FACT CHECK: Natl Republicans Earn An "F" On Ad Attacking Arizona Democrat; Frequently Debunked Claims

The new NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) attack ad airing in southern Arizona for the special election to replace retired Rep. Gabrielle Giffords implores voters not to "send Obama and Pelosi a rubber stamp" by electing Democratic nominee Ron Barber.  However, their ad provides something of a "rubber stamp" of a frequently-used Republican claim that has been frequently found to be false.


We transcribed the ad in our previous post, but will paste it here, too:

(clip of Barber)  "...Because I've seen what we need to do: rebuild our middle class."(serious female announcer)  That sounds nice, but Ron Barber supported the same failing agenda that has hurt Arizona.  Barber supported Obamacare, which cuts $500 billion in Medicare and puts a board of unelected bureaucrats in charge.  Positions on the issues matter.  We can't send Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi a rubber stamp.  The National Republican Congressional Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. 

The claim about "the same failing agenda that has hurt Arizona" is a bit difficult to fact check.  It is unclear what it refers to specifically, and "failing" and "hurt" can be somewhat of "an eye of the beholder" situation.  There is no doubt that Arizona/Arizonans - like the rest of the country and the world - has sufferered as a result of the economy.  It is indisputable that that economy - and Arizona's housing bubble, in particular - started to burst while Obama was campaigning and there was a Republican in the White House and an Arizona Republican running against Obama.  Many Republicans do try to muddy the timeline and do dispute whether his policies (both attempted and what he was able to from Congress) were the best for our economy.

However, there is no such problem in fact checking the claims about Medicare, and both are false or, at best, very misleading.  Republicans have been using the "cuts $500 billion in Medicare" claim for the last two years and every fact-checking http://bit.ly/JYioUDhas found it to be "false".  To summarize their analyses - which I encourage you to check out - the healthcare insurance reform law now widely known as "Obamacare" attempts to slow future increases in spending on Medicare but does not make cuts to benefits or current spending.*

The "board of unelected bureaucrats in charge" has some basis in fact but is very misleading.  The law does set up the Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which is what the ad is apparently alluding to.  However, the board is neither "unelected bureaucrats" nor "in charge."  The IMAB will be made up of people from many different walks of life and specialties - including health insurance companies, employers, consumers and the elderly - they are appointed by the President with input from leaders of both parties in each house of Congress, and they have term limits.  (Read pages 502-504 of the PPACA.)  In addition, any proposals that this Board comes up with are submitted to Congress for consideration, and they cannot propose reducing Medicare payment rates before 2018. (Read pages 491 forward, at the link above.)

As for the rubber stamp claim, that is a matter of opinion, given that there is no track record to see how he will vote if he is elected in the June special election.  (Realistically, there will probably be even fewer key votes between June and the November election than at other times.)  But, Barber has indicated that the law "is far from perfect" and need to be revised.  That may or may not make him a non-rubber stamp, because it is unlikely that Obama and Pelosi feel that the law is perfect, either, and the latter two might actually encourage Barber to propose amendments if elected.

But, the overall ad against Barber continues to spout scare lines that have been repeatedly denounced as false and misleading.  Repeating proven false-isms do not turn them into truths, and it is not only maddeningly annoying, but should be met with well-publicized venom.

For that, the NRCC ad deserves not just one "F", but three.  In this case, the "FFF" grade stands for "False with Freakin' Frequency".


* A good paragraph from one PolitiFact article:  "The projected $500 billion in savings will come from changes that include higher insurance premiums for wealthier seniors, reductions in payments for Medicare Advantage plans, a new panel to oversee reimbursement rates, and a slowing of increases in payment rates to hospitals and other service providers each year. (Neuman explains the changes in a video tutorial on the Kaiser Family Foundation's website.)" 


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 or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.

FACT CHECK and UPDATE: Rep. Gosar Claims He Voted Today "To Lower Gas Prices...In Arizona"; Support?

Earlier today, we reported on Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar's (R-CD1) speech yesterday in support of H.R. 1229, named as the "Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act".  This afternoon, the House approved the measure on a party line vote, and Gosar's office quickly trumpeted his vote "to lower gas prices".

The bill would extend existing oil exploration leases in the Gulf of Mexico (which were affected by the drilling moratorium) and fast track government decisions on permit applications.  Republicans believe that it will lead to more drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf more quickly, while the Obama Administration opposes it because jeopardizes safety by restricting the review of the permit applications.  The CBO notes that it will increase the budget deficit by $10M in 2013 because it will delay existing claims being put out to auction.

Our earlier post did not mention Rep. Gosar's unsupported claim that the bill would lower gas prices, believing it to be a small bit of rhetorical hyperbole.  However, now that Gosar is headlining that dubious impact, it deserves greater inspection.

First, it bears repeating that Rep. Gosar has provided no support for his claim in either his speech (admittedly, just a one-minute thumbnail) or his press release.  Second, even the leaders in the Republican party behind this bill are not claiming that it will actually lower gas prices anytime soon. 

Finally, independent analyses claiming that it will help lower prices at the pump are non-existent; here is one that says it will be seven or eight years before these areas will produce large enough quantities to have an effect.  Top that off with well-known gas price analyst Trilby Lundberg stating that prices are already beginning to come down, anyway, and you have even less support for Gosar's claim.  (By the way, "topping it off" is only a wise way to minimize gasoline expenditures when prices are rising; given Lundberg's - and Gosar's - claims, you are not advised to top off your tank.)

Grandstanding on gas prices is a tradition among politicians of all stripes.  However, like so many before him, Rep. Gosar's claim that he just voted to lower the price at the pump is little more than the nasty vapor seeping out as you put another couple of gallons into your vehicle.

GRADE: 85 (= "D").  Just as we no longer have the lower grades available at the gas station, we should do away with claims like Gosar's.




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.

FACT CHECK FOLLOW-UP: CBO (Politely) Calls Out GOP - and Schweikert - On Healthcare Law Costs

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office ("CBO" has struck back at the Republicans' use of its report from last Friday, strongly suggesting that the GOP misrepresented its analysis.

Yesterday, Arizona's Politics Fact-Checked Arizona Rep. David Schweikert's (R-CD5) - and the GOP's- claims that the costs associated with the healthcare reform law that went into effect last year had just risen by $500 billion (to $1.445 trillion).  While unable to uncover where they had come up with that number - even in the CBO's budgetary analysis that was apparently the source that the Republicans had latched onto - we noted that Schweikert and fellow Republicans were studiously ignoring the larger picture of the net effect of the law on the federal budget deficit and that the repeal of the law would increase the deficit.

Late yesterday, after the Fact Check was researched and written, but before it was posted, the CBO posted on its Director's blog a clarification of the issue.  It appears that the CBO was not pleased with the selective use of its figures.  (This was probably exacerbated by the fact that the Republicans had been blasting the CBO for its analysis of last year's law and of the GOP proposed repeal.)

While not lending itself to easy quoting, the new CBO blog post does make it clear that: (1) the CBO's adjustments to the estimated cost of expanding health insurance coverage were slight and based on technical changes and updated economic inputs; (2) one cannot automatically infer a re-estimate of the entire budgetary impact of the law; (3) the CBO still is secure in its earlier conclusion that the entire law reduces the deficit through 2021 by approximately $210 billion; (4) that the Republicans' talking point ONLY comes from the "gross effect" of the insurance coverage provisions and blurs different time periods (last year's estimate covered 2010-19 and the new one 2012-21); and (5) that the CBO will continue to make these types of adjustments, and the figures will "probably change again in the future for all of those same reasons."

While adding the caveats that the GOP should have included - that the CBO has not re-estimated the entire budgetary impact - it is reasonable to infer from the CBO's report in February on the estimated total deficit reduction effect of the 2010 healthcare reform law ($210 billion), and the 8.5% increase between February and last week in the estimated net effect of the insurance coverage provisions ($89 billion), (and assuming that the other provisions' estimated effects have not changed since last month) that the estimated total deficit reduction effect of the 2010 healthcare reform law is presently estimated at $121 billion between 2012-2021.  On the other hand, for that same period, repeal of the 2010 healthcare reform law is presently estimated to increase the federal deficit by approximately $121 billion between 2012-2021.

One further addition  to yesterday's Fact Check: we noted that Schweikert claimed that the "job-killing" healthcare reform law added $670 billion dollars in taxes.  Here is a Politifact analysis breaking down the amounts of taxes in the law - they could not come up with a legitimate figure (from the CBO or the Joint Committee on Taxation) for the next ten years (through 2019) of more than $525 billion.

With the new information from the CBO - and, unless and until we are presented with a factual defense of the GOP's claims - we are giving Schweikert and the GOP a Fact Checked grade of "F" for the false use of numbers. 


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.

(Quickie) FACT CHECK: Arizona Rep. David Schweikert (One Of Many GOP'ers) Misleading Re: Healthcare Reform This Week

The Tweet from Arizona Rep. David Schweikert (R-CD5) caught my eye: "The cost of #Obamacare would buy you all 32 NFL Teams, 30 NBA Teams , 30 MLB Teams , and 30 NHL Teams almost 8 times."  Honestly, my first thought was how that action would affect whether the Phoenix Coyotes stay in town.  My second thought was that that figure needs to be fact checked.

First stop, the document Schweikert cites in the Tweet.  Not much help, just a brief Republican talking point from the Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  It indicates that the CBO's (the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office) latest estimates put the "cost of Obamacare has increased by $500 billion", for a total cost of $1.445 trillion.  Unfortunately, the GOP does not bother to cite where they received that from.

The next stop was to Rep. Schweikert's website, to see if we could glean more details.  The figure is there in his news release, along with the claims that last year's law includes "$670 billion in new taxes and counting", that it is "job-killing" and that his vote for repealing it "is a much better way."

Still no hint on where the $500 billion increase/$1.445 trillion total is gleaned from.  Next stop, the CBO's own website.  Nothing there on their "health" page - not since February 18, that is, when the CBO made it clear that they thought that the House Republicans' repeal would make our federal budget deficit WORSE by $251 billion between 2012-19!

Perhaps the Republicans are speaking of this CBO analysis of the President's 2012 budget submission, dated March 18, 2011.  However, after wading through the wonky document - particularly pages 14-15 and the table on page 22 - I could only find evidence that the CBO has concluded that changed estimates had a positive (downward) effect on the budget deficit over the next ten years.

Without being able to know what data Schweikert - and, the GOP in general - is relying upon, it is impossible to fully evaluate their claims.  However, what is certain is that they are leaving out the most important part of the data - the bottom line.  The CBO has scored the healthcare reform law as being positive for reducing the federal budget deficit (and the overall U.S. economy, for that matter), and has blasted the GOP's reform as increasing that deficit.

Misleading, at best.

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.

Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce's Nightmare Spam Act: "For Just $250", He'll "FAX Every Member of Congress and Obama Every Day for 5 Days"

It is not every day that you get an e-mail from the President of the Arizona State Senate, offering to help me petition Congress.  But, that is just what Russell Pearce (R-LD18) and his anti-illegal immigration group sent me (and the more than 800,000 people*1 presumably on their e-mail lists) yesterday.

Pearce is not only the President of the State Senate and the "Tea Party Senate President", but is also the "Honorary National Co-Chairman of BanAmnestyNow.com".  In that role, he signed and blasted out an e-mail with the subject line "Fax Congress and Help Me Secure the Border." Along with the usual rundown of the battles he has won and is fighting (and the proven-false statistic thrown in), and the request for money to keep fighting ("...to protect American and American families."), Pearce repeatedly asks his supporters to click on the link to "FAX Congress".   (text of e-mail below the jump)

Click on the link, and you are sent to B.A.N.'s "Contribution" section, and a page to "Send Blast Faxes To Congress", for the stated purpose of "Stop(ping) Congress From Passing the DREAM Act!"  It is a convenient way to donate to B.A.N. while letting them do the hard work of exercising your Constitutional right of petitioning Congress and the President.

The options are enticing and run the gamut from hitting just the Senators from one party or the other ($19), all 100 Senators ($29), all 435 Representatives ($99), and all 535 MOC's plus President Obama ($119).  All well and good, and a fine way to exercise our free market rights and our free speech rights simultaneously.

But, wait.  B.A.N. offers this "SPECIAL- FAX Every Member of Congress and Obama Every Day for 5 Days - Let them know you mean business for just $250".  That's right.  Because nothing lets a Congressperson know you mean business like placing your name in the "From" line with Pearce, Arpaio, Tancredo, Buchanan and McCaffrey and sending the same generic message over and over and over (and over and over).  (Let's not even discuss the propriety of a State Senate President and a tax-exempt political organization adding to our national debt by wasting Congressional resources.)

By the way, the proposed fax does not explicitly address the "DREAM Act" that must be stopped.  Instead, it is a laundry list that includes "opposition to the dangerous and divisive amnesty schemes proposed and promoted by Barack Obama and others in Washington."  It requests the recipients' to "join us in our mission to save our great nation."

Pearce's e-mail seems to suggest that the pay-for-faxes and contributions help him and B.A.N. to travel "to the recent court hearings in liberal San Francisco" to "defend SB-1070 in the courts" and to pass similar laws in all 50 states. 

It is hard to figure out where the line is drawn between Pearce's legitimate private life fundraising for a tax-exempt organization (which he may or may not receive support from), his political campaign committee's activities, and his government-paid expenses.  For example, it would appear that Pearce's campaign committee reimbursed Pearce on November 5 for airfare and lodging, in the amount of $551.17.  (The hearings in "liberal San Francisco" took place the week before.)

The Arizona Senate President using his position and prestige to solicit monies for a massive Congress-bombarding operation would seem to be a major effort at erasing those lines altogether.

(NOW how much would you pay for a fax? BUT WAIT, here's more:)

BONUS POINTS:
1) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio removed himself as Pearce's "Honorary Co-Chair" of B.A.N. last October after B.A.N. sent out an e-mail over Arpaio's signature calling for an army of volunteers to monitor polling places.  However, Arpaio's name remains on the fax that Pearce is hawking, and is still all over the website.
2) Pearce sticks to his guns;  however, this time his "guns" are false statistics.  His e-mail repeats the oft-discredited statistic that "more than 9,100 Americans are killed each year by illegal aliens."  Arizona Republic's Fact Check thoroughly demonstrated that Pearce and Iowa Rep. Steve King could not validate their "fact". (And Arizona's Politics took the Republic to task for claiming that theevidence was "inconclusive"; Pearce's claim deserved - and deserves - a "double F" for False Fact.)
3) Pearce's e-mail to stop the Dream Act came mere hours before Obama mentioned two specific immigration-related measures in the State of the Union address: the Dream Act and the STAPLE Act.  The latter bill was re-introduced in Congress the day before by Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6).
4) Pearce and his B.A.N. buddies really need to be more careful and proofread and/or update their appeals.  Not only do they bounce back and forth and back again about the main topic, but they have not even updated their Senate numbers to reflect the gains that the GOP made in November's election.
5) What is up with Pearce self-identifying as the "Tea Party Senate President"?

FACT CHECK: Ducey Running Ad Heavy On Election Day; "Desperate"

I rarely see any morning TV, but I made it a point to turn it on this a.m. in order to see what ads were still running.  Between the gym at 5:00 and now, I have seen Doug Ducey's ad titled "Andrei Cherny: Desperate" four times.  While it was put up on YouTube nearly a month ago (Oct. 7), this was the first time I had logged it.

The hybrid negative/positive ad starts with "Andrei Cherny launches a desperate and false attack." Also, on the screen, is featured a still of the Cherny ad with the Arizona Republic headline clearly visible.  The headline states: "Treasurer candidate Ducey didn't pay '08, '09 tax." 

The ad goes on to state "the truth" about Ducey: that he is an "honored businessman" who created hundreds of Arizona jobs.  That he is endorsed by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and the Arizona Republic.

It then turns on Cherny: alleging that he was a California political insider who authored Obama's failed economic plan.  Finally, that Cherny's investment plans for Arizona are "risky" and "possibly illegal".

Claim (1) Cherny's desperate and false attack: Ducey is obviously referring to Cherny's ad which has been running for several weeks (though I have not - yet - seen it today).  Arizona's Politics Fact Checked that ad a month ago, and gave it a grade of "C-"; it was not false, although I challenged its methodology to come up with its estimate of the "cost to taxpayers" of defaulted Cold Stone Creamery franchises and placing all of the liability in Ducey's column.  Not quite the "false attack" Ducey's ad boldly claims.

Ducey's claim is made even worse by the combination of the narration and the visual: the only part of the Cherny ad that Ducey shows is the TRUE claim that Ducey had not paid his property taxes.  Ducey has even admitted that that happened, and was a mistake.  By using that still from the Cherny ad (rather than the "cost taxpayers $53 million" image), Ducey is making a false (and desperate?) attack.
       GRADE: "F"

Claim (2) Honored businessman who created hundreds of jobs, endorsements: He has been honored and he has helped create jobs.  He has received those endorsements.
       GRADE: "A"

Claim (3) Cherny is California political insider who authored Obama's failed economic plan:  I could find no evidence to support that Cherny is a "California political insider";  in fact, he lost a race for the California Assembly before moving here to marry and raise a family.  He has claimed to have co-authored Obama's plan, while asserting that the ideas were obviously Obama's.
       GRADE: "C"

Claim (4) Cherny's plans are "risky" and "possibly illegal":  Ducey's ad uses his Arizona Republic endorsement for these terms for Cherny's suggestion to safely invest some of state government's monies in companies that benefit the state economy.  The Republic's editorial writers are certainly not qualified to make such legal judgments, but Ducey is free to use them in his ads.  (Interestingly, in that same endorsement, the Republic does note that Ducey failed to pay his taxes - see claim #1.)  Nevertheless, it is somewhat misleading to make the suggestion that Cherny would be able to make an illegal shift in investment policy.
       GRADE: "B"

OVERALL GRADE:  Because the negative attacks are much more heavily weighted in this ad - especially Claim (1) - overall, this ad grades out at about a "D+".


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.

FACT CHECK: The Anti-Dial Mailer (LD20) That Spurred Massive (Sign) Counter-Attack; Where Is SEIU? For That Matter, Where Is Arizona List?

Yesterday, Arizona's Politics was the first to begin reporting on the massive (8' X 8', not 4x8 as mentioned yesterday) signs which GOP nominee
1) Initial Post, With Text of Signs
2) FACT CHECK Of Dial's Signs, Web Page
3) View the Mailer Being Fact Checked Here

Today, we Fact Check the (previously) mysterious mailer that touched off the sign firestorm.  As a bonus, we revisit yesterday's Fact Check of Dial's web page.

The headline of the mailer (under a picture of a woman supposedly reacting negatively to the headless man standing behind her chair) is "Jeff Dial was kicked out of his Republican group for 'harassment of women.'"  It also notes that it is "paid for by East Valley Education Council. Funding from Arizona List. 520-327-0520."

The flip side of the mailer notes that the vote was unanimous and that there was "news coverage".  It cites the group blog/website (mentioned in our 2nd post yesterday) "Political Mafioso" as its source.

Unfortunately for the East Valley Education Council ("EVEC")/Arizona List, that blog post does NOT cite "news coverage" nor "press reports" for its (thorough if not one-sided) discussion of Dial's activities.  It DOES cite "news coverage" for the arrest of Arizona GOP Executive Director Brett Mecum (who the blog poster claims is a roommate/co-conspirator of Dial's), and it IS a bit tricky to delineate where the "press report" ended and the blog post resumed.  However, it is easy to see that this lengthy discussion of the in-fighting and the alleged "hostile takeover" took place nowhere other than in this anonymous blog post.  (Sidenote: My post yesterday noted that the website was contributed to by several Republicans including Scott Bundgaard;  it did not indicate that Bundgaard had written the voluminous post.)

So, the raison d'etre for this mailer - the headline and half of the substance - is based solely on one anonymous enemy's wordy post.  Bad.  Very bad.

The third claim (#2 also came from "Ghost" at Political Mafioso) is that "Dial lied about his education."  It cites an Arizona Republic article from Aug. 21, 2004 that states that "he has not or never attained a degree". (from Dial's first campaign for the house seat).  Dial's response was to post a picture of his diploma and to say that the article was "retracted".  The picture shows that the diploma was dated Aug. 6, 2004.  the story and the diploma could have "crossed in the mail." The article is not found on the internet, so it may indeed have been removed. 

The mailer does not claim that he never received a degree, it claims that he "lied about his education" when he "told a reporter he graduated in spring 2004."  If that is true, he did lie if he did not receive it until August. 

Finally, the mailer states that Dial was "caught lying in his campaign".  It cites the Arizona Republic Fact Check that Arizona's Politics has also written about.  A portion of Dial's "issues" section of his website claims that "liberal Arizona legislators have recently offered reducing sentence times and prison stays for violent criminals just to help balance the state budget."  The Republic found it to be "false", and Arizona's Politics has left a number of messages for Mr. Dial asking him whether he plans to respond or remove the false information.  Follow-up posts have brought this to the public's attention.  (Most recent example)  Still, the lie was about one sentence from an otherwise decent "issues" section; to imply that the Republic gave Jeff Dial - as a person - "it's (sic) lowest possible rating for truthfulness" is less than truthful itself.

So, the main half of the mailer is pushing anonymous gossip about in-fighting as being fact.  If it had accurately sourced it instead of claiming to be using "news coverage" and "press reports", it might have passed.  Barely.  The second half is a bit misleading, but is not false.

Overall, this mailer gets a grade of "F".  The 2nd half is not enough to offset the headlining half.

Due to the length of this post, I have moved the portion discussing the origin of this mailer to a new post, and will update the Dial Fact Check on that post.



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.

FACT CHECK: Illegal Immigration Urgent Alert - Calling Politicians' Statements "Facts" Doesn't Make 'Em So

Four days, four facts.  This e-mail from Ban Amnesty Now is SCREAMING for us to "STOP Illegals from Stealing the Election!" It cites four "facts":  one is exaggerating a Washington Post article about illegal immigrants campaigning door to door, another claims that "illegal voters" have been registered across the nation, and the other two are opinions expressed by politicians (AZ Gov. Brewer and KS Secy of State candidate Kobach). It accuses President Obama of fighting to disenfranchise U.S. citizens.

The entire e-mail is after the jump.  Here are the highlights.

Fact 1: "Thousands of illegal aliens have already organized and taken to the streets...." 

Well, there was an Associated Press reporter who cited one woman and said "The 42-year-old is one of dozens of volunteers - many of them illegal immigrants - canvassing neighborhoods in the Seattle area trying to get naturalized citizens to cast a ballot for candidates like Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, who is in a neck-to-neck race with Republican Dino Rossi." (emphasis added)  I could find no evidence to swell that less than "dozens" into "thousands"; it may be B.A.N.'s opinion, but cannot be cited as fact without some evidence.

Facts 2 & 4: “The illegal registration of alien voters has become pervasive.” And, "The same pro-amnesty criminals working in states like Washington to turn out pro-amnesty voters have been working to register illegal voters all over the nation!"

The first quote is from Kris Kobach, identified as the attorney who helped write SB1070. No evidence, all opinion.  Not fact. 

The second cites rumors flying around the internet that "more than 65%" of voter registrations submitted by Mi Familia Vota y One Arizona were invalid and that many belonged to "non-citizens".  Arizona's conservative Secretary of State Ken Bennett himself labeled those as "rumors...without merit" and provided the real numbers.

Fact 3:  The U.S. and Mexico Presidents (Obama and Calderon) are not only conspiring to fight SB1070, but to keep the border insecure and to send illegal immigrants north to register and vote in U.S. elections.

The source for this "fact" is Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.  No evidence to back it up.  Opinion, not fact.

This "Ban Amnesty Now" screed/fundraiser gets a (low) "F" grade.  "F" for full of.........opinions, but not facts.  Read it in its entirety after the jump.

FACT CHECK: AZ GOP Chair Tries To Tie Harry Mitchell To The Tracks, But Uses Faulty Rope And Comes Out The Villain

Apparently, Democrats hammering away at GOP nominee David Schweikert (CD5) has struck a nerve.  This afternoon, AZ GOP Chair Randy Pullen attempts to smear incumbent Rep. Harry Mitchell with real estate-related allegations.  Upon review, however, the reports he uses fall apart quickly.

Pullen's news release is headlined "All Aboard For Self-Interest."  The money quote from Pullen: "The reports coming out about Congressman Mitchell requesting millions for a Metro light rail study is especially troubling. If he has financially benefited from an insider information voters should hold him accountable. Evidently, when people say that the country is on the wrong track, they meant it literally and figuratively."

I had not heard of these "reports", so some investigation was necessary.  It turns out that it was written by (one or) two Republican operatives/researchers/journalists who posted their faulty analysis on RedState.com.  They titled it "Harry Mitchell Is the Poster Boy For Earmark Reform".  (Amazingly, it was picked up and re-posted verbatim in Schweikert's website's newsroom later that day.)

The substance that so excited Pullen is that Rep. Mitchell has requested $6.4 Million dollars for preliminary engineering for extension of Phoenix' light rail (hence all of the train puns from Pullen - and Arizona's Politics).  As RedSky explains, "Sounds great, except Mitchell’s company owns three homes in that study area."

However, the three small (824-1,188 sq.ft.), old (1945-1965) homes west of the ASU campus are NOT in the study area.*  They ARE close to the study area and would be within walking distance of a potential streetcar line in the ASU area; however, to even suggest that  the near-the-study-area houses would benefit from the transit extension is hard to imagine.  That neighborhood is extremely campus-centric and that would not change;  if anything, easier mass transit access to ASU from south Tempe and north Chandler would likely make it easier for Mitchell's future potential tenants to live farther away from campus.

The RedSky post concludes by claiming that there was no excuse for Mitchell not to sell the student homes when he went to Congress, and accuses him of "us(ing) the earmarking process to make some money on the side."

Bad enough, but Pullen pulled it farther into falsity and ludicrousness when he made the allegation (in the form of asking a question) that Mitchell "financially benefited from an (sic) insider information."

The GOP Chair gets a grade of "F" - for failure and falseness - for this feeble effort to counter the Democrats' drumbeat on Schweikert's real estate activities.





*Study area is bounded on the west by the railroad tracks; MCC Property Investments owns three properties on Roosevelt Street, which is west of the tracks.  By the way, Mitchell does not "run" MCC Property Investments, as alleged by RedSky.  And, property baron that he is, MCC only owns one other property in Maricopa County, and Mitchell personally owns only his Tempe home - which, by the way, IS in the study area.



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.

FACT CHECK: Ad Attacking Grijalva Focuses On Boycott, "Deciding Vote"

Yesterday, Arizona's Politics posted about the quarter-million dollar ad buy by the Republican-affiliated group "Americans for Tax Reform" opposing Rep. Raul Grijalva (Dem., CD7), which was significant in its effect of expanding the playing field for Republicans and forcing Democrats to spend money in districts previously thought of as safe.  You can watch the 30-second ad here.

The ad focuses on two attacks: Grijalva's earlier support of a boycott of Arizona because of the anti-immigration law signed by Governor Brewer, and Grijalva's casting the decisive vote in Congress' decision to adjourn last month without extending the "Bush tax cuts."

First, the ad correctly notes that Arizona is facing a 10% unemployment rate and that the rate is the highest in 27 years (since the early Reagan years, by the way, when it hit 11.6%). 

The ad also almost perfectly represents the Arizona Republic editorial of May 1, in which they scolded many Arizona political figures from both parties (in order, Brewer, Napolitano, McCain, Kyl, Hayworth, Gordon, Pearce, Grijalva, Thomas, and Arpaio) for failing Arizona.  The editorial did say it was "a call for destruction of his own state's economy is irresponsible and beneath contempt."

However, the ad crosses into misleading territory when it states that "instead of fighting for tax relief for our families, Grijalva cast the deciding vote to go home...." The text on the screen finishes the sentence, stating "...without finishing his job."

You know it must be early ballot time when...

...you get mailings from Planned Parenthood and National Right to Life on the same day. (And, no, they did not agree on Harry Mitchell or David Schweikert - that won't happen 'til the lion and the lamb hang out together or something.) NARAL has also filed that they spent money on mailers - mine must have been delayed due to Columbus day.


By the way, the real point of this post is that I would like to fact check as many of these mailers as possible over the next few weeks. So, please feel free to scan and e-mail material that you believe should be looked at more closely. Thanks!




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.

FACT CHECKING THE FACT CHECKS: Pearce, Arizona Republic, Rep. Steve King All Get "F's"; Arizona Republic's "Illegal Immigrants and Crime" - Wimpiest Fact Check Ever?

Arizona's Politics hearts Fact Checking (in case you had not yet noticed).  And, given the responses to several Fact Check articles on this site, I am not alone in loving accountability when a candidate/officeholder tells a whopper.  However, much of the benefits of good (and well-distributed) fact-checking can be completely undone by wimpiness in expressing an opinion as to the truth or falsity of the item being checked.

Now, it is unlikely that the reporters at the Arizona Republic/Channel 12/Cronkite School are the individuals determining what the final rating of a statement is.  Especially, when it is an ASU journalism school student doing the reporting.  Because it is hard to imagine that an award-winning student reporter who has already demonstrated a journalist's (good) strong principles would do the reporting that he has on State Sen. Russell Pearce's (R-LD18) use of statistics and still come up with a finding of "inconclusive."

Background: Pearce sends out a fund-raising, get-your-attention e-mail for "Ban Amnesty Now".  In it, he states as fact that "an estimated 9,000 American citizens are killed every year by illegal aliens.  That's 25 American citizens per day killed by illegal aliens, averaging 12 by stabbings and shootings and 13 by DUI and related crimes."

Student reporter Vaughn Hillyard did a thorough job trying to track down ANY backup for Pearce's stats.  He learned that Pearce attributes it to a report released by conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) in 2006.  Interestingly, Hillyard learns that King's office has tried, but cannot find a copy of their report.  Nor, can they figure out how they came up with the numbers.

Hillyard tracks down a GAO (Government Accountability Office) report from 2005 - which King has apparently asked the GAO to update - and finds that it does not support the Pearce/King numbers.  Hillyard checks the FBI's uniform crime report, two organizations that study immigration, and the Department of Homeland Security - none of which has wanted to and/or been able to come up with such a number. For good measure, the reporter reaches an author/university professor in the area, who flat-out states that the statistic "is complete fabrication."

"The Finding" from the Arizona Republic? "INCONCLUSIVE".  Wow.  Even the source's office says that they cannot find the report or back it up.

The Republic published that bold fact check in the paper on September 21 - it was on the website a couple of days before that.

Interestingly, just as Arizona's Politics was researching this article last Friday, we found that the Republic had removed the Fact Check from its database.  Completely gone, no explanation.

Today, we were going to research THAT, when we re-checked and found that an UPDATED version was posted last night.

King's office apparently found the missing report, and learned that it does NOT include the statistic in question.  So, alas, the new version adds another nail in the coffin yet retains the "INCONCLUSIVE" finding!

So, does the "inconclusive" finding have any justification?  After all, a Congressman must have had something to back up his trumpeting of an inflammatory number, right?  It comes down to that old adage of "you can't prove a negative," and the legal version of who has the burden of proof.

The Republic has obviously determined - for whatever reason - to give Pearce the benefit of the doubt and to take on the burden of disproving anything Pearce might say.  Even though Pearce and King (and other like-minded individuals) are using the statistic to alarm people, the Republic does not believe that the legislators have the burden of proving their numbers with verifiable information.

Is this a standard determination for others doing fact checking?  No.  While the major fact checkers are accustomed to being criticized from all sides for their difficult calls, they consistently put the burden on the person making the claim in dispute.

The most recent example is likely this one where PolitiFact gave comedian/pundit Bill Maher an unqualified "False" rating for repeating a statement that he had just read in an Associated Press news report.  The claim (that we still have some natural gas pipelines in the U.S. made from wood) is disputed, but Maher got a false rating for innocently repeating it.  Here is the very relevant final paragraph, with the spot-on final sentence:

Does this establish conclusively that there is no wooden pipe currently in use? No -- it's impossible to prove that without exposing every inch of the 2 million-plus miles of natural gas pipe in the country. We also can see why Maher would have trusted an AP report (if that's what he did) since we, too, tend to give the AP a high degree of credibility. Still, if you eliminate the AP's claim of existing wood pipe, since Kocher now disputes it, we see no evidence that wood pipe is currently being used. And since the burden of proof for the Truth-o-Meter falls on the speaker, we rate Maher's claim False.  (underlining added)

That is the ONLY place that the burden of proof should rest for a Fact Check!  A Fact Checker must be bold enough to call a statement without proof "FALSE".  I doubt that a fact check reporter - student or otherwise - would do all the checking that was done in this case, only to conclude that the reporting was inconclusive;  an editor or publisher could/would do that. 

Arizona's Politics will, therefore, hand out the following grades:
1) State Sen. Russell Pearce: "F" for False.
2) Rep. Steve King: "F" for Failing to Find report... or supporting data.
3) Student Reporter Vaughn Hillyard: "A" for Accurately tracking down every possible source of
      supporting data.
4) Arizona Republic: "F" for their Feeble Fact Check "Finding".  (And, a "W" for Wimpiness,
      and a "Q" for the Questionable removal of first story.)

Disclosure: Arizona's Politics has NO connection with any of the parties mentioned in this story.

We welcome your comments about this post. If you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

FACT CHECK: Gosar's Declaration of Kirkpatrick's Non-independence; Accusation of Misleading Is, Itself, Misleading

The Tweet from Paul Gosar this morning caught my attention - as Tweets are supposed to do.  The Republican candidate for CD1 stated: "Kirkpatrick doesn't like it when voters tweet about her votes in DC so here are all of them, including Obamacare http://bit.ly/dftInI ." 

Well, that seems kind of odd.  First, I have not heard about Kirkpatrick not liking "it" or getting involved.  Heck, she probably has the only campaign in the state that does not even use Twitter.  Search for "Ann Kirkpatrick" on Twitter and you will find a bunch of people with that name, but none of them seem to be a Representative running for re-election. 

Second, what kind of point is Gosar making posting her entire voting record?  I love Project Vote Smart as much or more than the next guy - heck, it was even started by former Arizona Corporation Commissioner and U.S. Senate candidate* Richard Kimball - but glancing quickly at Kirkpatrick's record there just gave me the impression that she votes AGAINST the majority quite a bit.

I searched Gosar's website for additional clues.  Not surprisingly, I found a news release from Wednesday, with this headline that just begged for some fact checking: "Kirkpatrick Misleads Voters Again; 86% Voting Record with Nancy Pelosi is not 'Independent'".  To support the claim that she votes for the "Obama-Pelosi agenda time and again", the Gosar campaign cites Kirkpatrick's vote for the stimulus plan and the budget.  Finally, they cite a fact check that the Arizona Daily Sun did earlier this week on a Kirkpatrick ad;  Gosar claims that the Sun called the ad "misleading".

However, the Daily Sun did NOT call the ad (or the specific claim of "independence")  "misleading";  it said: "Accuracy: Most points are accurate, but the ad lacks context, and one point is debatable."  The declaration of independence is apparently the point that the reporter concludes is "debatable".

So, let's "debate" that now.  Unfortunately, it is going to be difficult to do this without throwing a bunch of numbers at you - but, we will try to explain them clearly.  Is voting with the majority 86% of the time an indicator of dependence or independence? 

Some context is needed.  Most of the votes are non-controversial, and she may have even been voting on 435-0 votes;  that skews the percentages.  Kirkpatrick's percentage is based on 1,479 votes!  It is thus necessary to compare the 86.2% number with other members.  At the top of the Washington Post's page, the averages for members of each party are given.  In this 111th Session of Congress, the AVERAGE voting-with-party's-majority percentage is 90.6%.  (Parenthetically, the median - which may be more useful because the average can be easily skewed by some of the more "independent" members - is even higher, at about 95.7%.) 

There are 435 members of the House of Representatives.  Of them, only 18 voted with their party's majority a lower percentage of the time.  By the way, two of those are also members of Arizona's delegation: Jeff Flake (Republican, 84.9%) and Harry Mitchell (Democrat, 79.6%). 

(On the other side of the ledger, two of Arizona's Democrats and two of our Republicans voted with their the majority of their party a higher percentage of the time than the average: Ed Pastor (Democrat, 98.2%) and Raul Grijalva (Democrat, 96.6%), Trent Franks (Republican, 92.9%) and John Shadegg (Republican, 90.8%).)

You might notice that the Democrats have a higher average percentage than Republicans (92.2%-88.4%), which would seem to mean that the Democrats march more lock-step than Republicans.  However, it would seem that that could be explained by members of the minority party being more likely to crossover to be able to vote on the "winning" side.   And, sure enough, looking back to the 107th Congress, when Denny Hastert and the Republicans were in the majority, the numbers were nearly-perfectly flipped (85.8%-90.0%).

CONCLUSION:  In a world without context, a claim that someone voted with their party's majority 86.2% of the time might be a reasonable statement.  And, over the past several campaigns, we have increasingly seen challengers use the vote-with-party's-majority percentage against incumbents; I suspect we will see it more in the next few weeks.  However, we should live in a world with context.  And, with that context, Gosar's accusations are completely misleading.  Throw in the outright lie about the Daily Sun's article (and the snarky comment about Kirkpatrick not liking Tweets about her voting record), and Gosar earns an "F".


* Kimball was the Democratic nominee in 1988 for the open Senate seat; he lost to Rep. John McCain.  Kimball later asked McCain to be on the Board of Project Vote Smart.  McCain accepted, though that relationship has had its ups and downs.


We welcome your comments about this post. If you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

FACT CHECK FOLLOW-UP: Legislative Candidate Doesn't Pull False Claim

One of the things that bothers me even as Fact Checking has - thankfully - become more prevalent over the past few years is when campaigns/candidates IGNORE the fact checkers publicly calling them out on their falsehoods or misrepresentations.  If anything, it got worse in the last election cycle and the trend is showing signs of continuing.

So, Arizona's Politics is going to try to do its part to continue holding false-tellers' feet to the fire.  We will try to follow-up on the most egregious misrepresentations to see if and how it has been remedied.  If you have any suggestions for this series, please comment below or e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com.


Eleven days ago, the Arizona Republic gave a one-star, "false" rating to State Legislative candidate Jeff Dial.  Dial is running on a Republican slate for Legislative District 20.  His website has seven pages devoted to detailing where Dial stands on various issues (immigration, education, economy, taxes, crime, family, Second Amendment).  To his credit, six of those pages expressed his views in a positive manner, not once attacking "liberals" or his Democratic opponent.

However, on the crime page, his views are expressed in a negative form.  As the Republic's Fact Check notes, he attacks... falsely.  The quote that the Republic focused on:  "Some liberal Arizona legislators have recently offered reducing sentence times and prison stays for violent criminals just to help balance the state budget. Jeff Dial strongly opposes such liberal and dangerous practices."  It is unclear whether Dial was trying to imply that his Democratic opponent (Rae Waters) was one of those legislators.

The Republic explains that it was actually Republican Cecil Ash who was "pushing to examine this option," that noone advocated for reducing sentences for "violent criminals", and that a Democratic party spokesperson says no Democratic lawmakers have offered the idea.  Dial told the Republic that he lifted the statement from a GOP voter survey question which had no supporting documentation.

He received a one-star "false" rating from the Arizona Republic.

The false language is still on the website - without explanation or justification - ten days later.

CONCLUSION:  Dial receives a second "F" to go with the Republic's rating.  

And, I guess a special "F" shout out has to go to whoever put together that false and misleading "voter survey" for the Republicans; such combo "push poll"/solicitation direct mail is common, and this shows that even some candidates can be led into promoting the misrepresentations or falsehoods.

As the late President Reagan might have told him: "Mr. Dial, tear down this false web page."

____

UPDATE (9/27): Arizona's Politics has left both detailed voice mail and e-mail messages for Mr. Dial, to (re-)alert him to the initial Arizona Republic Fact Check and our follow-up.  At this moment, the false language is still in place.



We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something on your mind that is unrelated to this post, please send an e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.