Republican congressional candidate Brian Davis has hammered Rep. Tim Walz on the oil-drilling issue in recent weeks, saying Walz hasn't acted to expand the areas available for drilling off America's coast or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I covered that discussion when the candidates visited Winona last week:

http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/03debate.txt

Now Davis has released an ad that says "Tim Walz says he's against drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore." View that ad here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWxRUxZ_Hw

The Walz campaign on Thursday struck back against those claims, calling them "completely false."

It's the second part of the above statement in the ad that is questionable, since Walz has consistently opposed drilling in ANWR. But when I spoke to Davis spokesman Brad Biers on Thursday, Biers clearly misstated at least one element of Walz's new position on offshore drilling.

Walz in late July signed on as cosponsor to a bipartisan bill that would open up new coastal areas to drilling, provided they're at least 25 miles offshore. Before that, in June, Walz called offshore drilling "a red herring" and said oil companies should drill more on their existing leases.

Given Walz's new support for the offshore-drilling measure, I called Biers and asked him if it's fair to claim Walz is against drilling offshore. I also noted that the new ad features a newspaper headline from June that reads: "Walz says no to expanded drilling." That article was written a month before Walz announced support for the bipartisan drilling bill.

Biers responded that the bipartisan bill wouldn't open up any new offshore areas to drilling. Biers also said Walz hadn't changed his position on the drilling issue since June.

The first claim is demonstrably false, and if I'm wrong on my understanding of what the bipartisan bill would do, then so is the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-drilling14-2008aug14,0,6452589.story

Or read the bill yourself at the Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06709:

Regarding the second claim, I've found nothing to support it, and Biers couldn't offer anything to document it. If anyone can find an instance where Walz supported a similar measure prior to July, let me know and I'll publish it.

Other reporters in the First District have noticed the Davis ad, including Mankato Free Press reporter Mark Fischenich, who wrote it "could be seen as misleading."

What say WDN readers - is the ad fair? Did the Davis campaign try to pull a fast one on yours truly - and on First District voters? Or is it Walz's shift on the drilling issue that is confusing?

Republican congressional candidate Brian Davis has hammered Rep. Tim Walz on the oil-drilling issue in recent weeks, saying Walz hasn't acted to expand the areas available for drilling off America's coast or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I covered that discussion when the candidates visited Winona last week:

http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/03debate.txt

Now Davis has released an ad that says "Tim Walz says he's against drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore." View that ad here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWxRUxZ_Hw

The Walz campaign on Thursday struck back against those claims, calling them "completely false."

It's the second part of the above statement in the ad that is questionable, since Walz has consistently opposed drilling in ANWR. But when I spoke to Davis spokesman Brad Biers on Thursday, Biers clearly misstated at least one element of Walz's new position on offshore drilling.

Walz in late July signed on as cosponsor to a bipartisan bill that would open up new coastal areas to drilling, provided they're at least 25 miles offshore. Before that, in June, Walz called offshore drilling "a red herring" and said oil companies should drill more on their existing leases.

Given Walz's new support for the offshore-drilling measure, I called Biers and asked him if it's fair to claim Walz is against drilling offshore. I also noted that the new ad features a newspaper headline from June that reads: "Walz says no to expanded drilling." That article was written a month before Walz announced support for the bipartisan drilling bill.

Biers responded that the bipartisan bill wouldn't open up any new offshore areas to drilling. Biers also said Walz hadn't changed his position on the drilling issue since June.

The first claim is demonstrably false, and if I'm wrong on my understanding of what the bipartisan bill would do, then so is the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-drilling14-2008aug14,0,6452589.story

Or read the bill yourself at the Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06709:

Regarding the second claim, I've found nothing to support it, and Biers couldn't offer anything to document it. If anyone can find an instance where Walz supported a similar measure prior to July, let me know and I'll publish it.

Other reporters in the First District have noticed the Davis ad, including Mankato Free Press reporter Mark Fischenich, who wrote it "could be seen as misleading."

What say WDN readers - is the ad fair? Did the Davis campaign try to pull a fast one on yours truly - and on First District voters? Or is it Walz's shift on the drilling issue that is confusing?

Republican congressional candidate Brian Davis has hammered Rep. Tim Walz on the oil-drilling issue in recent weeks, saying Walz hasn't acted to expand the areas available for drilling off America's coast or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I covered that discussion when the candidates visited Winona last week:

http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/03debate.txt

Now Davis has released an ad that says "Tim Walz says he's against drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore." View that ad here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWxRUxZ_Hw

The Walz campaign on Thursday struck back against those claims, calling them "completely false."

It's the second part of the above statement in the ad that is questionable, since Walz has consistently opposed drilling in ANWR. But when I spoke to Davis spokesman Brad Biers on Thursday, Biers clearly misstated at least one element of Walz's new position on offshore drilling.

Walz in late July signed on as cosponsor to a bipartisan bill that would open up new coastal areas to drilling, provided they're at least 25 miles offshore. Before that, in June, Walz called offshore drilling "a red herring" and said oil companies should drill more on their existing leases.

Given Walz's new support for the offshore-drilling measure, I called Biers and asked him if it's fair to claim Walz is against drilling offshore. I also noted that the new ad features a newspaper headline from June that reads: "Walz says no to expanded drilling." That article was written a month before Walz announced support for the bipartisan drilling bill.

Biers responded that the bipartisan bill wouldn't open up any new offshore areas to drilling. Biers also said Walz hadn't changed his position on the drilling issue since June.

The first claim is demonstrably false, and if I'm wrong on my understanding of what the bipartisan bill would do, then so is the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-drilling14-2008aug14,0,6452589.story

Or read the bill yourself at the Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06709:

Regarding the second claim, I've found nothing to support it, and Biers couldn't offer anything to document it. If anyone can find an instance where Walz supported a similar measure prior to July, let me know and I'll publish it.

Other reporters in the First District have noticed the Davis ad, including Mankato Free Press reporter Mark Fischenich, who wrote it "could be seen as misleading."

What say WDN readers - is the ad fair? Did the Davis campaign try to pull a fast one on yours truly - and on First District voters? Or is it Walz's shift on the drilling issue that is confusing?

Republican congressional candidate Brian Davis has hammered Rep. Tim Walz on the oil-drilling issue in recent weeks, saying Walz hasn't acted to expand the areas available for drilling off America's coast or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I covered that discussion when the candidates visited Winona last week:

http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/03debate.txt

Now Davis has released an ad that says "Tim Walz says he's against drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore." View that ad here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWxRUxZ_Hw

The Walz campaign on Thursday struck back against those claims, calling them "completely false."

It's the second part of the above statement in the ad that is questionable, since Walz has consistently opposed drilling in ANWR. But when I spoke to Davis spokesman Brad Biers on Thursday, Biers clearly misstated at least one element of Walz's new position on offshore drilling.

Walz in late July signed on as cosponsor to a bipartisan bill that would open up new coastal areas to drilling, provided they're at least 25 miles offshore. Before that, in June, Walz called offshore drilling "a red herring" and said oil companies should drill more on their existing leases.

Given Walz's new support for the offshore-drilling measure, I called Biers and asked him if it's fair to claim Walz is against drilling offshore. I also noted that the new ad features a newspaper headline from June that reads: "Walz says no to expanded drilling." That article was written a month before Walz announced support for the bipartisan drilling bill.

Biers responded that the bipartisan bill wouldn't open up any new offshore areas to drilling. Biers also said Walz hadn't changed his position on the drilling issue since June.

The first claim is demonstrably false, and if I'm wrong on my understanding of what the bipartisan bill would do, then so is the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-drilling14-2008aug14,0,6452589.story

Or read the bill yourself at the Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06709:

Regarding the second claim, I've found nothing to support it, and Biers couldn't offer anything to document it. If anyone can find an instance where Walz supported a similar measure prior to July, let me know and I'll publish it.

Other reporters in the First District have noticed the Davis ad, including Mankato Free Press reporter Mark Fischenich, who wrote it "could be seen as misleading."

What say WDN readers - is the ad fair? Did the Davis campaign try to pull a fast one on yours truly - and on First District voters? Or is it Walz's shift on the drilling issue that is confusing?

Republican congressional candidate Brian Davis has hammered Rep. Tim Walz on the oil-drilling issue in recent weeks, saying Walz hasn't acted to expand the areas available for drilling off America's coast or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I covered that discussion when the candidates visited Winona last week:

http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/03debate.txt

Now Davis has released an ad that says "Tim Walz says he's against drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore." View that ad here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWxRUxZ_Hw

The Walz campaign on Thursday struck back against those claims, calling them "completely false."

It's the second part of the above statement in the ad that is questionable, since Walz has consistently opposed drilling in ANWR. But when I spoke to Davis spokesman Brad Biers on Thursday, Biers clearly misstated at least one element of Walz's new position on offshore drilling.

Walz in late July signed on as cosponsor to a bipartisan bill that would open up new coastal areas to drilling, provided they're at least 25 miles offshore. Before that, in June, Walz called offshore drilling "a red herring" and said oil companies should drill more on their existing leases.

Given Walz's new support for the offshore-drilling measure, I called Biers and asked him if it's fair to claim Walz is against drilling offshore. I also noted that the new ad features a newspaper headline from June that reads: "Walz says no to expanded drilling." That article was written a month before Walz announced support for the bipartisan drilling bill.

Biers responded that the bipartisan bill wouldn't open up any new offshore areas to drilling. Biers also said Walz hadn't changed his position on the drilling issue since June.

The first claim is demonstrably false, and if I'm wrong on my understanding of what the bipartisan bill would do, then so is the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-drilling14-2008aug14,0,6452589.story

Or read the bill yourself at the Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06709:

Regarding the second claim, I've found nothing to support it, and Biers couldn't offer anything to document it. If anyone can find an instance where Walz supported a similar measure prior to July, let me know and I'll publish it.

Other reporters in the First District have noticed the Davis ad, including Mankato Free Press reporter Mark Fischenich, who wrote it "could be seen as misleading."

What say WDN readers - is the ad fair? Did the Davis campaign try to pull a fast one on yours truly - and on First District voters? Or is it Walz's shift on the drilling issue that is confusing?

Republican congressional candidate Brian Davis has hammered Rep. Tim Walz on the oil-drilling issue in recent weeks, saying Walz hasn't acted to expand the areas available for drilling off America's coast or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I covered that discussion when the candidates visited Winona last week:

http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/03debate.txt

Now Davis has released an ad that says "Tim Walz says he's against drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore." View that ad here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWxRUxZ_Hw

The Walz campaign on Thursday struck back against those claims, calling them "completely false."

It's the second part of the above statement in the ad that is questionable, since Walz has consistently opposed drilling in ANWR. But when I spoke to Davis spokesman Brad Biers on Thursday, Biers clearly misstated at least one element of Walz's new position on offshore drilling.

Walz in late July signed on as cosponsor to a bipartisan bill that would open up new coastal areas to drilling, provided they're at least 25 miles offshore. Before that, in June, Walz called offshore drilling "a red herring" and said oil companies should drill more on their existing leases.

Given Walz's new support for the offshore-drilling measure, I called Biers and asked him if it's fair to claim Walz is against drilling offshore. I also noted that the new ad features a newspaper headline from June that reads: "Walz says no to expanded drilling." That article was written a month before Walz announced support for the bipartisan drilling bill.

Biers responded that the bipartisan bill wouldn't open up any new offshore areas to drilling. Biers also said Walz hadn't changed his position on the drilling issue since June.

The first claim is demonstrably false, and if I'm wrong on my understanding of what the bipartisan bill would do, then so is the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-drilling14-2008aug14,0,6452589.story

Or read the bill yourself at the Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06709:

Regarding the second claim, I've found nothing to support it, and Biers couldn't offer anything to document it. If anyone can find an instance where Walz supported a similar measure prior to July, let me know and I'll publish it.

Other reporters in the First District have noticed the Davis ad, including Mankato Free Press reporter Mark Fischenich, who wrote it "could be seen as misleading."

What say WDN readers - is the ad fair? Did the Davis campaign try to pull a fast one on yours truly - and on First District voters? Or is it Walz's shift on the drilling issue that is confusing?

Republican congressional candidate Brian Davis has hammered Rep. Tim Walz on the oil-drilling issue in recent weeks, saying Walz hasn't acted to expand the areas available for drilling off America's coast or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I covered that discussion when the candidates visited Winona last week:

http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/03debate.txt

Now Davis has released an ad that says "Tim Walz says he's against drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore." View that ad here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWxRUxZ_Hw

The Walz campaign on Thursday struck back against those claims, calling them "completely false."

It's the second part of the above statement in the ad that is questionable, since Walz has consistently opposed drilling in ANWR. But when I spoke to Davis spokesman Brad Biers on Thursday, Biers clearly misstated at least one element of Walz's new position on offshore drilling.

Walz in late July signed on as cosponsor to a bipartisan bill that would open up new coastal areas to drilling, provided they're at least 25 miles offshore. Before that, in June, Walz called offshore drilling "a red herring" and said oil companies should drill more on their existing leases.

Given Walz's new support for the offshore-drilling measure, I called Biers and asked him if it's fair to claim Walz is against drilling offshore. I also noted that the new ad features a newspaper headline from June that reads: "Walz says no to expanded drilling." That article was written a month before Walz announced support for the bipartisan drilling bill.

Biers responded that the bipartisan bill wouldn't open up any new offshore areas to drilling. Biers also said Walz hadn't changed his position on the drilling issue since June.

The first claim is demonstrably false, and if I'm wrong on my understanding of what the bipartisan bill would do, then so is the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-drilling14-2008aug14,0,6452589.story

Or read the bill yourself at the Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06709:

Regarding the second claim, I've found nothing to support it, and Biers couldn't offer anything to document it. If anyone can find an instance where Walz supported a similar measure prior to July, let me know and I'll publish it.

Other reporters in the First District have noticed the Davis ad, including Mankato Free Press reporter Mark Fischenich, who wrote it "could be seen as misleading."

What say WDN readers - is the ad fair? Did the Davis campaign try to pull a fast one on yours truly - and on First District voters? Or is it Walz's shift on the drilling issue that is confusing?

Republican congressional candidate Brian Davis has hammered Rep. Tim Walz on the oil-drilling issue in recent weeks, saying Walz hasn't acted to expand the areas available for drilling off America's coast or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I covered that discussion when the candidates visited Winona last week:

http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2008/08/22/news/03debate.txt

Now Davis has released an ad that says "Tim Walz says he's against drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore." View that ad here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWxRUxZ_Hw

The Walz campaign on Thursday struck back against those claims, calling them "completely false."

It's the second part of the above statement in the ad that is questionable, since Walz has consistently opposed drilling in ANWR. But when I spoke to Davis spokesman Brad Biers on Thursday, Biers clearly misstated at least one element of Walz's new position on offshore drilling.

Walz in late July signed on as cosponsor to a bipartisan bill that would open up new coastal areas to drilling, provided they're at least 25 miles offshore. Before that, in June, Walz called offshore drilling "a red herring" and said oil companies should drill more on their existing leases.

Given Walz's new support for the offshore-drilling measure, I called Biers and asked him if it's fair to claim Walz is against drilling offshore. I also noted that the new ad features a newspaper headline from June that reads: "Walz says no to expanded drilling." That article was written a month before Walz announced support for the bipartisan drilling bill.

Biers responded that the bipartisan bill wouldn't open up any new offshore areas to drilling. Biers also said Walz hadn't changed his position on the drilling issue since June.

The first claim is demonstrably false, and if I'm wrong on my understanding of what the bipartisan bill would do, then so is the Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-drilling14-2008aug14,0,6452589.story

Or read the bill yourself at the Library of Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06709:

Regarding the second claim, I've found nothing to support it, and Biers couldn't offer anything to document it. If anyone can find an instance where Walz supported a similar measure prior to July, let me know and I'll publish it.

Other reporters in the First District have noticed the Davis ad, including Mankato Free Press reporter Mark Fischenich, who wrote it "could be seen as misleading."

What say WDN readers - is the ad fair? Did the Davis campaign try to pull a fast one on yours truly - and on First District voters? Or is it Walz's shift on the drilling issue that is confusing?