TV spots and press releases: Mitchell vs. Hayworth

Harry Mitchell has his first TV ad out. It's available on the campaign website here.

It's an ethics spot, hitting hard on the Abramoff/Hayworth connection then touching on the fact that JD's wife, Mary Hayworth, is the paid employee of his own PAC, T.E.A.M. PAC.

EVERYTHING in it is part of the public record.

So, of course, JD fights back with a name-calling press release. Specifically, he calls Harry Mitchell "cowardly, desperate, and dirty."

He goes on to say the ad "is full of lies, distortions, and innuendo," and that JD only received $2,250 from Jack Abramoff.

He also defends the employment of his wife as not "unethical or illegal."

Couple of points here -

The ad specifically states that JD received the $100,000 from Abramoff and his clients, and uses as its source an AZ Republic story from August 18, 2006.

I've checked his press releases for the last 6 weeks, and nowhere does he mention the article.

If it was a lie, why didn't he say something when it came out?

As for the amount he received directly from Abramoff, the record shows that amount to total $2,250. He has that right.

Unfortunately for JD, the scandal isn't just about the money he received directly from Abramoff.

From another AZ Rep article, this one from December 23, 2005 (emphasis mine):

Arizona's U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, ranked as one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from interests enmeshed in a raging lobbying scandal, has no reason to return the money, his top aide says.

{snip}

Eule said that the Republican congressman has received campaign contributions totaling $150,000 from tribes affiliated at one time or another with the former lobbyist but that the donations had nothing to do with actions that have put Abramoff at the center of Senate and criminal investigations into possible influence-buying.

As for the "attack" on his wife Mary? After eight years of watching the Republicans put Hillary and Chelsea Clinton through hell, I am loathe to support an ad that targets a candidate's family member.

However, JD put her on the payroll (at ~$25K/year) of his own T.E.A.M. PAC. He may be correct when he says that it's not illegal to do so, but it sure looks like a way to funnel money from his (mostly) lobbyist/corporate-funded PAC into his own household.

That looks *supremely* unethical.

And since she is a willing part of his apparent corruption, she is a fair topic for discussion.

Wonder if they are already documenting her "work product" for the PAC, in preparation for any subpoenas that might come her way?

The Hayworth press release also says that the "attack on Mary Hayworth" is based solely on innuendo.

JD's financial disclosure forms show that since 1999, she has worked for T.E.A.M. PAC, and that has been the her sole source of income. Previous years' forms show her has having no income of her own.

That's not "innuendo"; that's their own words.

In summary, and in keeping with his long-established pattern, JD responded to Mitchell's criticisms by calling them "lies" and "distortions" and proceeding with a number of lies and distortions of his own.

In other JD press release news, he was consistent in his respect for the truth (or lack thereof) today.

From a press release on his House site (emphasis mine) -

Hayworth Leads Fight Against Border Tunnels

{snip}

Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) took the fight...to the floor of the House of Representatives and left with a stunning victory...

{snip}

After hours of debate, the legislation passed with rare unanimous consent by a vote of 422 to 0.

{snip}

...said Hayworth in speaking in favor of the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006 (H.R.4830 also known as Dreier-Hayworth)...

What fight? The bill passed unanimously! "Fight" implies that someone was in favor of the tunnels; no one was.

Oh, and as far as the bill being "known as Dreier-Hayworth"??

JD *is* listed as a co-sponsor.

One (1) of forty-one (41) co-sponsors.

The bill was introduced on March 1, 2006.

JD was added as a co-sponsor on September 20, 2006.

The bill passed as was sent to the Senate on September 22. Do your own math.


I'm beginning to think that when JD gets angry and indignant about someone else "distorting" the truth, he is NOT angry about the distortion.

He's jealous that someone else is moving in on what he views as his personal territory.