(Correction: The signs tampered with belonged to Goddard, Schapira and Arredondo. NOT Mitchell, Schapira and Arredondo. Corrected below. My apologies.)
Personally spotted several defaced signs over the weekend, along a Tempe road (at least one). Someone(s) carefully stuck bumper-sticker-sized pieces of paper on signs belonging to Democratic candidates Terry Goddard (Gov.), David Schapira (Sen., LD17) and Ben Arredondo (House, LD17).
The stick-ons attempted to label each of the three as "liberal". While it is hard to imagine that label sticking to those candidates as well as it apparently sticks to the signs - Arredondo has been a Republican officeholder in Maricopa County for years, Schapira has been noted to be an effective lawmaker in the GOP-controlled legislature, and Goddard has led the AG's office and campaigned from the center of the street - the sign-defacer is taking a shot.
While the Schweikert wraparound signs trying to brand Mitchell in the CD5 rematch are legal because they do not touch someone else's property, these stick-ons are obviously illegal.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
FACT CHECK (from New Times): Violent Crime Drops (Again) In 2009
The New Times (http://bit.ly/9gO7fx ) reports today on the newly-released FBI report, and notes that violent crime dropped 13.9% from 2008 to 2009 - the third consecutive decrease. Although the report does not cite any specific statements from Gov. Jan Brewer about how it is necessary to scare away illegal immigrants because of the increase in crime that they bring with them, just about any of the interviews that she has done on Fox News this year will likely provide support for their follow-up that her claims are false (as well as for Attorney General Terry Goddard's claim that Brewer's comments are damaging to Arizona's tourism and image).
UPDATE: Here is one of Gov. Brewer's appearances on Fox News' Greta Van Susteren show. In it, Brewer states: "We're out here on the battlefield... with all the crime that comes with it." And, "...the terror that our citizens live with day in and day out...."
UPDATE: Here is one of Gov. Brewer's appearances on Fox News' Greta Van Susteren show. In it, Brewer states: "We're out here on the battlefield... with all the crime that comes with it." And, "...the terror that our citizens live with day in and day out...."
FACT CHECK: 60Plus Association's Ads Attacking Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell
The national organization that bills itself as the "conservative alternative to the liberal AARP" is spending more than $4 million in ads attacking several Democratic Congresspeople - including three in Arizona. Ads "firing" Gabrielle Giffords, Ann Kirkpatrick and Harry Mitchell are up and running (frequently) in Phoenix and Tucson (and presumably Flagstaff).
The ads attack the Democrats for voting for the "Obama Pelosi health care disaster" which "will raise taxes, cut $500 billion from Medicare, threaten seniors' ability to keep your own doctors, and will hurt the quality of our care." They accuse the Representatives of pretending to be independent, but voting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "when we needed (them) to stand up for us."
"Gabrielle Gifford," concludes one ad, "you're fired." The anti-Mitchell and anti-Kirkpatrick ads end similarly.
These ads do not provide any supporting documentation for their four distinct claims about the health care reform package that was signed into law in March 2010; therefore, this article cannot fully address the claims. A verbal request for the documentation is outstanding. Let's look at the claims one-by-one:
1) The law will raise taxes: Yes, the healthcare reform package does raise taxes. Also of relevance, however, is that the Congressional Budget Office/Joint Committee on Taxation - widely considered as objective and authoritative - have concluded that the laws will also reduce spending by the federal government in many areas, and will result in a total estimated $152 billion reduction of the federal government's budget deficits between 2010 and 2020. Acknowledging that many Republicans and Democrats are concerned about budget deficits at the federal level, that is an important bottom line. Also significant is that the CBO's analysis finds that the effect on the overall American economy is to reduce the overall spending increases on health care. Conclusion: Accurate by omission; ergo, misleading.
2) The law will cut $500 billion from Medicare: It is unclear where this figure came from, but it appears to be from an old version of healthcare reform. The CBO has concluded that the "net reduction in Medicare spending" will actually only be $117 billion through 2019! Just as important is WHY there will be a reduction. The new laws will reduce the amounts paid by Medicare to private corporations that are administering Medicare Advantage plans; they will be restricted on how they could utilize "rebates" from Medicare and would have to charge enrollees if they overbid the formula for costs in their area. Thus, the CBO estimates that the enrollment in the Medicare Advantage problems will be 4.8 million less than if the law had not been passed. (Those 4.8 million people could receive similar coverages elsewhere.)
The second part of this claim is the inference that Medicare benefits to seniors - including the ones speaking in the ads - are going to be cut. However, that is not the case, and in fact, Medicare will actually cover annual check-ups and increase reimbursements to primary care physicians.
Conclusion: False and misleading.
3) The law will threaten seniors' ability to keep your own doctors: This is apparently based on the assumption that some physicians will not accept Medicare patients. Although this is always a possibility, there is nothing concrete to back this up. Conclusion: Scare tactic.
4) The law will hurt the quality of our care: There is nothing concrete to back this up. Conclusion: See #3.
OVERALL: This campaign is designed to capitalize on discontent about the health care reform package that was signed into law earlier this year. While - to its credit - it does not invoke the "death panels" mantra, it does promote other misleading claims and throws in some inaccurate numbers.
FINAL GRADES: With an "A" being completely true and accurate, and an "F" being completely false and misleading, this grades out at a "C-". If the advertiser supplies us with sources to support their claims, we will check 'em out and amend as necessary. (Unfortunately, there is certainly a tendency to grade political attack ads on a curve, in order to avoid giving out all "F"'s; we try to avoid that trap.)
TRANSPARENCY GRADE: The "60 Plus Association" also receives a grade of "F" for its lack of transparency on the source of funds for this campaign. The Association's entire annual budget in 2007 and 2008 was approximately $1.8 million; there is no disclosure as to where this sudden expenditure of more than $4 million is coming from.
********
TEXT OF ANTI-GIFFORDS AD:
--Washington liberals like Gabrielle Giffords are not listening to Arizona seniors.
--The Obama Pelosi health care disaster will raise taxes, cut $500 billion from Medicare,
--Threaten seniors' ability to keep you own doctors, and will hurt the quality of our care.
--Giffords pretends she's independent, but when we needed her to stand up for us,
--Giffords voted with Pelosi - just like all the other liberals.
--Arizona seniors have had enough.
--Gabrielle Giffords, you're fired!
The ads attack the Democrats for voting for the "Obama Pelosi health care disaster" which "will raise taxes, cut $500 billion from Medicare, threaten seniors' ability to keep your own doctors, and will hurt the quality of our care." They accuse the Representatives of pretending to be independent, but voting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "when we needed (them) to stand up for us."
"Gabrielle Gifford," concludes one ad, "you're fired." The anti-Mitchell and anti-Kirkpatrick ads end similarly.
These ads do not provide any supporting documentation for their four distinct claims about the health care reform package that was signed into law in March 2010; therefore, this article cannot fully address the claims. A verbal request for the documentation is outstanding. Let's look at the claims one-by-one:
1) The law will raise taxes: Yes, the healthcare reform package does raise taxes. Also of relevance, however, is that the Congressional Budget Office/Joint Committee on Taxation - widely considered as objective and authoritative - have concluded that the laws will also reduce spending by the federal government in many areas, and will result in a total estimated $152 billion reduction of the federal government's budget deficits between 2010 and 2020. Acknowledging that many Republicans and Democrats are concerned about budget deficits at the federal level, that is an important bottom line. Also significant is that the CBO's analysis finds that the effect on the overall American economy is to reduce the overall spending increases on health care. Conclusion: Accurate by omission; ergo, misleading.
2) The law will cut $500 billion from Medicare: It is unclear where this figure came from, but it appears to be from an old version of healthcare reform. The CBO has concluded that the "net reduction in Medicare spending" will actually only be $117 billion through 2019! Just as important is WHY there will be a reduction. The new laws will reduce the amounts paid by Medicare to private corporations that are administering Medicare Advantage plans; they will be restricted on how they could utilize "rebates" from Medicare and would have to charge enrollees if they overbid the formula for costs in their area. Thus, the CBO estimates that the enrollment in the Medicare Advantage problems will be 4.8 million less than if the law had not been passed. (Those 4.8 million people could receive similar coverages elsewhere.)
The second part of this claim is the inference that Medicare benefits to seniors - including the ones speaking in the ads - are going to be cut. However, that is not the case, and in fact, Medicare will actually cover annual check-ups and increase reimbursements to primary care physicians.
Conclusion: False and misleading.
3) The law will threaten seniors' ability to keep your own doctors: This is apparently based on the assumption that some physicians will not accept Medicare patients. Although this is always a possibility, there is nothing concrete to back this up. Conclusion: Scare tactic.
4) The law will hurt the quality of our care: There is nothing concrete to back this up. Conclusion: See #3.
OVERALL: This campaign is designed to capitalize on discontent about the health care reform package that was signed into law earlier this year. While - to its credit - it does not invoke the "death panels" mantra, it does promote other misleading claims and throws in some inaccurate numbers.
FINAL GRADES: With an "A" being completely true and accurate, and an "F" being completely false and misleading, this grades out at a "C-". If the advertiser supplies us with sources to support their claims, we will check 'em out and amend as necessary. (Unfortunately, there is certainly a tendency to grade political attack ads on a curve, in order to avoid giving out all "F"'s; we try to avoid that trap.)
TRANSPARENCY GRADE: The "60 Plus Association" also receives a grade of "F" for its lack of transparency on the source of funds for this campaign. The Association's entire annual budget in 2007 and 2008 was approximately $1.8 million; there is no disclosure as to where this sudden expenditure of more than $4 million is coming from.
********
TEXT OF ANTI-GIFFORDS AD:
--Washington liberals like Gabrielle Giffords are not listening to Arizona seniors.
--The Obama Pelosi health care disaster will raise taxes, cut $500 billion from Medicare,
--Threaten seniors' ability to keep you own doctors, and will hurt the quality of our care.
--Giffords pretends she's independent, but when we needed her to stand up for us,
--Giffords voted with Pelosi - just like all the other liberals.
--Arizona seniors have had enough.
--Gabrielle Giffords, you're fired!
Friday, September 3, 2010
WHO SAID THIS? (Special legal-action-to-obtain-govt-records edition)
Who said this on the day legal papers were filed to “unravel a… records dispute”?
“No records were ever produced – not one single document in over one year. The courts have ruled against me in the past for not producing records in a timely fashion. I believe the law should be the same for them as for anyone else.” Link shortened so you can guess before clicking; answer and discussion after the jump, in case you do not want to click on the above link.
“No records were ever produced – not one single document in over one year. The courts have ruled against me in the past for not producing records in a timely fashion. I believe the law should be the same for them as for anyone else.” Link shortened so you can guess before clicking; answer and discussion after the jump, in case you do not want to click on the above link.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Removing Prop. 108 (Card Check) From Ballot
(see yesterday's post for more background, link to Aug. 4 news report from Howard Fischer regarding decision)
As promised, the Arizona Supreme Court issued their unanimous opinion (Justice Hurwitz wrote a separate concurring opinion) this morning. The 19-page opinion can be read in its entirety here.
Defenders of the ill-fated Proposition 108, which tried to linked together secret ballots in all elections for public elections with secret ballots in union representation elections, were done in by the distinction between "interrelatedness" and "topicality". The so-called money quote from the opinion written by Justice Pelander:
Defenders of Prop. 108 also argued that the proposition should remain on the ballot because plaintiffs waited too long to file the legal action and left the legislature with no time to modify the proposal. The Court denied that defense, and pointed out that, in fact, the Governor and Legislature WERE able to convene a special session and put Prop. 113 (with only the union election measure) on the ballot.
As promised, the Arizona Supreme Court issued their unanimous opinion (Justice Hurwitz wrote a separate concurring opinion) this morning. The 19-page opinion can be read in its entirety here.
Defenders of the ill-fated Proposition 108, which tried to linked together secret ballots in all elections for public elections with secret ballots in union representation elections, were done in by the distinction between "interrelatedness" and "topicality". The so-called money quote from the opinion written by Justice Pelander:
Although S.O.S. Ballot argues that Proposition 108’sThe Justices were not impressed with the arguments that the two secret ballot provisions were similar to the two separate marriage-related provisions in the Arizona Together initiative in; the connection between the latter was that the first defined marriage and the second made it "exclusive in terms of legal status."
two provisions establish a fundamental right to a “secret
ballot” for public elections and union representation, those
contexts are quite different and wholly unrelated. The type of
“facial relatedness” S.O.S. Ballot urges would reduce that
component of the “interrelatedness” test to a mere repetition of
the topicality requirement. (paragraph 12, pages 8-9)
Defenders of Prop. 108 also argued that the proposition should remain on the ballot because plaintiffs waited too long to file the legal action and left the legislature with no time to modify the proposal. The Court denied that defense, and pointed out that, in fact, the Governor and Legislature WERE able to convene a special session and put Prop. 113 (with only the union election measure) on the ballot.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Fox News Hands Drum To Rep. Trent Franks; He Adds Signature Beat To The Tune (video)
Fox News continues to parade Arizona politicians on its programs to ask about the State Department's mention of Arizona's S.B. 1070 in its human rights Universal Periodic Review ("UPR"). It is obviously the kind of drum the network beats until the skin breaks - Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, United Nations, immigration, border security.
Today, Rep. Trent Franks was asked on to talk about the arrival of National Guard troops on the Arizona border today (too little, Administration does not understand the national security issues, and more). But, the anchor did not "want to let you get away without asking about this, because I think this is going to get a lot of attention in the coming days." She then characterized the mention as the State Dept recommending that S.B. 1070 "be evaluated" at the U.N.*
Franks professed to being "dumbfounded." Not at the question, of course, but because: "this Administration is the most pro-abortion administration in the history of the nation. They want abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for no reason, for any reason, they want taxpayers to pay for it, and they want to export this experiment across the world. Human rights issues is (sic) the last thing they should want to be talking about."
Franks did proceed to echo Gov. Brewer's criticisms of the UPR, and of the interviewer's characterization. Finally, he reiterated his frank dumbfoundedness: "I'm just astonished that this Administration would apologize before the United Nations for protecting our borders."
The anchor promised to keep on this story, Franks thanked her for covering it, and went to commercials. Because this stuff DOES sell. And, given that our Fact Check Analysis of Gov. Brewer's outraged comments concluded that it was "completely misleading", we will continue to keep on Fox's keepin' on.
* Question (and answer) enters the conversation at approximately 2:28.
Today, Rep. Trent Franks was asked on to talk about the arrival of National Guard troops on the Arizona border today (too little, Administration does not understand the national security issues, and more). But, the anchor did not "want to let you get away without asking about this, because I think this is going to get a lot of attention in the coming days." She then characterized the mention as the State Dept recommending that S.B. 1070 "be evaluated" at the U.N.*
Franks professed to being "dumbfounded." Not at the question, of course, but because: "this Administration is the most pro-abortion administration in the history of the nation. They want abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for no reason, for any reason, they want taxpayers to pay for it, and they want to export this experiment across the world. Human rights issues is (sic) the last thing they should want to be talking about."
Franks did proceed to echo Gov. Brewer's criticisms of the UPR, and of the interviewer's characterization. Finally, he reiterated his frank dumbfoundedness: "I'm just astonished that this Administration would apologize before the United Nations for protecting our borders."
The anchor promised to keep on this story, Franks thanked her for covering it, and went to commercials. Because this stuff DOES sell. And, given that our Fact Check Analysis of Gov. Brewer's outraged comments concluded that it was "completely misleading", we will continue to keep on Fox's keepin' on.
* Question (and answer) enters the conversation at approximately 2:28.
UPDATE: Supreme Court Opinion On (First) "Card Check" Proposition
(very recent post relating to revised "card check" proposition)
Very coincidentally, within 15 minutes after we published the post on Republicans' attacks on Democrats and labor unions - in which we added Proposition 113 to the discussion - the Arizona Supreme Court sent out an e-mail indicating that they would be publishing the opinion on their decision to remove the first "card check" proposition/constitutional amendment (Proposition 108). It will come out tomorrow morning. (Aug 4 report on court decision)
The opinion will not change anything about the previous post or the upcoming campaign; however, it is relevant to how we got to Prop. 113 and will likely be relevant for future initiatives.
Very coincidentally, within 15 minutes after we published the post on Republicans' attacks on Democrats and labor unions - in which we added Proposition 113 to the discussion - the Arizona Supreme Court sent out an e-mail indicating that they would be publishing the opinion on their decision to remove the first "card check" proposition/constitutional amendment (Proposition 108). It will come out tomorrow morning. (Aug 4 report on court decision)
The opinion will not change anything about the previous post or the upcoming campaign; however, it is relevant to how we got to Prop. 113 and will likely be relevant for future initiatives.
HONEST QUESTION: Is It Coincidence That Republicans Are Going After Democrats' Union Endorsements?
As many of you probably experienced, as well, my e-mail inbox and Twitter feed filled up with Republican candidates calling on their opponents to denounce "the boycott cartel". (It sounds much more sinister to call it a "cartel", I am guessing.) Sure, the coordination of the talking/Twittering points is interesting, but I found myself looking for the story behind the content of the attack.
As the Republic story notes, the political angle makes some sense from the Republicans' POV. And, how the Democratic candidates respond will help determine voters' perceptions of the Democrats and whether it fires up the union members to kick it to another level in fighting for their candidates.
The pure political angle aside, is there a larger force pushing the Republicans to play this card so early on? It is worth considering in that the Republicans pushed really hard to get the anti-labor union "card check"-related constitutional amendment (Proposition 113) on the ballot, and that the strongly anti-labor union Americans For Prosperity* is independent expendituring for Republicans in Arizona in a BIG way. It thus becomes a reasonable assumption to anticipate a boisterous campaign on Prop. 113, and that Republican candidates will be participating at some level.
Prop. 113 AND the union participation in the reaction to S.B. 1070 - the responses from Democratic candidates (and the labor unions) tonight (in the gubernatorial debate) and the next several days will be - as they now say at the start of every sportscast - "one of the keys of the game". Because it appears that the Republicans'/anti-labor's game plan may be coordinated in more ways than one.
*Americans For Prosperity trumpeted the card check issue last year in its National Save My Ballot tour with "Joe the Plumber."
As the Republic story notes, the political angle makes some sense from the Republicans' POV. And, how the Democratic candidates respond will help determine voters' perceptions of the Democrats and whether it fires up the union members to kick it to another level in fighting for their candidates.
The pure political angle aside, is there a larger force pushing the Republicans to play this card so early on? It is worth considering in that the Republicans pushed really hard to get the anti-labor union "card check"-related constitutional amendment (Proposition 113) on the ballot, and that the strongly anti-labor union Americans For Prosperity* is independent expendituring for Republicans in Arizona in a BIG way. It thus becomes a reasonable assumption to anticipate a boisterous campaign on Prop. 113, and that Republican candidates will be participating at some level.
Prop. 113 AND the union participation in the reaction to S.B. 1070 - the responses from Democratic candidates (and the labor unions) tonight (in the gubernatorial debate) and the next several days will be - as they now say at the start of every sportscast - "one of the keys of the game". Because it appears that the Republicans'/anti-labor's game plan may be coordinated in more ways than one.
*Americans For Prosperity trumpeted the card check issue last year in its National Save My Ballot tour with "Joe the Plumber."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)