Attacks on the education of Kyrsten Sinema, explained

Kyrsten Sinema, a three-term Democratic congressman who is competing for the Arizona Senate seat, has surprised many with his lead in the election over Republican rival Martha McSally. This is no mean feat in a state that has not elected Democrat in the Senate. three decades.

Sinema has, however, made some serious revisions to its public image before reaching this stage. Formerly a fervent Green Party supporter who supported Ralph Nader, she is now one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, having even voted a few times with President Trump on key issues in the world. immigration. But its changing political positions are not the only things to be examined in depth lately.

She was rejected by the portrait of her education, with questions centered on how she characterized a period of her life when she and her family were homeless in Florida.

Sinema is not the first Democrat to ask difficult questions about his self-proclaimed personal narrative. Julia Salazar, Democratic Socialist candidate in the New York State Senate, insisted on her Jewish immigrant background in the working class, despite protests from family members who said she was distorting some aspects of her work. his legacy. Like Salazar, Sinema had to overcome her doubts as to how she mentored part of her childhood.

"For almost three years, we lived in a former abandoned petrol station with no running water or electricity," Sinema said of a difficult period for his childhood. Since the beginning of her campaign in the Senate, however, members of her extended family and a report from the New York Times have raised questions about the truth of her statement and hinted that she exaggerated some aspects of it. Sinema and his immediate family, meanwhile, say that this is not the case.

"It is disappointing that Congressman McSally's allies have made fun of Kyrsten's family for their poverty – and have tried to turn his childhood into a political issue – it's disrespectful and a new minimum for their campaign," he said. James Owens, Director of Communications for the Sinema Campaign A representative of McSally's campaign sent a request for comment to the Republican National Committee.

"Kyrsten Sinema's own family claims to have lied about his education for political reasons," said RNC spokesman Michael Ahrens. "If the campaign is upset by the credibility of its credibility with voters, they should talk to the Washington Post and the New York Times, who have been in the front page of the newspaper."

Anxious to find ways to shatter Sinema's strong reputation, Republicans seized this information as another indicator that she had manipulated part of her image to become a more attractive political candidate. This is part of a broader GOP strategy to reduce something that Sinema desperately needs if it wants to influence key independents and win the Senate seat in November: its credibility.

There were some questions about how Sinema portrayed his education

Sinema placed her memories of a difficult childhood at the center of her campaign, highlighting them in an announcement announcing her candidacy to the Senate:

My mother had trouble taking care of us, children. We lost our car first. Then we lost our house. For almost three years, we lived in a former abandoned petrol station with no running water or electricity. Sometimes we did not have enough food to eat. But we managed with the help of the family, the church and sometimes even the government.

Sinema stresses how her past distinguishes her from other candidates. "I never thought that being homeless would prevent me from being what I wanted to be," she says, pointing out that the "American dream" consisted of both to work and to help others when people had the ability.

However, in an August Washington Post article, members of his extended family suggested that his descriptions were not entirely accurate. More specifically, they contradicted Sinema's account of the building in which she lived with her family, noting that there was in fact running water and electricity.

Sinema's aunt, Susie Fleming, told La Poste that the candidate's memory of the building was a bit false. "I realize it hurts people and that's what she wanted, but you know, it's not the truth," Fleming said. Fleming and his brother, John Howard, both say the building is equipped with utilities. After making these comments, however, Fleming asked The Post to have a statement from Sinema's father-in-law Andy Howard – who supports Sinema's story – and said he would have more knowledge about the conditions of family life.

Jonathan Martin, of the New York Times, also analyzed court records dating back to 1985 and 1986, including documents submitted by Sinema's mother and father-in-law to a judge in charge of his parents' divorce. Records documented payments made on electricity, telephone and gas bills. The Sinema campaign notes, however, that these documents are neither invoices nor proof of service.

Sinema used this part of his story as a key element of his image and his political positioning – which could explain the focus of this story. Citing her background, she spoke at length about the need to "fend for herself," while noting that her family relied on the help of others, such as the church and even the government, who strive to make ends meet. "I worked very hard but I still needed a little help," she says.

As noted by Amy Gardner, Sean Sullivan and Alice Crites of the Washington Post, this is the kind of message that could strike Democrat voters who prefer a social safety net and Republicans who argue that personal responsibility is important for upward mobility. GOP critics say that is another sign that Sinema – and the framing she used – is not trusted.

Republicans seized this line of attack as a new dig in Sinema's "history of deception"

Republicans have been quick to capitalize on the potentially unequal aspects of Sinema's history about her past – and to link it to some of the shifts she has made on other political issues. This is the latest edition of an ongoing argument about Sinema's credibility.

"Do you remember when she flip-flopped on the wall of the border?", Reads in a statement from the Republican Party of Arizona. "Or when she turned around on the basis of Luke Air Force? She has a long history of deception and it does not even begin to cover her. "

Many Republicans, including former chief of staff Mitch McConnell, Josh Holmes, and the Republican National Republican Committee, have highlighted the New York Times report.

"The accusations against Sinema are part of a larger line of attack by Martha McSally and the Republicans against Sinema, which is simply that it is not credible," says Kyle Kondik, of the Politics Center. from the University of Virginia. "For example, one of the major themes of advertising used against Sinema was to argue that she was more leftist than she was suggesting. The message, basically, is that Sinema is not the moderate that she has presented – again, from the point of view of the group of operations.

These criticisms are not without foundation.

Like many Democratic lawmakers seeking seats in historically red states, Sinema has had to change more and more his political positions and present himself as a person as moderate as possible. She often said that she would work with "literally everyone" to get things done.

With her years in the Green Party, Sinema is now a member of the Blue Dog Coalition in the House – a collection of some of the most conservative Democrats in the lower house. According to an analysis of FiveThirtyEight, it ranks fourth – just behind Texas, Henry Cuellar, Conor Lamb, Pennsylvania, and Collin Peterson, Minnesota – among the Democrats most likely to be alongside Trump, in 62 % of cases.

Many Democrats have blamed her for this, even though they admit that it is a calculation she must make to win a more conservative electorate.

"There is this story that people do not really know who she is," said Republican campaigner Nathan Brown.

Ironically, similar criticisms were made against McSally during the Republican primary, when she also shifted further to the right in order to attract favor from more supporters relentless Trump.

These attacks miss the point

It is common to denounce the inconsistencies of political candidates, but the framing of the attacks against Sinema has taken a turn that seems to miss the point. The Republicans, eager to highlight a possible misrepresentation of her past, launched their attacks not only to question the candidate's experience of poverty, but also to make fun of it.

A blog article on the Republican party's website illustrates this dynamic. While highlighting the discoveries of Martin's story in the New York Times, the note mocks Sinema's childhood and presents the title: "Help me, I'm poor!" (Reference to the film). Bridesmaids).

This is an approach that James Owens, communications director of Sinema, and other Democrats have criticized. Owens also notes that documents showed that Sinema's mother had only $ 13 in her bank account.

As Josh Voorhees of Slate wrote, the goal apparently shifted from Sinema's credibility to the question of whether she was "sufficiently homeless".

"Over the years, questions have been raised about the" amenities "provided with this small building," said E.J. of Arizona Republica. Montini writes in an editorial that analyzed the reports on the service station where the Sinema family lived. "That is, if" amenities "is even the right word at a distance."

The Times and Arizona Republic note that while there may be controversy over the exact details used by Sinema to describe her education, there is little disagreement about the fact that she has endured "exceptional circumstances". extremely trying ". The concerns about the authenticity of Sinema are a fair game, questioning how poor she really was seems to be a pretty crude approach to this argument.

"It seems that people are focusing too much on Sinema's details and homelessness. It does not diminish the fact that she and her family were poor and living in deplorable conditions, "says Mike Noble, chief investigator at OH Predictive Insights, based in Phoenix.

Republican strategist Brown said, "I think that in general, the question of morality is probably about the most impartial people. Can you believe someone on politics if you can not believe someone to tell the truth? "

It remains to be seen how much the independents – a crucial group of Arizona voters – will take into account this aspect of Sinema's story in the November poll.