8/31/2006 01:29:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|In today's Tucson Weekly, Jim Nintzel has a profile of the CD 8 candidates. When mentioning independent Jay Quick, he said:
Jay Quick, an independent whose name makes him sound like he's a member of the Justice League of AmericaJim may be thinking of Johnny Quick, who is in fact, at least in the post-Crisis DC Universe, a member of the Crime Syndicate of America, sworn enemies of the Justice League.|W|P|115705666964607485|W|P|This Is Me Being a Smart Alec Fanboy|W|Pemail@example.com/31/2006 04:36:00 PM|W|P|Tom Prezelski|W|P|I think the Johnny Quick that you show in the picture is actually a character from the 1940s. He was a member of the World War Two era All-Star Squadron and was one of the good guys.8/31/2006 06:53:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I wonder if they picked the Crime Syndicate of America name because it matches the Confederate States of America.
And I think it is odd that a man of 36 and nearly 3/4s years calls himself a fanboy. :p9/01/2006 08:54:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|I think it is odd that a man of 36 and nearly 3/4s years calls himself a fanboy.
Really though, ER, aren't they all?9/01/2006 07:14:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|oh yeah, I forgot about that.
Does this mean he still has to worry about mom throwing out his insanely valuable collection of comic books now?9/04/2006 11:07:00 AM|W|P|B Man|W|P|Right on. Way to own your comic book fanhood.
CSA rocks, BTW.8/31/2006 10:13:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The first ad from the National Republican Congressional Committee has gone up on local stations. When I first saw it, I thought, wow, Steve Huffman has decent ads now. There is no flashlight to be found. Then the "Paid for by..." came up at the end and I realized why the ad was good: Huffman's campaign didn't make the ad.
The talk is that the Beltway Republican crowd thinks that a Randy Graf candidacy would be DOA for the general election, and this is why they are desperately shoveling money Huffman's way. This begs a question: does this mean that the NRCC has data showing that Graf gets beaten so severely by Gabrielle Giffords or Patty Weiss that they think this sort of rare move is necessary? They are willing to risk having an alienated base just for Huffman to get nominated?
In this morning's Star, Mike Hellon complains about Republican insiders trying to manipulate the race. Let me say that again: Mike Hellon is complaining about Republican insiders.
Who knows if this will actually mean anything. The latest polling shows that even though Graf is beating all comers, there are still many Republicans unsatisfied with him. However, this move has ticked off many of the more committed activists. There is also the question of what, besides defeating Graf, will draw moderate Huffman voters to the primary. The governor's race surely is not the answer to that one. In many primary races on both sides, it can be argued that the "purer than thou" wing of the party deludes itself into thinking that it has far more support than it does, but in this case, it looks like Graf has the numbers and his people look ready to vote. I don't think that "ready to vote" can be said about someone whose only contact is viewing a NRCC ad.|W|P|115704490580489888|W|P|The NRCC Cavalry Arrives?|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/31/2006 01:34:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|But ... but ... surely the NRCC has access to the super-secret Fedup polls which clearly show Graf could run naked at mid-day across the UA campus while in a drug-crazed high, firing off shots at random passers-by while screaming racial epithets at the top of his lungs and still beat Giffords by 32% in the Nov. election.
My inside sources tell me the same polls show Weiss can drive drunk down Speedway and plow through a group of school children crossing the street and still expect to get 82% of the vote against Graf. (It's 99% against Huffman and 87% versus Hellon).
Latas, of course, could be killed in a shootout after a violent bank-robbery on the east side and still beat all three Republican candidates with 100% of the vote. But even Fedup's polls don't show Latas having a chance of advancing past the primary.
Given all this data (and, of course, who are we to doubt his accuracy after he spent June, July and half of August telling us how Giffords' own internal polling showed her badly trailing Weiss), you'ld think the NRCC would be supporting Graf to run against Giffords.8/31/2006 01:54:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|This is pure speculation but my guess is the move by NRCC has more to do with ego and saving face than actual poll numbers.
Jim Click probably did not want to come this far and spend this much money to loose. He is probably the one who is pulling the strings to get the NRCC to intervene. Jim Kolbe probably helped a little to return a favor to Randy.
For some reason the Tucson Association of Realtors has a total hard-on for Huffman. They have turned a professional association into a satellite campaign office for Steve. This is very surprising because I cannot think of one issue where Randy Graf is bad for the real estate profession. My only guess is that some moderates / liberals within the TAR just hate the idea of someone like Graf.
I do not think much of this is coming from the RNC, Arizona Republican Party, or Pima County Republican Party. They have their hands full just keeping the lights on and making phone calls.8/31/2006 02:51:00 PM|W|P|anonymous|W|P|The RNC's polls show Patty Weiss taking out Graff in the General and Giffords in the Primary.
It's not as much of a landslide if its Weiss/Huffman.8/31/2006 04:10:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|What's the matter, sirocco? You can't beat me on facts so you have to go off on fanatical rants? Or are you just using Giffords' "facts" again?
The poll I discussed previously was Huffman's April poll that you all said didn't even exist. Then the FEC reports showed it did.
So bite me. You seem to be jealous that I have a better inside track on what is happening on the Republican side than you do.8/31/2006 04:35:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Nah, Fedup, I beat you on facts all the time ... for example, I am still waiting for you to list all those nasty posts Tedski made about Weiss on this site in Jan. and Feb.
We both know I'll be waiting a long time for that ...
No, I was just having some tongue-in-cheek fun at your expense. My comment about "super-secret polls" was actually directed at another post you mid recently (couple threads down) where you flat out state Giffords can't beat Graf. We both know that's not true. Giffords might win, she may lose, but she'd certainly be in with a chance.
In all seriousness, there is no question in my mind whatsoever you are better informed about what's going on on the Republican side at all, and I fully appreciate your comments about them.
There is also no doubt in my mind you are better informed about the goings on in the Weiss campaign than I am, and I appreciate your comments on that as well.8/31/2006 07:33:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I had a buddy named Dan at an old job who loved watching Republican Presidential debates, particularly when they were in the south. He loved the answers to the inevitable question about the Confederate Battle Emblem, in which various candidates would trip over each other to trump one another's claims of pride in "Southern Heritage," even if they were born in Connecticut and went to Andover.
(Aside here, ever notice that people who get worked up about "Southern Heritage" are never proud of say, Louie Armstrong or George Washington Carver? Hmm, why is that?)
We have something similar going on here. These guys are each trying to out do each other on who will be tougher on parched mothers crawling across the desert outside of Sasabe.
I sort of knew how it would go, so I missed the debate/forum last night, but I did catch the Star article and the responses to it in which, apparently, the Star is biased because they refered to it as a forum. Or something.
(Conservative posters are still calling it the Red Star. Have they seen the columns Dan Scarpinato used to write for the Wildcat? I realize that he's barely Ann Coulter, but please, if that guy is liberal, I'm a trotskyite.)
Randy Graf refered to Steve Huffman's voting with Gabrielle Giffords 90% of the time. This made up factoid came from Patty Weiss's campaign, so I guess Graf can say it's a real fact because he's got a source. Congrats to Weiss's campaign: they are now writing sound bites for Graf!
I wonder why Graf never quotes Francine Shacter? I mean, she's got great sound bites. Hmm. Naw. Something would tear in the space-time continuum.
Graf took Huffman to task for claims made in a recent mailer. The mailer was a bit silly, comparing Graf to a teenager. But the claims in it were substantial: Graf voted against a bill about cross burning and did vote against another bill that would have provided a perscription drug benefit for senior citizens. He has spoken out against similar programs at the federal level as well.
So, is he denying he voted for that way? A guy that is dedicated to "Principles Over Politics" shouldn't mind standing up for his votes, right?|W|P|115703732452694428|W|P|Republican Candidate Forum/Debate/Chill Session/Whatever|W|Pemail@example.com/31/2006 11:48:00 AM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|If you are going to state "facts" of how Graf voted without posting his rationale, you are doing the very thing you and all Giffords' supporters complain about Latas and Weiss. You call it dirty politicking when anyone on the Democratic side criticizes the record but it is okay to do it to Graf?
I got news for you. Giffords would lose against Graf. The only way Giffords would win is if the corporatists that fund both parties decide they want her over their own Republican candidate because she will be easier to control and get the pork they want in Congress. It has happened before.
2008 elections will be particularly spicy.8/31/2006 12:53:00 PM|W|P|Eli Blake|W|P|FEDUP:
Since when do corporatists or anyone else choose election winners? I thought I still had a vote.8/31/2006 12:54:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Dude, Graf's rationale on the perscription drug thing was that folks ought to fend for themselves and let the free market take care of things. This is part of his core philosophy.
My criticizing it is a far cry from picking out a single committee vote and using it as a counter example for the overwhelming evidence of a progressive record.
Funny, this is the second time you have stood up for Randy Graf on here. Makes me wonder how "progressive" you really are.8/31/2006 06:58:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|How would Sen. Giffords lose against Graf? Is he well funded? Endorsed by sitting congresspeople? Have a magic ability to make everyone not voting for him stay home on Election Day? Does he have broad appeal for all voters? Does he appear to be able to reach across the aisle?9/02/2006 12:04:00 PM|W|P|wearetribal|W|P|Fact is that the recent poll shows 43% of Republicans who are not in Graf's camp would consider the Democrat if Graf is the nominee.
Say Graf gets 50% or so, he may doa bit better but that seems a good ballpark. That leaves a good 20% of Republicans voting for Giffords. Hard to see how that makes a win for Graf possible.
Fact is that the NRCC is backing Huffman because they know Graf is not a candidate who can win a general election. And that even if he did win he would only lose the seat in the next election.8/30/2006 12:53:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Dear Patty Weiss: protestations that you are not running a negative campaign are a bit more believable when they are not preceded by an attack on your opponent's character and credentials.
Shortly into last night's candidate forum/debate/Pride Fighting Championship, Weiss launched into an attack on Giffords's previous party registration (yawn) and then attacked her for only being a "part-time legislator," (apparently she forgot that all of them are) as well as the not-very-well-founded-at-all allegation that she voted 90% of the time with Steve Huffman. She must be including motions to adjourn and memorials honoring little league teams on that one.
Weiss finished up her attacks with "I am not being negative." The crowd howled at that one.
The Star noted the crowd's reaction, and Weiss's denial as well as the crowd's response was played twice on KGUN's 10:00 broadcast. Oops.
Let me get this right, Giffords is unqualified for congress because she was a "part-time legislator," but someone with no legislative experience is more qualified? Hmm. But, at the same time, this "part-time legislator" is a career politician, right? Um, okay.
By the way, anyone bother to tell Weiss that if she gets elected, she will be a career politician? She may find that it is a lot easier to talk about the trouble with the decisions politicians make than to actually be a politician that has to make decisions.|W|P|115696957306635338|W|P|My Opponent Is a Lying Cheat, But I Mean That in the Most Positive Way|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/30/2006 02:07:00 PM|W|P|Ben R|W|P|Note that the Giffords camp didn't deny any of the claims made by Weiss. Note also that we've seen Giffords' strategy a thousand times before: You can't deny the allegations against you because they're true, so you try to change the subject by accusing your opponent of going negative.
My question is this: If the Giffords supporters (and Giffords) are so thin-skinned about legitimate questions regarding her record, how could they stand up to Rove and co when they get nasty. Because when they get to town, to paraphrase from the movie Rounders, this is going to feel like a Swedish massage.
There is a distinction between campaigning rough and dirty. This certainly isn't dirty, and it's really not all that rough. You guys are a soft bunch. You guys are the same crowd that's always too weak to stand up to Republicans. Patty has every right to question and point out holes in the record that Giffords touts so regularly.8/30/2006 02:31:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Oh no, we can (and have) denied the allegations. The only way the record can be read the way Weiss tries to spin it is by cherry-picking facts and presenting them in the least favorable way.
Regardless of whether you think it was rough or dirty, it was unquestionably negative, and Weiss' little disclaimer at the end was rightfully laughed at.
When Francine Shacter, who has til now (as far as I know) steadfastedly refused to comment on her opponents, feels Weiss's comments were bad enough to merit her violating that guideline (see her post on Blog for Arizona) ... well, that tells you something.
Patty's opening was an embarassment, and this was only emphasized by the replays on the news.8/30/2006 03:00:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|"has for 35 years been training for this job as a journalist"
Isn't that like Linda Cohn asking for the QB spot with the Cowboys because she spent years training for the job as an ESPN anchor?8/30/2006 03:46:00 PM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Weiss is going negative because she has NOTHING ELSE to base her campaign on and she knows it. Her repetitive Wal-Mart riff has been answered by Gabby and by many of us on these blogs. She is humiliating herself by beating on the same drum over and over, but with her low cash reserves, lousy poll numbers and inept grass-roots effort, you can see why she is so desperate and flailing about.
It is tiresome and bogus to hear accusations from Ben and others that Gabby and her backers are "thin-skinned." Tired of shameless and neverending propaganada without any basis in FACT is more like it. Ben, if your candidate has some pattern to prove, tell her to talk about more than ONE vote and ONE contribution.
By the way, while I doubt the 90% figure (and Patty, as usual, had no facts to back up her sweeping claims), it's well known that the Southern Arizona delegation sticks together on many issues. That's why right-wingers who suck up to the Maricopa leadership (Graf being a current example; Dan Schottel being another one from earlier times) stick out like turds in a punch bowl. Moreover, the stark differences between Gabby and Huffman on taxes, environmental protection and other issues of substance are well known and part of the overall record Patty doesn't cite.
Another point that "lifelong Democrat" Patty neglects to consider is that we won't be a majority party again unless people get tired of the GOP and cross over like Gabby did...and like I did. This sanctimonious, "more Democrat than thou" nonsense obviously meant nothing to the teachers, workers, environmentalists, human rights activists and law enforcement pros who have lined up behind Gabby in droves.
When someone starts a forum by going for the throat right away and then claiming she is not being negative, that is the best sign one can have that their campaign is on life support. Her "efforts" overall are also the best indicator of what would happen to HER is she went up against the GOP money and lies machine. Patty is out of her element and last night made that more clear than ever.8/30/2006 03:56:00 PM|W|P|DBeamer|W|P|The reason Gabby is identified as a part time legislator is because she was absent for some key votes including the committee votes after the "midnight" quorum vote when the bill was introduced the following day. So Gabby stopped the bill for one night and then wasn't there after the Republicans introduced the bill the next day. In effect being a "part time" legislator for missing the key votes in committee where she could have blocked the bill.8/30/2006 05:03:00 PM|W|P|AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Rex:
Patty has documented all of the facts about Gabby's votes on her web page. I suggest you go look.
The whole point of her criticism last night is that Gabby's failures as a lawmaker are a pattern... not just one vote here or there.
We're talking about 24 votes for bills that were vetoed by the governor, and 42 bills that the governor signed even though Gabby voted against them.
Those are facts that Gabby has not disputed. If she wants to run on her record, she should be prepared to defend it, not go crying when someone criticizes it.8/30/2006 05:09:00 PM|W|P|Ben R|W|P|Question for the Giffords crew:
If I'm hearng you correctly, you are opposed to questioning an opponents record. So if Giffords should win the primary, does that mean you won't be questioning Graf's ridiculous gun bills, etc.?
If you won't question Graf's record, then get out of the race and let someone who will actually fight go up against the GOP.
If you will question Graf's record, then doesn't that indicate that questioning an opponents record is okay, and what you are really saying is that you only don't like it when it goes against you.
It has to be one or the other. But if I may predict your response it will essentially be: Yeah, but Giffords is good and Graf is bad, so it will be okay to question his record.8/30/2006 05:33:00 PM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Pretty lame, Ben. There's obviously nothing wrong with challenging an opponent's record, but Patty's attacks lack substance or seriousness and fall into the category of schoolyard taunts. She's trying to make a case that Gabby is not a true Democrat and her claims lack any credibility.
If you go to Patty's website right now, she links you to the Legislature's website to "prove" the assertions she has made against Gabby. However, anyone clicking on the link is sent to the Legislature's home page, where I guess they are supposed to do their own homework to see if Patty is right.
Another reason that you and Patty are deluded in your thinking is the fact that liberal, conservative and other interest groups rank office holders after every session. If Gabby is some kind of closet Republican, why is she consistently ranked high by the groups that represent core Democratic constituencies and ranked low by those who back the GOP agenda?
You and your candidate look ridiculous as you search for a life preserver to save your foundering campaign. You tried to talk Latas into dropping out and you've gone negative on Giffords because the Weiss effort lacks substance and is losing support by the minute. Please DO keep up the negative barrage as it seems to have a great effect on Gabby's numbers.8/30/2006 05:41:00 PM|W|P|AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Rex: Which of Patty's assertions (either made last night or made on her web page today) are false?
It's a simple question. Please answer it.8/30/2006 06:20:00 PM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|azyoulikeit-
I can't track two of her assertions on the website for the reasons cited above. Can you? Specific bills ARE NOT CITED and you know it! The link takes you to the Legislature's home page...and you know that, too.
The Iraq war resolution she cites on the website passed unananimously.
The Ronald Reagan Holiday was supported by many Democrats and Republicans, as Gabby has already stated. It was meant to honor the late president and Gabby (along with most of the Legislature) chose not to use it to make political hay.
The AP article cited on the website talks about Gabby's "disappointment" with Napolitano...for compromising with the GOP on matters of principle. I guess it's for Weiss to claim that Gabby is a closet Republican...except when she is criticizing Gabby for expressing disappointment in the Democratic governor when the Governor compromises with Republicans.
Your question was simple. I have answered it. However, the question was also disingenuous because I never said Patty's claims were false. Scroll back and you'll see that I said they lacked seriousness and substance. You are creating a straw man with your question because you are trying to detract attention from the silly, trivial and unappealing attacks Weiss is mounting.
Both you and Ben know that you can't answer this question, but I'd be amused to see you try: IF WEISS IS RIGHT ABOUT GIFFORDS, WHY DID THE DEMOCRATIC INTEREST GROUPS THAT CRITIQUE LEGISLATORS CONTINUALLY RANK GABBY HIGH AND THE REPUBLICAN GROUPS RANK HER LOW?
A second question would ask you to consider WHY most of those same groups endorsed Gabby over Patty.8/30/2006 06:23:00 PM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Here is a link for all of you to Patty's citations:
http://www.patty2006.com/citations.html8/30/2006 06:46:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Azyoulike it,
I assert the following:
If you discount votes such as those honoring a school teacher for excellence, etc., I.e. those that pass with little or only token opposition, the Giffords Huffman voting records don't approach 90% agreement.
I assert a vote commending Pres. Bush for his Iraq war efforts on Apr. 8, 2003, 19 days after the war started, doesn't have the meaning Weiss is attempting to impart it. Please note even the Weiss site mentions the motion in question was unanimously adopted -- I.e. EVERY Democrat voted in favor of it.
I assert the vote for a Reagan recognition day is essentially meaningless in any sense. A vote for a Clinton recognition day would be equally menaingless.
I assert Weiss is being disingenious with the Giffords quote she cites. Here is the full context (parts cut so as not to be longer than it already is):
For their part, Republicans won approval of a new corporate income tax credit for businesses' donations for private school scholarships.
The credit would allow businesses to offset up to $5,000 of state income taxes for tuition donations, a $5 million annual cap on total credits.
School-choice supporters hailed the approval of the new tax credit.
"Given this is a compromise between a Democratic governor and a Republican Legislature, we see this as a harbinger for future school choice victories" in states where the governor and Legislature are from opposite parties, said Clint Bolick, president of the Alliance for School Choice. "We're ecstatic."
Napolitano had objected to the new credit, previously calling it a "backdoor voucher," but she accepted it Friday as part of the compromise. "We have to compromise, give and go, move along," she said Thursday evening on KAET-TV's "Horizon" program. "In my judgment, the benefits of this budget far outweighs what I don't like in it."
Some Democratic legislators lamented the credit's inclusion in the compromise budget.
"I find this extremely contrary to my views as a legislator and a Democrat," said Sen. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Tucson. "I am extremely disappointed in our leadership and our governor."
full article at:
So Giffords was disappointed with the governor for caving to the Republicans over the school tax credit. I am too.
Please note Weiss, as a journalist, is well aware of the impropriety of taking a quote out of context. She chose to do so anyway. Doesn't speak well of her.
I assert the stats Weiss sites regarding bill votes are meaningless without the details.
I accept her figures for the sake of argument. Of 42 bills Giffords voted against which the Gov signed into law, how many were signed because they were essentially veto-proof? How many do we agree/disagree with?
It's not like Napolitano is god -- she may very well have signed those bills even though I wish she had vetoed them, or vetoed them even though I wish she had signed.
Note how Patty carefully does NOT provide a listing of these votes. If they were TRULY meaningful she would (or, at least, should).
No, Patty is playing fast-and-loose. Like I said in an earlier post, it may be factually correct in the strictest sense of teh word, but still not have the meaning she is hoping to impart.8/30/2006 07:33:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|ben r, dbeamer, asyoulikeit,
Let me interject what I think is practical at this time in the Democratic Party primary campaign in CD-8.
Since the earliest days of the campaign, the party rank-and-file has overwhelmingly lined up behind Ms. Giffords. Pima County party chair Paul Eckerstom, fresh off party success in the Tucson city council elections, indiscreetly noised about his support of Ms. Weiss on the grounds that her name recognition would be the key to victory.
It is unusual for a party chair to delare a primary favorite, and shortly, abruptly, Mr. Eckerstrom "resigned" the chairmanship.
Among the major backers Ms. Weiss found for her campaign were persons like Steve Emerine and Sharon Bronson, who have a history of vocally supporting Republicans against the Democratic Party nominees; and Tom Volgy, who hasn't been able to win an election for the party in years, while soaking up lots of money from party regulars to run.
Ms. Giffords had the early and enthusiastic backing of Congressman Grijalva, who is indisputedly the most influential Democratic office holder in Southern Arizona; he is decidedly not "Republican lite", and everybody in the party knows it.
Similarly, early on Ms. Giffords won the endorsement and support of virtually all the liberal interest groups in the district: unions, environmentalists, police and fire reps, women's and pro-choice groups, human rights activits, etc. She also won the support of many prominent party leaders in Cochise and the other less urban counties in CD-8. Consequently, she raised a lot of money and volunteers, who were then no longer available to Ms. Weiss.
And yet, Ms. Weiss still had the name-recognition advantage, and if she could have shown that she was the only Democrat who could win in November, so great was the regular party member's desire to win, she might still have pulled it off.
Appropriately, she announced the results of an internal campaign poll which showed her the best known, but which also indicated a high level of voter ambivalence. She didn't make the entire poll public; and then before a huge turn-out of the most regular of party regulars at the Nucleus Club Forum, Jeff Latas revealed that the Weiss campaign had shared the full poll to him, in an attempt, as we learned later, to drive Mr. Latas out of the primary.
Ms. Weiss claimed to be the candidate most likely to win in November, but only this internal poll, botched in the handling, backed that claim, while Ms. Giffords had not only the endorsements, but had also demonstrated her organizational muscle by her fund-raising and her grass roots collection of nominating petitions from every preceinct in CD-8.
In the face of this, Ms. Weiss had only one card to play and that was her supposed electability. It was probably a false claim to begin with, but whatever truth there was in it, she squandered.
She made no real effort to get herself elected, but rather worked on preventing Ms. Giffords from beating her. While the one real issue on which she had a chance of overtaking Ms. Giffords was health care, she decided to focus on obscure parliamentary maneuvering in legislative committees, and a pissing match over advertising, and let Mr. Latas and Alex Rodriguez push foreign policy ino the forefront.
The Weiss campaign tried to make hay out of the fact that she is a "lifelong Democrat", and Ms. Giffords is "Republican lite", but she had not a single claim to having advanced the Democratic Party in her 30 years as a newscaster; by contrast, Gabrielle Giffords had been elected and re-elected three times to the state legislature as the Democratic Party standard bearer, and eaten untold pounds of rubber chicken in company with ordinary "card-carrying" Democrats in the process. In those years, Ms. Giffords did a lot of good work for her constituents, which they appreciate and remember.
Ms. Weiss's strategy and her tactics, if indeed that's what they have been, are delusional. When Ms.Weiss loses the primary, as she will, the standard meme will be that it was Ms. Giffords's money advantage on TV which made the difference; this analysis will be exactly backward.
Not only has the Weiss campaign been an awkward operation, but it has relied on 30 years of Ms. Weiss on TV to carry the day, without actually working to create a grass roots network or a distinguishing campaign message, the things that politics after all are about.
The attacking mode which her campaign adopted, while not out of bounds in politics at this level, did nothing but undermine her main strength -- the smiling face of goodwill at 6 and 10; it didn't look strong, it looked like acting. Very few people were ever going to believe that Ms. Weiss is "tougher" than Ms. Giffords, or any other Democrat in the primary, say, for example, retired military officers, or the pugnaciousy clear-spoken Francine Shacter.
Of course Ms. Weiss's supporters must and should stick with her to end, but at this stage it's time for the party to start moving back together. Trumpet her virtues; I exhort you. But these attacks on Giffords haven't been effective (to the contrary), and won't magically start working now.
The Giffords campaign's base is the party, for good or ill, in S.E. Arizona, and we need to start looking toward November. The alternative is Randy Graf.8/30/2006 07:40:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Well, something I didn't know before about Giffords is that she actually supported the invasion of Iraq by voting to commend President Bush on April 8, 2003 for getting us into an unnecessary war.
I guess its too much to ask that our Democratic state legislators get at least SOME of their news from independent media. Were they all tuned in to FOX or what?
Well, thanks for education and I rest my case, I rest my f*ing case. This woman knows absolutely nothing about US foreign policy.
Another great choice, Democrats, another great choice. You won't be attracting a lot of Indpendents at this rate because WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ON IMPORTANT ISSUES LIKE WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE MAKING UP REASONS TO BOMB MIDEASTERN COUNTRIES INTO THE STONE AGE.8/30/2006 07:59:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|On the criticism of Ms. Giffords for voting for the unanimous "support the troops" measure after the start of the Irag War.
This WILL NOT DO! Go back and take a look at the Channel 4 coverage, of which Ms. Weiss was putatively the main editor, of the start of the so-called "War on Terror" in Iraq.
I, for one, have never watched Channel 4 KVOA local news since. It was repulsive.8/30/2006 08:04:00 PM|W|P|vetdem|W|P|Liza,
Is that all you got out of those posts?
I used to be interested in what you had to say.
Now I'll just skip to the next post when I see your name.8/30/2006 08:08:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Liza,
Not everyone can be Barbara Lee.8/30/2006 09:12:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Liza, et. al.,
Here is the URL for the text of the bill as passed. Recall this was within three weeks of the start of the war:
Given the state of things at the time, it's not at all surprising a general statement of support for the government AND the troops involved would be passed.
It says nothing at all about actually supporting the war or the supposed causes for entering into it. It's a sign of "rallying around the flag" which, as noted, ALL members of the legislature did.
It says nothing at all, good or bad, about anyone's understanding of foreign policy.
Next time read the f*ing thing before jumping to a f*ing conclusion. Or do you just get your education spoon fed to you by others?8/30/2006 10:03:00 PM|W|P|Ben R|W|P|The first provision says this:
"That the Members of the Legislature express their unequivocal support and appreciation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing global war on terrorism."
Actually, Sirocco, I believe that does say they support the war. I think thats pretty much exactly what it says. But I'm no lawyer or English major, so I'm sure you will tell me how I have completely misunderstood this passage.
And furthermore, many Dems in Congress voted in support of the war. That doesn't make it right. In fact, I would say that's a major reason why Lieberman lost his primary. Saying everybody else did it is not the kind of leadership I would look for in a potential Congresswoman.8/30/2006 10:05:00 PM|W|P|Ben R|W|P|I think the above passage says "Good job George Bush. We appreciate you getting us into this war in Iraq as it is a vital part of the war on terror." Thats how I read it.8/30/2006 10:14:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Anyone understanding the context of that vote knows it is a non-issue.
She knows Jeff will not make it this round, and that hurts.
I know you are smart enough Liza to inquire into the context of that vote. Have you heard Giffords speak about the war in Iraq in the last three months? Been to a forum, any forum?
Read her website?
Giffords has a word for the war in Iraq. She speaks it forcefully: DISASTER!!8/30/2006 10:22:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Everyone,
"That the Members of the Legislature express their unequivocal support and appreciation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing global war on terrorism."
If you have never seen this website - www.newamericancentury.org - I suggest you take a long hard look at it, particularly a document called "Reubilding America's Defenses". I'm too lazy to set up the link right now, sorry about that. If you have never heard of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), then learn fast because "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is the blueprint for the Bush Doctrine. RAD is 90 pages, so you might have to settle for one of the many summaries that is easily accessible. I can tell you without equivocation that moderate and liberal Americans who knew about this right wing "think tank" did not support the invasion of Iraq because they knew that "9-11" was PNAC's "catalyzing event" that enabled Bush to launch a violent foreign policy in the Mideast that was to start with the invasion of Iraq, one of a series of "theatre wars" that the Bush Admininstration intended to have whether or not there was a "9-11." PNAC made a case for invading Iraq in 1998 and it was rejected by Bill Clinton. PNAC members were Cold War relics and I defy you to find any proof that they understood or even wrote about militant, fundamentalist Islam despite several Al Qaeda attacks in the latter part of the 90's. By the way, I'm talking about Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Libby, etc...
There isn't really any excuse for any Democrat in Congress including John Kerry and John Edwards who voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq because they most certainly knew about PNAC. There were other excuses, of course, such as Saddam is a really bad guy worth getting rid of, etc.. I guess we can just forget the fact that Mideastern scholars warned us repeatedly about the dangers of destabiizing the region and instigating a civil war in Iraq.
No, our brilliant politicians get in line to support this war because Bush is so popular in the polls and now it's 2006 and here we are. Iraq is having a civil war and its costing the American taxpayers 8 billion per month according to John Murtha. No, let me correct that. Its costing the Asian buyers of US Treasury bills 8 billion per month to bankroll our budget deficit so we can continue the Iraq debacle. There are tens of thousands (estimates as high as 200,000)of dead people and its still questionable what is going on with the oil, the ultimate prize for all of our trouble.
I'm really sorry if none of you like what I have to say about legislators who support a pre-planned war. However, until you take the time to learn the collective background (PNAC) of the people who are running this nation into the ground maybe you shouldn't judge me so harshly. PNAC was never in hiding, by the way, their work has always been available.
Yes, I'm infuriarated by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as the stratospheric cost of this violent foreign policy that has made us millions of new enemies and is marching us to our economic doom. There is nothing more important right now than our foreign policy in the Mideast.
Our situation is not sustainable. Do you really think we can just keep doing what we are doing? History is not on our side. We are a debtor nation, and the clock is ticking.
I get my educaton from multiple sources. Mostly from the web these days, but I like FSTV and LINK. I read quite a bit and I would not consider myself to be spoonfed. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now is one of my most trusted sources of news, but I have many other sources.
I'm sorry you don't like me anymore. Most Americans seem not to share my sense of urgency about what is happening in the Mideast. Maybe after we bomb Iran.....
Who is Barbara Lee?8/30/2006 10:36:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Our situation is not sustainable. Do you really think we can just keep doing what we are doing? History is not on our side. We are a debtor nation, and the clock is ticking.
Amen. Our world is not sustainable.
Not at current MO.
Figured out who John Galt is.
Who is Barbara Lee?8/30/2006 10:59:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|In 1967, as a furiously anti-war student in the first wave of the baby boom, I sheared my silky locks, and went clean with Gene. He was an inspiring speaker and poet, but he was a losing candidate. I went to meet Dr. Benjamin Spock, a true deep-dyed pacifist and the Peoples' Party candidate, and got to see his supporter, the poet Allen Ginsberg, knocked to the ground in front of the Pioneer Hotel by a Tucson Citizen reporter he'd called a "motherfucker."
I greeted johnny-come-lately anti-war opportunist Bobby Kennedy on the UofA campus, because LBJ was out of it and that left the old New Deal civil rights activit and vice-president, Hubert H. Humphrey as the party favorite.
Bobby got killed; Humphrey got clotheslined in Chicago; so the hundreds of thousands of us who really cared and who had spent months and months in the streets, and had essentially won, sat back and let Richard Nixon take the presidency, take the Democratic South and Southwest, and the country has never been the same.
Toffee-nosed snobs were we, ideologically pure and beyond reproach, driving the decisions of a politcal party to which we had no real loyalty, and we helped hand the country over to Tricky Dick and his band of criminals.
I don't regret much in my life, but this is one.8/31/2006 05:22:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Ben R, Liza
The words are quite clear. What I am asserting is a generic statement of support for the President AND the troops 19 days after the start of a war can hardly be spun into a carte blanche support of the President now, 3+ years down the road.
Which Patty and Liza both know, of course, but they choose to try to spin it that way nonetheless.
There is no question Giffords is opposed to the President's "stay the course" policy, and has been for some time.
If that vote were taken now, Weiss, her supporters, Liza ... all would have a powerful case. Given the context of when the vote actually occurred, no, not so much.
P.S. Liza, I never actually thought you were "spoonfed" anything, and you certainly have nothing you need to justify to me ... from your past posts you clearly are well-read and tend to be thoughtful, and I have enjoyed reading them whether I agreed with them or not.
Which just makes your post to which I responded seem completely out of character.
I made an intentional effort to respond in the same "tone" as an attempt to highlight that.8/31/2006 05:26:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|By the way, anyone wanna bet against the notion if Giffords had voted _against_ that resolution back when the war started, the Weiss campaign (and it's supporters) would now be claiming Giffords voted against supporting our troops in a time of war?8/31/2006 05:33:00 AM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Since I was five years old in 1968, I can't go back to Vietnam with y'all, but I will point out that the Weiss people who posted above have had their challenges met (Sirocco, xm4r and randall, I am proud to be on your side!) and they have still NOT answered the questions I posed about Giffords, how she was ranked by both conservative/Republican and liberal/Democrat interest groups and why the liberal/Democrat groups largely endorsed her over Weiss.
Weiss attacks with as much skill as she organizes her field work. Giffords is well known, well liked and well respected in the Democratic Party. This is why the Weiss attacks have not worked. A negative campaign has a chance of succeeding when it feeds into thoughts already felt by those it aims to influence. Otherwise, it looks mean, stupid, desperate or all of the above.8/31/2006 10:54:00 AM|W|P|B Man|W|P|Weiss´repitition of tired old negative soundbites is the squeal of a dying candidacy. All her flailing will only lead her deeper into the muck.
I am alwaya amazed at how candiates can attack their opponents as career politicians when the fact that they are running is de facto evidence of their own aspiration to BE career politicians.8/31/2006 11:50:00 AM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|I thought Jeff Latas did a pretty good smack down of Giffords at the forum. No one seems to be talking about it because he didn't mention her by name but he got in more digs than Weiss.
My favorite was when Giffords said she was for "free trade" and fair trade. Jeff looked and gestured to Giffords and rightly said you can't be for both. His response was golden.
Patty had a good response to the EU question that no one else understood. She should have used it as an opportunity to smack Giffords' again on the free trade thing to show just how ignorant Giffords is on the trade issues. That would have been better than the uncomfortable ineffectual smack at the beginning.
By the way, "career politician" does not refer to someone who runs for the first time.8/31/2006 12:17:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|"There is no question Giffords is opposed to the President's "stay the course" policy, and has been for some time." Bullshit.
Around January of this year when she found out polling showed she had to take that stance.
Prior to that? 2003 and 2004 Gabrielle Giffords was for the war and 2005 was still not opposing it but only "how we are fighting it". As recently as February she was still spouting the "how we are fighting it" which is why the Latas campaign started attacking her on that.
Liza, great 22:22 post. You are correct about everything.8/31/2006 12:20:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|"Saying everybody else did it is not the kind of leadership I would look for in a potential Congresswoman."
Hat tip to Ben r.
That is why you have to get out early in the race and talk to candidates and do a smart thing like Jeff did and tape them. You get what they are really about early on, and not what their image makers polish them up to pretend to be.8/31/2006 12:27:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|sirocco 21:12 post.
You know what an intelligent legislator should have done? He or she should have said they have concerns about praising handling of the war since we just got into it and we don't know all the facts yet. They should have said they would support a resolution calling for us to root out terrorism but that they wanted the wording changed to eliminate the other parts that praise Bush and the handling of it and giving him the power. Any good Democratic legislator would have. Seems we have a lot of shitty ones in our legislature who don't have the balls to stand up to the Republicans.
So what do we do? We send them to Congress so they can f@#k up the entire country.
Good rationale.8/31/2006 12:37:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|"IF WEISS IS RIGHT ABOUT GIFFORDS, WHY DID THE DEMOCRATIC INTEREST GROUPS THAT CRITIQUE LEGISLATORS CONTINUALLY RANK GABBY HIGH AND THE REPUBLICAN GROUPS RANK HER LOW?"
I will gladly answer that one. Because the "Democratic Interest Groups" have been in the pockets of the corporatists just like the Republicans and have not represented the Democratic voters in years. Want some examples? Look at the union tactics and the infighting between the unions in their power plays. Look at how they back more conservative anti-labor candidates over pro-worker's rights ones when they are supposed to support the people.
Take the Sierra Club (endorsing anti-enviromentalist Republican Chaffee) and the LCV coming under similar criticism. Then follow the money trail.
All the groups that have rating systems pick and choose which votes they want to include and neglect to include many more imporant votes if they don't the agenda of the executive board, even if those votes they exclude are more meaningful to American's rights.
Giffords got the endorsements because of connections and the tit-for-tat that is politics. It has nothing to do with her being strong on the issues.
No union that truly represented workers would support her or any other Democrat that voted for the Wal-Mart bill. That is why so many workers in Arizona don't see unions as a friend to worker's rights.
Oh, but I am sure you will find a way to spin this one too.8/31/2006 12:52:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|"I find this extremely contrary to my views as a legislator and a Democrat," said Sen. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Tucson. "I am extremely disappointed in our leadership and our governor."
That is the real story here, folks. Gabrielle Giffords who lacks the political tactfulness; would publicly criticize her Democratic governor instead of taking the issue up in a private session. There was nothing for Giffords or Napolitano to gain from that public outting so why would Giffords say that, instead of just saying she disagreed?
Professional jealousy?8/31/2006 12:57:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The upshot:
Gabrielle won't stand up to those in power for core principles, except when she does, then she's disloyal.
Do you have anything positive to say about anyone? Just curious. I can't even tell who you support.8/31/2006 01:14:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Hey, Fedup,
To address some of your points.
I disagree with the notion free trade and fair trade are inherently exclusive ... although it does make for a pithy sound bite.
I know from personal conversation with Giffords her current position against "staying the course dates back at least to last summer, I.e., well before Jan. 2006, and well before she opted to run for election.
Nice to know virtually everyone in both the AZ government AND the national government, R or D, is a brainless nincompoop. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Or .... possibly, just possibly, we apply Occam's razor and assume the proclamation is nothing more than what it was intended for -- a generic statement of support early in a war situation.
Of course, as in most things it's easier to be "an intelligent legislature" after the fact.
By the way, Giffords herself has never made the "everyone else did it" statement. I suspect if you asked her now she would agree it was a mistake. That wasn't so obvious at the time however.
Regarding her statement about the Gov., I disagree. By making it public, she clearly signals her position on the matter, and her willingness to fight for her notions, even within her own party.8/31/2006 02:57:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Sirocco,
I didn't attend the forum, but our mutual friend Scarpinato wrote in the Star that Giffords "says she would not have authorized going into Iraq in 2003." We can dissect the April 8, 2003, statemtent of the AZ State Legislature for its true meaning, but at the end of the day, this "you're doing a heckuva job, Georgie" statement cannot be reconciled with "I would not have authorized going into Iraq." It just doesn't fly.
The point I've been trying to make is that by 2003 there was an immense amount of credible information available to everyone in the world (including AZ state legislators)to justify opposition to the invasion of Iraq. It's interesting how many people in the world outside of the US actually did oppose the invasion.
You cannot package Giffords as an anti-war candidate. You can package her as a pro-invasion candidate who later realized that the occupation has been a "disaster", but that's as far as you can go with it.
This is the first and very likely the last time that I will support a candidate in a primary. I see no real evidence that the Democratic Party has interest in building solidarity with those of us who are considerably to the left of center. I admit that I was excited when Paul Hackett, the Iraq veteran turned anti-war candidate, came close to winning in an Ohio congressional district that was die hard Republican. I thought that the Democrats might start to see the potential in an anti-war platform.
Besides that, how hard is it to see that you can't "spread democracy" with cluster bombs, white phosphorous, and laser guided weapons? Do you really have to be all that smart to understand that "collective punishment" of civilian populations does not turn civilians against your enemies, it turns them against you? Are we just going to throw away the Geneva Conventions? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, you can't kill, jail, or occupy all your enemies. Sooner or later, you have to learn to negotiate.
Unfortunately, the Democrats have not converged on that position. They still think that to save their political asses, they must show that they too can be tough and the best position on the war is just to let the Republicans implode. "Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake."
Well, next stop, Iran...
BTW, yes, I am somewhat rabid recently. I'm trying to calm down because it scares my pomeranian when I scream at the TV.8/31/2006 04:28:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Liza,
I actually am not trying to present Giffords as an "anti-war" candidate.
To a large extent, I agree with you -- I was opposed to the war when it began, and so were a number of others, including yourself. Even though those opposed were a minority (and a pretty small minority at the time, at that), the evidence was still there to justify and anti-war stance.
I _am_ claiming that the Senate Resolution passed unanimously 19 days after the war started doesn't mark one as a whole-hearted supporter of the war, or the administration which began it. Particularly now, more than three years later.
As I noted elsewhere, I suspect had she actually voted against the resolution she would now be painted as "not supporting our troops" or some similar tripe.8/31/2006 04:30:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Well Ted, that's because I don't support anyone yet in CD8. I think I will vote for you in LD28 though. You haven't been campaigning, you probably don't really want it, so just to spite you I think you will get one of my two votes. I am strange that way.
I'll let you know after the primary who I vote for in CD8. I am still contemplating. What you can assume is I won't vote for Giffords. If she wins the primary, I will have to look hard at who the Republican candidate is (really, Huffman isn't much different than Giffords) and look at the independent who seems to have a pretty good platform. Plus a cool name.
Progressive isn't synonymous with Democrat. Not by a long shot.
By the way, Giffords supported NAFTA in 2004. This shows she isn't serious about the issues impacting workers in America, Mexico, or any other place that we have created unstable economies so our fat cats can get richer.8/31/2006 05:07:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Liza, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but Paul Hackett isn't left of center and he isn't progressive. He is a good showman. Sure he said he was an anti-war candidate. His opponent Sherrod Brown was an anti-war candidate when it mattered, in 2003 when he voted against the war. Hackett ran a campaign accusing Brown of supporting the war, when a quick vote look-up shows that Brown not only voted against it but was an outspoken opponent both before and during.
From a Huffington Post article:
"Didn't Brown vote against the war, aggressively organize opposition to the war after the invasion, challenge Secretary of State Colin Powell to provide answers about the President's lack of national security credentials, and support legislation demanding an exit strategy? Yes, he did. But according to Hackett, Brown supported the war. Here is his positively outrageous and slanderous claim:
"Hackett says that because Brown voted for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which expressed 'the sense of Congress' that the United States should 'support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq' and 'promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime,' Brown voted for the war...[Hackett said] 'Sherrod Brown voted for regime change; he voted for military intervention in Iraq.'"
The author of the article, Christopher Hayes, goes on to point out just how slanderous a statement Hackett is making. He notes that the Iraq Liberation Act "explicitly contradicts that logic" because the bill specifically said "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces” with the exception of training and weapons for Iraqi opposition groups. In other words, the bill specifically went out of its way to make clear it was not endorsing U.S. military action against Iraq or a U.S. invasion of Iraq. That's why anti-war heroes like Reps. Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich voted for the legislation in the House, and why it passed with unanimous consent in the Senate ,meaning people like Senators Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone supported it."
Hackett is right of the Democratic center, wants mandatory draft for all Americans, and has generally much more conservative stances on most issues than your average Democrat. Brown, is considerably more progressive. One of the problems of getting behind an outsider because they are charismatic and make an entire platform out of being anti-war (with no proof they really are) is people can be blinded. Listen to some of Hackett's interviews and statements. In that rare case, it was good that the establishment choose another candidate.8/31/2006 08:45:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Congresswoman Barbara Lee was the only person in the House to vote against the AUTHORIZING USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECENT ATTACKS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
It was four days after 9/11 and she voted no.8/31/2006 09:36:00 PM|W|P|cc burro|W|P|"Fair trade" and "free trade" are normally viewed as different. Most of us who are for free trade mean trade agreements which include enforceable/enforced worker rights/safety and environmental protection provisions. "Free trade" doesn't connote/require either. We certainly do not have "fair trade" with Mexico--read "The Children of NAFTA".
While trade is good, each country has to decide what trade terms will be best for its people. "Free" trade does not necessarily promote freedom or widespread prosperity or security for a country.8/31/2006 10:03:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|Although like Liza I have been against the Iraq War since before it began -- and disagree with the opinion that the "antis" were a small minority; millions of people at home and in the counries of the "coalition of the willing" went into the streets against it -- I wish that she wouldn't equate being anti-war with being leftist or progressive or any such thing.
Personally I think the best general overview of the history and the nuances of leftist thought is still Edmund Wilson's "To the Finland Station." Deeply scholarly, it is still quite readable as literature, with a wealth of interesting and colorful material, by one America's top 20th century thinkers and observers. Unfortunately, it ends with Trotsky (it was written shortly after his murder), and before important work like Gramsci's had been published.
It has become scarce in used bookstores, but it is available in paperback, and at your local library. Extremely well worth the effort to find and read.9/01/2006 01:07:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Fedup,
I was referring to Paul Hackett's run against Jane Schmidt in 2005. This is from the 8-3-2005 broadcast of "Democracy Now":
"And in election news in this country, Republican Jean Schmidt has won a special Congressional election in southern Ohio beating out Democrat Paul Hackett by a 52 to 48 percent margin. Hackett was attempting to become the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress. He had run on a platform highly critical of President Bush's handling of Iraq. Analysts had originally predicted the Republican Schmidt would easily win since no Democrat had come close to winning the House seat in decades. But Hackett nearly pulled off a major upset by losing by only about thirty-five hundred votes. The Cincinnati Enquirer described Hackett's run as "nothing short of astounding.""
My point is that regardless of Mr.Hackett's political leanings, there was a message here for the Democratic Party that they should have taken heed of but have failed to do so. At the time, those of us who have been opposed to Bush's neo-conservative foreign policy were hopeful that the Democrats would begin building solidarity against this foreign policy. But, of course, it didn't happen and it won't happen.9/01/2006 01:53:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|randall holdridge,
I did not mean to imply that you have to leftist or progressive to be "anti-war." I think that support for the war in Iraq would have diminished much sooner if Americans had seen the film footage that the rest of the world sees. I still believe that most people react with compassion to the suffering of others, but they have to see it. I believe that much less now than I used to, but I still believe it. I think that the public outcry against this war should be far greater than it is, and I would have to say that most of the organized opposition that I'm aware of is on the left. If I'm wrong, please correct me, because I hope I'm wrong.8/30/2006 08:21:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|It may be because he is stalking the borderlands with a flashlight, but many people both here and on our more conservative sister blogs have noted that Steve Huffman has been scarce at many candidate fora (you like that? That's the proper plural of "forum"). The wags over at Sonoran Alliance have even noted that he missed one forum that was spitting distance from his house.
Randy Graf's attacks on Huffman are also talking up his absence, not from public events, but from the legislative votes. Interestingly, as the Arizona Daily Star points out this morning, Graf chooses to compare his record from two sessions with Huffman's record from a different one.
Graf's number juggling aside, Huffman missed 28% of the votes in the last session. This includes a no show for a vote on border radar and missing preliminary votes on employment verification and immigration enforcement bills. This wouldn't be such a big deal, people miss votes all the time, except he's trying to paint himself as a smiling southern Arizona version of Tomás Tancredo.
This calls into question his broader strategy. First of all, his not showing up to public events strikes me as incredibly stupid. It's not as though people will think he's more pallatable because they haven't met him. If Huffman thinks that avoiding public appearances is a way to placate the right, I have two words for him: Joe Lane.
Graf, despite being the titular head of the right wing of Southern Arizona Republicans, is polling well below 50%. This means that there are plenty of Republicans who don't buy into his vision of their party. Anyone remember when Huffman was the moderate alternative? Whatever happened to that? With all due respect Steve, no one is buying the Huffman as Right-Winger thing, even us Democrats aren't.
NB - Okay, a few of you are asking, who is Joe Lane?
Lane was Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives during the impeachment of Evan Mecham. In the end, Lane voted for impeachment. He represented Cochise, Graham and Greenlee counties, and although the district was not Mormon majority, it did include communities such as Duncan, Thatcher and St. David with large LDS populations. The Mormon community was angry about the first Mormon governor being removed from office, and Lane was particularly vulnerable to their anger because of their numbers in his district. In the next election, Lane couldn't be found at public events in the district. On the other hand, his seat mate, Democrat Gus Arzberger, did go. He explained to people his reasons for impeachment, which came down to: "The man lied to my face."
The fact that Arzberger voted for impeachment was still not popular, but he always felt that the fact that he was willing to explain himself earned him some respect. When the smoke cleared, Lane lost his primary, and Arzberger was re-elected until term limits forced him from office twelve years later.|W|P|115695204465151345|W|P|Where's Stevie?|W|Pemail@example.com/30/2006 02:43:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Wags over at Sonoran Alliance? Wags?
Ted, I believe the correct term is New Media Correspondent. And to think that they link to your site as the Southern Arizona blog of Reference. So much for reciprocal courtesy in the blogosphere.
p.s. Thanks for linking to the site!8/30/2006 03:06:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Wags...I use that term to mean anyone who is a slightly snarky and ill-mannered commentator. I count myself as one as well.
Yes, I've been neglectful linking to them.
Sheeyesh.8/30/2006 03:38:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|Oh, well if you are using the term that way I guess it's OK.
I will link again because I finally figured out how to make it work in the comment section.
Sonoran Alliance.8/29/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The day after the Tucson Weekly released its poll, Patty Weiss's campaign put out a press release announcing the endorsement of South Tucson Mayor Jennifer Eckstrom.
It would be easy to dismiss the endorsement, Eckstrom leads a small community outside of the district. But this may indicate something else: it may be a tacit endorsement by the South Side political machine started by Jennifer Eckstrom's father, Dan Eckstrom. The group includes people such as Sen. Victor Soltero and Supervisor Ramón Valadez. This is not to say that Jennifer Eckstrom is taking orders from her father or anyone else, but the strength of la maquina Eckstrom is that they put on a united front. Although they would command few voters in the district, they have access to some of the levers of power in Pima County politics and that counts.
Or, I could just be reading too much into this.
The big question is whether or not Gabrielle Giffords is still welcome at Rigo's.|W|P|115687192861899124|W|P|South Tucson Machine Backs Weiss?|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/29/2006 11:34:00 AM|W|P|UAgoldstein|W|P|My pro-Weiss friends have been devastated since that poll came out, and I noticed that Patty is now trying to tie herself very closely with the Arizona's Democratic establishment, which she resisted doing at first... Notice the press release she sent out praising Pederson and the state party chair...
Her campaign seems to be shooting widly into the air (the last three substantive press releases have been about WalMart, push polls, and Israel) hoping something will stick -- but there is no substance, and no message other than "I was on TV, elect me."
Patty really needs a new communications director to come up with a cohesive, believable message. It's been widely reported that Andrew Myers midled the public about his experience, but maybe he misled Patty too. Maybe she had no idea that he had absolutely no campaign communications experience. Or that he wasn't the Gov's speechwriter, as he claimed. Who knows.
The bottom line is there is nothing good coming from the Weiss camp right now, and in just a few weeks, her campaign turned a very significant lead into a very distant second place.
There are two weeks left, though. And it looks like even if Weiss fixes her mistake of two months ago -- Myers -- it will be too little, too late.8/29/2006 11:41:00 AM|W|P|Ben R|W|P|8/29/2006 11:58:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Interesting post Ted. I had read about the endorsement. This plus the one from EcKERstrom shows that Weiss is at least impressing some inside the party "establishment". I just think it is too little too late as UAGOLDSTEIN gets at.
One of the arguments I made from the beginning was that the important advantage of Giffords would at the simplest be that she is known among people associated with the party...as a legislator and as a member of the Democratic community of Pima County, the state and the nation. Networks matter.
Weiss had to introduce herself to this network and convince them that they were backing the wrong person. This would be tough coming from a position of not just an outsider to politics but as an outsider to the party itself.
Anyhoo...after this campaign...win or lose...she has introduced herself now and she has impressed some obviously. If she does lose, I would encourage her to get more involved in the fall campaign helping to elect Giffords (if she wins) and helping other Democrat candidates around the district and state. Becoming more active as an "insider" (which her strategy decried) would really help her in her next run...which I hope I see.8/29/2006 12:15:00 PM|W|P|boohoo|W|P|Funny, South Tucson isn't even in CD-8. I guess that's OK since Patty doesn't live in CD-8 either.
Anyone notice that Phil Lopes has been joining Latas. I saw that he spoke at one of Latas' events about a week ago and now they are both speaking together on Wednesday in Green Valley.
http://www.jefflatas.com/events.htm8/29/2006 01:52:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Also we have Supervisor Sharon Bronson prominently supporting Weiss and County Administrator Huckelberry not so prominently (check FEC) supporting her.8/29/2006 02:53:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Wow, for Giffords running a "positive campaign" you wouldn't think that by the comment. Kind of desperate for a campaign that is 18% ahead, isn't it? I mean really, goldstein, you sound like you are scared of what card Weiss might draw. Is Giffords' hiding something? Keep in mind, even if she wins the primary, she still has 2 months to survive for the general and anything can happen. Goldstein, tell your devastated Weiss friends to volunteer at Patty's HQ if they are so concerned.8/29/2006 02:54:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|The only thing that matters now is not the press releases, endorsements or even forums. It is the mass of undecideds and which campaign can call them or visit them with a message of why their candidate is best.
Roger, I do agree the network advantage is good. Weiss entered the race too late and her campaign made many strategic mistakes that Giffords could afford to make but a small outsider campaign cannot.8/29/2006 02:56:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|boohoo, I like Latas. Really I do. But his supporters often come across as the most negative and childish of any campaign's. You are drudging up the CD8 district nonissue that didn't get any traction months ago? Who cares? Re-districting happens. She’s lived here longer than Jeff was even alive! Who the heck is Phil Lopes anyway and why should I care?
Latas should have looked out for his own career and endorsed Weiss. He played right into Giffords' hands, thinking it would help him and it has backfired. Now if Weiss loses, he will get the spoiler rap in the progressive crowd. Especially if the loss between Giffords and Weiss is within the margin of Latas' votes. Latas could have played king maker and kept himself at the forefront of progressives for 08.
Instead his manager 'leaks' a story about a meeting he voluntarily went to at Weiss' home, and the story backfires and draws more Latas' supporters to Weiss. Latas should have another talk with Weiss to see what her internals are now showing. :)8/29/2006 02:57:00 PM|W|P|Espo|W|P|Kralmajales,
Was it my comment to you during my radio show monday that got you to come back? hahaha8/29/2006 02:59:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|If Weiss loses, she still wins. Jeff gets labeled the spoiler, Giffords gets labeled the dirty push-polling politician and Weiss comes out as the populist that the establishment took down. Not bad for her first venture into politics.
x4mr, Bronson, Valedez and Huckleberry (assuming all true) supporting Weiss is meaningless. The average voter doesn't know who they are or care. Most endorsements have that effect unless it is a big name that everyone knows.
The Paul Newman endorsement of Patty Weiss could have been done with something creative and fun- playing off the actor. They blew that opportunity. The photo on their website of Newman is indicitive of a campaign that needs to use more common sense.
Anyone go to the forum last night? I missed it but heard rave reviews about Weiss, Latas and even some positives about Giffords. Shacter seemed to win the "I really like her but won't vote for her" response.8/29/2006 03:07:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Fed Up-
Phil Lopes is the minority leader of the State House of Representatives. The fact that you don't know or care who he is doesn't say much about your knowledge of local politics, especially given your proclivity to lecture all of us.8/29/2006 03:30:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Will stop shy of trying to gauge the meaning of the Bronson, Huckelberry, and Valadez endorsements, save that ZERO is the wrong answer.
Regarding average voter, they don't know ANY of any of the folks we're discussing. That's not what this is about.
Regarding last night's forum, quite well attended and discussed in some detail at AZ Watch.8/29/2006 03:50:00 PM|W|P|Tom Prezelski|W|P|Just so "Fedup" knows, Phil Lopes represents the west side of Tucson (District 27) in the State House. He happens to also be the Minority Leader. So, yes, Fedup should care who Rep. Lopes is and the fact that he does not tends to undermine Fedup's moral authority.
Anyway, I just spoke to Rep. Lopes and he tells me in no uncertain terms that he has not endorsed Mr. Latas or anyone else in the CD 8 race. Another rumor deflated. Next?8/29/2006 04:40:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Fedup,
It's interesting how you cling to this notion that if Jeff Latas dropped out of the race, Patty Weiss would gain all of his supporters. Quite frankly, as I see it, the tweedle-dum/tweedle-dee choice in this primary is Giffords and Weiss. True, they are different on health care, but they both are considerably less than eloquent when speaking about US foreign policy. I didn't support Latas because he was "progressive." I supported Latas because he had the courage to condemn the invasion and occupation of Iraq before he even started his campaign. As it turns out, I agree with most of his positions.
Your implication that Latas by his continued presence in the primary has stolen the nomination from the "progressives" is ludicrous and unsubstantiated.
However, having said that, I will offer something that might cheer you up. Weiss is first on the ballot, and "studies" have shown that to be an advantage but probably not as much in a primary as in a general.8/29/2006 04:45:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|FYI Tom. I really do know who he is. I even know how to pronounce his last name correctly. I was making a point to boohoo that regular voters don't know these people, or care. So I stand by my "who the heck is Phil Lopes and why should I care?".
I didn't claim to be the "moral authority" but thanks for thinking of me that way. :) I also never claimed to be an establishment inside Democrat either. I am a fedup onlooker.
Ted, why don't you have a campaign website? Are you making a serious run or not? If you have time to set up a blog you can just as easily set up campaign site. Blogger is free afterall.
Thank you x4mr.8/29/2006 06:17:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Fedup, why would uag's remark have anything to do with Gifford's campaign? Also, why would Giffords be labeled for something the Weiss campaign acknowledge's she had nothing to do with?
Of course, you are well aware both of these implications you mention are false ones, you're just having "honesty issues" again.
No, I don't think Weiss' reputation is going to come out well at all should she lose, at least not at the rate she's going.8/29/2006 07:07:00 PM|W|P|UAgoldstein|W|P|Fedup,
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but I don't think anyone supporting Giffords is afraid of anything the Weiss campaign will pull out of its hat. Who knows, maybe they'll tell another lie about how one of their opponents is behind a push poll...
I highly recommend that after this is over the Weiss camp get together and write the book "A New Political Skill: How to Blow a 20-Point Lead in Two Months."
If Weiss starts with a huge lead in a short race and still loses, how can she possibly beat the Republicans and stand up for us in Washington?8/29/2006 08:59:00 PM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|I don't think Weiss EVER had a lead, folks. She had high name ID after 30 years on TV, but that hasn't translated to support in this primary, at least according to the first indie poll and where the other indicators of support are headed, virtually all towards Giffords.
However, she has shown a strong grasp of the issues and is obviously a quick study. Couple that with the fact that she is articulate and passionate and I DO hope that she is someone we hear from again if she is not the Dem nominee in CD8...which I hope she is NOT because Giffords is the better choice for a myraid of reasons I have blabbed about before.
What has been disappointing about the Weiss effort has been the broken record negative riff on one vote Giffords cast in Phoenix. People didn't listen because they saw no pattern of behavior on Giffords' part...and Patty hasn't brought anything else out to buttress her claims. Negative attacks only work when they confirm thoughts that were already embedded in the public mind. Giffords' reputation for integrity, hard work and advocacy for Democratic values speak to why core constituent groups lined up behind her. Weiss' repetitive blasts about Wal-Mart lacked both credibility and resonance with most Democrats.
Latas is a class act and shrewd as hell. He has gotten more mileage and support from the dollars he has taken in than anyone else. He has also been consistent, energetic and has really made energy policy a focus in the CD8 race. Giffords is still my choice, but Latas has impressed me with his savvy and obvious commitment to his causes. I admit that I initially thought he was mostly a one-issue, bombastic candidate at the outset, but he has proven me wrong.
But...why is no one talking about the God-awful travesty of Bill Johnson being on a dais with these five outstanding representatives of our party??? He is spouting Randy Graf's talking points while costumed in Joe Sweeney's suits. I don't remember Lyndon LaRouche being invited to Democratic presidential debates! Get this guy off the stage!!!8/29/2006 09:44:00 PM|W|P|CD8Dem|W|P|People write off The Eckstrom - South Tucson Machine. Funny no one wrote off Grijalva. Sure he is currently elected - but people can't stand his politics in CD8. He does not represent the residents of CD8. Yet he is Gabby's biggest suporter and root of all establishment support. Will Gabby represent CD8 or CD7?
Surprised no one has hit on this yet - no doubt the repubs will IF gabby makes it out.
Patty had a great campaign going until Andrew Myers came to town. If anything derails her - it will be Myers.8/29/2006 11:02:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Liza, I am not saying Latas' diehard supporters would go to Weiss, the general Latas' supporters would though based on her poll.
While any candidate should run if they feel they really have a chance, don't be surprised though if what I am saying transpires.
Weiss is not first on the ballot, at least not on mine. She is second to the bottom. They must rotate them or something if you have her first on yours. Check with the election office if you need clarification on how that works since I really don't know except what I have.
Myers didn't derail the campaign. I don't know if he has hurt or helped but you don't see much communication coming out of the campaign and they seem really inconsistent in their messaging in contrast to Latas and Giffords who have gotten better with tighter messaging.
They have plenty of other problems with their campaign.8/29/2006 11:25:00 PM|W|P|cc burro|W|P|FEDUP--Your remark how Jeff should have "looked out for his own career and endorsed Weiss" laughable.
(1) What makes you think he wants a political "career"? [He's probably pulling down $100,000-$150,000 a year with JetBlue.] What "career" are you talking about?
(2) Jeff got into this race before Kolbe quit, when he knew it would be a tough race. Weiss didn't come in until after. [Also, Giffords, who keeps telling us that she's running because "change can't wait" WAITED until Kolbe announced his retirement before jumping in--some discrepancy between campaign motto and reality.]
Patty obviously has the massive name recognition, the journalism experience, good communication skills and some overlap on issue stances with Jeff's. BUT she doesn't have the long Airforce record [including the many years in the Middle East], the Pentagon/weapons experience, the aerospace engineering degree, the Masters in Public Administration degree. Also, Jeff's conviction and clarity of vision come across as very natural/innate. I don't get that same impression from Patty, and I would bet that most Latas supporters feel similarly. All things considered, I think that Jeff would be the strongest candidate to go up against the winner of the Republican primary.8/30/2006 06:19:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|I agree with Fedup, I don't think the issue has been with Myers (although I don't think he has helped much either ... as Fedup notes, the communications from the Weiss camp have felt uncoordinated).
It just seems like the Weiss campaign never (so far at least) got itself organized to support Patty's strengths. For example, if they could have got a wide-spread door-to-door campaign early to spread her positions to voters it would have really backed up her built-in name recognition.
Didn't her campaign manager take a fairly length vacation in late Apr. - early May, shortly after the first quarter financials came out? I wonder if that may have hurt them in terms of getting traction for second-quarter fund-raising.
I believe Fedup is also correct about rotating the order of the candidates on the ballot.8/30/2006 08:03:00 AM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Well, Rex, our pal Johnson got the signatures and submitted them on time. Guess that puts him up there with the rest of them.
Don't like the guy any more than you do, but have to support his (and therefore anyone's) right to collect the signatures and go for it. Let's hope we're smart enough and have the collective wherewithal that such folks never win.
cd8dem, what the hell are you talking about with this "writing off" of Eckstrom but not Grijalva stuff, and Giffords representing CD7?
WHAT?! And this serves for a republican argument to VOTE FOR GRAF?!!
Winner of this thing has to run again in two years. Not sure what act would favor CD7 at CD8 expense, but really not seeing it supported by winner of this thing, certainly not Giffords.8/30/2006 08:23:00 AM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Fedup,
I said in another thread somewhere that I have very little confidence in most political polls and even less when my own experience, albeit anecdotal, is not in sync with the results. When Patty released her poll results, I had still not found even one voter who was not "undecided" when I canvassed my precinct. I am just now starting to talk to voters who have committed to a candidate, but I'm not getting information that is in sync with any poll I've heard about so far. Somewhere around four semesters of college level statistics has taught me to be very skeptical of polls, especially internal polls. I will say that I do not believe that my precinct is representative of the district, in fact I know it isn't. However, I just don't see how it could be so far out of sync when we have focused on voters who have voted in at least one primary in the last three elections.
Al Gore had an op-ed on Truthout a few days and he stated that the candidate with the most money for TV ads usually wins. Maybe he's right. If so, Giffords had it in the bag from the get-go, and the rest of us have gotten some great exercise walking our precincts.
Anyhow, my point is that it would have been absurd for Latas to drop out of the race based on Patty's poll. That would have been a sure fire way to eliminate himself from a future in politics as opposed to being a "kingmaker" as you suggest.8/30/2006 10:55:00 AM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|Back to the original topic, i.e., the Jennifer Eckstrom endorsement.
This is a request for facts, if anyone has some. I notice that the Jennifer Eckstrom endorsement is prominently featured on the Weiss website.
But I don't see any mention at all -- even in the small print -- of Dan Eckstrom, Art Eckstrom, Ramon Valadez, Victor Soltero, Roman Soltero, Tom Prezelski, et.al.
Tedski raised it as a question, and everyone else seems to have concluded that the South Tucson machine has swung into action in CD-8.
Is there any evidence that this is true?
Just asking.8/30/2006 01:10:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Randall,
Wish I had better facts for you, but since I've been paying attention (six years), can absolutely attest to Tedski's remark in original post:
the strength of la maquina Eckstrom is that they put on a united front.
NO WAY Jennifer did this without the Godfather's approval.8/30/2006 04:03:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|x4mr,
That's inferential evidence, I guess
But it's hard for me to believe that LD-29/South Tucson people would make the cause of Patty Weiss in a party primary outside their most familiar territory a major test of strength with Raul Grijalva's merry band.
It's true that re-aligned LD-29 spills further east, but still, Victor Soltero is unopposed for re-election, and Linda Lopez and Tom Prezelski aren't seriously challenged either.
I think I'll wait to see if Ramon Valadez decides to choose sides between his fellow supervisors, Sharon Bronson and Richard Elias.
Tedski, what does your brother say? We know he reads this site.9/03/2006 08:36:00 AM|W|P|DRP|W|P|I live south of downtown, my neighborhood (where I am VP) borders on S. Tucson, and I support Giffords. So does my US Rep., southsider Congressman Raul Grijalva.
There is a southside machine for Giffords.8/28/2006 01:20:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Steve Huffman's minions are touting an internal poll that shows that he is only seven points behind Randy Graf. Well, that still makes him behind, doesn't it?
Ever notice that a candidate's internals are always good? They are usually even better when they don't show you the numbers.|W|P|115679695958083864|W|P|What He Doesn't Tell You Is That Only People Named "Huffman" and "Moreno" Were Polled|W|Pemail@example.com/28/2006 04:43:00 PM|W|P|Espo|W|P|Since there were too many comments on the entry this belongs to, I figured I'd post it here:
Francine Shacter actually said her religion was "Justice, Justice, thou shall pursue." It comes from Deuteronomy 16:20 and is one of the most famous passages in the Torah. I'd assume it was a reference to her Jewish faith.8/29/2006 08:04:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well...then that's pretty cool then...credit to her then.
I'll make the excuse that I'm Catholic and don't know the bible.8/29/2006 02:34:00 PM|W|P|Espo|W|P|Hahah, don't feel bad. As a Catholic, I can accept that as a perfectly good excuse.8/28/2006 01:00:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Wall Street Journal has a poll out showing Jon Kyl at 48.3% and Jim Pederson at 44.2%. Nice.
I would link it, but they want you to pay and stuff. Bunch of plutocrats.
Of course, I look over at the AZNetroots page and instead of celebrating, there is carping that Pederson hasn't been running ads. Geez. I see his ads all the time. I read this over there plus more carping that Leonard Clark should have run. Well, Clark isn't running, and Jim is. Wishing and posting to blogs doesn't change this. The choice is between Kyl and Pederson, oh, and Richard Mack.
Gawd. Why do we do this to ourselves? We have a candidate with the experience and resources to run a good campaign, but our first impulse is to whine. No wonder the Republicans make fun of us.
I like Pederson's new set of ads. He's using the fact that he's rich to deliver a populist message, "my family got a tax break, why didn't yours?" No point in hiding the fact that he is wealthy, is there?
I also like the way he turns the fact that he is basically self-financing his campaign into a plus. The fact that he has been dumping his own money into this has driven the Republicans into a populist frenzy. Next, they'll actually be endorsing clean elections, I guess.|W|P|115679614624044864|W|P|Jimbo Within Striking Distance?|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/28/2006 03:16:00 PM|W|P|cpmaz|W|P|LOL - Don't hold your breath waiting the Republicans to endorse Clean Elections.
They'll endorse restricting the teaching of evolution to science classes only and of creationism to theology classes only before they do that.
In other words, not gonna happen...8/28/2006 04:28:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Zogby online poll? pfft.
I'll reserve judgment until I see some others.8/28/2006 10:21:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|hey, some polls are better then no polls Bored, and where is your email addy?
Someone named Boredinaz asked me for a detailed description of something and I said to email me. If this was really you and not an imposter, could you be nice enough to give me an email addy?8/29/2006 06:37:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|I'm kind of with bored on this one ... so far no poll prior to this has shown any sign of life for Pederson, so I'd want to see a couple more before I thought if this as anything but an outlier at best.8/30/2006 06:00:00 AM|W|P|BrittF|W|P|Macaca:
Is a common French racist slur. Meaning and use is similar to English 'nigger,' and is used to described non-European (Arab and Black) North Africans. It was in particularly prevelant use during French occupation of Northern Africa. The term has been showing up with increasing frequency as a racial slur on racist websites and chatrooms.
In considering the controvery of whether Senator George Allen truly knew the meaning of the word in his infamous August 11, 2006 outburst, it is significant to note that his mother and numerous relatives are ethnic French expatriates of Tunisia in North Africa.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=macaca8/30/2006 08:48:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|ugh. totally forgot, ER. will do today.
BTW, azcentral.com reports ASU poll still has Pederson down by 10. on the bright side, same poll has Janet up by a gazillion.8/30/2006 09:12:00 PM|W|P|Zelph|W|P|I think the real frustration of some on AzNetRoots.com is that Pedersen seems unwilling to address the issue of the Iraq situation in an aggressive manner. Pedersen should not continue to simply ignore this issue and hope it goes away. Kyl's strength (and his weakness) is his support of the Bush administration's foreign policy. Karl Rove would attack Kyl on his strengths and I believe that Pedersen should do the same.
Of course, we're all going to hold our noses and vote for Jim, and I'm sure he's counting on that, but he won't get the enthusiatic support of the ground troops if he continues to wimp out on this one. Sorry.8/27/2006 07:07:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I didn't make any comments on the George Allen "Macaca" stupidity a few weeks back. I only bring it up now because we have a new conservative meme: it's okay that Allen said it because it means "clown" in whatever Romance language is convienient.
First Rush Limbaugh claimed this on his program, saying that a Spanish speaker on his staff told him that it means "clown." I was suprised enough that Limbaugh had a Spanish speaker on his staff, but many of you may be suprised to learn that I have a Spanish speaker on my staff as well. This Spanish speaker had never heard of such a thing, at least not in her Español Sonorense. She refered me to a copy of the dictionary published by the Real Academia Español, the scholars that meet and determine what Spanish actually is.
I find out that the word "macaca" is the feminine of the word "macaco." So, he insulted his manhood. I read on for the definition of "macaco."
I find two entries, one for an old Honduran monetary term (that Sidarth, he's just like 19th Century Honduran money!) The second starts by giving a derivation:
Del port. macaco, voz del Congo, que designa una especie de mona.For the monolingual among you, this translates as "From Portugese macaco, Congolese term meaning monkey."
The dictionary goes on to detail that a term derived from this meaning is used in Chile and Cuba to mean "ugly and deformed" and another definition meaning, well, a species of monkey. Go figure.
Well, I guess that doesn't work.
Tory commentator Tony Blankely also now claims that it is a word for clown in Italian. Unfortunately, I had to fire the only Italian speaker on my staff after he said unkind words about Zinedine Zidane's mother, so I can't run this one down. But, if either of these are true, why hasn't George Allen used them as one of the half-dozen or so excuses that he has presented?
Heck, this could have flown a lot better than the silly "it's because he's got a Mohawk" excuse. Dude, that ain't a mohawk. It is more like a fade. But, I can't blame you for being unhip, you are Republican, after all.|W|P|115673319855026555|W|P|Stepping in the Macaca|W|Pemail@example.com/27/2006 08:22:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Nah, I am not surprised you have one on staff, I am surprised you have a staff. :)
As for the soon to be the losing candidate Allen, this is why we have the saying "better to be silent and suspected a fool then to open one's mouth and be shown a fool."8/28/2006 01:13:00 AM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|My Italian dictionary is not unabridged, but it doesn't list "macaca" at all.
For monkey, it gives "scimmia", "bertuccia" and for young monkey or a child monkey, "scimmioto" and "birichino".
For clown, we have "pagliaccio", "zanni", "buffone", "villano", and "zotico".8/28/2006 10:03:00 AM|W|P|Liza|W|P|You have to see the film footage from this event to appreciate what happened. There was a lot more going on here than just one slip of the tongue, which by itself is bad enough. Amy Goodman interviewed the student, SR Sidarth, a few days ago on Democracy Now and showed the film footage from the event.
I was so angry when I saw this. Truthfully, I haven't seen this sort of thing so out in the open since I left the South over 20 years ago. George Allen, if not re-elected, probably could become the Imperial Wizard for the Ku Klux Klan.
Oh, another thing. If you get a chance to see the film footage again, listen closely and you will hear the mostly white crowed laughing at the Senator's racist jokes.8/28/2006 11:24:00 AM|W|P|Sonoran Sam|W|P|OK, I just can't resist.
Today's Arizona Republic has a front-page story on Hispanic members of the Legislature, and their lack of clout - mainly because they're a bunch 'o stinkin Democrats who don't deserve no respect.
Here's the link: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0828latinocaucus0828.html
Of course the Republic rus a series of pictures of Hispanic legislators. Those of us who know and love the Brothers Prezelski know they're hiding Latino roots behind their Slavic last names - and the Republic makes a reference to a certain House member from District 29.
Guess who's picture they ran? Hint: the dude has short hair.
I've decided it's a plot by the Prezelski brothers to multiply their name ID by making the mainstream media run corrections any time of them is mentioned.8/26/2006 09:16:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Just a few little observations:
Did Bill Johnson really regret the fall of whites-only governments in South Africa and Rhodesia? Hmm...let me check the debate out again...
...yep, he did. Keep talking that way and you can stop wondering why some of us throw the word "racism" around. Oh yeah, and your call for deporting Muslims and sanctioned racial profiling doesn't help matters either.
Jeff Latas remarked that we had reduced our dependence on foreign oil by 87% percent during the administration of Jimmy Carter. There was that matter of the Iranian revolution and the lingering effects of the Arab oil embargo that had something to do with this.
Ernesto Portillo Jr....I love you, but man, what was with that Barbara Walters turn? "If you could meet Saddam Hussein, what would you say to him?" Nice calling Patty Weiss out when she tried to change the subject, though. What, no questions about what tree they would be?
Oh yeah, Alex Rodriguez served in Bosnia (but apparently not Herzegovina) and worked in the Pentagon. I wasn't sure anyone caught that.
At the end, Portillo asked about what role religion plays in each candidate's life and what role they believed religion should play in government. The answers, frankly, disapointed me. I don't know why we Democrats are afraid to mention our religious views. I don't need to hear details about whether you keep Kosher or you said the Rosary today, but I'd like something more than "I'm spiritual." Latas said he would address the second part first and spoke about separation of church and state but never got around to the first part. Many of the other candidates did the same thing. Rodriguez was the only one to actually acknowledge a specific religious tradition (he's Catholic...and served in Bosnia). Gabrielle Giffords acknowledged that she practices religion but never said which one, and Francine Shacter said her religion is "Justice, Justice, Justice!" Even Johnson, a member of a pioneer Mormon family that founded St. David and whose ancestors include at least one bishop, didn't acknowledge any sort of faith background.
Why the reluctance? I doubt anyone would be angry at the answers. This sort of reluctance just feeds into the right-wing myth that we Democrats are anti-faith, and it doesn't give faithful voters much reason to trust that we understand them.
Enough of my rants...what do the rest of you think?
NB - When downloading the debate, I had a much easier time with the Windows Media version than the Quick Time version. It also seems to run really fast, not quite to "chipmunk" level though.|W|P|115661262139484588|W|P|Last Night's KUAT Debate|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/26/2006 11:02:00 AM|W|P|Liza|W|P|I like Francine's answer that her religion is "justice, justice, justice." In fact, I like a lot of what Francine has to say. It's too bad that there is no way to attach her to the Tucson Weekly frontrunner Giffords as a sort of Siamese candidate.8/26/2006 11:08:00 AM|W|P|Jane Arizona|W|P|Why the reluctance? Because non-believers still have to be in the closet, unfortunately. I bet a lot of our House members are religious in name only, but damned if they're going to admit it...8/26/2006 01:43:00 PM|W|P|Squib aka TwistedOreo|W|P|I think an individual's personal religious belief is irrelevant. What is relevant however is the way someone acts as a person and that can be based upon their faith or whatever. Robert Blendu is a good example of this, his favorite book is the bible and yet, he has consistently failed to live by those standards, often promoting legislation that feather's his nest and is patently unethical. Blendu merely wraps himself in his religion as a vehicle to pander to his base.
Sadly, wrapping oneself in their religion publicly with an intent to pick up votes is just sad to me. I actually appreciate the fact that many Democrats don't do this and I don't think they should start.8/26/2006 03:09:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|KUAT debate:
Disappointed with the questions since they did not focus on much except foreign policy. Domestic issues like health care, education, etc. largely ignored with only a couple of questions.
Latas won the debate because he seems to be the one who grasps the issues most in depth and can communicate his positions with more clarity. He knows how to easily mix a lot of facts and stats in a concise and logical manner to make his point. Definitely understands the Hezbollah situation in Lebanon better than any others and was the only one to mention the US involvement of planning in advance (supplying weapons too). He also won all the foreign policy questions. On Lebanon I thought Weiss and Giffords were too protective of Israel and not realistic. I know Giffords is Jewish and Weiss is married to a Jewish man. Not sure if that influences their perspective. Regardless this conflict isn't about the Israeli or Lebanese people but about corruption in governments, just like we aren't Bush's actions.
Weiss probably did the second best overall. She presented well and communicated in a concise and forceful manner. On the Sadam question, Ernesto Portillo was especially rude interrupting her instead of letting her finish her point. I know he endorsed Giffords months ago so was probably trying to throw Weiss off her game, but she did not miss a beat of getting right back to what she was saying which was a slam dunk and made him look like a jerk for interrupting her.
My one complaint is not Weiss’ fault but that horrible lighting. I have not seen that lighting used on any other candidate interviews and wonder why this was used. Weiss has scars on her face, it appears from burns or something and the lighting really emphasized it. It was shocking to see initially. If any of Ms. Weiss campaign people read this, my girlfriend says you can get injections of filler substances that smooth out the skin. It is used for wrinkles and scaring and apparently a lot of Hollywood types use it to smooth out skin flaws and it works well on burned or acne scarred skin.
The lighting was harsh on Giffords too with her fair skin but not as bad as Weiss. Giffords did better than I expected. A close third to Weiss. She came across more adult, more serious, less prom queen and the hair style was a good decision. She finally looked and presented like an adult. She has definitely improved since I have seen her last. Giffords won the one immigration question when she said she did not believe in amnesty…the rest of what she said was similar to Weiss but her presentation was better and will attract more people
Johnson is a nut case with a few lucid moments of truth mixed in. Interesting to hear him and his fundamentalism viewpoints. Something in his speech makes me think he is a bit of a savant.
Shacter made some good points and can be concise and pointed at the same time. Although I don’t know the “I’m am older than God” closing gives anyone a reason to vote for her.
Alex and Gabrielle have a tendency to sound like they are reading a script. Gabby not as much, but Alex to the extreme.
Weiss started out good in her closing..."This race is about integrity..." Then she never followed up on that theme which she should have. She did talk of her challenges growing up (good to do) and a little about her journalistic background (everyone knows at this point and don’t care). It would have been more effective to skip the career stuff and focus on integrity and why voters should support her since she is now an underdog in the race.8/26/2006 03:13:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Religion does not equate to spirituality or even faith. My upbringing in Christianity, for exampole, is historically rooted in political foundations and not spiritual ones, much like the vast majority of religions.
I thought all the candidates did fine on that question but I particularily enjoyed Francine's answer.8/26/2006 03:14:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Beware false prophets.8/26/2006 04:04:00 PM|W|P|Framer|W|P|Woah,
I wasn't there, but Latas actually tried to spin that the Carter administration planned and executed an "87% slash in foreign oil dependance" from the reality of the OPEC oil embargo?
This wasn't some type of initiative, OPEC refused to sell oil to us! There were fuel lines, stagflation, the genesis of modern Islamic terrorism, and we are supposed to use this as what to shoot for?
Free advice for Democrats. Some people that are voting are actually older than 40. Be very careful when refering back to the "good old times" of Jimmy Carter.8/26/2006 05:30:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|8/26/2006 06:09:00 PM|W|P|cc burro|W|P|I believe that Jeff is not referring to the "good old times" of Carter, but rather praising Carter for all of the monumental energy and environmental legislation that was passed during the his Administration.8/26/2006 06:39:00 PM|W|P|cc burro|W|P|On a more important issue than personal religion--When asked whether they support a timeline for the U.S. getting out of Iraq, instead of being forthright by stating "I don't think the U.S. should commit to a timeline" and explaining why, several of the candidates sidestepped the actual question.
I had previously heard from someone that Giffords supported a pullout by the end of 2007. But she didn't mention any timeline or dates in her response.
So I went to her website to see what she say re this. On her website, she states,
"The increased sectarian strife in Iraq and growing instability in the Gulf region during the past six months have only intensified the need for a responsible and plausible exit strategy from Iraq by 2007. My priority is to bring our troops home safe and soon."
This statement sounds like double-speak. A quick uncareful read of this could lead you think she wants the troops to start coming home by sometime in 2007. Yet if you re-read it carefully, what it actually says is that she wants an exit strategy--a PLAN--by 2007. Which is it?8/26/2006 06:59:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."
Matthew 6:58/27/2006 07:22:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Ease up on the criticisms of how people look folks. Geez...we are getting a little high school now aren't we?
I watched the debates on the web and really didn't learn anything new about the candidates. It was my first chance to see Schacter and Rodriguez. Both were impressive. I thought Giffords came across as an experienced legislator, Patty was elequent as always, and Latas came across as smart and impressive as he always does.
I thought the atmosphere was honestly rather stale and I am not sure that any candidate did much to move a voter one way or the other. Supporters still support who they support overall and I am betting that most of the people that watched were already decided.8/27/2006 07:31:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|As to the religion question. Religion seems irrelevant as a campaign question. I mean, what do we learn about a candidate if they speak about their religious faith, honestly? Is it expected to be a voting cue if they have similar religion as you do? Would those of minority religious faith risk alienating voters who are of a majority faith? Frankly, I think it also cheapens a person's religious faith to have to say on camera essentially that "I am (fill in the blank with the faith) and it drives the way I think and my ethics." So what do we really learn about a person if they say, I am Buddist, Methodist, Catholic, or Mormon? Finally, the implication to some is that if you have no faith, that you are in some way unethical or don't follow teachings that could make you a better decision maker.
I don't know, I guess I think the faith thing really doesn't tell us much when asked and, at worse, it is used to somehow either promote a candidacy or to detract from one.
I will end with a story. I once advised a young man who wanted to be Sheriff in a county surrounding Atlanta. As we talked he pulled a "Star of David" pendant from under his shirt and said openly that he worried what would happen to his candidacy if people found out he was Jewish. It was very sad that he felt like he had to hide. I can imagine his opponents proudly proclaiming how Christian they were while on stage with him.8/27/2006 08:57:00 AM|W|P|boohoo|W|P|Framer,
The OPEC oil embargo was in 1973. I don't think Carter was the Pres then.8/27/2006 09:20:00 AM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Just gotta love Francine up there, and compelled to say that although a little miffed at some Weiss campaign antics, I would be proud to vote for Giffords, Weiss, Latas, or Francine in November. I really believe all four have put a lot of heart and soul into the issues we face and would work hard for what needs to happen.
Candidates wisely avoid god-talk simply because odds of a negative consequence far outweigh those for a good result.
Have been rather baffled since age of six (true story) on how anyone can fail to see that human spirituality (whatever that is) got "interpreted" differently in the different cultures of the world. This is hard to grasp?
Even more baffling is that once folks choose what to believe, their choice is "right" and even more insane, anyone choosing differently is.........
Michael published a fabulous post at Blog for AZ about religion. Leister went positively ballistic and trolled the daylights out of the thing.
I think politicians will continue to craft "sensitive" remarks so as to survive a childish conversation offending as few people as possible. Whether it takes ten years or 100, eventually education will raise the maturity of the conversation and what is legitimate about spirituality will remain and infantile religious nonsense will be discarded.8/27/2006 10:36:00 AM|W|P|Liza|W|P|kralmajales,
I deleted my comment that referred to one of the candidate's "looks" even though I offered some good, solid advice. This is the way things are, like it or not, and there's a lot more to it than you might want to admit. Giffords is cute and a little tweaking could have her looking like a movie star. Why not go for it? I'll tell you one thing about the CD8 Republican candidates that you probably haven't thought of. We're lucky that none of them are good looking. If one of them looked like George Clooney, the Democrats could have a real problem on their hands. Bottom line here is that if you're good looking, get all the mileage you can out of it.
Nice catch on the oil embargo. I missed that but I should have remembered. Those were the Nixon years.8/27/2006 05:46:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Liza,
I think that Gabby does not want to let her looks (pleasent as they may be) detract from her message. While many elections are decided on who looks better, physical attractiveness on the part of women tends to give the impression that they are distracting.
Is it fair? No, but we have to work with what we are handed.8/27/2006 06:37:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|Really folks, if you want to vote on looks, it's Alex all the way.8/27/2006 06:52:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Elizabeth,
You're right, of course. I would just say, however, that if you want to neutralize your appearance for the sake of your message, your overall image needs to be age appropriate. Women candidates are srutinized unfairly by both men and women, but that's how it is. Remember the Hillary Clinton makeover? Bill would have lost in 1992 if they hadn't done it.
BTW, I like your name.8/27/2006 06:58:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|randall holdridge,
I think you might be right. I only saw him once, so I'll have to take another look.8/27/2006 09:11:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Thanks Liza. :)8/27/2006 11:45:00 PM|W|P|cc burro|W|P|It's unfortunate, but there is prejudice against people who are atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Moslem, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, fundamentalist Christian--depending on what part of the country you're from. I'll never forget during the 2004 election, the MSNBC was interviewing people on the streets of Boston, I think it was, and Steven Baldwin [actor] indicated that he had found Jesus and was therefore going to vote for George Bush [who pretends to be a reborn Christian]. Why research the candidates issue stances, experience and character when all you have to do is check what religion he/she is and vote accordingly. So much for an informed, discerning electorate.8/28/2006 01:27:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Well said, cc.
By the way, met Stephen Baldwin once. The guy has the cerebral horsepower of a cinder block.8/28/2006 11:06:00 PM|W|P|cc burro|W|P|x4mf--Gak! A friend of mine showed me that today--another "fake" fundamentalist Christian. Ms. Harris. I knew some fundamentalist Christians when I was younger. They were decent, good people [notwithstanding their views being different than mine]. There are a ton of pretend ones in politics--family-values-spouting yet very slimy, very corrupt, and lying [and the main mark of Satan is being a liar...]. I wish Larry Flynt hadn't stopped outing them.8/25/2006 07:08:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Joseph Simon, a "District Systems Manager" (whatever the heck that is) for J. D. Hayworth wrote a letter to the Jewish News defending Hayworth from charges of anti-semitism. Of course, the Jewish News never actually said Hayworth was anti-semetic, in fact, they had explicitly said he wasn't. They just thought he should be careful about quoting anti-semites to support his immigration policies.
Never mind that though. Simon made a rather silly charge in his letter:
By the way, Hayworth's opponent has no record of support for Israel and probably couldn't find it on a map until deciding to run for Congress.
Well, funny that Mr. Simon brings it up. Harry Mitchell has been to Israel: touring the old city, visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, visiting historical sites such as Masada and even meeting leaders like Shimon Peres. This was back in 2005, before he considered a run for congress.
On the other hand, Hayworth hasn't made any official visits to Israel.
The thing that I find interesting is that Simon seems to set the bar rather low for what, in his words, a "friend" to the Jewish community is. He seems to be arguing that all one has to do to be a "friend" is to support the policies of the State of Israel. Hard for me as a Catholic to pick out who are good friends to the Jewish community, but I would think that "friends" would mean folks who, when given the chance, use their position to oppose anti-semitism.
Hayworth has been given numerous chances to do so as a congressman, but seems to have passed them up.
For example, when Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas visited the White House, a letter was circulated among house members asking that the President urge Abbas to stop allowing the promotion of anti-semetic ideology in Palestinian schools and media. Members of congress, including Democrats and Republicans, signed the letter. Hayworth's signature is not there. Another letter was circulated asking Kofi Annan to take more action against global anti-semitism. Raúl Grijalva found time to sign it, Hayworth didn't.
Hayworth also had a chance to co-sponsor the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. 35 members saw fit to put their names on this bill, but Hayworth did not. Jeff Flake and Rick Renzi put their names on the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, but Hayworth couldn't be bothered.
As I've said numerous times, Hayworth is not an anti-semite. However, it is disingenuous to say that he stood-up against anti-semitism, when he has passed up these chances to do so, especially because he isn't exactly shy about talking about other issues that concern him.|W|P|115651785340653174|W|P|We Say "Love Your Brother," Well, We Don't Literally Say It, Well, We Don't Really Say It At All|W|Pemail@example.com/25/2006 12:09:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Tedski,
I wish that people could learn to write with more clarity and I really wish that we would all learn to use rhetoric that distinguishes between supporting or not supporting Israel and anti-Semitism.
Let's look at these numbers for a minute from the recent Israeli/Lebanon conflict:
-Lebanese fatalities: 1,183, 90% of them civilian, about a third of the fatalities children
-Lebanese people displaced: 970,000.
I do not support Israel or any other nation who inflicts this level of mortality and displacement upon the civilian population of another nation. And, this does not even begin to address the fact that all of the post civil war economic development in Lebanon for almost two decades has been wiped out in a few weeks. Damage estimates are now around 15 billion and that does not even begin to address how this nation is supposed to sustain itself now that so much infrastructure has been destroyed. Bombing nations into the stone age is a foreign policy to be abhorred, even if Israel is the nation doing it and we all risk being called anti-Semitic if we so much as dare make one little squeak of protest.
I am not pro-Israel but I am not anti-Semitic. I do not feel I should have to explain the difference as anyone who is reading this is perfectly capable of looking it up.
And, if this incurs the wrath of the Blogging Zionist, wearetribal, or any other Zionist, I guess that's just too bad. I won't be reading any Zionist rants.8/25/2006 01:06:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I'm trying to figure out if you are trying to accuse me of a zionist rant, since it seems that I was writing an anti-J.D. rant, which are a heck of a lot more fun.
My trouble has been, and I don't think I made this clear enough, is that there is a theme from the right that support of Israel means support of the policies of the Likud party. For example, you barely saw any enthusiasm from the so-called Neocons for the peace process in the mid '90s. Since they conflate support of Israel with support of these policies, it means that they conflate anti-semitism with opposition to these policies. I have always found it silly because people in Israel have arguments with each other about this, and they obviously are not anti-semetic.
Simon is making an argument that somehow a little pro-Israel lip service is enough to make you pro-Jewish. I have trouble with this given how many millenialist evangelicals support Israel for reasons that would make many Jews uncomfortable. I realize that it may be a bit presumptive for a gentile to say this, but it seems to me that a bit more needs to be done before you declare yourself a friend of the Jewish community.8/25/2006 01:31:00 PM|W|P|Sonoran Sam|W|P|Speaking of J.D. Hayworth, note this squib from a story that the Associated Press is running today:
Pharmaceutical industry paid for part of campaign ads on Medicare
Aug. 25, 2006 12:20 PM
WASHINGTON - The pharmaceutical industry quietly footed the bill for at least part of a recent multimillion-dollar ad campaign praising lawmakers who support the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, according to political officials.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims credit for the ads, although a spokesman refused repeatedly to say whether it had received any funds from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
Several campaign strategists not involved in the ad campaign said no legal issues were raised by the pharmaceutical industry's involvement. In political terms, though, the disclosure is likely to embolden Democratic critics of the Medicare drug program, who charge it amounts to a Republican-engineered windfall for drug companies. advertisement
The commercials, airing in 10 states or congressional districts, generally say the local congressman or senator supports the drug program, and that hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries have saved money since its inception earlier this year.
You may remember that these commercials ran in AZ praising Jon Kyl and - wait for it - J.D. Hayworth for their "excellent" work in supporting a plan that has screwed over millions of people who rely on Medicare for their prescription drug coverage.
Thanks, Republicans.8/25/2006 04:26:00 PM|W|P|Liza|W|P|Tedski,
My point is that when speaking or writing about Israel and anti-Semitism, it should be crystal clear that being pro-Israel or anti-Israel (with respect to their foreign pilicy) has nothing do with being anti-Semitic or not. Until we dissociate these terms and allow them to stand on their own, as they should, Americans will be fearful of speaking out against Israel's foreign policy.
I say this because I think its an important change that needs to permeate our culture.
No one gets terribly upset when people speak out against the foreign policy of France, Russia, China, Uganda, and so on. Israel should be no different. Unfortunately, that's not the case because "anti-Semitic" is used interchangeably with "anti-Israel."
Conversely, "pro-Israel" means you are not anti-Semitic.
I'm tired of it and it needs to change, that's all I'm saying.8/25/2006 05:21:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|"anti-Semitic" is used interchangeably with "anti-Israel."
Conversely, "pro-Israel" means you are not anti-Semitic.
Good point.8/25/2006 05:37:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Sonoran:
Some people have saved money at the cost of others having to pay more. The program needs to be completely repealed and redesigned.
It is not a vast surprised that one of JD's biggest support groups would have these ads recommending a program that gives them tons of money.
At least Plan B is OTC now.8/26/2006 08:30:00 AM|W|P|Liza|W|P|8/24/2006 12:45:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|So, according to the now infamous polling results, no scenario that doesn't involve a sudden Ebola outbreak at a Randy Graf rally will result in anything but him being the Republican nominee in congressional district 8.
Well, it looks like some folks are thinking that this nomination isn't much of a prize.
Conservative columnist and revealer of state secrets Robert Novak recently had this to say in his column in the very conservative Human Events magazine:
As matters currently stand, Democrats should take over at least four seats without trouble -- including the seat of former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). These Democrat takeovers would include political comebacks by two former congressmen -- Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Ken Lucas (D-Ky.) -- and the loss of Rep. Jim Kolbe's (R-Ariz.) seat, whose primary is not yet settled.The most interesting thing about this is that it seems he is down on the Republicans' chances no matter who gets nominated.
NB - Credit Where Credit Is Due Department: I was tipped off to this from an entry on AZ Congress Watch.|W|P|115644971484305998|W|P|"Lord of Darkness" Sees Bleak Future for Republican CD-8 Nominee|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/24/2006 04:07:00 PM|W|P|UAgoldstein|W|P|Patty would do herself a lot of good if she fired her campaign staff.8/24/2006 11:04:00 PM|W|P|Pondering American|W|P|Hello there, Well I am a eneny Republican on this blog.
My thoughts are that I am troubled by this race in Arizona. I suppose at the end if Graff gets the primary nod that I will hope for him to win it out(I live in Louisiana so cant vote there) however he is not my favorite in that race. I so wish that the one of the Repubs would bow out and endores Grafs opposition in the primary.
I am trying to find a honest assessment of this race Particually how strong the Dem is there.8/25/2006 09:28:00 AM|W|P|The Guard|W|P|Not alot of stock can be put into the polls released for CD8 considering only 300 Dems and 300 Republicans were polled. What kind of margin of error is that? A little too high. Poll 1,000 Democrats and 1,000 Republicans...okay maybe.8/25/2006 12:53:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Uhm ... national level polls can be done with a fair degree of accuracy if you get 1,000 people.
Having a sample size of 300 is plenty large enough for CD8, assuming you get your sampling correct (which it looks like they did). A 4% margin of error actually pretty low.
Obviously a larger sample would be more accurate, but you would be paying a _lot_ more money to get the MOE down from 4% to maybe 2.5%.8/24/2006 08:10:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Nobel Laureate and former Polish President Lech Wałęsa has quit the trade union he helped found, Solidarność. He said that the last straw came with the Union's support for the government led by President Lech Kaczynski and his twin brother, Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski. He has been dissatisfied for some time with the direction of the union for some time now and the Kaczynski brothers are increasingly unpopular.
Solidarność's influence has declined in recent years. The broad-based social movement that brought down communism has shrunk to just being a trade union, albeit the second largest in the country.
Wałęsa has, however, relented and said he will participate in Solidarność sponsored anniversary celebrations later this month. He earlier said he would not participate.
Wałęsa was one of my heroes when I was growing up. It saddens me that the movement he founded seems to have left him.|W|P|115643340902593589|W|P|Wałęsa Quits Solidarność|W|Pemail@example.com/24/2006 08:45:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Kind of like the Republican party has left so many moderates.
Sad times, sad times indeed. Lech was (is) a couragous man, and must feel very depressed about needing to break with the organization he founded.8/24/2006 07:55:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Apparently nothing stays the same no matter where it is. And unfortnately it seems the people with the passion for true justice are forced out once an organization becomes the mainstream.8/23/2006 01:04:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Democrats:
Gabrielle Giffords: 45%
Patty Weiss: 27%
Jeff Latas: 6%
Alex Rodriguez: 1%
Bill Johnson: 1%
Francine Schacter: 1%
Randy Graf: 36%
Steve Huffman: 13%
Mike Hellon: 10%
Mike Jenkins: 1%
Frank Antenori: 1%
I don't know who this "Undecided" person is, but he is kicking Latas's ass and is beating Graf too.
Seriously though, I thought that Graf and Hellon would be doing better on the Republican side, and I thought that Rodriguez would be doing better too.
That is all the comment I will make for now. Better for lettin' y'all ruminate. I'm sure I'll be recieving press releases from the campaigns soon. 'Cept from Huffman. I hear that he has been shy about media the last couple of days.
The Weekly will be posting more details this afternoon when the full edition hits this here internet.|W|P|115636426197231511|W|P|CD 8 Polling Numbers Straight from the Wick Newspaperin' Empire|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/23/2006 01:58:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Thanks for the numbers, Ted.
I don't put much into polls as I said when the Weiss' one came out. This had 300 people surveyed, Weiss had 400 I think. Both have too low of a sample size. I could be cynical and say since the Tucson Weekly endorsed Giffords the poll was rigged, but my neighborhood conversations tell me it is likely pretty accurate.
As much as I think Giffords is a terrible candidate, I do think she is ahead and by a large margin regardless of my faith in the polls. Giffords is ahead because she has had a strong ground operation (the push poll certainly helped too).8/23/2006 02:11:00 PM|W|P|UAgoldstein|W|P|Wow -- in just a few weeks Weiss comm. dir. Andrew Myers comes in and takes a huge Patty lead and turns it into a huge deficit.
What a loser.
With a Giffords-Graf matchup, we'll certainly get Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona.8/23/2006 02:12:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|The Weiss campaign has run one of the worst campaigns with one of the best candidates possible. She has no baggage; she is well known and liked, and good on the stump. How can you lose? By having a f@#ked up operation, that is how. One consistent theme I have heard ruminating is her campaign has been screwed up from day one and a lot of internal conflict.
The strategy was inept from the start. They kept pushing the poll numbers as a reason to vote for her when no one gives a hoot. People vote on candidates, not poll numbers. Instead, they should have focused on her platform, which is really quite good. From their poorly designed mailed literature to their absent field operation you have to wonder what they have been thinking. Latas has a lot less money and has done more with it and more creatively. The only way Weiss can hope to make this a tied race is to get Latas and Rodriguez to endorse her and that is not likely to happen.
This focus on poll numbers has now backfired because the latest polls show it is Giffords. So what will Patty's new message be?
Giffords has run a strong ground operation, phone banking and walking door-to-door in the past 2 months. If Patty had even half of that ground operation, she would be killing in the district. Giffords is not ahead because of her ads (they aren't that great) she is ahead because they are bothering to contact voters. With the final push the next 3 weeks, Weiss has no chance of catching up. This year was her golden opportunity and it won’t happen again for her. Next year will be a different playing field with better more organized candidates and any advantage Patty had this time around will dissipate.
Weiss' campaign has been invisible. No calls, no walking. When you look at the long list of staff on the website you have to ask what the hell they have been doing all this time? Sitting in front of a computer crunching poll numbers?
I have several people in my circle of friends and family who support Patty but are extremely disappointed in her campaign. Two of my friends went to her office to volunteer in the past couple of months and the staff was so disorganized they didn't even have a plan for what they could be doing. Another complaint is some loud mouth woman who does nothing but chat, chat, chat and so much socializing going on you would think they are all on vacation. Very disappointing that such a professional woman would have such an unprofessional campaign. These complaints are from people who actively support Patty.
She still may get my vote, but it won’t do her much good at this point. The Primary goes to Giffords and the Republicans take the seat once again.8/23/2006 02:14:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Fedup,
For an area with the population of CD8 , 300 (or 400) voters isn't a too small sample. It's not the number of voters, but how representative they are. If, for example, every voter comes from Sierra Vista then the results wouldn't be very representative.
I put a lot more faith in these results than in the last set of Weiss-financed numbers thrown out there.
As much as I think Giffords is a great candidate, I don't think she, her staff or her volunteers can afford to look at this as anyting more than an affirmation of what they are doing is working, and they need to keep working hard. Three weeks is a long time, and lots can still happen.8/23/2006 02:19:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Republican side: The real shocker is how bad Huffman is doing. Where is Click in this and why aren't they running a better campaign?
I truly expected this to be a Giffords-Huffman match-up. I have over the past month been seeing the smartest campaigning done by Graf. This goes to show it is not about money. Huffman has Giffords level money and Graf has about a third of Weiss' and a tenth of Huffman’s. Graf is ahead because he knows how to connect with people and it is all about the ground operation. He was underestimated and still is being.
uagoldstein, don't assume Giffords will beat Graf. Unless the Republican Party abandons him in November, he will be a much more formidable candidate than Giffords and I project he will win. Giffords needs to pull from Republican and independent support and if you spend any time talking to voters, both groups like Graf.
We are going to have a Congressman even crazier than Kolbe.8/23/2006 02:23:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|sirocco, depends on how the Wick people segmented it. According to the article Michael Bryan did, the Weiss campaign did a good job of segmenting. The problem with their poll is the sample size was too small (get 1000-1500 if you want to make it really mean something) and they did it too early.
This poll still has too small a sample size (maybe they just happened to call supporters of one campaign over another?) but the timing is better.
My main feeling is there is accuracy based on talking with voters in my neighborhoods who seem to support Giffords and Graf because they have had more contact with those campaigns.
It will be interesting to see how the Huffman and Weiss camps respond to this.8/23/2006 02:25:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Fedup,
Weiss entered with some baggage, including the "lack of experience" tag. I think her campaign has been perceived as more negative than the others as well, and while that's not baggage it came in with, it's liekly baggage now.
I think you understimate the impact of Giffords' ads combined with the endorsements she has been receiving. The fund-raising edge of the Weiss campaign has allowed them to run more ads.
Whether you like them or not, they do get played, people do hear them, and her name gets imprinted in their minds. Combine that with the receipt of another new endorsement every few days, and it's like the steady little drumbeat of her name getting out there. Goes a long way to overcoming the name-recognition edge Weiss started with.
If (still a big if) Giffords were to win the nomination next month, Dems will win in Nov. I think that's true if Weiss wins as well.8/23/2006 02:27:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Fedup,
As we both noted, it comes down tot eh sampling. You can get national-level polls with MOEs under 5% using around 1200 respondents if the segmenting is right. For something the size of CD8 300 or 400 is fine, although of course larger samples will always tend to be more accurate.8/23/2006 02:53:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|You are wrong about which campaign went negative first. Patty didn't get into the race until late January and by February this blog and Art's as well as Billie Stanton's article were already taking swipes at her. Giffords definitely went negative first and most agressively. If anything, Patty's camp waited too long to respond.
The difference is, Patty confronted Giffords in person when she finally did respond, not behind the back. I personally respect that but it likely would have been better for her to be more manipulative like Giffords' has been.
Sure Latas supporters were negative from the start but so were Giffords. If you want to give awards for negativity I would say Giffords and Latas tie with Weiss in second place. Patty put up a whole FAQ section to respond to attacks long before she said one thing about Giffords' record or anything else about Giffords so while Giffords' supporters may want to re-write history, the fact remains she didn't fire the first shot. This is further proof that negative campaigning works and Giffords has proved it as Kerry did. They key is for the candidate not to appear attacking but have their campaign do it on the side which is what Giffords did.
That is irrelevant though.
If this poll was taken before the push poll I wonder how that will impact things? Will Giffords have a wider margin? Was Giffords' campaign somehow involved?
Who knows. The point is any campaign should expect these types of tactics and while I don't believe any Democratic campaign has done a great job, Giffords with the help of all her supporting organizations definitely has the stronger one at this point.
The ads may help with name recognition and that may help with votes. I think she could have done a better job with them but I am sure there is more to come. Her radio ads with Grijalva is a smart idea and exactly what I expected they would do.8/23/2006 03:01:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|These numbers are huge for a lot of reasons.
When Patty's poll was released back in June, I argued that it was to boost funds and to boost the campaign. Otherwise releasing it would be a mistake.
By declaring yourself the front-runner you place yourself in a position of, where if the race tightens, the other campaign has massive momentum, and the losing campaign is left explaining what the heck went wrong.
I think Fedups reaction...a few posts up...it what I was talking about (not calling him out...what he said was interesting).
In this case, it wasn't a tightening...it was an out and out reversal...a 28% swing of sorts.
Now...the issue is this. Polls are snapshots....they can change. Look for a smart Weiss crew to try to make a lot out of any poll that cuts into the lead. A drop by 8 points in the next one would be sold as "Weiss Surges". The problem, still is, though that she had already declared herself the front-runner before.
The worry for the Giffords campaign is complacency, a lack of activity by people who think it is over, and voters thinking..."well I don't have to vote or contribute...she is winning."
I am sure the campaign knows this and will go a long way toward making sure that does not happen.8/23/2006 03:02:00 PM|W|P|Sonoran Sam|W|P|Fedup et al:
As a Giffords support obviously I'm pleased with the numbers.
As a DEMOCRAT, however I'm elated.
Note that 39 percent of their voters basically picked none of the above.
My biggest fear is that fellow Dems whose candidate doesn't win will sulk and withdraw. I've worked on Dem. races in the past that got nasty in the primary - and as a result, the Republicans took an office we should have won.
I've said this before. If Patty Weiss, Latas or any D wins, I'm on board the day after the primary.
If the poll proves accurate, I respectfully ask my fellow Dems to join us in putting CD8 in the Democratic column - and let's keep it there!8/23/2006 03:14:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Roger, I doubt you will see complacency on the part of the Giffords campaign or her voters. I would say you are more likely to see that from the Weiss'camp now that reality has set in and they see all they took for granted. With that large of a lead for Giffords', I can see Weiss supporters giving up or even going over to Giffords' especially those who want to be aligned with a "winner".8/23/2006 03:26:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Fedup...
First, it is nice to have a nice exchange with you. We have gone at each other a long time now. One of the reasons I pretty much quit (not you personally...but the vitriol).
I also doubt very seriously that the Giffords came will at all rest on their laurels. The know what a 300 person sample can mean and that polls are just snapshots in time.
If I were their managers, I would have these results out to every endorser, every national outlet, ever endorser who has not yet endoresed, every major funder, every national news outlet, every commentator that I could find..and then I would work like hell to keep contacting voters and processing early ballots.
See my post on the Repubs under Arizona 8th. A fun place to read.
Basically, my analysis on Huffman. These results appear to be BEFORE the peeping incident. So what is wrong with that campaign?
My take comes from a barely commented upon, last paragraph, of last week's Skinny. It was about who had processed the most early ballot requests. For the repubs it said it was Hellon, then Graf, and Huffman a distant LAST. IF he loses and this is true, that will be why he lost. His appeal had to come from moderate repubs. Few of them turn out in a primary, and fewer, when the President's numbers are so darned low. He had to get early ballots and get people to vote who would not normally. It appears his money and the machine he has did not do this well...and that will be the untold story.
Last, Graf needs to get these numbers to the RNC FAST...and the RNCC...FAST...and the Daily Fix, Cook Report, and anyone else who had it as a "toss up" or Huffman leading.
Best...8/23/2006 04:22:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Poll Positions
Read full story by clicking the link above.
BY JIM NINTZEL, email@example.com
Posted: Wednesday, Aug 23, 2006 - 01:14:12 pm MDT
Republican Randy Graf and Democrat Gabrielle Giffords hold leads in the primary races for Congressional District 8, according to a new Inside Tucson Business/Wick Communications Poll.
But pollster Margaret Kenski of Arizona Opinion cautioned that both races remained up for grabs, noting that none of the candidates “has a magic blend of personality, money, organization and issue command that guarantees election. If we learn nothing else from the next three weeks, it could be the lesson that campaigns do matter.”
The poll, taken last week, showed that Graf, a former state lawmaker who captured more than 42 percent of the vote in his unsuccessful primary campaign against retiring Congressman Jim Kolbe two years ago, had the support of 36 percent of 300 Republicans surveyed.
“I think that what Randy has going for him right now is that he has residual name recognition,” Kenski says. “The others have to buy it.”8/23/2006 04:28:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|"In terms of party loyalty, 21.3 percent of Republicans would consider voting for another party if their candidate loses in the Sept. 12 primary, while 15.7 percent of Democrats responded similarly.
Outside of the three leaders in each party’s race, no other candidate polled higher than 1.3 percent.
The poll was conducted by telephone on Aug. 12 and Aug. 14-17 and has a margin of error of 4 percent. Respondents were randomly selected voters living in Congressional District 8 who voted in both the 2002 and 2004 primary elections."8/23/2006 04:29:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|16% would vote for another Party if their primary candidate loses on the Dem side and 21.3% of Republicans would.
Maybe Jay Quick or David Nolan will come out the winner. ;)8/23/2006 04:30:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|I mentioned this before somewhere else, but I believe the key to Huffman's victory is (WAS) early ballots. He has (had) to appeal to conservatives and that would be a complete makeover for him. He is strong with moderates...but they don't usually vote in primaries. So how do you get moderates out? Early ballots.
This was the key statement of his campaign health to me and what struck me the most about it. From last weeks Skinny:
"Which candidates are delivering the most early-ballot requests this year? Rodriguez says it's Gabby Giffords and Patty Weiss on the Democratic side, and Mike Hellon, with a smattering of Randy Graf, on the GOP side. She hadn't seen anything from Republican Steve Huffman yet--which is kinda odd, given that Huffman has led the fundraising race among the GOP candidates. What's he waiting for? Is he saving all that money for the general election? Because he might not make it that far."
With all that money and backing...Huffman could have used his support to work on early ballots. If he is not, as this suggests, Randy will be the nominee.8/23/2006 04:31:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Or Fedup...more likely...they will cross party lines and vote Democrat if they see someone reasonable. And you know who I'm talking about...8/23/2006 04:32:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...thanks for posting the story...very interesting Fedup!8/23/2006 04:38:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Since the poll was taken last week, it was taken during the anti-Patty push poll.
That should dispell any suggestion that push polls don't work.
Whoever is truly behind that got their intended result.
I hope the Weiss campaign files and FEC complaint and hires a PI to get to the bottom of it. Of course, when they found out Kerry did it to Dean and was behind the Osama ads they still made him the nominee so go figure.8/23/2006 04:43:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|This is beyond odd:
"Among Democrats, 21 percent of Giffords’ supporters said they supported her because of her experience as a state lawmaker, while 5 percent cited her stand on issues in general."
"Eight percent of Weiss supporters said they had met her or knew her; 6 percent cited her experience as a newscaster, and 6 percent like her stand on the issues in general."
Only 8% of those supporting Patty knew who Patty Weiss was? That seems uncharacteristically low especially for supporters. If only 8% knew her, why did they support her? Says 6% liked her platform and only 5% for Giffords. But 21% of Giffords' supporters seemed to know her because they liked her legislative experience.
Either the ads, walking and phone calls are getting her name rec. up or the list of 300 they chose to poll is skewed. I would guess the former and not the latter yet it still would not explain the Weiss portion. I could walk down the street today and I would bet at least 25% of the people I talked to would recognize her name, yet the poll says only 8% of her voters do?
Anyone else have a read on that?8/23/2006 04:48:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|I would not cross party lines to vote for Graf but I would consider voting independent. If Giffords wins I can get an in person answer from her on some of my questions and concerns she might get my support but it would take some serious honesty on her part to convert me.
It appears they polled 2 by 4 voters and not 4 by 4 which is what I believe the Weiss poll did according to Bryan. Still, I believe the numbers and think the Weiss campaign needs to get their @sses in gear if they hope to catch Giffords. They should be walking and calling 7 days a week from 8 am to 9 pm since they won't have money to compete on the air.8/23/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Roger, you have that analytical mind. What do you think of the low 8% Weiss recognition in that poll? Doesn't that seem really odd to you?
Ironic the newspaper that paid for it also endorsed Weiss, Inside Tucson Business. At least it appears they were the ones who paid for it but I guess Wick might own all the local papers.8/23/2006 04:56:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Here is the Weekly article with graphs so you can send to Giffords' to put up on her website. ;)
poll8/23/2006 05:27:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|Inside Tucson Business is Steve Emerine's bailiwick.8/23/2006 05:34:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Fedup,
"You are wrong about which campaign went negative first. Patty didn't get into the race until late January and by February this blog and Art's as well as Billie Stanton's article were already taking swipes at her."
First of all, neither this blog, nor Art's, are part of the Giffords campaign. The authors are Giffords' supporters certainly, but that's a different thing entirely. The same applies to Billy Stanton.
Second, please list the dates in Feb. that either this blog or Art's "took a swipe" at Patty. By and large both were fairly supportive. Art _did_ print on his blog in one entry something saying being a journalist wasn't a qualification for being a politician, that was cut-and-paste from what was originally a newspaper article.
Now, some things people said in the responses probably were "swipes" at Patty. Again, that's different from the bloggers themselves.
No, Patty went negative first, with her implcations of impropriety concerning small, years-old campaign contributions ... and has gone downhill from there.8/23/2006 05:41:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|That 8% figure seems very low to me too. I can only take it to mean one of two things:
1. It's the percent that have actually spent some time talking to her in person, either door-to-door or at a debate or something.
2. It's the percent that feel they know enough about her to feel they "know" her, rather than just having seen her on TV.
Either way, though, it still seems very low to me.8/23/2006 05:54:00 PM|W|P|vetdem|W|P|Fed up,
Certainly more than 8% "know of" Patty. I think when they say that 8% either "met her or knew her" I think they mean a higher level of familiarity. I don't think that that is just name recognition.8/23/2006 06:05:00 PM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|I am waiting to hear from all the Weiss supporters who wanted "fresh" numbers, who said that Karl Rove feared Patty and who minimized the importance of all the endorsements, money and other means of support Gabby has accumulated over the last few months.
Ben, ZonaDem and some of our other pals are strangely silent today. And where is Andrew Myers? Wasn't he supposed to "check back" according to a post he made a couple days ago?
Roger is right that complacency would be the bane of the Giffords camp, ESPECIALLY with the large number of undecideds. I don't see that happening given Gabby's commitment to a solid grass-roots effort. The Weiss camp, however, has been afflicted by the siren songs of their own hype and the aforementioned failure (by Fedup) to get their message out in a positive manner.8/23/2006 06:10:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|sirocco, keep it up and Giffords really won't get my support in November. Her campaign and all her supporters really have honesty issues and think we are all morons who can't do our own research or connect the dots. Now that she is winning by a landslide it would be the time for you all to turn down your vitriol and start playing nice with the rest of us who are not on her team if you want our support. Giffords camp went negative first and two of her bloggers were more connected on the campaign then some of her staff, so that in my opinion, is that same as coming from Giffords. She just lacked the integrity to do it out in the open.(Oh, yes, I can prove it and will come November if you piss me off enough).
Stanton is a personal friend and abused her journalistic integrity first in February and now this week.
Add in the push poll happening the same week as the Wick one and my respect for Giffords does not go up one bit, even if I concede she is winning.
You have a lot of Weiss supporters you will need to work for and vote for Giffords starting September 13th so I suggest you start acting accordingly. Keeping Giffords' detractors pissed off isn't going to win points or support.
Vetdem, the poll wouldn't get that defined. The question would be something as simple as asking if they know her. Most people would respond "yes" if they knew her from the tv. We can wait to see the full questions when they are released to be sure though. I am basing this on hundreds of polls I have taken over the years where it is assumed you don't know them personally but know of them. 21% of that poll didn't know Giffords personally either, just of her. If they DID know her personally, it would certainly be a fraudulent poll since most of her own district doesn't even know her personally.8/23/2006 06:17:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Yeah...Fedup...Vetdem beat me to your good question of what I made of the "8%" issue. The question appears to be the words "met her or knew her". This gets at the problem that a lot of people know her from the news but do not "know" her or have "met her".
This was what I was talking about way way back when I mentioned that name recognition only goes so far...especially in a primary. You have to have ties to voters and have a good campaign machine that really gets out and contacts voters. This has been the Giffords' crew strategy all along and it is working so far.
As for what Rex said. I agree. With that many undecideds, I don't see anyone being complacent in the Giffords campaign.
So what will be the spin from the Weiss camp? I think Fedup hit the nail on the head early (3rd post down from the top) that this poll...and the fact that a 10% lead has slipped to an 18% deficit...shows a campaign in turmoil. The only only thing left is to argue that the push poll somehow did this...but really...come on...HOW? That poll cannot possibly explain at 28% flip from her poll touting her as the winner in the fall...until now.8/23/2006 06:57:00 PM|W|P|Sonoran Sam|W|P|Two Points:
1) At the very first candidate forum down in Sonoita (as I recall), Gabrielle Giffords said she would support whomever wins the Democratic primary. She has repeated that statement on several occasions. Win or lose, she will stand up on Sept. 13 and urge everyone to unite behind the nominee. I will join her and write a check to the winner - if it's Latas, Weiss or any other progressive. I worry that my fellow Dems will go off in a snit if their candidate loses.
2) To Fedup's point: I suspect that the polling question led people to believe they were asked if they knew Patty personally. People who have watched her on TV for 30 years feel like they know her, but they know there's a difference.
Fedup and everyone else - all the candidates have said they will support the nominee. I hope you follow their example, or we'll have to deal with Congressman Graf - and we may find that the Democrats failed to pick up the 15 seats they need to take back the U.S.House. That would truly suck.8/23/2006 07:06:00 PM|W|P|'Zona Dem|W|P|I'd be curious how many of these 2x2 Democrats there are... those who have voted in the 2002 and 2004 primaries.
It seems almost certain they would make up less than half of the electorate if we had a 40,000+ turnout primary.
Weiss' strength has always been with occasional voters. I'm not sure that this poll paints as dreary a picture as it first appears.
Obviously, Gabby's targeting of 4x4 Dems with her very effective mail and not-so effective television has paid off in spades.
Also, her field operation appears to be very strong. If it's a low turnout election, Weiss seems to be in trouble.
A high turnout election, though, where the strength of these voters is diluded, and I wouldn't be shocked to see a drastic swing in Weiss' direction.8/23/2006 07:35:00 PM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Fedup makes several excellent points about the essential task of any nominee to bind up wounds and unify the party after a primary. I think that Giffords has that capability because she has not said or done anything cheap or abusive with regard to her opponents. However, she WILL need to address with seriousness and openness the concerns and priorities of those who vote for the other Democrats IF she maintains this lead and becomes our nominee. She also needs to attract a big chunk of the independents in CD8 and a good number of Republicans.
This primary is far from over. Numbers are volatile and voters are fickle, especially in a multi-candidate election. We all need to be able to come together to take on what will certainly be a well-funded, fired-up and ruthless GOP nominee. I think that Giffords has the character to unite the party, the crossover appeal to lasso indies and moderate Republicans and the resources to get both jobs done.
By the way, I will say yet again that any of these Democrats (except Johnson) would be an exceptional Member of Congress and all of them exceed in both character and smarts what the Republicans have to offer the voters.8/23/2006 07:35:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|I agree that a higher turnout in the primary could shift numbers in Weiss' direction...but by how much? The assumption is that they will not have heard of Giffords by then, that the endorsements of papers and groups fall on deaf ear. If these numbers are accurrate, it would take a very very large turnout and it would take voters dramatically choosing Weiss over Giffords. Im not sure the Giffords campaign will allow that to happen. My guess is that this is the very boost that they needed to work harder and harder toward the fall.8/23/2006 07:47:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Fedup,
I have asked you to provide dates. You haven't. If the "attacks" you refer to were as wide-spread as you claim, this should be a simple matter.
I'll even help you out here, cause I'm just that generous.
Blog posts in Jan. and Feb. Tedski mentioned Weiss: 1/4, 1/13, 1/18, 1/21, 1/25, 2/1, 2/10, 2/16, 2/21, 2/28
Blog posts in Jan. and Feb. Art mentioned Weiss: 1/4,1/10, 1/20, 1/25, 2/6, 2/11, 2/17, 2/27
(I may have missed a date or two, I did searches for the term Weiss).
I'll save you some time -- there ain't much there. Maybe a little if you realy want to stretch it. Nothing approaching, say, baseless accusations of corruption, lying or financing push polls.
You, of course, know this as well, which is why you fall back on ad hominem attacks about "honesty issues" rather than actually providing any evidence to support your contention ... which simply makes your discussion of "honesty issues" particularly ironic.8/23/2006 07:50:00 PM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|'Zona Dem,
Weren't you among those (along with SAOL and Azyoulikeit) claiming not long ago that regular primary voters were _more_ likely to support Weiss? I.e., a lower turnout would help Weiss?
Perhaps not, and I am too lazy to go back and look it up after doing Fedup's research for him. However, I do remember this point being argued vociferously.8/23/2006 08:00:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Roger, I don't agree a higher turnout helps Weiss one bit. Your being modest. Pop the champagne cork, Giffords has this one.
There are only three weeks left and rumor has it she turned in more early voting slips than the other Dems combined. These things are usually won and lost in early voting on the Democratic sign. No candidate will catch her unless some major scandal breaks and that won't happen.
'Zona_dem, no offense but thinking increased turnout helps Weiss sounds like more bullshit from Weiss' camp sitting around crunching numbers instead of talking to voters. There is just as much a likelihood those extra voters would go to Giffords.
"Weiss' strength has always been with occasional voters." Based on what? She never polled 'occasional voters' so how would anyone know that?
Some poll back in June is irrelevant at this point, if it ever really was. The main thing is, Weiss' camp was unwisely making poll numbers the basis of her campaign and now it shows she dropped 28% based on her own prior poll numbers, so there is no spinning that in any way favorably. Sure they can blame the push poll but I don't think that would account for more than 10%.
The campaign kept adding more staff and their performance got worse instead of better. It lost ground. How do you explain that to donors? They will have a tough time getting funding now.
Good luck to those staff members trying to find another political job after this. What campaign would hire them after that?
Remember that crazy Latas poll that showed he was at 38% or some crazy number and Giffords was only 6%? As much as I want to hear how Weiss will spin this I really, really want to hear how Latas will. He should have taken Weiss' offer back in July. Now they are both screwed.8/23/2006 08:00:00 PM|W|P|'Zona Dem|W|P|Sirocco --
I don't think so. I've thought all along that a low turnout would favor Giffords. Among high propensity voters, her name ID deficit is not nearly as great.
She should hope for low turnout and the Downing/Aboud race in LD28 to bring out the hordes of her former constituents.
High Cochise/Pinal turnout should favor Weiss.
Patty has a serious fight on her hands. I don't think anyone is contending otherwise.
However, a lot can happen in three weeks.8/23/2006 08:03:00 PM|W|P|'Zona Dem|W|P|I don't know.
It just seems to me that Weiss' juice from being on TV would be more effective among those not paying as close attention.
And you're right. Weiss needs to get her field operation in gear immediately.8/23/2006 08:09:00 PM|W|P|Ben R|W|P|Rex,
Thanks for your concern regarding my absence from the blog. I appreciate your attempt to rub the poll results in my face; way to motivate me to work for Giffords should these results hold up.
The reason I haven't posted is because I'm not like all the crybaby Giffords posters who try to justify and explain everything that goes against their candidate.
I saw the poll. It sucks. I still believe that Patty is going to win. I still believe that Patty is the best candidate. I still believe that she has the best chance of beating the Republicans.8/23/2006 08:10:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|sirocco, I don't have to provide the dates, you already have.
Painting someone as an airhead is considered negative campaigning, btw. I wasn't leaning toward any candidate back then but my first reaction when reading these blogs was it was all out against Weiss. I had to form that opinion somehow. I wasn't even blogging back then, though my roommates were. There seemed to be a consistent theme that Giffords was great and Weiss sucked, which makes sense since the blogs are created by Giffords' supporters. Just don't say Weiss was the first to go negative because it was Giffords'.
Another example, when that stupid, juvenile true democrats letter got sent, who did Giffords blame in her equally childish response? She specifically named Latas and Weiss. This was well before the Willcox forum which was the first time Weiss called Giffords on anything.
And that rebuttal letter was by Giffords so it wasn't even bloggers or her newspaper friends, it came straight from her. She had no proof it was from Latas or Weiss (does any sane person think either camp would write something that looked like a first grader put it together?) That letter clearly was not from a camp or it would have been done much better and more effectively.
That didn't stop Giffords' from using it as an opportunity to play victim. I could easily say it was Giffords' who did it but she wouldn't write something so bizarre either. I do think it was a supporter of hers though, since it was sent to PCs, most of whom were already backing her and it would play on their sympathy and make them made enough to work harder for her. That was certainly the outcome of it.
Stanton article was feb 21 or 23. I am sure you can find it if you google.8/23/2006 08:24:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Check out Graf's website. He has this poll all over it.
You have got to give the crazy nut credit. For having very little money he sure spent it wisely and knew how to connect with his base. People laughed about the billboards but I pass the Grant/Columbus one each day on the way to work and I thought they were done effectively.
How he could over come having hired a child molester campaign manager and still have such a lead shows a very competent campaign compared to all the competition in both parties.
Or, it shows Republicans have completely gone off the deep end.8/23/2006 09:29:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|As I mentioned on another blog...Graf needs to get this poll everywhere...nationally. He needs dough...and he needs to overcome the belief that he can't beat Giffords in the fall (I believe that). He needs to convince the RNC, RCCC, Republican donors, and the national media that he is overcoming Huffmans fundraising...and he needs to do this fast.
Good move for him to put it all over his website....but they better be making some calls...to get this poll on Hotline, Cook Report, Congressional Quarterly, and where analysts will see it.8/23/2006 09:33:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Giffords just hit her three day online fundraising goal of $10K...surpassed it with $11K...and the end of the drive was tonight at midnight. I suspect we will see even more volunteers at the office...and more endorsements...and more fundraising.8/23/2006 09:46:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|Roger, how do you know that Giffords has $11,000 off her current fundraiser? Are you volunteering there?8/23/2006 11:16:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Its on the website...check it out!8/23/2006 11:20:00 PM|W|P|FEDUP|W|P|But it wasn't when you posted that, Roger. I looked. It wasn't in my email either, that is why I asked. :)8/23/2006 11:25:00 PM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|Yes it was mi amigo...has been on the website all day...tracking...early in the day it was at about $5000...closed later this evening to $7000 then up to $9000...then over $10K About 8:30 or 9ish it went over 10K. Check between episodes of Project Runway.8/24/2006 05:39:00 AM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Sorry if I offended you, Ben. I think you know (especially if you read my SECOND post yesterday) that was not my intent, but the poll results DID rebut much of what you and ZonaDem have been saying on these blogs. If calling you on that is rubbing it in your face, I'm sorry, but my intent was to make a point with the many people who read this blog, but don't post.
Why are some of you guys so surprised that Graf is winning the GOP race? Not only do the four other candidates split the anti-Graf vote, but he is the one who sounds like the rest of the current Arizona GOP congressmen! The Aiken fiasco meant nothing to Graf's base because they had no place else to go and because they likely think Aiken was screwed by the "liberal media." Couple these facts with Huffman's inept, negative campaign and I'm surprised Graf isn't winning by a bigger margin!
The conservatives are close to getting what they want, which is Graf, Kyl and Munsil leading their ticket in Southern Arizona. Drive around my side of the county (LD26) and you also see that Graf signs are up right next to signs for right-wing legislative candidates Jorgenson and Melvin. I doubt the latter two can win their primaries, but we still face the likelihood of a very organized and motivated GOP base in November. They will hope to cut into the Southern Arizona vote margin Democrats counted on in 2002 when Janet squeaked out a win.
Roger has pointed out Giffords' ability to motivate HER base. If she is the nominee, she also needs to reach out to other Democrats. She then needs to work with Janet and Pederson to get the Republicans who may feel left out of this conservative takeover and the independents (the fastest growing voting bloc in the state and CD8) as well.8/24/2006 06:27:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Fedup,
Sorry ... I look at those posts and I don't see anything particularly negative. Most are complimentary, as anyone who actually looks at them will see. Even if they were ripping Patty a new one, though, they still are not members of the Giffords campaign.
When someone posts something I don't like about Giffords, I don't attribute it to the Weiss or Latas campaign, I attribute it to the poster.
More generally, with the upcoming debates and the poll results out there, who wants to bet against Weiss really skewing negative? Anyone?
My hope is she won't, and if she does I believe it would be seen as the last gasp of a dying campaign ... but I am not placing any money on it.8/24/2006 07:22:00 AM|W|P|vetdem|W|P|I disagree. I think you will see a very desperate and very negative Patty Weiss. She was negative when she was saying that she was 10 points ahead. Why wouldn't she be now?8/24/2006 07:54:00 AM|W|P|sirocco|W|P|Vetdem,
Actually, we do agree. If I were to bet money right now, it would be on Patty skewing extremely negative.8/24/2006 08:27:00 AM|W|P|Kralmajales|W|P|I third your points Sirocco and Vetdem. There is now nothing to lose with a poll like this. Except for the admiration of party members for a future run...for mayor or whatever. She doesn't want to turn off the people she is introducing herself to now as a present and future public servant.
Going negative, in my opinion, is one of the things that got Weiss to these poll. She had a 10% lead (although one on name rec.) and she has lost it now, even with the negative attacks. It appears her image from TV was trust, nice, friendly...someone you'd want to have coffee with. The negativity did not "jive" with that image.8/24/2006 09:09:00 AM|W|P|B Man|W|P|Weiss may vet well have an inept operation, I dont know, but it seems that regardless of Team Weiss actions, sooner or later GGs advantage in cash, connections and a record on issues would eventually kick in.
This talk about GG being a terrible candidate is bullshit to me. You could not design a better D candidate to run in this seat, moderate positions, service in the air reserves, biz background, previous office ...
With his as her opponent, Giffords will walk away with the big prize.8/28/2006 10:56:00 AM|W|P|wearetribal|W|P|Some Weiss folks in their desperation have tried to question the poll results since they only talked to Dem voters in the last two elections.
Reality is that the real numbers are likely quite a bit worse for Weiss than the poll numbers.
Between Giffords, who has positioned herself as a centrist, and Weiss, who has run as a Leftist fighting Latas for the small group on the fringes, who do all those independant voters choose?
Giffords likely has a far larger lead amongst the independants, and she has always gotten strong support from them in her previous campaigns.
This one is over now.
The Republicans have indeed lost it completely. Graf wants to end all personal income taxes and at the same time spend huge sums to secure the border and wage war. Does he then propose a new "bake sale" method of financing the federal government?
At what point will the media start to finally talk about the need for Republicans not to run candidates who are to the right of Idi Amin? We have had decades of "experts" talking about how the Dems need to run to the center or even right. Meanwhile, not a single article so far about a guy who wants to forcibly expell 12 million foreigners, teach ID as science, repeal the 16th Amendment...saying he is too extreme to appeal to moderates and independants.
It is as if the Dem nominee was a member of the Communist Party USA and the newspapers did not think it was worth mentioning.
My co-worker who supports Graf says that she does so because "He seems strong." Sigh.
Oh, and I would not blame Andrew Myers for this "change" in Weiss's fortunes. The poll where she was supposedly in the lead never seemed like it could be close to accurate to me. And I said so at the time and predicted Weiss would get 23%. A figure within the margin of error of the new poll. And with Giffords winning big with independants, my only worry is that 23% might be a bit high.8/23/2006 12:00:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The numbers from the anxiously awaited poll will be posted at the Tucson Weekly's blog (they have a blog? Who knew?) at noon...that's in five minutes.
It'll be a while before I comment. This isn't because I will be pouring over the numbers, but mostly because I have to eat and have a life.|W|P|115635976852067528|W|P|Numbers, Mere Moments Away|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/23/2006 01:53:00 PM|W|P|phx kid|W|P|This blog is your life. Now hurry back from lunch.8/23/2006 07:26:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You have a life? When was this?! How could you do that to your adoring fans?8/23/2006 10:14:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of the more amusing moments for me of the last couple of years of my political involvement came when my brother had to drive two younger volunteers, who will remain nameless, to Phoenix for an event. I was already up there when they arrived. The presidential primary had been over for months, but that didn't stop the two of them, one a Wesley Clark supporter, the other a Howard Dean supporter, from having an argument the whole trip up I-10.
During the campaign, Clark supporters complained that the Deanie Babies (that's what we called 'em) were taking down our signs. I kept telling them that if they would stop putting them where they weren't supposed to, this wouldn't happen. That's what led to the argument in the car, apparently, since at the end of their trip, the Clarkie came to me and said, "It's illegal to take down political signs, right?"
Because I sit on the city's sign code committee, people always want my advice on such matters, but they never like what I have to say.
"It all depends on where they are," I told him. "If they were in the city right of way, no signs are legal there and they can be considered litter. If someone picks them up, they are basically cleaning up litter." As is the usual thing with this answer, he didn't appreciate the response. Usually, it is followed by someone ranting at me about the first ammendment, and what the code "REALLY" says. They forget that I wrote the code.
I should have reminded him that neither Clark nor Dean won, and that they lost to a guy with barely a sign anywhere.
Everyone has their moments when a campaign actually starts. I consider it the moment that candidates start accusing the other ones of sign tampering.
Up in the eastern regions of the Phoenix conurbation, this silliness had a bit of a "soft opening" when J. D. Hayworth started putting up logos on his signs that read "Don't Steal This Harry," even though few, if any signs, had been stolen at all, and had little evidence that any were stolen by Harry Mitchell's campaign.
There are always allegations of sign theft. Candidates tend to assume it is their opponents. More than likely, it is teenagers looking for cheap thrills or property owners who are tweaked that their parcels are being used for free advertising. In 1996, neighborhood activist Matt Sommers managed to track down a guy who stole hundreds of signs and kept them in his back yard. The guy had no identifiable political agenda, he just stole the signs because he didn't like them. It is rare that a campaign can really prove that an opponent stole their signs.
Ed Ablesser, a Senator running for House up in Tempe (yes, it's weird), found that several of his signs had been mysteriously replaced by the "Hogwash" signs and, yes, J. D. Hayworth signs. He just finds it a little funny that his sign will stay up for weeks, then one morning a Hayworth sign appears there. Oh yeah, they are on the exact same posts (they have his initials on them, that's how).
Ablesser is planning a press conference on this matter. Personally, I think he should lay off. Hayworth hasn't been able to raise as much money as Mitchell since his sugar-daddy got indicted, and he needs to use the posts to save a little cash, that's all.|W|P|115635675036954311|W|P|Do as I Say, Not as I Do, Harry!|W|Pemail@example.com/23/2006 11:52:00 AM|W|P|cpmaz|W|P|What? Unethical behavior from the Hayworth campaign?
I'm shocked, shocked, to find that going on here!
The Hayworth gang will probably try to spin it as an environmentally-conscious move..."creative reappropriation of existing resources" or something like that.8/23/2006 01:51:00 PM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|So, does this mean we can expect to see "Please don't steal this sign, Foghorn." on Ablesser signs soon?8/23/2006 07:29:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Probably not...Eddie is not that lame.8/23/2006 10:44:00 PM|W|P|Adam Selene|W|P|Those Hayworth signs were removed by good people from Coconino County, who figured they owed JD for his marvelous representation of our citizens during the 90s.8/22/2006 05:56:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Some saw the Fitz cartoon on August 17th featuring Lisa Simpson wearing a Gabrielle Giffords t-shirt in the ready-for-birdcage edition of the Star. It did not appear on the Star's website though.
This didn't go unnoticed. There was speculation that the Star may have been slapped down by Fox or Matt Groening or whoever holds the trademark on Lisa Simpson. Others wondered if the fact that the Star has chosen not to do endorsements, that they may have taken down the cartoon as a matter of policy. Given how often Fitz's views are at odds with the editorial board, I found this one unlikely.
I spoke with Daniel Scarpinato last night, and all he could tell me is that people had asked about it. I tried to call Dave Fitzsimmons, but he didn't call me back (and we used to be such good pals). Some other people had asked some people closer to the editors, and no one can say anything more that it being an oversight. The cartoon has re-appeared.
It's a big conspiracy, I'm sure. Has anyone asked Mr. Burns?|W|P|115629550000696709|W|P|Mystery Solved...um...Sort of|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/22/2006 09:07:00 PM|W|P|Zelph|W|P|No doubt the Stone Cutters are behind this!8/22/2006 10:00:00 PM|W|P|Art Jacobson|W|P|Yeah, oversight.8/22/2006 10:58:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|Doh!8/23/2006 01:46:00 AM|W|P|Michael|W|P|I want to know who Flanders is supporting...8/23/2006 07:17:00 AM|W|P|Tom Prezelski|W|P|Mr. Burns probably doesn't know, but Mr. Convertino might. Maybe we should ask Mr. Luca as well.8/23/2006 08:30:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|Flanders is in Mesa working for Munsil.8/22/2006 04:37:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, both I and the folks at Sonoran Alliance have to admit that Espresso Pundit has done a much better job of talking about the silliness going on between Steve Huffman and los Hellon. Heck, the guys at Sonoran Alliance seem to be Republicans that live on the Northwest side, at least I have an excuse to miss this stuff.
I kid because I love.
For those who haven't heard, as it turns out, Huffman's campaign treasurer, Bill Arnold, was not only the one behind the HellOnToni site (it seems to be down; it's Ned Lamont's fault!), but Toni Hellon obtained a court order against him asking that he be enjoined from being near her property. The website was apparently operated by Todd Clodfelter, a local graphic artist and Republican activist who last had public prominence when he lost the Tucson Ward 4 council race in 1995.
Arnold is a long time local activist and has been in this sort of trouble before. Back in 2000, he opposed the Citizen's Growth Management Initiative (On the ballot that year as "Proposition 202"). In numerous public appearances and radio interviews, he made false claims about the backers of the initiative. He also was part of the effort that put up a deceptive anti-202 site that was at the address yeson202.com. He was also involved in negotiating a series of real estate deals in the 1990's that lined his pockets and those of then Amphitheater School Board member Vicki Cox-Golder, deals that many observers think were responsible for some of that district's financial troubles.
Arnold, it must be said, is no longer Huffman's campaign treasurer. I'm wondering how much of this silliness is Arnold being mad at Toni Hellon and how much comes from Huffman. I fail to see how an attack on Mike Hellon's ex-wife helps Huffman's chances in the Congressional race. If anything, attacking Toni Hellon would help self-described Al Melvin's chances in the LD 26 senate race. Melvin and Huffman have little use for each other.
I'm willing to cut Huffman a break here. He seems to be more interested in directing his fire at Randy Graf, so I find it hard to believe that Arnold was doing anything but acting on his own. This can't help his campaign though.
Anyone know what the connection is between Melvin and Arnold?
CORRECTION: My original post refered to Arnold as Huffman's campaign manager.|W|P|115629374257613469|W|P|Looks Like the CD 8 Race Brings Out the Best in Both Parties|W|Pemail@example.com/22/2006 06:31:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I thought Arnold was his campaign treasurer?
Anyway, that is just awful that someone would do that.8/22/2006 06:56:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Oops...you are right.8/22/2006 08:08:00 PM|W|P|OVD|W|P|Tedski, I am so sorry. Monday was not my day to sit down at the courthouse and sort through restraining orders. I will talk to the person who has the Monday shift. I can’t stand people who don’t take their blogging assignments seriously.
The NW Tucson correspondent for Sonoran Alliance did get smoked by Espresso Pundit. Some days are spent in front of the computer and some days are out in the field. Luckily the blogosphere works together to get out the whole story. We did have some nice photos of Steve Huffman’s street though. I hope he does not file a restraining order and charge the
correspondent with harassment. Espresso also got some nice pictures of the Oro Valley/NW Candidate forum for the post Where are the Waldos? I wonder if he drove all the way down here for that or if a local correspondent sent those to him?
Those REALTOR types keep showing up. Both Bill Arnold and Vicki Cox-Golder are on the steering committee for Arizona REALTORS for Huffman. You would think they could back a candidate who would at least run a decent campaign. I wonder if the Tucson Association
of REALTORS is still going to be a front group for the Huffman campaign of if they have had enough. You know, ethics and all.
As to the connection between Melvin and Arnold I have it on very good inside information that there is none. Al would not know Bill if he tripped over him. A conservative like Melvin has no end of issues on which to run. Plus Al is a social conservative and would not be caught dead hanging out with a country club moderate backer of Huffman. It is moderate-liberals (sorry, conservative for a week) like Huffman who have no strong positions and are left with the attack ad strategy (or holding the flashlight.)8/23/2006 08:35:00 AM|W|P|boredinaz|W|P|That photo of Huffman's street looks photoshopped.8/23/2006 09:57:00 AM|W|P|OVD|W|P|It was not photoshoped at all. The picture was taken a dusk so the lighting was strange. Go look at the street yourself or have Tedski send his Oro Valley correspondent. La Tanya Drive just west of Verch Way.
There are actually a few more Graf signs than show in the picture. Drove by yesterday, but I did not look in his windows! (Wanted to make that clear.)8/21/2006 03:37:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I talked to some folks in Patty Weiss's campaign. I take back anything I said suggesting that the poll could have been done for research. It turns out that they are disguised as voter ID calls, and the calls are cut short if the voter states that they are supporting anyone but Patty Weiss.
As reported in Saturday's Star, the calls have been traced back to a firm often used by Republicans. Here is the funny part: the firm apparently outsourced the calls to India. That's right, the America-First Republicans couldn't even see fit to hire Americans to do their negative campaigning. Anyone tell Lou Dobbs?
Weiss declared at the Young Democrats event on Saturday that "Karl Rove is out to get me." Hmm...a bit of hyperbole. What she doesn't realize is that Rove was a huge KGUN fan in the early eighties. You ever notice that he didn't go after Nina Trasoff this way?
(It isn't Rove at all, really, it is the ghost of Hank Hubbard)
One thing that still disappoints me in this whole thing is the knee-jerk reaction to this among the anti-Giffords crowd. I have to give Michael Bryan over at Blog for Arizona a bit of credit, since he did issue a refutation of his original autonomic reaction that it was the Gabrielle Giffords campaign. However, back in May, when an anonymous anti-Giffords mailing went out, he refused to believe it could have been from any Democratic camp. Some of us need to get over thinking that just because we may not agree with a candidate that they are automatically dirty campaigners.
Well, it looks like the Giffords campaign isn't the only one that is the recipient of this sort of paranoia. There are now supporters of another candidate peddling the ridiculous theory that Weiss herself paid for the calls (second comment). This isn't even worth refuting.|W|P|115620125479088560|W|P|More Thoughts on the Push Polls|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org/21/2006 04:24:00 PM|W|P|vetdem|W|P|Tedski,
What evidence do you have that the caller hangs up if the person is supporting anyone other than Patty?
Is this what the Weiss campaign told you?
Might be in line with the theory that Weiss is pushing this as the "RNCC is out to get me because I'm in the lead."
I just don't see the evidence.
I think that Patty has exaggerated this polling and made a great story out of it.8/21/2006 05:57:00 PM|W|P|boohoo|W|P|Patty said she filed a complaint with the FEC. Did she?
I couldn't find one at www.fec.gov.
Maybe a Wiess supporter would like to explain.8/21/2006 06:14:00 PM|W|P|Emersome Biggums|W|P|I'm an very active voter and get calls from almost all campaigns. If this was a targeted call, they missed me on this one.
I talked with many others that also get the blizzard of phone calls this time of year, every other year and none, that's none of them got this call either!
There is something fishy here. Sounds like only a few close to other campaigns and possibly the bloggers got this one to bring up the hype.
Patty, paranoia will destroy ya!8/21/2006 06:34:00 PM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Well, Tedski, we have encountered our first disagreement. Do not buy that Weiss notion is not even worth refuting. If you can, would love to see it.
Rarely copy and paste, but just posted what I am about on this mess over at Gila.
I have NOT and am NOT asserting Weiss campaign is behind this. It does, however, remain a viable scenario until we know the number of calls exceeds a certain number, perhaps 500.
Have had issues with Patty's campaign, but have consistently liked Patty and will support her 9/13 if she prevails. I will be deeply disappointed if it turns out she generated this thing.
Calls appear to have stopped (anyone know different?) and as several have said, just not getting the numbers are that big.
Could not agree more, SAOL, that this story is not over.
While I have pretty much dismissed the first one, technically there are three scenarios still viable:
1. Dem poll of non-campaign origin
2. Rep poll of non-campaign origin
3. Weiss poll for story PR purposes
When I say Dem and Rep, I mean persuasion of true root source. I favor #2, but reject that it has scope of 10,000+ people.
All three of these planes continue to circle the airport.8/21/2006 07:34:00 PM|W|P|Framer|W|P|OK,
Here is some actual research rather than just conjecture:
Looks a lot like the polling that occured here. And unless people are thinking that the NRCC is trying to also influence the Connecticut Gubernatorial race, the absolute "proof" offered by the Weiss team may not be so strong.
Lieberman has also been documented to have a relationship with Mountain West Research Center, and as much as some would like to disagree, he is very much a Democrat.
You find the connection between Gabby and Malloy, and you may start getting closer to the group really behind this.8/21/2006 07:46:00 PM|W|P|Andrew Myers|W|P|Hey guys,
All of this information has been published by the campaign in one way or another, but I figured it would be helpful to assimilate it all in one location.
I'll let you know what we know so far, and if any of you have any questions I can answer, I'll be more than willing to do so.
1.) The calls seem to have stopped. At least we've stopped getting complaints. This doesn't seem too strange since they started at least five days ago.
2.) The universe appeared to be very large. We were getting complaint calls from all ages, both sexes, and all efficacies of Democrats, from 1x4 to 4x4. That combined with the extreme amount of blowback seemed to indicate a very large universe. Emersome, unless you IDed for Patty, you may have gotten the call but didn't even know it. That's what happened with Francine. They didn't even get to the fun part since she wasn't a Patty supporter.
However, maybe it was just a weird scattershot thing with no solidly defined universe, or one that defies identification. Honestly, while it would be strange, I can't rule this out. I can't disprove any weird conspiracy theories either, but they just don't seem all that probable.
3.)Two traits of the polls, the funding trail and the unusual scripting at the top, seem to point to the same group that funded the efforts against both Lamont in Connecticut and Gillibrand in New York. The ID includes rating candidates on a 0-100 scale, something a bit out of the ordinary.
4.)Seriously guys, this wasn't us. We don't have a lot of extra cash lying around, and trying to raise our own negatives really isn't on the agenda. Hopefully, you'll take my word for it, but if you don't want to, check our FEC reports when they come out.
5.) Speaking of the FEC, we're working on filing the complaint. There are just a couple details we're still working out.
That's all I've got for now. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. I'll check back in a little bit to answer whatever you've got.8/21/2006 09:39:00 PM|W|P|Rex Scott|W|P|Andrew-
I have no problem believing this was a GOP operation. One of the reasons I left that party six years ago was because the politics of fear, division and distortion hold sway in their camp now. The evidentiary trail may not be fully developed, but the tactics sound strikingly familiar. All Democrats should be offended by the abuse heaped on one of our own (and her husband) through this "poll."
What troubled many of us in the Giffords camp was how quick the Weiss folks were to insinuate that this was US. Patty's initial press release all but points the finger at Gabby. The bloggers who back your candidate were even more direct and sometimes nasty. Some of these bloggers have apologized for jumping to conclusions...and so should your campaign.
Giffords has run a positive, issues-oriented campaign. To suspect her even for a moment of engaging in a tactic like this is not only insulting; it also speaks to a lack of knowledge of her history in the political arena. Her integrity has never been brought into question as it has during the campaign and Patty Weiss has led that charge with references to "special interests," votes in the Legislature supposedly tied to contributions and allegations that public interest groups were strongarmed into endorsing Gabby over her.
This is personal to me because I don't think I could have continued to be a Giffords supporter if it had been found that she in any way sanctioned this "poll." Perhaps now that Patty has felt the sting of having her character and actions questioned by those who don't know her well, she can re-evaluate the decision she apparently made long ago to go negative against Gabby. I respect Patty and will support her if she wins the nomination, but have questioned at times what she is willing to do or say in pursuit of this congressional seat.8/21/2006 10:39:00 PM|W|P|boohoo|W|P|Andrew,
It does cost much to target a few callers to start a wildfire that can be spun into a media event.
How many on this popular blog got the call?
I didn't.8/21/2006 10:48:00 PM|W|P|Chris|W|P|Big news on the Republican side - Espresso Pundit8/22/2006 12:21:00 AM|W|P|AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Interestingly enough, the Huffman implosion that Espresso just documented lends even more credence to the theory that the push poll is a NRCC creation.
I think there's consensus from almost all corners of the blogosphere (can a sphere have corners? -ed.) that Huffman's campaign is a disaster.
Even before the stalking injunction, there were awful TV spots, weak mailers, no mail-in ballot requests, and missed candidate forums -- it doesn't take a genius to see that the RNC's chosen horse is about to finish well out of the running.
If we see it, so does the NRCC. The push poll is evidence of them giving up on Huffman and instead trying to pick who Graf will face.
It's a poorly kept secret that both Huffman's and Gabby's internal polls showed Graf beating Gabby and losing to Patty. The push poll looks more and more like an attempt to make sure Graf doesn't go up against Patty in November.8/22/2006 12:33:00 AM|W|P|Chris|W|P|I don’t know if the blogosphere has corners but someone at Sonoran Alliance certainly does not like Huffman. It’s like the ghost of John C. Scott is after him.8/22/2006 07:47:00 AM|W|P|x4mr|W|P|Framer,
Eager to explore your remarks, but the link you posted does not work. Can you recheck your url and try again?
Not too proud to be spoonfed, by the way, if you've got a better scenario (or flat out know) and are willing to share.8/22/2006 08:21:00 AM|W|P|Framer|W|P|OK
Try this link
Sorry about the earlier link. Not sure what to make of it other than the NRCC was not spending money on the Connecticut Gubernatorial race which was not then, and still isn't projected to be even close. Jodi Rell leads 60% to 28% for DeStafano.
Both this poll and Lieberman's polls used Mountain West Research, and both were clearly Dem polls. This doesn't place the NRCC in the clear, but it does disprove the lie that Western Wats is division of the Republicans.
And if you want totally unwarranted speculation, look at another list of Clients who use Western Wats for polling using Exoro Affiliates. Notice the fifth entry down in the left column. Who is this group campaigning for?
Keep in mind that this is for entertainment purposes only.8/22/2006 09:02:00 AM|W|P|Ben R|W|P|A few facts regarding Western Wats:
1) They ARE a Republican firm. Many political consulting firms work for only D's or R's and they identify themselves as working for R's. This was their listing in Campaigns and Elections magazine in 2000 (They haven't listed since):
WESTERN WATS OPINION RESEARCH CENTER, LC/R
2155 N. Freedom Blvd. Provo, UT 84604
801-374-5572 Ed Ledek FAX 801-379-4197
425 CATI equipped stations. Specializing in overnight data turnaround, including data processing. 4,400+ Republican campaign and public policy studies since 1987. Web survey experienced!
The R after the companies name indicates that they are a Republican firm, and the brief write-up also boasts of thousands of Republican clients.
2)Western Wats did push polling for Bob Dole in 1996. From The Washington Post: “[Dole] paid $ 31,000 to Western Wats, which conducted the controversial "push polls" before the Iowa caucuses."
3)According to former Western Wats employee Michael Barry: “We were making calls for Bob Dole. I don't really know what their outright intention was. All I know was what was in the survey really slams Steve Forbes big time, and kind of builds Bob Dole up." This sounds very similar to the pattern of the recent calls in CD8.
4)From the Salt Lake Tribune: “Other ex-Western Wats employees have since contacted The Salt Lake Tribune, maintaining that they regularly were instructed by supervisors to "try to convince" survey respondents to take a particular stance on a candidate, issue or question.”8/22/2006 12:17:00 PM|W|P|Framer|W|P|Ben,
I never claimed that Western Wats never worked for Republicans, they most assuridly do. What I claimed as that they also handle polling for several polling firms that do polling for Democrats as well.
The main business of Western Wats, to my knowledge, is to actually make the outbound calls associated with a poll. The actual polls are generally written and the data tabulated and analyzed by another business entity, like Mountain West Research or Exoro. To my knowledge, Patty has not come up with an accurate reading of the actual group that put together the survey. If she had that, she may be able to do a better job of assigning blame.
From what I am seeing, Mountain West Research has been working for Lieberman and DeStafano and outsourcing their calling to Western Wats. This disproves that any call coming from Western Wats is from the NRCC. The polling perhaps could have come from the NRCC, but guilt cannot be inferred from the the fact that the NRCC and Republicans have had their polls relayed by Western Wats.
Again, had this same proof been used to connect Patty to the polling, you especially would have been screaming that there was no "there" there. Sometimes what you want to believe and what is truth aren't the same, that is why proof becomes relavant, and there is precious little of that.
Western Wats alone is not sufficiant and nothing else has been offered.8/22/2006 12:18:00 PM|W|P|Michael|W|P|I admit I had suspicions about Giffords involvement. When you see a dude with a gun standing over a gunshot victim, your first thought isn't generally, "It was the one-armed man!" Especially when you know bullets cost tens of thousands of dollars and the gun-holder is one of the few guys around with that kind of scratch.
However, I don't think that my reaction could be fairly characterized as 'autonomic' given that my first post on the topic contained this:
"Even if the push poll is coming from an independent campaign working for Gabby's election over which Gabby's campaign has no control or coordination (which I actually think is most likely, given the earnest denials coming from certain people whom I believe have integrity), she should denounce it, and ask it to stop in a public fashion."
Now, what did I say was 'most likely'? That Gabby's campaign did it? No. That an unconnected PAC did it. Which is the political equivalent of the one-armed man.
True I didn't think that any campaign was behind the anonymous letters targeting Patty, but that was mainly because they were amatuerish to the point of embarrassment. I hold no illusions that any campaign is above dirty tricks if they think they can get away with them, just credit them with a moderate level of style and the ability to use a spell-checker.
I don't have any particular grudge or bias against Giffords candidacy. I do have a lot of questions about her record and her philosphy and her political liabilities that continue to go without satisfactory answers. Isn't answering such questions what a campaign is supposed to be about?8/22/2006 11:03:00 PM|W|P|Randall Holdridge|W|P|Michael,
Premature ejaculation. It happens a lot. It's not about you. Take your medicine.8/20/2006 06:30:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Printed without comment (although, that wont last long, I'm sure), here are the results of yesterday's Young Democrats straw poll. The numbers after the slash are broken out for voters under 35.
Gabrielle Giffords: 37 (62%)/32 (71%)
Alex Rodriguez: 11 (18%)/7 (16%)
Patty Weiss: 6 (10%)/4 (9%)
Francine Shacter: 3 (5%)/1 (2%)
Jeff Latas: 3 (5%)/1 (2%)
Bill Johnson: 0 (0%)/0 (0%) The only candidate that actively tried to bring out supporters was Rodriguez. Latas's campaign had a sort of boycott of the event.|W|P|115612476316004805|W|P|The Results Only Matter If My Guy Won|W|Pemail@example.com/20/2006 09:20:00 PM|W|P|Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|so you are saying that if a person gets supports to go out and ask for votes they might actually get some votes?
I had NO idea that this could possibly happen.8/20/2006 10:48:00 PM|W|P|