Enquirer: Wulsin's ad is dishonest.

The Enquirer is REPORTING that Victoria Wells AKA Dr. Victoria Wulsin has a very dishonest ad.

Enquirer reporter Gregory Korte writes: (emphasis added by WTF)

The other allegations in the ad - that she voted against veterans' health benefits and to "slash" homeland security funding - are partisan spin at best. At worst, they're misleading.

The only justification for the statement that Schmidt voted against veterans' health benefits was her support of the $2.8 trillion federal budget. The 2007 spending plan called for an increase in veterans' health care spending in 2007, followed by reductions after that - though such decisions are always revisited in future budgets and appropriations bills.

On security, Wulsin cites seven roll-call votes on amendments, totaling $257.8 million, to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2006. All were sponsored by Democrats, and all but one lost on largely party-line votes. One exception: the Democratic-sponsored Lynch Amendment, which added $50 million for rail security, received enough Republican votes to pass. Schmidt voted against it.

But those amendments didn't increase homeland security funding at all; in fact, they would have diverted established homeland security spending to other areas - nuclear-detection devices in ports, local disaster coordination, investigations of the handling of Hurricane Katrina and even global- warming studies and "breakfast with firefighters" programs.

One can debate her homeland security priorities, but it's not fair to say she voted to "slash" funding.

The final bill, which passed the House 389-9, increased homeland security spending by 5 percent - $1.8 billion - in 2007.

Yes, Wells AKA Wulsin is complaining that Congresswoman Schmidt voted against Liberal amendments that would have taken away funding from Homeland Security and would haved put the money towards breakfast with firefighters.

Pathetic.

UPDATE. BizzyBlog and Nasty Brusith & Short have picked up on the story too.