Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Republican ad hits Peterson for health care vote

WASHINGTON — Five days after U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson announced he would seek re-election, national Republicans launched their first line of attack against the 12-term Democrat on Friday.

The National Republican Congressional Committee is up with a $50,000 ad buy hitting Peterson for not voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In the ad — on the cable stations in the Fargo and Twin Cities markets — a Willmar hardware store owner says the law “threatens the future of my business.”

Here’s the ad:

The ad keys in on one vote in particular, on a bill last May that would have fully repealed the health care law. Peterson voted against the ACA in 2010. While he’s opposed every GOP effort to fully repeal or defund the law since Republicans took the House, he actually sides with the party about 45 percent of the time on bills meant to undo at least parts of the law.

“I voted against Obamacare and would again if it was the same bill,” he said in a statement. “Outside money, the NRCC, and super PACs are trying to hijack the election from the local people, and as one of my constituents said last week, ‘Don’t worry about it, the people of the 7th district are smarter than that.'”

The NRCC is at least the second outside group to hit the airwaves in the 7th District: the American Future Fund spent at least $81,000 on an ad against Peterson back in December.

Devin Henry can be reached at

Comments (1)

  1. Submitted by Harris Goldstein on 03/21/2014 - 05:13 pm.

    It would be funny – if it wasn’t so sad

    So here’s a couple of scenarios.

    Scenario 1:
    We embark on an initiative that is based on intentionally false premises, poorly conceived, and drains the treasury. Despite initial success, it bogs us down for years. It results in thousands of US military deaths and many thousands of injuries. Let’s call it Iraq.

    Scenario 2:
    We embark on an initiative that is controversial, but most agree something needed to be done. It’s initial roll-out is severely flawed, primarily due to technical reasons. Whether the benefits actually accrue is yet to be determined. Let’s call it Obamacare.

    So tell me, which scenario should draw the most condemnation of the politicians behind it?

Leave a Reply