While this one is not as egregious as the laughable earlier mailers, it is still pretty damn bad -- just try to parse the sentence that the NRCC chose to highlight on the flip-side:
The sentence's meaning is not immediately clear -- and it isn't even clear whether the apparent desire to reverse the increase in a credit by half is supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing.
And how about that dilemma that the NRCC presents: "Taxes or Diapers?" Geez guys -- and you know it was guys -- maybe next time you might wanna give the reader a desirable option.
But an argument could be made that the choice between a) some taxes to pay off Bush's deficits, and b) something full of the same old shit does properly symbolize voters' choices in November.
As I've said before: sometimes a political ad inadvertently reveals more than was intended. And in this case the NRCC has accidentally presented the voters with the question that must be answered in November:
Do we act like adults and return U.S. tax laws to the levels of the 90's -- when America suffered under the twin scurges of peace and prosperity -- or do we continue to borrow money and pass the Republican's record deficit down to this child and her children?You shouldn't have to sacrifice your family's future to pay for tax-cuts to the hyper-rich.