Rick Foglesong

Review of Mica ad attacking Sandy Adams

August 3, 2012

How did it happen that two incumbent members of Congress, John Mica and Sandy Adams, both Republicans, find themselves running for the same seat?  One: Because the 2010 Census gave Florida two new congressional seats, pressuring the Legislature to create an Hispanic district in Central Florida, which so many Hispanics -- principally Puerto Ricans -- now call home.  And two: Because Florida voters adopted Amendment 6 in 2010, telling the Legislature not to draw district lines in a way that protected incumbents.

 You might say that Mica and Adams were sacrificial lambs in the redistricting process.  The effort to create a Hispanic-access district meant that Central Florida districts would be redrawn, and Amendment 6 empowered the courts to supervise the Republican-controlled Legislature to make sure they didn’t advantage incumbents, especially those in their party.  Hence, Adams and Mica were crowded into the new District 7, centered in Seminole County.

Some thought Adams would switch to new District 9, which was created to elect an Hispanic, but where former Democratic member of Congress, Alan Grayson, is now running.  But Adams is no shrinking violet.  Fresh from her win with solid Tea Party backing in 2010, she reasoned that more of the new district was from her old district than from Mica’s, and that she could defeat an old war horse like him — if her Tea Party backers showed up in big numbers in a low-turnout election. 

The key to victory for Adams is to present herself as the fiscal conservative alternative to Mica.  And the key for him is to deny her that claim, as he has sought to do in two ads thus far.  The first, which I reviewed in June, said that he—not Adams—is the true conservative in the race.  And the second, reviewed here, repeats the same claim with more details.

The new ad’s main claim is that Adams voted six times against reducing federal spending, while Mica voted yes in each instance.  

Before addressing this claim, a comment is on order.  The Mica ad presents information about these six votes in a little box that flashes on the screen for about a second.  To see this information, I needed to find the ad online and freeze this frame on my computer, something that few voters would probably do.  That’s not nice, Mr. Mica, not if you want viewers to read what you’re alleging.   

The evidence is clear on five of the six votes listed in the box.  These were votes on amendments to cut spending from one to six percent on particular bills.  The significance of these measures is questionable—none of the amendments passed, as they could have in the Republican-controlled House.  But true enough: Adams voted no and Mica yes in each case.   

On the sixth vote, the Mica ad goes awry.  It says that Adams voted against House Continuing Resolution 34, which was the Paul Ryan budget bill.  Wrong, Mr. Mica.  Ms. Adams and every other House Republican voted for that measure, which died in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The Adams campaign is correct to complain -- as it has vociferously, accusing Mica of telling a blatant lie and calling upon him to take down the ad.

Still, there’s a nuance worth noting.  Before the Ryan vote, the Republican Study Committee offered an amendment to slash federal spending even more, an estimated $9 trillion over ten years, with Mica voting aye and Adams nay.   On this important measure, which nearly passed the House, Mica earns conservative bragging rights over Adams. 

If only Mica’s ad had correctly identified this important vote, calling it an amendment to the Ryan budget — a very significant one — rather than H.Con.Res.34 itself.  Then, his ad would have been accurate, it would have made its point about her voting six times against reducing the federal budget, and she would have no basis for complaining.

The looming question is whether any of this matters.  Will Mica succeed in using TV ads to speak directly to fiscally conservative voters, presenting himself rather than Adams as their representative in Washington?  Or will Tea Party leaders succeed in pushing her past the goalpost in a miniscule turnout election?