For Immediate Release
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Contact: Brad Bainum, bradb@wisdems.org
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Contact: Brad Bainum, bradb@wisdems.org
Leah Vukmir AGAIN Hides From Media After Poor Debate Performance
MADISON — For the second debate in a row, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Leah Vukmir last night once again hid from the media, declining to answer reporter questions following yet another poor debate performance.
Here are some questions that Leah Vukmir should have answered had she not hid from the media after the debate:
1. On gutting pre-existing conditions — How can you claim you want to protect coverage for Wisconsinites with pre-existing conditions when you tonight yet again:
a. admitted you would vote for gutting the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions; and,b. reaffirmed your support for “junk” insurance plans that let insurers discriminate against people with existing conditions?
2. On voting against oral chemo and kids’ cochlear implants coverage — You said it’s easy to “cherry pick” bad votes from your record. Is that really your message to Wisconsin cancer patients and hearing-impaired kids who you voted against when you sided with insurance companies and against expanding their coverage?
3. On being a rubber stamp for President Trump — You could not name one thing President Donald Trump has done or said that you disagree with. Are you concerned about admitting that you’d be a rubber stamp for Trump?
4. On offering empty apologies to Wisconsin farmers — You said, “I’m sorry” to Wisconsin farmers that are struggling with a labor shortage, but offered no substantive policy solution. Is an empty apology really all that you have to offer Wisconsin’s agricultural community?5. On gutting nursing home accountability — The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is out with a new report on a bill you wrote that made it harder for Wisconsinites to hold abusive and neglectful nursing homes accountable. Do you have any comment on why you would push legislation like that, and was it to benefit your longtime employers and campaign donors?
