Brendan Doherty
So far Brendan Doherty is running his campaign against David Cicilline not all that differently from how Anthony Gemma campaigned against the incumbent congressman: make a lot of accusations and see which ones stick.
So far, not all of them have.
While the conservative Republican got a lot of media attention the day after the primary for his announcing Cicilline’s ten biggest deceptions, it turns out Doherty was the one doing the deceiving with regard to at least 20 percent of the list. The Providence Journal Politifact team has looked into two of the ten accusations Doherty made about Cicilline and found them both to be “mostly false.”
In the first, Doherty accuses Cicilline of intentionally missing deadlines for an audit of Providence finances. Politifact says, “The facts argue otherwise. In the end, we have the former head of the Rhode Island State Police making allegations without key evidence, and ignoring evidence that points in another direction.”
In the second piece, Doherty tries to make the assertion that a former campaign worker didn’t repay a loan to the Providence Economic Development Partnership. According to Politifact, the borrower paid back 93 percent of the loan after defaulting on it. “Doherty cited the case as one of Cicilline’s “most serious deceptions.” It’s not clear that any deception was involved. And Doherty provided no such evidence. Because the statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, we rate it Mostly False.”
Brendan Doherty’s baggage is supposed to be that he is a conservative Republican who will side with other conservative Republicans in congress. But Politifact has examined his statements four times so far and he’s been less-than-spot-on in three of them. Not what you want the paper of record writing about you if you’re waging a trust campaign.
Here’s what Doherty said at his presser about the value of being honest: “You have shown yourself to be untrustworthy and therefore unqualified to represent the people of Rhode Island.”
Mr. Doherty needs to get off the “I’m so great” bandwagon! I want to here from him on the real problems facing our state and our nation. He needs to get over the fact that no one cares about his record as a state trooper. The question is, what can he do for R.I? Not much in my opinion. That presss conference was a desperate move, it just proved that he is not ready to be in congress. Put the poster boards and pictures of Cicilline away.
“Mr. Doherty needs to get off the “I’m so great” bandwagon!”
Wouldn’t that be counter intuitive for some running for elective office? Did you actually give that some thought before typing it?
“The question is, what can he do for R.I?”
“The question is, what can he do for R.I?”
What has David Cicilline done for Rhode Island or did you even give a thought?
Why should evidence matter to a former “top cop” with “uncommon integrity”?
“Why should evidence matter to a former “top cop” with “uncommon integrity”?”
Evidence? This isn’t a court of law. It’s an election. When was the last time anyone used evidence in politics including your beloved David? Keep those chisels going though. Maybe you’ll getting Doherty’s integrity down to 99.9 times Cicilline’s. All he has to do is make a logical case and despite PolitiFacts best efforts, it seems to be working. Especially when they consider a loan paid back at 93 percent and that doesn’t count the loss of interest. No credibility there whatsoever.
Thanks for clarifying that this is an election. Maybe you’re not as stupid as I thought!
Thanks. It’s encouraging to see all you could muster was a personal attack. That means you see the light but just can’t admit it.
A personal attack would imply that you are a person, but the fact is that you are a troll. :-(
Your vitriol just proves my point. Thanks again.
@DogDiesel,
It’s o.k. for a politician to play fast and loose with the facts in order to get elected because, in an election, no politician is required to take an oath to be truthful?
Wow.
Because I disagree strongly with your premise, I will continue to do my homework in order to try to present facts and figures accurately during the appearances for which I am scheduled over the course of the next few weeks.
I am guessing you will not be watching when I am on television, and will not be listening when I am on radio. However, it’s gratifying to know that if you do watch and/or listen, you will not criticize me for anything I might say; this is because your logic would seem to dictate that it would not matter to you whether I were succeeding in my attempts to sound credible by making statements that actually are supported by reliable evidence.
Because, as you say — “This isn’t a court of law. It’s an election.”
As mentioned, I disagree strongly with your premise…. which is why, as mentioned, I do not, and will not, subscribe to it.
David
David,
Where did I endorse lying to the electorate? Step off your high horse for a moment and smell the crap around you. In previous posts, I said, “like it or not, fair or not,” that’s how it is. Maybe you need a reality check. By the way, I will listen and read your platform. As of this writing, I can’t lump you in with others so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Good luck in November. It’s nice to hear another point of view even if it is a little naive.
@ DogDiesel,
I do appreciate that you will give me that benefit, and would like to offer a little background regarding me so that you know where I am “coming from” in the larger picture.
I never have run for office before at any level, but I do not believe that that fact by itself makes me unqualified to be in a race. I have been a licensed attorney for nearly fourteen years, and have tried other lines of work even since becoming licensed to practice law. My life and my work have taken me to live in other places (including outside the United States), but my path seems always to lead back to Rhode Island. The experience of living in other places, but particularly that of residing outside this country, helps immensely in shaping a perspective regarding the disconnect between how the United States sees itself, what is our potential as a nation, and where we actually are (these statements apply to all three of the main elements of a society — politically, socially, and economically).
For quite a number of years now, my unhappiness with many ways in which the federal government currently operates has had me feeling sad about our country’s current and future prospects. It finally reached the point where, personally, I did not want to continue to “sit by” any longer and hope that someone else would “pick up the ball and run with it.” I got it in my head that if I wanted things to begin to change, then I needed to follow my father’s advice from when I was a child:
“If you want a helping hand, look at the end of your arm.”
If you have seen my standalone website (which is linked trough my name at the top of each of my posts here on rifuture), or have visited my candidate’s page at facebook, then you know that I am not naive enough to believe it is within my sole power to “change the world.” Quite the contrary, as I have stated repeatedly that effectuating such change will be a gradual and frustrating process; that unless there are in place several thousand like-minded people from across the country who become active, convey the message, and get themselves elected, then we are guaranteed never to start down a different path.
In other words, I needed to try.
My methodology is simple, and is borrowed from my experience as an attorney:
I try to do my homework regarding the issues. In order to perform my research, I turn to sources that are as neutral as possible. For example, when I read about economic matters, my primary source of information is the database of reports that is produced and issued by the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”). In that way, I am confident that the information is not going to be unduly biased towards either side.
When I speak, my efforts are directed towards stating as fact only those things that would be supportable from my research, and stating as opinions those items that are my own conclusions when based upon the evidence. And, for the record, I do try to make it clear which is which.
While I certainly do have my own opinions regarding many things, the reason I am running as an Independent is because I believe there is plenty to dislike about where party politics has led this country, and while I am not an idealogue, I cannot help but feel that we, as a nation, can correct our course.
It’s just that I also believe that as currently operated, neither of the major parties is capable of directing our country to where it needs to go.
By the way, I do update my standalone website regularly with respect to my schedule of events where I will be appearing and speaking (you will find it under the “Schedule” link at the site). In fact, I updated my site a few hours ago, and already have received a new invitation to appear at a candidate’s forum regarding civil rights; so there will be a new update coming soon (because I built my own website and do all of my own maintenance of it, the updates are not as rapid as they would be if I had a staff…. but I do my best to keep it current).
I do look forward to your feedback and to your questions. We may not always agree on things, but I am happy to discuss anything you like…. and if I am not familiar with it at first, I will do the research so that our conversation can be a productive one.
Thank you for reading. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
David
Thanks for the info. As you have already learned first hand on this site, opposing opinions are not so welcome. I applaud you for coming here and putting your positions out there. Again, good luck.
“As you have already learned first hand on this site, opposing opinions are not so welcome.”
Your constant whining on this matter is mysterious: what could you possibly be talking about?
1) What evidence do you have that opposing opinions are not welcome?
2) What, exactly, do you mean by ‘welcome’?
Everything alright turbo? Haven’t seen your work around here in a while. Scroll up for the answer to Question #1. As far as Question #2, ‘welcome’ would be a response that wasn’t complete vitriol and included some reasonable debate of the topic.
DogDiesel,
Yes, I have noticed that the folks at this site tend to be quite opinionated. That’s o.k., because as long as I am able to do my research and respond with actual data, I believe the conversation is not a waste of time.
Thank you for the well-wishes.
David
OH NO! Say it isn’t so!
Update: Brendan Doherty says Cicilline campaign worker never paid back $103,000 loan to city
Whether or not the statement could be considered technically accurate, it’s obviously designed to mislead people that Cicilline was paying off supporters who simply ignored the repayment schedule.
“It’s true the worker, Ramirez, never paid back the loan. However, Doherty’s statement implies the city got nothing back when in fact it recouped most of his loan obligation.”
That’s just dirty political tricks from Doherty. Par for the course, but not when you make integrity your primary issue in the campaign.
Really!?! ”Politifact” has edited the article and changed its ruling. The Politifact link in the original post does not take you back to the article published on Sunday. This changes the context of the original post.
Hasn’t it been known for a while that the title insurance company paid back most of the loan? In my most humble opinion Politifact has never seemed more unreliable and ridiculous than it does now. The city got paid back most of the loan. The “fact” that Ramirez wasn’t the one who made restitution means what?
The Politifact article says:
“Ramirez is heard saying he manipulated absentee ballots when he worked for Cicilline’s campaign . . .”
The Go Local article says:
“The 17-minute clip shot by investigators working for Gemma shows Erasmo Ramirez, a 66-year-old male who has become well-known in his community for his involvement in local political races over the last decade, explaining that he can personally notarize absentee ballots and can use his influence to convince voters to support Gemma.”
What is it? We know what he told Gemma. We don’t know what he actually did for Cicilline. How does notarizing ballots become “manipulating ballots”? Is trying to influence someone illegal?
Nice work Projo.