Our Mission

We, The Republican Watchdogs, seek to encourage increased participation in the ongoing political conversation. In order to facilitate this we hope to promote HONEST communication between the Republican candidates and the public. We feel that fact checking statements and advertisements by the candidates is paramount to an honest American political system. As such, we promise to uncover dishonest communication before it taints the public.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Zachary Wyatt: A New Voice Ad

Our readers have spoken! They're not interested in our commentary on campaign ads in general, they're interested in our regular formula: Decoding and commenting on general ads. As such, we're going back to the tried and true format!

Zach's latest television ad entitled Zachary Wyatt: A New Voice is tasked with differentiating Zach from the other candidate.



The ad introduces him as a new conservative voice for Missouri, that will "get Missouri working again." This introduction does not offer up anything false, however it's a matter of opinion if Zach is the voice Missouri needs to get us working again. Zach isn't doing anything bad except implying that his opponent is not fit for getting Missouri working again, which is perfectly ethical. He doesn't back up his claim, but it's not far fetched. The Watchdogs take no issue with his introduction.

Next, the ad states that Zach is an air force vet that knows our country is great because of our people, not our government. We see no problem with this. An interesting observation we made when listening to the ad is the fact that the man reading the script says Missouri instead of Missoura, which is an unusual distinction. Usually rural parts of Missouri and the candidates running there have their ads refer to Missouri as Missoura rather than the proper Missouri, because their constituents refer to Missouri as Missoura.

The following statement says that Zach will stand up to the destructive liberal policies of D.C. politicians. We find this to be curious on multiple levels. The most interesting thing about his statement is the fact that he is implying that his opponent is a D.C. politician, which isn't true. She's a Jefferson politician if anything. The most damning thing he does in the ad though is to state that he'll stand up to the nebulous "destructive liberal policies" without ever definng what they are and saying how he'll stand up to them. We find this to be shady at best.




Zach's last message is that if elected he will create jobs, reduce our tax burden and "finally get government spending under control." Zach Wyatt really believes he's the only candidate who can do that, so we see no problem with him stating his opinion.


Overall we found this to be a very clean ad, and while it was light on the facts, it was also light on the lies, which The Watchdogs appreciate. We would love to be out of a job!

Monday, October 25, 2010

The Health Care Showdown

Tonight the Republican Watchdogs are going to switch back into advertisement checking and focus on a new ad from Roy Blunt. This ad focuses on the different stance these two candidates have on the issue of health care.



The advertisement opens with a direct attack against Carnahan and states that “Carnahan supports $500 billion in Medicare cuts, hurting seniors most.” This claim has been focused on before by Blunt. The ad then builds off of this statement and goes on to say that “The Carnahan-Obama plan cuts Medicare to pay for government-run healthcare, and that’s wrong.”

In analyzing this attack on Carnahan, the ad seems to be nothing more than key phrases and misrepresentation. In Blunt’s defense, according to Politico, “The health care overhaul will result in increased out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare Advantage plans.” A Press Zoom article explains that, “Robin Carnahan said she would have voted yes to Obamacare and supports the $500 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for it.”

In defense of Carnahan’s position, a Kansas City Star article explains that the health care law will reduce the federal budget deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years. Also, according to Politifact, the supposed $500 billion in cuts are not actually cuts but are rather reductions in future spending. Finally, the ad fails to mention the benefits for seniors that come from the health care law. Politifact again explains that by 2020, Medicare will pay 75 percent of the total cost of prescription drug coverage. Clearly, Blunt’s ad is unfair when looking at Carnahan and her stance. What hurts Carnahan however is that according to the Press Zoom article, “71% of Missourians voted against Obamacare and government-run health care.” Clearly Carnahan is against the majority here with her stance on health care.

The advertisement closes by explaining that Blunt will strengthen Medicare and protect seniors. In fact checking this, Blunt is not being entirely truthful. According to the Kansas City Star, Blunt DOES support repeal of the law but has NOT said he opposes all cuts in the growth of Medicare. The Republican Watchdogs also have a problem with Blunt “strengthening Medicare.” According to Fired Up! Blunt gave a recent interview where he expressed some strong opinions against Medicare. Bunt explained that it would have been best if Medicare and Medicaid had never been created.

How will Blunt strengthen Medicare when he wishes it was never created? Clearly, his statements in this ad are not entirely accurate.

Overall, this ad is extremely misleading and is frustrating to the Republican Watchdogs. As this race intensifies, the smear ads will only get worse. However, we will always fight to protect the truth!

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Negative Campaigns: The Only Game in Town?

Tonight we're going to take a departure from our normal format, which is us analyzing an ad and finding the issues with it. While this is a tried and true method, and will definitely be resumed in the future, today we're going to talk about the reasons candidates run negative campaign ads with, often, incorrect or partially incorrect facts.

Usually you'll find that a candidate runs positive advertisements until they feel as though they are threatened in the polls, at which point the campaign begins to get quite nasty. Is this always the best tactic? The Watchdogs think not, however candidates do it time and time again. Why?

I think the reason is that most of the voting public is just not motivated enough to call the candidates out on their lies and half truths. We think this is simply unacceptable. Please tell us what you think in the comments, we'd love to hear why you think negative ads are used so extensively.

Are negative ads used to such a great extent because they're effective? Do these ads really have no negative impact on our views of the candidates? Is it truly impossible to run a completely positive campaign at a national level?

We'd love to hear from you on this! This Sunday we'll have a regular post, but on Monday we'll have a special post to discuss the issues we introduced today, as well as addresss your commentary on negative ads.

See you then!

Monday, October 18, 2010

Blunt's New Immigration Advertisement, Truthful?

The Republican Watchdogs are back this week with a close look at Roy Blunt’s new advertisement on Immigration. This newest advertisement from Blunt highlights his commitment to keeping our borders safe and attacks Robin Carnahan over her stance on immigration. You can count on the Republican Watchdogs to thoroughly inspect this advertisement and find the truth behind the claims!



The advertisement opens with Blunt explaining how America needs to improve border security how he is helping. Blunt explains that he has “led the fight” in increasing boarder security and supported building of fencing in critical areas. According to the voting records from On The Issues, Blunt DID vote yes on building a fence along the Mexican border and does have a “sealed-border stance” on immigration issues. Thus, this first claim from Blunt seems to be accurate.


The advertisement then attacks Carnahan because she “opposes measures to secure the boarder like Arizona’s new immigration law.” This is quite a claim and as usual the Republican Watchdogs dug deep to find the truth. According to Politico, Carnahan did explain that, “I’m not in favor of what they are doing in Arizona. This is something Washington’s supposed to do, they haven’t done it.” Carnahan later added that she saw it as an infringement on people’s freedoms. Clearly, Carnahan does oppose the Arizona law as stated in the advertisement. However, the claim that she is against measures to secure our boarder is too broad. According to Politico, Carnahan stated that she would be in favor of a “comprehensive immigration law that included increased boarder security, enforcement of rules against hiring illegal immigrants and strict requirements for people seeking normalized status.” Carnahan obviously is not against protecting our borders. The advertisement is making a blanket statement against Carnahan based on her one issue with the Arizona immigration law.


The advertisement then focuses on Blunt’s support of the Arizona law and his stance on “keeping borders safe, finishing the fence and enforcing the law.” According to Fired Up, Blunt is in support of the Arizona law and believes that “there is nothing wrong with states trying to do what is necessary to protect people in their state.” Blunt sees the Arizona law as “common sense.” Below is the audio clip of Blunt’s comments on the Arizona immigration law.


Overall, the advertisement is pretty truthful and accurate. Blunt is honest in his claims he makes for himself. However, his attack on Carnahan is unfair and inaccurate aside from her opposition to the Arizona immigration Law.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Plagiarizing with Wyatt

The Watchdogs have recently uncovered what we believe to be a shameless act of plagiarism by Republican hopeful Zach Wyatt. We were tipped off not by our own readers, who remain silent, (perhaps due to the sheer shock endured when one realizes that a political candidate would lie to get elected) but by a reader of the republican blog Winning with Wyatt.

SamSeaborn321informed us of an old posting on Show Me Progress which illustrates the extensive plagiarization of a speech on the popular television show The West Wing. Up until yesterday the blatant plagiarization was still viewable in all of its glory on Wyatt's own website www.electzachwyatt.com under his veterans section, however as of today his website appears to be down. Has Wyatt been made aware that The Watchdogs are on to him?

Wyatt must not be allowed to get away with this falsehood. In doing our part to bring greater clarification to this issue The Watchdogs will be asking Wyatt for an interview on the subject so that he may let Missouri know why he decided it was ok to copy work that's not his own. Will he spin and call it an egregious error committed by an aide, or will he, refreshingly, own up to his actions and apologize to all those involved?

The answers to these questions remain to be seen, however their implications will have no small impact on his now questionable political career. Rest assured, more on this issue is forthcoming.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Zachary Wyatt Enters the Media Frenzy

This week the Republican Watchdogs will look at the new radio advertisement by Zachary Wyatt, the Republican candidate for Second District State Representative. Wyatt had been a quiet candidate thus far in terms of media and now the Republican Watchdogs will ensure that his message is truthful!





Wyatt opens this message by mentioning that he has served in the United States Air Force where he “fought for our freedoms.” According to an article from The Heartland Connection, Wyatt spent more than six years in the Air Force and “attended the Community College of the Air Force as well as the Defense Language Institutes.” From Wyatt’s website, he explained that he was an “Airborne Chechen/Russian/Ukrainian Linguist.” Clearly, Wyatt was truthful when calling upon his experience with the Air Force.

Wyatt then goes on to enhance his credibility by listing the organizations that have endorsed him. He lists the National Organization of Independent Businesses, Missouri Right to Life, and his membership with the National Rifle Association. In looking into his first endorser, according to an article from the NFIB, Wyatt did in fact receive their endorsement. His second endorsement, the Missouri Right to Life, also confirmed their support for Wyatt on their website. Lastly, Wyatt proudly announced his membership with the NRA. On his Facebook, Wyatt has a picture shooting a gun with a local NRA leader and announced his endorsement from the NRA on the week of October 3rd. Overall, Wyatt has been truthful in detailing his endorsements and has not inflated any statements in this radio message.

The Republican Watchdogs are very satisfied with this initial message from Wyatt and hope he continues to release truthful and accurate information.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Missourians, Obamacare, and Crossroads GPS

Hello fellow truth lovers. Today we'll be looking at a new ad campaign set to run in St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield, and Columbia. The new ad, which is an "issues" ad is being run by the group Crossroads GPS. This group is funded largely through anonymous sources, and claims to be non-partisan, which allows them to apply for tax exempt status. While we're not going to go into the intricacies behind being "non-partisan" and truly being non-partisan. The reason I placed quotation marks around the word issues earlier is because, according to some groups their tax exempt status should be provoked because their issues ads clearly guide voters to vote for Republican candidates.

Without further ado, here's the ad:







According to the ad 71% of Missouri voters voted for Proposition C, a proposition that opposed Obamacare in Missouri. This is true. While many Democrats and supporters of Obamacare suggest that the majority of voters who showed up for the vote were Tea Partiers or Republicans the fact stands that 71% of Missourians that showed up to vote did vote against "Government-Mandated Health Care."

The next claim the ad makes is that Carnahan sided with "Lobbyists, Unions, and Washington to force Obamacare on (Missourians)." The Watchdogs find this claim to be quite fishy, because there are just as many "Lobbyists, Big Unions, and Washington insiders" that are against the bill as there are for Obamacare. We find this to be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The last claim made by Crossroads GPS is that Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder is suing the U.S. government over Obamacare. We find this statement to be true, but the following statement is neither backed up or qualified. The statement is question is this: "(he is) suing the Federal Government so we can keep our health care." Under Obamacare no one in Missouri loses health care. In fact, many individuals that did not have health care will have health care under the plan. Thus, we find this statement to be quite biased and untrue.

This ad reeks of Partisanship, and while it is certainly not the most fallacious ad being run by either party, it does spin the issues considerably. Remember The Republican Watchdogs is a NO SPIN ZONE. As always, tell us what you think in the comments or shoot us an email if you've found something you want the Watchdogs to bite at.

Monday, October 4, 2010

Is Blunt's Attack on Tom Carnahan's Wind Farm Accurate?

The Republican Watchdogs are once again taking a look at Roy Blunt and his newest advertisement. The advertisement, called “Where’s My Stimulus” is a fierce attack aimed at the $107 million dollars in stimulus cash received by Robin’s brother, Tom Carnahan. This advertisement is making some large claims and the Republican Watchdogs are here to make sure they are the right claims!



In this advertisement, Blunt shifts his attack from Robin to her brother, Tom. The advertisement opens by stating that Carnahan supported the Obama stimulus spending and Tom was a “top Obama fundraiser.” These initial claims are true, no problems here. The advertisement then explains the wind farms and how the Carnahans have received $107 million in stimulus cash. Then the ad closes by stating “The Carnahan’s get a real windfall. We get the bill and no new jobs.”


Just how accurate is this new assortment of claims? The Republican Watchdogs began by looking into Tom Carnahan’s wind farm. According to Politicmo, the wind farm, which is called “Lost Creek”, is located in northwest Missouri. “Lost Creek” received the stimulus grant “in-lieu-of-tax credit through the Recovery Act’s Section 1603 Grant Program.” According to the Section 1603 Grant Program, the project DID create 300 new jobs during the construction. Also, according to Angela Guyadeen, the wind farm has helped over “1,100 alternative energy companies across the country.” Thus, Blunt’s claim that “No new jobs” came from the wind farm is not completely credible. Blunt’s attack that Tom and Robin positioned themselves to get this money is also not accurate. In the article on Politicmo, Lloyd Smith who is Executive Director of the Republican Party gave a statement on this issue. Lloyd said, “Robin Carnahan supported it, Russ Carnahan voted for it, and now Tom Carnahan is profiting from it.” According to an article in STLtoday, Russ Carnahan DID vote for the legislation but “Officials from the Energy and Treasury departments said that neither Russ nor Robin played a role in the awards.” Also, according to Ad Watch, the grant was not competitive, and the fact that Tom was a “top Obama fundraiser” played no role in his grant approval as the ad may suggest. This award to Tom Carnahan is not out of the ordinary. The STLtoday article explains that over 200 such payments have been issued by the Government since the Recovery Act took effect.


Overall, Blunt’s claims here are nothing more than smear attempts that rest on a foundation of slanted-truths and altered statements. The Republican Watchdogs give this advertisement a HIGH alert for deceptiveness, watch out fellow voters.