Betty McCollum Gets Death Threats Over NASCAR Proposal
Democratic Congresswoman Betty McCollum has received death threats after questioning the wisdom of the U.S. Army sponsoring a NASCAR Sprint Cup team to the tune of $7 million a year.
A Democratic Congresswoman has received death threats after questioning the wisdom of the U.S. Army sponsoring a NASCAR Sprint Cup team to the tune of $7 million a year.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) alerted Capitol Police Thursday after a threatening fax arrived at her office attacking her proposal to strip Pentagon sponsorship from NASCAR teams.
McCollum’s staff tells TPM this is the first time they’ve alerted the police about a threat made against here office since the health care debate.
“Yo, Slut Betty,” the fax, which arrived at McCollum’s DC office Thursday morning, reads. “Shut Your Phucking Pie Hole!”
The fax then goes on to say that “without exception, Marxists are enemies of the Constitution” and “Death To All Marxists, Foreign And Domestic!”
Read the threatening fax, obtained exclusively by TPM, here. Warning: document contains extremely offensive language.
I have no opinion as to the wisdom of the $7 million NASCAR sponsorship as an Army recruiting tool. Certainly, it would seem to be smart demographic targeting but I haven’t a clue as to how the returns on the NASCAR investment stack up with other recruiting avenues. (McCollum seems to be motivated by optics rather than money; I disagree with her there.)
But, seriously, death threats?
And I had the same reaction as Digby:
It’s Marxist to request that the US government not fund a private race car team? I think maybe this person doesn’t know what the word “Marxism” means.
I’m guessing there are a lot of words this moron doesn’t know the meaning of.
While I think death threats are intolerable, I do find it interesting that she took a “Death to Marxists” proclamation and immediately felt threatened by it.
If suggesting the government cut adveristing with a sport yields death threats. How bad will get it when real serious cuts that impact people’s lives start to play out. So sad that the first response people seem to have to this is threaten aka go nuclear versus dialogue. Canada anyone?
“she took a “Death to Marxists” proclamation and immediately felt threatened by it.”
Um…yeah…someone calls you a Marxist, then says “death to Marxists.” Do you actually need to be a Marxist to feel threatened by that?
How about we live by this principle? No death threats over NASCAR ad cuts, even if they’re being proposed by a Marxist.. Sound fair?
I too believe “Death Threats” to others that don’t agree with you are a sign of being “Intellectually
Challenged”. Having lived in Florida for a number of years, I know the “good ole boys” from the south, take NASCAR very seriously. Most are ordinary caring citizens. But some are quite stupid!
Don’t know if the ARMY gets a lot of enlistments from their ADs’, Maybe someone should ask them.
Well, there is no actual threat to the Congresswoman in the note. However, the note does label Obama and Holder as Marxists, does have imagery implying a racial killing and does declare death to all Marxists. So, even without the direct threat to the Congresswoman, no doubt the matter is being investigated as a threat to the President and as a warning of potential hate crime.
All around the sender is a Dumb A**.
In any case, apparently the Congresswoman hasn’t seen the response when the cars are traveling through a town. People line the overpasses and wait all day. But apparently not in Minnesota. So apparently, NASCAR needs a track up that way.
ALP highlights where I think the problem is here. The Congresswoman and others think NASCAR is a Southern thing. They are sorely confused. The largest turnout I saw of the teams moving down the highway was in Harrisburg, PA.
Although, I guess her real beef is that NASCAR mostly appeals to the Tea Party types. And of course, those who provide the bulk of our military recruits.
Or just maybe she thinks spending millions to sponsor a race car is not a good use of taxpayer funds. Seems to me that the Army car does not make us safer and is a very optional expense. Given that Washington has a spending problem, this seems like an easy savings.
Because he might have just been sending this to her as an FYI Item?
“For the perusal of the JoBama Rectum Sniffing Slut. No action required”
While clearly we have a few deranged folks in America, but I don’t think that’s the main story here.
Government-sponsored advertising is one of those damned-if-you-do or don’t moments. In this case, a Democrat complained about it. But remember government-supported Chrysler’s Super Bowl commercial? Republicans complained about that.
For anybody who doesn’t know, marketing WORKS. You want Chrysler off government aid? Let them advertise. You want people in the Army? Let it advertise. If you don’t understand how or why marketing works, shut up and learn.
Actually NeckCar TV ratings have plummeted over the past few years. It seems that other than the die hards most folks aren’t interested in watching a bunch of cars make left turns for 4 hours.
Seven million bucks will buy a lot of conventional advertising not to mention enlistment bonuses. But this all comes back to the idiocy of the deficit hawks. Cut spending, just not my spending.
If the Congresswoman wishes to articulate a reasoned position that the advertising investment does not generate enough return to justify it, then that is different. However, she seems to have just decided that the Army shouldn’t advertise in the venues that generate the bulk of their recruits.
As to whether, NASCAR is in decline, that to doesn’t matter if the Congresswoman is using facts instead of prejudice, the change in advertising will be driven by return on investment that will absorb that fact. Or it could just be that a lot of NASCAR fans are on patrol in Afghanistan and are unable to tune in.
>> MM said (quote): “Or just maybe she thinks spending millions to sponsor a race car is not a good use of taxpayer funds. Seems to me that the Army car does not make us safer and is a very optional expense. Given that Washington has a spending problem, this seems like an easy savings.”
Except here’s the problem with your argument. According to Army records, the NASCAR army vehicle has lead to upwards of 46,000 recruits per year. So, even if it is just “optics”, it’s been an optic with a definite return.
But what makes this a TOTAL crock on the part of McCollum — being such a dedicated Democrat herself — is that she thinks THIS is just “optics” and not worth spending tax payer money on….yet she DIDN’T condemn General Motors for spending millions on a freaking “pro Detroit” Super Bowl car commercial. Which again, was paid for by GM, who in turn STILL owes the American taxpayer money for bailing it out.
So basically to someone like McCollom, who CLAIMS that she is in favor of saving money, it breaks down like this — the U.S. Army spending millions on a NASCAR promo vehicle…bad. But her union buddies in Detroit spending millions on a Super Bowl ad…good.
Sorry, but that’s just LAME with a capital “L”.
Cite?
In October of 2010 the army recruited 6,914 new soldiers. Based on that your “upwards of 46,000 recruits” would constitute roughly half of one years recruiting effort.
Can I ask where you found this dubious number?
The UAW spent money on a super bowl ad?
Or you of the belief that the UAW and General Motors are one in the same?
And seriously, spelling certain words in all caps does amplify something, it’s just not what you think it is.