a transcript of the hearing on the Senate's Web site shows.

It's not at all misleading. The narrator's question which preceeds it is whether Garamendi can be trusted again. The footage shows him saying "I'm not prepared at this time to answer that question." He's obviously not answering that specific question. This is just a clever and visually-effective way of making the point that Garamendi is an evasive and untrustworthy politician.

[tubebender]

The use of that footage is completely misleading, a transcript of the hearing on the Senate's Web site shows.

And whom controls the the Senate? Why it's the DemWits of course...

[Czar]

Assuming the analysis is correct, in retrospect it would have been wiser not to use it. In any event, I doubt that Tom was aware of the details involved in putting the ad together.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT