J.D. Hayworth Fact-Check Fail

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

One of the favorite techniques of conservatives in the media is to attack the "librul" media as biased. When confronted with the facts, these conservatives smugly state that the questioner is wrong about the facts and proceed to deliver a line of ideological talking points to their conservative base who enjoy confrontation with the demonized "librul" media as entertainment more than any concern for the facts or inconvenient truths. You can just hear J.D. Hayworth supporters at home shouting at their T.V. "Yeah J.D.! Give that liberal lesbian the what for! That lyin' liberal media. They don't know what the hell they're talking about."

Unfortunately, this conservative base are not the type to read the corrections the following day or to actually fact-check what their conservative hero smugly claimed to be the truth. If they ever bothered to actually do so, they would discover that J.D. Hayworth was lying to them. Bald-faced look into the camera and lie to his supporters and anyone else watching.

Here is the fact-check of J.D. Hayworth's appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read the transcript Tuesday, March 16th – Rachel Maddow show (below the fold).

MADDOW: On last night‘s show, I had a really good time talking with former Arizona Congressman, J.D. Hayworth, who is challenging John McCain in the Republican Senate primary in Arizona.

It is hard to get Republicans to agree to come on this show, so I was really happy. The whole staff was really happy that he was here, even after he took at shot at said RACHEL MADDOW SHOW staff.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. REP. J.D. HAYWORTH (R-AZ): Rachel, your researchers should have done a better job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Now, we take that kind of allegation seriously. Mr. Hayworth, in fact, alleged a number of times last night that we got stuff wrong in our research. Now, here is the first time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): You were ousted by a Democrat in 2006. And by that point, people who knew nothing about Arizona politics knew you for being one of Congress‘ top recipients, if not the top recipient, of money from Jack Abramoff.

HAYWORTH: Well, first of all, Rachel, your information is incorrect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Actually my information was correct. Mr. Hayworth argued that on one list, he wasn‘t listed first or third in terms of Abramoff money. He was listed ninth. This is his defense, “I was only the ninth biggest recipient of funds related to the corrupt lobbyist in prison.” (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYWORTH: If you really go back and take a look at the numbers, I ranked ninth in overall contributions from those who might even have a tangential affiliation to Jack Abramoff. In fact, some other groups rated higher.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Groups. When he says “groups,” that‘s the giveaway. Mr. Hayworth is ninth on a list that he found of everyone, including campaign committees and groups who got Abramoff money.

I had only asked Mr. Hayworth about being a top Abramoff money recipient among members of Congress. He was, in fact, a top recipient of Abramoff-related money among members in Congress. I was right. I did not have my facts wrong.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): In terms of you receiving money from Abramoff, your chief-of-staff in 2005 admitted that it was over $150,000 of money linked to Abramoff. The “Washington Post” listed you third. The Center for Responsive Politics listed you first. Others have listed you second.

HAYWORTH: Rachel, your researchers should have done a better job, for had they checked, they would have seen corrections from the “New York Times.”

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Actually, my researchers did a great job, and I am one of my researchers. That “New York Times” correction does not make Mr. Hayworth‘s case better; it actually makes it worse.

You see here – the congressman received $101,000 that was donated by Mr. Abramoff and his family, Indians tribes and a gambling cruise ship line he once owned. It did not include donations from Mr. Abramoff‘s lobbying partners or other associates.

So in other words, what the correction says is that while Mr. Hayworth took a ton of Jack Abramoff-related money, they couldn‘t promise they have counted all of it.

Take me on all you want, Congressman, but my researchers do and did a great job. They were right. Anthony, Trisha(ph), you guys were right.

And nothing provably true in print anywhere on earth mitigates how up to your eyeballs you, Congressman, were in Abramoff slime when you were in Congress which is, in part, why you lost your job in Congress a few years ago.

I also asked Mr. Hayworth about the comments that he made to an Orlando radio station on Sunday about gay marriage.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

HAYWORTH: You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this – this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage – now get this – it defined marriage as simply, quote, “the establishment of intimacy.”

Now, how dangerous is that? I mean, I don‘t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I could make the point of absurdity with an absurd point. I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MADDOW: Try as we might, neither my mare nor I could find this “establishment of intimacy phrase” anywhere in the ruling, which I brought up with Mr. Hayworth while I still had him here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): What you said about the establishment of intimacy being the definition of marriage in Massachusetts – I don‘t think it‘s true, sir.

HAYWORTH: Well, that‘s fine. You and I can have a disagreement about that.

MADDOW: Well, it either is true or isn‘t. It‘s empirical.

HAYWORTH: OK.

MADDOW: All right.

HAYWORTH: I appreciate the fact that we have a disagreement on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: We don‘t, in fact, have a disagreement. Mr. Hayworth is actually just wrong. What he says is in the Massachusetts court ruling is not there. It‘s not something to agree on or disagree on. It‘s something to look up. I looked it up again. He‘s wrong. The ruling doesn't define marriage as the establishment of intimacy. It just doesn't.

So those are the facts. What Mr. Hayworth said I got wrong and weirdly what he said the staff on this show got wrong, we didn't get wrong.

I am still thankful he agreed to be on the show. I am honestly not sure, though, if there will be a round 2.