All eyes were on Arizona yesterday at a Senate hearing as Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and DHS Secretary (and former Arizona Governor) Janet Napolitano sparred on who has spent the most time focusing on Arizona/Mexico border issues and how best to address the situation.
While Attorney General Eric Holder was briefing McCain and other lawmakers, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano was beginning her briefing to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs. McCain came in late and Napolitano offered to catch him up later on DHS plans to initiate a new metric for gauging border security - a metric she said McCain has requested in the past.
McCain, too, wants to meet with Napolitano "before the election season gets too polarizing - although, obviously, it is," and expressed his disappointment that she had not seemed to take the McCain-Kyl-Flake 10-point plan seriously; she indicated that many of the points are already being done and that others may cost more money than the Congress is willing to spend.
The two grew testy over whether and how many drug cartel "spotters" may be sitting on mountain tops in southern Arizona. McCain called it a fact, Napolitano said she that there are a couple of hundred possible spotting sites but that does not mean that they all have smugglers standing there watching law enforcement movements. McCain grew exasperated but swallowed his statement that that is "crazy": "This is symptomatic to me of the lack of recognition" of the situation by the Administration.
However, both McCain and Napolitano agree that the border situation in Arizona has gotten better. McCain: "I agree that there have been improvements and I'm grateful for those improvements. But., I argue that they have not kept up with the escalation of violence on the other side of the border."
Napolitano: "In my judgment, what we need to do at the border is exactly what we are doing and more so and sustain it. It's more manpower, it's more technology, it's more infrastructure. It's adding air cover, which we now have across Arizona which we didn't have before."
The 15-minute exchange is worth watching. Following that, I have embedded a fine summary report that aired on KJZZ (91.5, Phoenix, NPR) this morning.
Oh, and with all due respect to both McCain and Napolitano, I think that there are plenty of professional law enforcement individuals who have spent more time dealing with Arizona-Mexico border issues - some of them at the policy levels, too.
http://kjzz.org/news/arizona/archives/201105/NapolitanoSenate
(embedded player deleted because it automatically played)
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Showing posts with label Janet Napolitano. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Janet Napolitano. Show all posts
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano Latest To Take Self Out of Senate Campaign
Arizona's Politics has been somewhat remiss in chronicling all those taking themselves out of the campaign to replace Sen. Jon Kyl in 2012. Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano just removed herself this morning, according to a statement.
This New Times post does a good job of listing the others who recently have done likewise.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
This New Times post does a good job of listing the others who recently have done likewise.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
FACT CHECK: Arizona Rep. Ben Quayle Misleads On Arizona Border Security
Arizona Rep. Ben Quayle (R-CD3) released a statement today using a new GAO (Government Accountability Office) report on border security to slam DHS (Department of Homeland Security) Secretary - and former Arizona Governor - Janet Napolitano. However, by intentionally using a much lower, overall calculation of operational control over the U.S./Mexico border and then applying it to the more secure Arizona portion of the border, Rep. Quayle apparently decided to mislead his constituents.
Quayle's statement touts the Tuesday report from the "non-partisan" (politicians often use that term when the GAO states something that they like) GAO titled "BORDER SECURITY: Preliminary Observations On Border Control Measures For the Southwest Border". Quayle noted that the report
So, not only is the Border Patrol continuing to put more of the U.S./Mexico border under "operational control" - as opposed to Quayle's "waiting and hoping" comment - but the 44% number is for the entire southwest border with Mexico. A quick and easy check of the next paragraph and the accompanying figure (Figure 3) shows that the Yuma sector is 100% under operational control, and that the Tucson sector is at 70%. That means that the Arizona/Mexico border is actually at about 80% "operational control" (and the rest is "monitored").
None of the facts in Rep. Quayle's are incorrect (although some of his rhetoric appears to be misleading). However, juxtaposition matters. In this case, he has only cited the 44% figure, purposely ignored the 100% and 70% figures for the Arizona sectors, yet repeatedly referred to Arizona, Arizonans, Arizona ranchers. The conclusion can only be that the statement misleads his constituents into believing that more than half of Arizona's border is out of control.
(Warning: Fact-checking/journalism wonk discussion ahead:) You may be wondering why "juxtaposition matters," and whether it is legitimate to diss a politician - or others - for saying/writing things that are correct yet still create a false impression. Especially when he or she (or they) have omitted relevant facts. I have often wondered that, too. This is what I found and why I decided to downgrade Rep. Quayle's full statement.
The two highest-profile fact-checking organizations have both repeatedly recognized the way in which juxtaposition of true comments or images can still earn the speaker/writer/etc low fact-checking marks. Two recent examples which I found yesterday: (1) Factcheck.org dinged the Crossroads organization for juxtaposing a candidate's comment that the healthcare reform bill would reduce deficits with the announcer's intonation that "instead, we got... record deficits". As Factcheck points out, the deficits were not caused by the healthcare reform law; (2) Politifact.com hammered Sen. Harry Reid for implying in December that Arizona Sen. John McCain did not support repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because of the economy. Reid omitted the context that McCain was talking about relative priorities; and (3) PolitiFact rated as "barely true" a Congressional candidate who lauded former President Reagan's tax cuts for creating exponential growth while omitting the fact that Reagan later had to approve substantial tax increases.
Also relevant is how our justice system is handling such situations. Courts in several states have recognized a cause of action known as "defamation by implication". In fact, it is set forth in one of the key legal texts (by Prosser and Keeton) on tort laws: Defamation by implication occurs where "the defendant juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them, or creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts." (A classic case is from the 1970's in Tennessee, where a news report noted that a woman shot her husband and another woman when she found them together in the second woman's living room;" the report neglected to mention that there were others in the room at the time, thereby putting the lie to the implication that they were in the living room having "an adulterous affair".)
Rep. Quayle's statement deserves a clarification, and Arizona's Politics has asked for one. Until then, Quayle deserves his grade of "D" (which also stands for "deceptive").
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Quayle's statement touts the Tuesday report from the "non-partisan" (politicians often use that term when the GAO states something that they like) GAO titled "BORDER SECURITY: Preliminary Observations On Border Control Measures For the Southwest Border". Quayle noted that the report
"...found that only 44 percent of the Southern side of the U.S./Mexican border is under 'operational control. The report contradicts recent statements made by Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano that the border is more secure.
“The GAO’s report confirms what Arizonans already knew to be true: the U.S./Mexican border is far from secure. Even the most artful political spin cannot change that fact. Arizonans aren’t interested in the pie-charts and statistics coming out of Washington, they want our borders secure and the violence to cease. Just this week, two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were shot outside of Mexico City. And on the U.S. side of the border, Arizona ranchers have to deal with the constant threat of violence from drug and human smugglers. Securing our borders shouldn’t be a partisan issue on Capitol Hill. I look forward to working with both parties to find effective solutions to the problem, but we cannot keep waiting and hoping the problem will just disappear. ”Yes, the report does state (on page 7) that the "Border Patrol reported achieving varying levels of operational control of 873 (44 percent) of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles at the end of fiscal year 2010. The number of reported miles under operational control increased an average of 126 miles per year from fiscal years 2005 through 2010."
So, not only is the Border Patrol continuing to put more of the U.S./Mexico border under "operational control" - as opposed to Quayle's "waiting and hoping" comment - but the 44% number is for the entire southwest border with Mexico. A quick and easy check of the next paragraph and the accompanying figure (Figure 3) shows that the Yuma sector is 100% under operational control, and that the Tucson sector is at 70%. That means that the Arizona/Mexico border is actually at about 80% "operational control" (and the rest is "monitored").
None of the facts in Rep. Quayle's are incorrect (although some of his rhetoric appears to be misleading). However, juxtaposition matters. In this case, he has only cited the 44% figure, purposely ignored the 100% and 70% figures for the Arizona sectors, yet repeatedly referred to Arizona, Arizonans, Arizona ranchers. The conclusion can only be that the statement misleads his constituents into believing that more than half of Arizona's border is out of control.
(Warning: Fact-checking/journalism wonk discussion ahead:) You may be wondering why "juxtaposition matters," and whether it is legitimate to diss a politician - or others - for saying/writing things that are correct yet still create a false impression. Especially when he or she (or they) have omitted relevant facts. I have often wondered that, too. This is what I found and why I decided to downgrade Rep. Quayle's full statement.
The two highest-profile fact-checking organizations have both repeatedly recognized the way in which juxtaposition of true comments or images can still earn the speaker/writer/etc low fact-checking marks. Two recent examples which I found yesterday: (1) Factcheck.org dinged the Crossroads organization for juxtaposing a candidate's comment that the healthcare reform bill would reduce deficits with the announcer's intonation that "instead, we got... record deficits". As Factcheck points out, the deficits were not caused by the healthcare reform law; (2) Politifact.com hammered Sen. Harry Reid for implying in December that Arizona Sen. John McCain did not support repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because of the economy. Reid omitted the context that McCain was talking about relative priorities; and (3) PolitiFact rated as "barely true" a Congressional candidate who lauded former President Reagan's tax cuts for creating exponential growth while omitting the fact that Reagan later had to approve substantial tax increases.
Also relevant is how our justice system is handling such situations. Courts in several states have recognized a cause of action known as "defamation by implication". In fact, it is set forth in one of the key legal texts (by Prosser and Keeton) on tort laws: Defamation by implication occurs where "the defendant juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them, or creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts." (A classic case is from the 1970's in Tennessee, where a news report noted that a woman shot her husband and another woman when she found them together in the second woman's living room;" the report neglected to mention that there were others in the room at the time, thereby putting the lie to the implication that they were in the living room having "an adulterous affair".)
Rep. Quayle's statement deserves a clarification, and Arizona's Politics has asked for one. Until then, Quayle deserves his grade of "D" (which also stands for "deceptive").
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Quick Roundup Of Some Of More Interesting Speculations About Arizona's 2012 U.S. Senate Race
Arizona's Politics tried to bring some straightforward coverage of the Jon Kyl retirement announcement and the reactions it engendered. And, if you have not yet seen our posts about Kyl's net worth declining while in the Senate, and about the fundraising effort designed to urge Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to run for the seat... well, please click on and read those before reading the articles linked below!
Most of the articles and columns speculating about who will run to be the 11th (according to comments made by Kyl yesterday) U.S. Senator from Arizona were pretty standard fare. However, some did add to the big picture. Arizona Republic D.C. reporter Dan Nowicki apparently spoke with Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) last week and confirmed that he is interested. Real Clear Politics added that they found Arizona sources who said that former Arizona Governor (current Homeland Security Secy.) Janet Napolitano "has already begun calling out to activists in the state to gauge support."
This Talking Points Memo report cites an anonymous Arizona Democratic source as trying to forestall other Democrats from getting into the race until the recovering Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) makes a decision as to whether she is willing/able to run for the seat. Yes, her recovery seems to be proceeding miraculously, but this surprised the heck out of me. The Washington Times advanced the Giffords angle last night by getting well-known Arizona pollster Bruce Merrill to state (on the record) that she would be a "shoo-in" if she is able to and decides to run.
Oh, I almost forgot: I did try to find my own mini-scoop in the speculation sweepstakes. At about noon, I came across this brief tweet from former Rep. Harry Mitchell: "Things are going to get interesting." I could not resist replying thusly: "@HarryEMitchell Fmr staffers Tweeted they'd like YOU to run; any other comment than "things are going to get interesting"? Are you running?" Mitchell has not tweeted since.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Most of the articles and columns speculating about who will run to be the 11th (according to comments made by Kyl yesterday) U.S. Senator from Arizona were pretty standard fare. However, some did add to the big picture. Arizona Republic D.C. reporter Dan Nowicki apparently spoke with Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) last week and confirmed that he is interested. Real Clear Politics added that they found Arizona sources who said that former Arizona Governor (current Homeland Security Secy.) Janet Napolitano "has already begun calling out to activists in the state to gauge support."
This Talking Points Memo report cites an anonymous Arizona Democratic source as trying to forestall other Democrats from getting into the race until the recovering Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) makes a decision as to whether she is willing/able to run for the seat. Yes, her recovery seems to be proceeding miraculously, but this surprised the heck out of me. The Washington Times advanced the Giffords angle last night by getting well-known Arizona pollster Bruce Merrill to state (on the record) that she would be a "shoo-in" if she is able to and decides to run.
Oh, I almost forgot: I did try to find my own mini-scoop in the speculation sweepstakes. At about noon, I came across this brief tweet from former Rep. Harry Mitchell: "Things are going to get interesting." I could not resist replying thusly: "@HarryEMitchell Fmr staffers Tweeted they'd like YOU to run; any other comment than "things are going to get interesting"? Are you running?" Mitchell has not tweeted since.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)