Yesterday we wrote that David Cicilline would try to make the CD1 campaign about policy issues while challenger Brendan Doherty would try to avoid any discussion of policy and instead smear his opponent by painting him as being untrustworthy. But on Brendan’s very first attempt at this the Projo Politifact team gives him a “mostly false” grade for one of his accusations.
Doherty was on RIPR’s Political Roundtable this morning … listen for how his conservative credentials would serve as an impediment to Rhode Island if he were elected to Congress.
Rhode Island makes it harder for local foster children to access higher education opportunities than do neighboring states. It’s examples like this that make me shake my head when people think the road to economic salvation is more opportunities for the most fortunate among us rather than the least fortunate.
What’s going on in North Kingstown? First the School Committee fires its janitors and now the Town Council is accused of overworking firefighters. Locals say the political system in this middle class suburb has completely broken down.
Aaron Regunberg weighs in on Jon Brien’s loss for GoLocal, as well as what the primary says about RI-CAN’s effect on local politics. Progressives aren’t happy that the campaign for more charter schools in Rhode Island is being financed in part by Big Pharma, among other corporate interests.
Speaking of GoLocal, Dan McGowan wastes no time before previewing the general election for State House races.
Here’s the film trailer that’s helped to incite the current anti-American unrest in the Muslim world. According to NPR, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is walking a fine line, distancing herself and the State Department as far as possible from the video that has sparked anger and protests across the Arab world.”
Here’s Senator Whitehouse’s statement on the situation: “The attack on our embassy in Libya was a tragedy, and I join President Obama and Secretary Clinton in condemning the actions of those involved. Now, as our nation comes together to honor the service of Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues, it is fitting that we make special note of the sacrifices made by our men and women serving abroad. As the son of a career diplomat, I know that these brave individuals put public service and patriotism above all else. I am honored to help recognize their service and sacrifice in this dark hour.”
Today in 1966, the United States launched Operation Attleboro in Vietnam. Named after the neighboring Massachusetts town, it’s a historically significant military decision because the search and destroy tactic is emblematic of the United States’ missteps in the conflict.
Hmm, if Doherty would lie to us during the course of a political campaign I suppose we shouldn’t trust him either.
” “mostly false” grade for one of his accusations.”
Try convincing an already cynical electorate. It’s always amazing how Politifact picks through an issue such as this with a fine tooth comb. I suppose the ‘Mostly False’ is because as much as Doherty had no proof, Politifact has no proof that he is wrong.
That’s not so (well, or only correct in a limited sense). Here’s the heart of it…
***********
“This year’s closing process was marked by delays and problems caused by miscommunication among the accounting personnel. We believe that the year-end closing could proceed more quickly and smoothly by developing a logical order for closing procedures and assigning responsibility for completing the procedures to specific personnel,” [James Wilkinson, who oversaw the audit for Braver] wrote. That speaks to a finance department in disarray under Cicilline, not one withholding data for political purposes, as Doherty implies.
Wilkinson said the delay in 2010 was unusual for Providence. “They did have turnover in the finance department so there were a lot of things going on,” he said. “There was cooperation but it was taking a while.”
But more important, according to Wilkinson, if the city had met all of its deadlines for supplying financial infor mation, the audit still would not have been completed before the election. It typically comes out in late December.
****************
So when Doherty says Cicilline “intentionally missed deadlines” for political gain HE IS LYING!
Also from that same article:
We previously gave Cicilline a Mostly False on his statement that the internal auditor for the city of Providence “was not locked out” of access to the city’s finances.
What great choices we have!
From Politifact
“’This year’s closing process was marked by delays and problems caused by miscommunication among the accounting personnel. We believe that the year-end closing could proceed more quickly and smoothly by developing a logical order for closing procedures and assigning responsibility for completing the procedures to specific personnel,’ he wrote. That speaks to a finance department in disarray under Cicilline, not one withholding data for political purposes, as Doherty implies.”
It refreshing to know that, in this instance, Cicilline was merely incompetent.
No one can control staff turnover by fiat. Come on. Anyone who has managed long enough knows what it’s like to lose key personnel at a bad time.
By bad time, you mean when the city finances were collapsing, notwithstanding the Congressman’s statements that the city is in “excellent financial condition.” Or was it Tavares who was lying when referring to the category 5 storm he inherited?
I understand why progressives support Cicilline – he is a solid voice and vote in the House, but do you really believe there wasn’t a concerted effort by the then-mayor and his staff to cover up the City’s financial condition until he got through the House election? The Finance Staff was leaving because the city was in financial ruin, and that ruin, whether Cicilline’s fault or not, was covered up by Cicilline. Sorry, but I don’t think Cicilline deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one.
“Excellent condition” was a dumb thing to say. But it was a single comment made during the campaign. I’m a resident of Providence and was happy with the financial managment under Cicilline. He kept property taxes down, payed into the rainy day fund (and used it… thank god we had it), negotiated PILOT and contracts with the unions. What he should have said, we did an excellent job with what we had… a massive recession, large numbers of foreclosures, huge cuts in state aid.
No, I don’t think there was a cover up. City residents knew things were bad. We all expected massive tax hikes and you know what? It didn’t happen! That said, I don’t think the current mayor was lying either when he used that colorful metaphor. Personally I don’t think he should have said that either. That didn’t help the city, but it did provide him some cover for actions like laying off all the teachers.
“Wilkinson said the delay in 2010 was unusual for Providence. “They did have turnover in the finance department so there were a lot of things going on,” he said. “There was cooperation but it was taking a while.”
But more important, according to Wilkinson, if the city had met all of its deadlines for supplying financial infor mation, the audit still would not have been completed before the election. It typically comes out in late December.
****************
So when Doherty says Cicilline “intentionally missed deadlines” for political gain HE IS LYING!”
There’s no definitive explanation there. Wilkinson is just speculating. You’re just grasping at straw in a desperate attempt to justify David Cicilline’s lie. I’ll admit Doherty has no proof but there’s no proof his wrong either.
There was cooperation but it was taking a while.
So he didn’t know if the city was cooperating or not? Puh-lease.
the audit still would not have been completed before the election
And he didn’t know if the audit would be completed before the election or not? Come on. That’s not speculation. That’s a statement of fact. There was no reason to delay for the sake of the campaign. It’s simply false.
“They did have turnover in the finance department so there were a lot of things going on,” he said. “There was cooperation but it was taking a while.”
That’s pure speculation on his part. You can try and spin it anyway you want but in the end, it’s pure speculation. It really doesn’t matter when he says the audit would be completed. The point is they missed a deadline which was “unusual” and coincidentally just before the election. Let’s not forget that he lied about the financial state of affairs. The delayed data allowed him to perpetuate the lie until after the election.
Dog, twice you more or less say: “I’ll admit Doherty has no proof but there’s no proof he’s wrong either.”
This is the fallacy of ignorance, sometimes called burden of proof fallacy. An absence of evidence for a claim does not put the burden of proof on those who note that evidence is lacking. Candidate Doherty has made the claim. He is under obligation to support it. If he does not, this not not mean “he might be right” because there is no proof he’s wrong.
Try again!!
You’re kidding right. You’re just splitting hairs to protect your beloved David Cicilline. The facts are he didn’t meet the deadline, he required the city auditor to file a public information request, and he lied when he said Providence was in excellent financial condition. The totality of circumstances would lead the average person to believe it was intentional. This isn’t a court of law. It’s a court of public opinion. Doherty really doesn’t need to prove anything. It’s already out there. What’s more believable? Do think the PolitiFarce article made any difference? It’s understandable that you can’t acknowledge the obvious without disparaging the character of the Congressman but at the same time very sad.
No, no, no – mine was a baldly direct piece o comment, not hair splitting. I didn’t say anything about the actual candidates. You assume I am just diverting attention away from Congressman Cicciline to dilute the impact of your comment, when the intent is the opposite. Plus, if I did that, this too would be a red herring fallacy. Language is power man, so use it – which you pretty much do effectively in your response.
I interpreted your earlier comments as your trying to mount a defense of Doherty’s claim, or his right to make that claim without direct rancor. Dissent is an important part of any progressive dialogue, so you are of course right that this is not a court of law. Neither is this thread mere public opinion. It is a debate about the Politifact ruling of “mostly false” on Doherty.
If your goal is to argue that this ruling is flawed, then it does not help your point or Doherty to use recognized fallacious reasoning to make that argument- especially as you have a key point to make. I didn’t say shut up, or divert comment to personal attacks. I said try again, which means, this point is probably worth making but don’t let yourself be dismissed before you have made it. But hey! No problem. You’ve already addressed your deeper issue more directly by now.
“If your goal is to argue that this ruling is flawed, then it does not help your point or Doherty to use recognized fallacious reasoning to make that argument- especially as you have a key point to make.”
No. I have no problem with the actual ruling. It’s almost comical that they zeroed in on one point of deception listed in a press release containing ten but that’s not my point. This is an election season and both sides will play to the electorates sensibilities and right now, despite all efforts by progressives to obfuscate it, all appearances point to Mr. Cicilline having deceived the electorate to gain office. Doherty is only echoing sentiment so like or not, fair or not, isn’t the onus on Cicilline to prove otherwise to get reelected?
The problem is not that Mr. Doherty would speculate on something — people make educated guesses all the time.
The issue is that he would state his conclusion as though it were a fact for which he had the evidence; that’s a dubious practice, and one that should be viewed with suspicion regarding what he would be like in the future.
If one can cite the evidence, then wonderful — make the statement. But if one is going to speculate, one should at least make it clear that she or he is drawing their own conclusion.
That’s not too much to ask, is it?
David
Great thread. I love the link to the Politfact article with Brendan’s depression era sidewall haircut. He looks like a real g-man. Isn’t that short for “government man”? Whatever. I just wish someone grounded in philosophy and logic would take Politifact to task. I think Dog Diesel should probably trust his intuitions. Logic will only take you so far, especially when up against an organization that has no qualms about cherry picking “issues” in the quest for “truth”. I am of the opinion the Journal wants to set itself up as the arbiter of what is reasonable. I think this particular Politi”fact” article, with a trade name that seems as though it might have been invented by the same people who came up with the trade name “Ambien” is a kind of “watch this, look out for that set up”. I don’t think it’s a secret that the powers that be and anyone who still has a job left at the Journal would like to see Doherty win. What should we expect next from Politi”fact”???
What I would really like to know is what Brendan would do if his subordinates were found to be dealing drugs. Would he suggest the whole department undergo drug tests in violation of their contract because of the actions of a few? What about privacy rights? Like the fourth amendment to the constitution? You know? What about contracts? Do they mean anything? I don’t think Paul Harvey is around to tell “the rest of the story” but I would assume readers of R I Future are aware of what has been splashed all over the pages Rhode Islands most trusted “news source” the past few years. We know what Cicilline did. Would Doherty do any differently . . . or worse? I think that is the real question.