WATCH: Asst AG Thomas Perez Comments On Suit Vs. Arpaio, MCSO, Maricopa County

Earlier, we posted the text of the opening statement from Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, from his news conference this morning, announcing the filing of the lawsuit against Maricopa County, the Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Here is video of the latter half of that statement (the video begins at the 16th paragraph, beginning with "A hallmark of our..."):





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.

READ: Links to Arpaio's Attempted Pre-Emptive, DOJ's Complaint

Knowing that the U.S. DOJ was about to file its lawsuit against Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the MCSO released its attempted pre-emptive document yesterday, entitled "Integrity, Accountability, Community".  The Sheriff wrote in it that it is necessary because "perception can be more powerful than fact":

"I do not tolerate racist attitudes or behaviors. We at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office do not foster a “culture of cruelty.” But because perception can be more powerful than fact, I want to address these concerns openly and focus on community-based goals and procedures which affirm our commitment to the highest professional standards."

 The lawsuit was filed this morning.  Here is a link to it, as posted by the Department of Justice.  Here is a summary, as posted in the DOJ's news release.

We earlier posted the DOJ's opening comments at this morning's news conference.

The Sheriff has not yet posted a response to the filing of the lawsuit.


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.

READ: Assistant A.G.'s Comments Re: Arpaio Suit: Only 2nd Time Local Law Enforcement Hasn't Cooperated

The Department of Justice filed a complaint against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Joe Arpaio today, alleging unconstitutional law enforcement practices.  The Assistant A.G. who is leading the action for the Civil Rights Division, Thomas Perez, also alleged in his morning news conference, that it was only the second time that the local law enforcement agency has forced the DOJ to file a contested legal action instead of working out a settlement before litigation.

Here are the complete comments from Perez to open up the news conference:

Today, the Department of Justice did something it has done only once before in the 18-year history of our civil police reform work; we filed a contested lawsuit to stop discriminatory and unconstitutional law enforcement practices. In our police reform work, we have invariably been able to work collaboratively with law enforcement agencies to build better departments and safer communities. Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Arpaio have been a glaring exception. Attempts to forge solutions to address the serious civil rights and public safety concerns have proven elusive.

In June 2008, the Department of Justice began its initial inquiry into allegations that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio were violating the constitutional rights of people in Maricopa County. In September 2010, following repeated unsuccessful efforts to obtain MCSO’s and Sheriff Arpaio’s voluntary compliance with its legal obligations to provide information in connection with our investigation, the department took the virtually unprecedented step of filing a lawsuit to force MCSO to comply. This lawsuit successfully caused MCSO to meet its legal obligations and it was settled in June 2011.

Six months later, in December 2011, the department issued its letter of findings detailing the results of our investigation. Our investigation found that there is reasonable cause to believe that MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio engage in: 1) a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing of Latinos, 2) discriminatory jail practices against Latino prisoners with limited English skills, and 3) a pattern or practice of unlawful retaliatory behavior against perceived critics of MCSO through baseless criminal charges, unfounded civil lawsuits and meritless administrative actions.

After we issued our findings letter, we tried to reach a negotiated settlement. The United States is not seeking, and has never sought, monetary damages or attorney’s fees in connection with our case, though Title VI authorizes the termination of federal funding. Rather, we sought, and continue to seek, to accomplish one important goal: to fix the problems identified in our investigation and ensure that the necessary policies, practices and oversight are in place so that MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

We traveled to Phoenix in early February and met with lawyers for MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio as well as with the county attorney, where we discussed the parameters of a potential settlement. We made it clear, orally and in writing, that a settlement would require an independent monitor. Later that month, we gave MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio a 128-page draft settlement agreement, which we hoped would serve as the framework for further discussion. Unfortunately, these further discussions were brief, and negotiations broke down, primarily because MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio would not agree to any settlement that included an independent monitor.

A monitor, in general, and specifically in a case of this nature, is not a new requirement. Monitors have been critical components of our settlements in other police cases, from Los Angeles to Pittsburgh to Cincinnati, and they play an important role in ensuring that reforms are carried out in an effective, fair and sustainable fashion. Ronald Reagan was correct: trust but verify. Monitors do not usurp the function of sheriffs; in fact, there was a provision in the proposed agreement that stated, “The monitor shall not, and is not intended to, replace or assume the role or duties of the defendant, including the Sheriff.” Monitors work collaboratively with sheriffs’ offices, police departments, courts, communities and the Justice Department to provide necessary support and assistance to ensure that the problems are fixed in a sustainable fashion. Unfortunately, this provision was unacceptable to the Sheriff and MCSO and they ended negotiations.

Left with no choice, earlier today we filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court against Sheriff Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and Maricopa County.
 

How To Make People Wonder: Vernon Parker Touts Presidential Endorsement, Leaves Out Money Quote

The e-mail hit our inboxes  just before 2:00 this afternoon: "President George H. W. Bush Endorses Vernon" screamed the subject line and the headline.  The e-mail was in the form of a signed letter from Congressional candidate Vernon Parker, one of six currently vying for the Republican nomination in the new 9th District in Arizona.  Even though he worked for the President as a young man, the endorsement seemed a bit surprising.

The wording of Parker's letter - and the failure to attach the entire Bush letter - makes one wonder if the elder George Bush is actually endorsing Parker for the Congressional seat or just praising him.  Parker's letter can be found in its entirety at the bottom of this post (after the jump).

The only quote that Parker provides in the letter is "Vernon is a good man who served honorably in my Administration." Vernon is a leader who demonstrates conservative values, love for country, and commitment to excellence in all that he has done."  It certainly could have come from a simple courtesy job recommendation letter, especially since Parker's e-mail does not note when the President had written those words.

Arizona's Politics searched on the website for more details, searched on the internet for more details, and sent messages to the campaign for more details.  Finally, we located a post that indicates that a news release was apparently sent out - it is similarly worded but may have attached the April 13 Bush letter.  And, at the very bottom of the release, are the words that should have been included in Parker's letter to supporters and potential supporters:

"President Bush letter to Vernon Parker ended simply by saying:  “I encourage you to vote for Vernon Parker.” All the best, George Bush

DELUSIONS: Administrator For JT Ready's (Sheriff) Campaign Facebook Claims "Unconfirmed Reports...Cartel Assassination Squad" Responsible For Mass Killing In Gilbert

The horrible news this afternoon about the four-plus-shooter people - including a toddler - in Gilbert is too much for some white supremacists to believe, apparently.  The shooter has been identified as J.T. Ready, a well-known border militia figure, reputed neo-Nazi and candidate for Pinal County Sheriff.  Ready's campaign Facebook page featured this post at approximately 3:44pm:

JT Ready for Sheriff

58 minutes ago via mobile

Reports are unconfirmed that a cartel assassination squad murdered JT Ready and several of his friends and family this afternoon in Gilbert Arizona. This page's admin will keep you updated of the situation as soon as possible.

The Facebook page features several other rants by either the Administrator or Ready, in addition to more normal campaign material.



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.

UPDATED FACT CHECK: Dems Go Old (2010) In Anti-Kelly Ad; Grade Raised After Citation Located

(UPDATE: 3:00pm, May 2:  Though the DCCC has not responded to call or e-mail, the Center on Budget Policy & Priorities did some further checking - thanks! - and found the report that the DCCC was likely citing.  This is the new (and, hopefully) improved Fact Check.  The previous version can be seen here.)

The DCCC ("Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee") released an ad yesterday attacking Jesse Kelly, the Republican nominee in the June special election to replace retired Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.  In it, they rehash three of the more controversial comments that Kelly made in his first bid for the office in 2009-2010.  Although Kelly's campaign says that his current positions on Social Security and Medicare are not fairly represented by his previous statements, the statements are accurate; the third claim is much hazier.

The ad can be seen in our previous post.  Here is the Arizona's Politics transcript of the ad:

(serious-sounding male announcer): "Is Jesse Kelly listening to you? Was Jesse Kelly listening to you when he said on Social Security: 'I'd love to eliminate the program.'  Jesse Kelly said he would work to eliminate Medicare over time.  Was he listening to you then?  How about when Jesse Kelly said at the same time he'd cut taxes in half for millionaires?  Is Jesse Kelly listening to you?  Just listen to Jesse Kelly.  The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertisement."

The Kelly quote and comment on Social Security and Medicare come from the same section of a printed version of an interview conducted by the Tucson Weekly's Jim Nintzel in December 2009.  Here is that section, with context (highlighting added):

(Kelly talking about where to cut government spending) ...And last but not least, we can’t forget entitlement spending. If we don’t start getting some entitlement reform in this country, we’re buried. Medicare and Social Security have a $104 trillion unfunded liability. People who are getting Medicare and Social Security right now have earned it, so that’s a big problem. They earned it. They worked their tails off their whole lives, so we can’t cut it right now. We’d better find ways to reform it and privatize it in the future. We simply don’t have the money. Social Security is about to bankrupt in 2017, Medicare in 2016, and those dates are getting closer because we’ve spent so much.
How do you go about reforming those?
That is the tough question. It starts with reforming our health-care system in this country, and not reforming it by offering a government option, which will just bankrupt the private sector. We need reform to offer individuals the same tax credits that we offer small businesses. When individuals can start owning their own insurance, then they’re in less need of Medicare in the future, thus getting off the public dole and staying on their own individual insurance. It’s one of the biggest problems that not enough people talk about right now. Individuals need to have the power of their own insurance. Otherwise, when you get fired, you do lose your insurance. Or you can’t leave jobs. I can’t leave my job today. My wife and son won’t have health insurance. It would be much better if we owned our own as a family. We need to give people the tax credits to incentivize them to purchase their own. Now there’s some of that out there, but it’s not near enough.
You could purchase your own insurance now, but it would cost a lot more money.That’s exactly right. You need to incentivize that with tax credits so families can do that because families simply can’t afford that. Individual insurance is expensive, very expensive. And that, in turn, in the future, will help save Medicare dollars because you won’t be on the public dole and you’re phasing that out.
You’d have people, as they retire, continue to purchase their own health insurance rather than get on Medicare.
Yes. We’re talking in the future here. There’s so much that needs to be done to ever get there, and you may never get there. Ronald Reagan—my favorite, probably not yours—said the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. That’s the problem with these. They only get bigger and you can’t ever get rid of them, especially now that people have earned them. People getting Social Security and Medicare checks have earned them. Now we have to pay it and we don’t have the money to pay it.
So you would look at eliminating the program over time. Not tomorrow, but eliminating it so there was no Medicare in the future and people would be responsible for taking care of their own health-care bills as they grew older.Yes. But to say you’re going to do that instantly would be disingenuous and not realistic and not fair to the people who have earned it.
Same sort of thing with Social Security? Work toward eliminating it?
If you have any ideas on that, I’m all ears. I would love to eliminate the program. I’d love to take steps to let people opt in and opt out of it. Privatize it. The trust fund, as you know, is bankrupt. It’s not there anymore.
When you say privatize, do you mean you’d still pay Social Security taxes but you’d have the option of paying some of it into a private account that could be invested into the stock market?
Yes. I do think that’s a good idea. Now people may say, “Some people don’t know how to invest their money in the stock market.” And that may be true. But we don’t know that the individual can or can’t invest their own money wisely. We know the government cannot. They’re bankrupted it. They’ve ruined it. They didn’t invest anything. They took our money and spent it and now they don’t have it to give it back. They didn’t invest it in anything. They blew it.

Kelly's spokesman John Ellinwood notes that those are not the candidate's current views, that Kelly supports "preserving, protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare."  So, even though the Medicare comment was an agreement by Kelly - the ad does not make it into a quote - both ad claims accurately reflect Kelly's opinions at that time.

The third claim about Kelly saying he would cut taxes in half for millionaires is much more problematic.  The ad makes two citations (on screen) for that claim: "KMSB, 8/26/10", and "CBPP, 7/07/10".  It was difficult to locate the materials referenced in those cites.*  It is possible that it is referring to a KMSB ("TucsonNewsNow") report updated on OCTOBER 26, 2010 about a debate between Giffords and Kelly (on the 18th).  In that debate, Giffords criticized Kelly for his support of the Fair Tax, which proposes a flat income tax and a tax on purchases.  Kelly said after the debate, "She's lying about that too, that's how I explain that. I believe in a ten percent, flat income tax with the elimination of the other taxes,"


It is more likely that the KMSB cite has Kelly supporting the budget roadmap that Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan had released before that.  Because the CBPP report focuses on that "Roadmap for America's Future," and notes that an analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center (TPC) found that "the Ryan plan would cut in half the taxes of the richest 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes exceeding $633,000 (in 2009 dollars) in 2014." 


The problem with using that claim is that it ignores the paragraph below, which discusses that the Ryan roadmap also included a consumption tax (read: sales tax).  It appears that the DCCC is likely hanging its ad hat on Kelly's comment that he believes in a flat income tax along "with the elimination of the other taxes".    

It is hard to dock the DCCC any points for the first two claims - it was less than two years ago, circumstances have not changed in such a way that would explain why Kelly is changing his positions, and the comments are accurately reported.

The third claim is a little slippier, but once the CBPP was able to find the report on the Ryan Roadmap (we had been searching for a flat tax analysis), the DCCC's path is more clear.  It is a slightly less relevant comment without any flat tax (or, Fair Tax) proposals currently being discussed in the public forum. (Kelly does mention on his website that he wants to reduce personal income, investment and business-ownership taxes, but he did not mention the flat/Fair tax.)  And, it is not entirely clear that Kelly really intended a flat tax to replace our current income tax without a replacement.  (

The ad does miss an "A" grade because it does not note that the candidate has changed his views since those statements were made.  (Who knows, a flip-flop ad may already be in the DCCC's hopper.)  And, it loses a couple of points for its apparently-shoddy citations and its interpretation - which may or may not be correct - of Kelly's comments.

Arizona's Politics grades this DCCC ad out at a "B".

* The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a non-partisan organization which analyzes tax policy issues, also could not locate a report or article that it was responsible for that fit the quote. (Updated on May 2, because the CBPP did locate the report.)

Analysis removed in the May 2 update follows:

It is extremely unlikely that Kelly specifically said he wanted to cut taxes in half for millionaires.  So, it would seem that the DCCC is taking his flat tax support and using some analysis to come up with the effect on millionaires' tax burden.  While the CBPP citation does not seem to pan out, Arizona's Politics searched for other analyses which might make that claim.  While almost all analyses agree that a flat tax would result in those with higher incomes paying less taxes than under the current system, the only one meeting the claim was from an article on the Citizens for Tax Justice site.  It claims that a family with an income of $500,000 would see a tax cut of 50% or more.  CTJ has been described by the New York Times as a "liberal research group."



A Wikipedia article on the distribution of the Fair Tax burden does not come up with any cutting in half analyses. The flat tax proposal that the CTJ analysis was looking at called for a flat rate of 17% (the Armey plan); Kelly had discussed a flat tax with a rate of 10%.  That would seem to favor the wealthy more than the earlier proposal.


. . .



So, the citation problems on the third claim do cause problems for Fact Checking and assigning a final grade.  Arizona's Politics left messages for the DCCC's communications department but has not yet heard back.  (We will update as necessary.)  And, smooshing together Kelly's support for a flat tax with some (possibly biased) analysis is misleading.  


We are going to apply "shoddy" and "misleading" labels to that third claim, and give the ad an overall grade of "C".  (That grade is subject to change if the DCCC can provide checkable citations that support the claim.)




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.

(old) FACT CHECK: Dems Go Old School In Anti-Kelly Ad, Can't Back Up Halving Millionaires' Taxes Claim

(UPDATE: 4:00pm, May 2:  Though the DCCC has not responded to call or e-mail, the Center on Budget Policy & Priorities did some further checking - thanks! - and found the report that the DCCC was likely citing.  The NEW Fact Check can be found here.)

The DCCC ("Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee") released an ad yesterday attacking Jesse Kelly, the Republican nominee in the June special election to replace retired Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.  In it, they rehash three of the more controversial comments that Kelly made in his first bid for the office in 2009-2010.  Although Kelly's campaign says that his current positions on Social Security and Medicare are not fairly represented by his previous statements, the statements are accurate; the third claim is much hazier.

The ad can be seen in our previous post.  Here is the Arizona's Politics transcript of the ad:

(serious-sounding male announcer): "Is Jesse Kelly listening to you? Was Jesse Kelly listening to you when he said on Social Security: 'I'd love to eliminate the program.'  Jesse Kelly said he would work to eliminate Medicare over time.  Was he listening to you then?  How about when Jesse Kelly said at the same time he'd cut taxes in half for millionaires?  Is Jesse Kelly listening to you?  Just listen to Jesse Kelly.  The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertisement."

The Kelly quote and comment on Social Security and Medicare come from the same section of a printed version of an interview conducted by the Tucson Weekly's Jim Nintzel in December 2009.  Here is that section, with context (highlighting added):

(Kelly talking about where to cut government spending) ...And last but not least, we can’t forget entitlement spending. If we don’t start getting some entitlement reform in this country, we’re buried. Medicare and Social Security have a $104 trillion unfunded liability. People who are getting Medicare and Social Security right now have earned it, so that’s a big problem. They earned it. They worked their tails off their whole lives, so we can’t cut it right now. We’d better find ways to reform it and privatize it in the future. We simply don’t have the money. Social Security is about to bankrupt in 2017, Medicare in 2016, and those dates are getting closer because we’ve spent so much.
How do you go about reforming those?
That is the tough question. It starts with reforming our health-care system in this country, and not reforming it by offering a government option, which will just bankrupt the private sector. We need reform to offer individuals the same tax credits that we offer small businesses. When individuals can start owning their own insurance, then they’re in less need of Medicare in the future, thus getting off the public dole and staying on their own individual insurance. It’s one of the biggest problems that not enough people talk about right now. Individuals need to have the power of their own insurance. Otherwise, when you get fired, you do lose your insurance. Or you can’t leave jobs. I can’t leave my job today. My wife and son won’t have health insurance. It would be much better if we owned our own as a family. We need to give people the tax credits to incentivize them to purchase their own. Now there’s some of that out there, but it’s not near enough.
You could purchase your own insurance now, but it would cost a lot more money.That’s exactly right. You need to incentivize that with tax credits so families can do that because families simply can’t afford that. Individual insurance is expensive, very expensive. And that, in turn, in the future, will help save Medicare dollars because you won’t be on the public dole and you’re phasing that out.
You’d have people, as they retire, continue to purchase their own health insurance rather than get on Medicare.
Yes. We’re talking in the future here. There’s so much that needs to be done to ever get there, and you may never get there. Ronald Reagan—my favorite, probably not yours—said the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. That’s the problem with these. They only get bigger and you can’t ever get rid of them, especially now that people have earned them. People getting Social Security and Medicare checks have earned them. Now we have to pay it and we don’t have the money to pay it.
So you would look at eliminating the program over time. Not tomorrow, but eliminating it so there was no Medicare in the future and people would be responsible for taking care of their own health-care bills as they grew older.Yes. But to say you’re going to do that instantly would be disingenuous and not realistic and not fair to the people who have earned it.
Same sort of thing with Social Security? Work toward eliminating it?
If you have any ideas on that, I’m all ears. I would love to eliminate the program. I’d love to take steps to let people opt in and opt out of it. Privatize it. The trust fund, as you know, is bankrupt. It’s not there anymore.
When you say privatize, do you mean you’d still pay Social Security taxes but you’d have the option of paying some of it into a private account that could be invested into the stock market?
Yes. I do think that’s a good idea. Now people may say, “Some people don’t know how to invest their money in the stock market.” And that may be true. But we don’t know that the individual can or can’t invest their own money wisely. We know the government cannot. They’re bankrupted it. They’ve ruined it. They didn’t invest anything. They took our money and spent it and now they don’t have it to give it back. They didn’t invest it in anything. They blew it.

So, even though the Medicare comment was an agreement by Kelly - the ad does not make it into a quote - both ad claims accurately reflect Kelly's opinions at that time.

The third claim about Kelly saying he would cut taxes in half for millionaires is much more problematic.  The ad makes two citations (on screen) for that claim: "KMSB, 8/26/10", and "CBPP, 7/07/10".  Neither of those citations appear to be accurate.*  It is possible that it is referring to a KMSB ("TucsonNewsNow") report updated on OCTOBER 26, 2010 about a debate between Giffords and Kelly (on the 18th).  In that debate, Giffords criticized Kelly for his support of the Fair Tax, which proposes a flat income tax and a tax on purchases.  Kelly said after the debate, "She's lying about that too, that's how I explain that. I believe in a ten percent, flat income tax with the elimination of the other taxes,"


Kelly's spokesman John Ellinwood notes that those are not the candidate's current views, that Kelly supports "preserving, protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare"

It is extremely unlikely that Kelly said he wanted to cut taxes in half for millionaires.  So, it would seem that the DCCC is taking his flat tax support and using some analysis to come up with the effect on millionaires' tax burden.  While the CBPP citation does not seem to pan out, Arizona's Politics searched for other analyses which might make that claim.  While almost all analyses agree that a flat tax would result in those with higher incomes paying less taxes than under the current system, the only one meeting the claim was from an article on the Citizens for Tax Justice site.  It claims that a family with an income of $500,000 would see a tax cut of 50% or more.  CTJ has been described by the New York Times as a "liberal research group."

A Wikipedia article on the distribution of the Fair Tax burden does not come up with any cutting in half analyses. The flat tax proposal that the CTJ analysis was looking at called for a flat rate of 17% (the Armey plan); Kelly had discussed a flat tax with a rate of 10%.  That would seem to favor the wealthy more than the earlier proposal.


It is hard to dock the DCCC any points for the first two claims - it was less than two years ago, circumstances have not changed in such a way that would explain why Kelly is changing his positions, and the comments are accurately reported.


So, the citation problems on the third claim do cause problems for Fact Checking and assigning a final grade.  Arizona's Politics left messages for the DCCC's communications department but has not yet heard back.  (We will update as necessary.)  And, smooshing together Kelly's support for a flat tax with some (possibly biased) analysis is misleading.  


We are going to apply "shoddy" and "misleading" labels to that third claim, and give the ad an overall grade of "C".  (That grade is subject to change if the DCCC can provide checkable citations that support the claim.)


* The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a non-partisan organization which analyzes tax policy issues, also could not locate a report or article that it was responsible for that fit the quote.


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.

WATCH: National Democrats Spend $169K On Anti-Kelly Ad In Special Election To Replace Rep. Giffords (FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS)

It is the national Democrats' turn to air drop money into the southern Arizona special election to replace retired Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8).  Earlier, Arizona's Politics detailed independent expenditure campaigns from the Arizona GOP - which likely received the funds from the Beltway - and the National Republican Congressional Committee.  Those IE efforts have totaled approximately $421,000. Yesterday, the DCCC ("Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee") spent a comparatively piddling $169,000.

Here is the ad that is now showing on a TV screen near you (if you live in the Tucson market):


A Fact Check will follow.  The NRCC ad received an "F" grade yesterday.  (Triple F, actually, for "False with Freakin' Frequency.")


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.