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 America
Jim 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/31/2006 04:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/31/2006 01:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/31/2006 11:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/30/2006 02:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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.


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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Liza,

Not everyone can be Barbara Lee.8/30/2006 09:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Anyone understanding the context of that vote knows it is a non-issue.

Liza's upset.

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|Blogger 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.

Vet Dem,
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.....

Elizabeth Rogers,
Who is Barbara Lee?8/30/2006 10:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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.


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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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 . 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/30/2006 02:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/29/2006 11:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger Ben R|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/29/2006 11:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/28/2006 04:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/28/2006 03:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/27/2006 08:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/26/2006 11:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Beware false prophets.8/26/2006 04:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger Liza|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/26/2006 06:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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.

boo hoo,
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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Thanks Liza. :)8/27/2006 11:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Well said, cc.

Consider this.

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|Blogger 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 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. 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. and 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/25/2006 12:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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

Associated Press
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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Liza|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.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 (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 (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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/24/2006 04:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/24/2006 08:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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% Undecided: 20%
Randy Graf: 36% Steve Huffman: 13% Mike Hellon: 10% Mike Jenkins: 1% Frank Antenori: 1% Undecided: 39%
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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/23/2006 01:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Poll Positions

Read full story by clicking the link above.

BY JIM NINTZEL, jnintzel@tucsonweekly.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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...thanks for posting the story...very interesting Fedup!8/23/2006 04:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|Inside Tucson Business is Steve Emerine's bailiwick.8/23/2006 05:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Fedup,

You said:

"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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger '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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger '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|Blogger '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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Its on the website...check it out!8/23/2006 11:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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 ...

Go Graf!

With his as her opponent, Giffords will walk away with the big prize.8/28/2006 10:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/23/2006 01:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This blog is your life. Now hurry back from lunch.8/23/2006 07:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/23/2006 11:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Probably not...Eddie is not that lame.8/23/2006 10:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/22/2006 09:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|No doubt the Stone Cutters are behind this!8/22/2006 10:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Art Jacobson|W|P|Yeah, oversight.8/22/2006 10:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Randall Holdridge|W|P|Doh!8/23/2006 01:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|I want to know who Flanders is supporting...8/23/2006 07:17:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/22/2006 06:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Oops...you are right.8/22/2006 08:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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
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|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|That photo of Huffman's street looks photoshopped.8/23/2006 09:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/21/2006 04:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger Chris|W|P|Big news on the Republican side - Espresso Pundit8/22/2006 12:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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):

2155 N. Freedom Blvd. Provo, UT 84604
801-374-5572 Ed Ledek FAX 801-379-4197
E-mail: political@office.westernwats.com

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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|Blogger 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|P|prezelski@aol.com8/20/2006 09:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 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|Blogger cc burro|W|P|TEDSKI--On what do you base your statement "Latas's campaign had a sort of boycott of the event"? I hadn't heard anything about any boycott of this event. This info sounds questionable.

Gretchen8/21/2006 06:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|"A sort of boycot?"

Maybe the sort where they're so busy knocking on doors and calling voters that they don't see any point in stacking the deck for a pointless poll?

Good move on the part of the Jeff Latas campaign.8/21/2006 08:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|BLUE IN AZ--I confirmed a few minutes ago--There was no boycott. The statement was B.S.8/21/2006 08:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|CC-

I don't know who you talked to, but Latas's campaign manager told the organizer of the event that the campaign did not want to participate.8/21/2006 08:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger azpoljunkie|W|P|cc burro -- According to Latas' campaign manager, he didn't help promote this event at all. He said that it seemed like extortion and he'd rather have their volunteers use their resources (both money and time) to advance the Latas campaign, not to pay a poll tax to another organization.

I think this was a smart move on the Latas' campaign's part. I also have a very hard time believing that the Giffords campaign didn't make any effort to get people to go to this. They could've just put out an email or two. I know the Latas camp didn't.8/21/2006 09:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Obviously I don't know, but strongly assert that no way did any campaign money touch this thing. Whoever went and voted did so with their own wallets.

Pollwatcher is probably right that some shot out an email to supporters. Why not? The low totals and high percentage of under 35 suggest this is what it says it is, some college kids.

I've not heard a soul attempt to make this mean anything, and properly so.

The TW poll this week will give us more to think about.8/21/2006 10:09:00 AM|W|P|Blogger UAgoldstein|W|P|If Patty's staff had spent more time organizing voters than lying on their resumes, she'd be in much better shape.8/21/2006 10:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|UAGoldstein:

Why should Patty's campaign spend time organizing staff to get out to a strawpoll that means, essentially, nothing?

At least Patty came out to speak to the group, showing that she cares about UA YDs. More than can be said for Giffords or even Latas.

Long story short, who *cares* about the results of this poll? No one. The only important thing was supporting the YDs. So get over it.

This late in the game, that any staff can even show up is a miracle. The time you say they should be "organizing voters" for this thing is far better spent organizing for the real election, you know, the one Patty will be winning on September 12.8/21/2006 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger CD8Dem|W|P|Most of the UA Students don't even live in CD8. They reside in CD7. Great fundraiser for the Young Dems.8/21/2006 10:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Looks like Patty Weiss has misjudged the electorate by asking Jeff Latas to drop out. She should have asked Giffords, Rodriguez, Latas, and Schacter to drop out. With only Johnson left, she could have landslided the primary. Once again, that 20/20 hindsight.8/21/2006 12:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Liza,

That meeting at Patty's was the most interesting story this weekend, and I have since heard that it was very early in July, around the 4th.

Asking a person like Jeff Latas to drop from the race on the weekend of Independence Day, gotta love it.

I find it interesting that this story broke so much later than the event.8/21/2006 01:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|Tedski,

How is a campaign declining to participate equivalent to a boycot?

Was Gabby boycotting the NFIB?8/21/2006 02:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I said "a sort of boycott"

When someone says we won't participate because we consider it extortion, it seems a little bit more severe than just a run of the mill no show.8/21/2006 02:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|x4mr,
I heard about the Weiss/Latas meeting several weeks ago but I can't remember where. At the time I just assumed that either Patty Weiss or whoever got the idea to ask Latas to drop out didn't know him very well. It was a brazen move on her part but not at all surprising, given what we have seen recently.

I'm not sure why she would perceive herself as the second choice for Latas supporters. Maybe it's the universal health care issue?

I don't know why it took so long for this story to appear in the "Star." Could it be that their ace reporters just found out about it? Or could it be that back in early July the "Star" wasn't interested in reporting anything about Latas? Whatever the reason, I don't think that it casts Weiss in a favorable light.8/21/2006 04:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|Tedski,

Thanks for clarifying. If it's THAT kind of boycot, the kind where people don't participate in things they consider extortion, then I think even more highly of the Latas campaign for their integrity.

From what you wrote, it sounded like the Latas campaign had told their supporters not to participate, which of course they did not.

Thanks again for clarifying.8/21/2006 07:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom-AZ|W|P|Wow, all I can say is that if you guys think that this was "Extortion" or a "pointless poll" then that is why Gabby may win this race.

No bones about it, I am a Weiss supporter, but that these comments are just plain fucking stupid.

You do it for media attention in an environment where the media is ignoring you. It was a golden opportunity and many people blew it.

Giffords won and got on two t.v stations and expect print media soon.

Also, I don't think that any of the people here represent the Weiss campaign as SHE WAS THERE. She understood what this was about and that is why I think she'd make a great congressperson, so perhaps her so called "supporters" should reocgnize that.

As far as latas, its up to him. It may be a resource issue, and thats his call. But again, it seems like his supporters are speaking for him and sounding like a bunch of morons and it reflects bad on him.8/21/2006 10:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|"You do it for media attention in an environment where the media is ignoring you."

Um, I suppose. If you're in it for media attention. If you're in it to win an election, it's pointless.

"Giffords won and got on two t.v stations and expect print media soon."

And she didn't even show up. So it shows the value of that.

"Also, I don't think that any of the people here represent the Weiss campaign as SHE WAS THERE. She understood what this was about and that is why I think she'd make a great congressperson"

The people of Cascabel would disagree. Jeff Latas was the only candidate to actually show up for their forum, and it's actually in the district, and the people there actually care and they actually vote.

But if all you want is media attention, it's probably not the right place to be.8/21/2006 11:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|I confirmed with both the LATAS campaign manager and the executive director of the campaign--There was no sort of a boycott [notwithstanding the campaign manager's dislike that they were charging people to vote in it]. Boycott necessitates that you tell your volunteers/supporters to NOT participate in something. No e-mail/communication was sent out by the LATAS campaign regarding this event. Simple as that.

There are tons of events that have been happening and you need to use your resources doing the things that are most effective for the campaign.

Good fundraising idea on the part of the Young Democrats.

It is too bad the media uses the ridiculously small amount of space in their newspapers/news reports that they devote to politics mainly on the horse race aspects of these campaigns instead of the issues. And then they bemoan the fact that the electorate is not well-versed on the issues. Hmmm...8/19/2006 02:02:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Back in 2000, I was working for the Democratic Party's coordinated campaign in Southeastern Arizona. I lived in a town called Pearce, which was between Willcox and Douglas. Near the beginning of my "tour of duty," Marsha Arzberger, then a candidate for State Senate, told me she was worried because some of her supporters had been "push polled." I talked to a few people, found out some details about the call, and called my boss at the State Party. "That's not a push poll, that's our poll," she told me. The poll was done to find out where Arzberger was weak with the voters, and what misconceptions they had about her candidacy. To find out what they were, some questions were asked that didn't cast her in the most favorable light. She wasn't happy about it. In the end, it told us some valuable things that helped her and us with her campaign, and she won by five points and is this year running for her fourth term. This story was one of the reasons that I was unwilling to write about this supposed Gabrielle Giffords "push poll" until I actually had a clue what was going on. The reports I read about the call on various blogs (I did not have a chance to talk with anyone about the poll) made it sound too long to be a "push poll." This is because a "push poll" isn't designed to collect any useful information, it is only a phone bank with a negative message disguised as a poll. With as much detail as there seemed to be in this call, it seemed more like pposition research. Similar, by the way, to a poll done by Patty Weiss's campaign a few months back which included questions that cast Giffords in a bad light. In our little province of Blogistan, the knee jerk reaction was that it was some negative tactic of the Giffords campaign, indicative of her being a crypto-Republican that hates puppies. This is because there are folks here that think that Giffords would be willing to sacrifice captive Jeff Latas volunteers to Tezcatlipoca if it meant a few extra votes (she did spend a lot of time in southern Mexico, after all). Even the Weiss campaign, who should know better, spread this story around. Later, they had to change their story when they, well, found out what was actually going on. I guess it's a good idea to check out facts before you cast aspersions.|W|P|115602416939239751|W|P|If You Assume, You Are a Hume|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/19/2006 03:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|It's gettin ugly out there.8/19/2006 05:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I thought there was something more to the story then what had been posted.8/19/2006 05:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|There's undoubtedly much more to this story than what's been posted.

Patty's own press release acknowledges it's an "apparent" connection to the NRCC.

Someone out there knows who's behind the push poll, how big it is, and why it's being done now.

Unfortunately, those people have all sorts of reasons to stay quiet -- not the least of them being the push poll is probably illegal.

Until then, the best we can do is put all the information we can out there for all to see. If these dirty tricks continue in other districts (and I suspect they will), more bits and pieces will come to light, and we'll get more of the story.

This story is far bigger than CD 8 -- it has national implications for the Democrats who hope to take back the House in November. That's why it's so important to keep digging up details.8/19/2006 09:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I've gotten a number of push polls (for some reason some of them like to target Democratic activists).

One way you can tell the difference between one of these kinds of polls and a real poll is that if it is a real poll, they will either just ask the person who answers the phone if they are a registered voter, and go from there, or they will ask for the registered voter in the household with the next birthday or something like that.

In contrast, a push pollster will invariably ask for you by name, even if someone else in your household picks up the phone. After all, it is a targetted piece of disinformation, so they want the likely voter/activist/member of other target group in the household, and the birthday question might not get them that.

Just a clue next time you get a call from a pollster to help you tell the difference.8/19/2006 09:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|One firm that does push polling is Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates (FMA) a Virginia firm that is hired by Republicans. Lately they have been push-polling Democrats to try and find cracks in support for Terry Goddard (I know, I got one of those calls-- and I wrote down the name of the firm and did a little research.)

If you want to investigate the legality of it, take both of these together-- IF they ask for you BY NAME, then WRITE DOWN THE NAME OF THE POLLING FIRM and research the firm and who their clients are later.8/19/2006 10:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|How come I never get push polled?8/20/2006 07:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|I really do not think that campaigning or polling over the phone is effective or accurate in this age of caller ID. Many people will not pick up a call from an unknown name or number and a lot of these polling groups block either their numbers or their names. The campaigns may let their names or numbers be revealed...but then the caller in question has to WANT to take a political call.

What may still be effective is when campaigns ask their supporters to make calls from their homes. In that instance, you are likely to see a real name and number come up and are more likely to take the call. My wife and I have gotten calls in the last two days from Rodriguez and Latas supporters who used that tactic.

This is a rather longwinded way of questioning the efficacy of all these phone banks the campaigns are setting up and the accuracy of polls condicted over the phones. Comments?8/20/2006 11:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Rex,

You aren't getting a little nervous with the poll results coming, are you?

Many campaigns -- if they are trying to do blind ID calls -- change their caller ID to read "Congressional Campaign" so they can get uncorrupted data. I know the Weiss campaign does this.

Also, calling from home is only effective for determining support if the caller is not identifying who they are supporting before making the ID. Otherwise, the data will be badly skewed.

I know of what I believe to be some very reliable data, and I have predictions as to how this poll will turn out.8/20/2006 01:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|zona, if you have predictions please share them with us.8/20/2006 02:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|ZonaDem-

Haven't been nervous since your candidate started going negative. Couple that with the endorsements and other support coming to Giffords and my confidence is quite high. Add to the mix the story in the Star today about Weiss trying to get Latas to throw in the towel (and failing!) and I am almost giddy.

On that latter point, thanks for giving YOUR biggest opponent bulletin board material. I doubt it was the Weiss camp that leaked the details of this meeting over sanwiches at Patty's pad to the Star. My hunch is that the Latas folks put it out there to fire up their troops. It's already worked with Tuttle.

On another note, I am less concerned with the supposed actions of the GOP in anointing Weiss the front-runner than I am delighted with the continued endorsements of Giffords from Democratic-leaning groups that matter. Are you actually going to assert that teachers, labor, environmentalists, law enforcement personnel and human rights activists are throwing their support behind the second place horse? It seems to me that Weiss has nothing to crow about save the hypothetical backing of the other party, whereas Giffords can correctly point to the fact that Democrats are closing ranks behind HER!8/20/2006 04:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Alright... we're just going to have to wait.

But I've been involved in too many elections, both the good side and the bad, where a lot of endorsements went to one candidate, and the outcome didn't follow suit.

All I'm saying is that the facts on the ground might not be what you think. The average voter couldn't care less who endorsed whom, and if you think those endorsements are what is going to carry Gabby through, you've got another thing coming.

As far as the Latas thing, you have a major candidate and a minor candidate with similar ideological leanings. It's to be expected that a meeting like this would take place.

And it takes two to tango. Jeff and Salette went to Patty's house. They must have been willing to talk.

I just can't wait for Wednesday, so we'll have some real numbers to talk about.8/18/2006 12:57:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Young Democrats are holding a CD8 Straw Poll tommorrow at the U of A Student Union. It will be held between three and six (that's Post Meridian), and the cost is $5 for those under 18, $10 for people between 18 and 35, and $20 for those of us who remember when Michael Jackson used to sing. The money will be used to match money from the Young Democrats of America to hire an executive director for the State Young Democrats. Tickets will be available at the door.|W|P|115593162127754952|W|P|CD 8 Push Straw Poll|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/18/2006 01:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Ted,

Thanks for the invitation but tomorrow I will be walking for the Genghis Khan campaign, a new write-in candidate for CD 8. Some of us felt that there were just not enough candidates already in the race and now that Steve Huffman is a conservative and Randy Graf has been outed as having views different from Bush we needed to move a little further to the right.

I hope the Young Democrats event goes well. And don’t try any push polls against Genghis. Remember what happened to the last person who tried that.8/18/2006 02:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|PK,

For a real treat, check out Fitzsimmon's cartoon in today's Star.8/18/2006 08:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Ted, I don't know what kind of funky java-thingy you've loaded into you blog template, but it is taking FOREVER to load in Firefox of late. Whatever doohickey you got goin' would you PLEASE kill it dead?

This has been a subject of discussion among bloggers at Drinking Liberally (every Thursday at 6 at the Shanty, btw), so I know it's not just me having difficulty.8/18/2006 09:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger CactusDem|W|P|This is a great first test of which candidates have the strongest support.8/19/2006 07:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|No, it's not. People under 18 can't vote in the real world, but they can in this poll. It's just a measure of which candidate has supporters who have money that they want to donate to the Young Democrats. That's all. They would probably do just as well with a doggie costume contest.8/19/2006 07:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|A poll you have to PAY to participate in?

Sign me up.

I'm sure it's a wonderful fundraiser, but even if my preferred candidate comes out on top, this one isn't worth dwelling on past today.8/20/2006 07:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|So WHO "won" this thing?8/20/2006 01:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Couldn't find a report on line, but I heard Giffords grabbed 63% of the vote with the next closest candidate barely breaking 10%.

Again, could not confirm this. Also heard it was on TV 10 PM news last night.8/18/2006 10:08:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The New Times is carrying an article about quoting Henry Ford. The writer doesn't seem to think the whole thing is such a big deal. He thinks that somehow, Ford's anti-immigration views can be separated from his anti-semitism. This is a little like a couple of years back trying to separate Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign from his views on segregation, or saying that you admire George Custer for his protection of the rights of white settlers in the Dakotas, but this has nothing to do with the fact that he wanted to exterminate Native Americans. The ideas are linked, and even the shallowest view of history would show that. Many of us that criticized Hayworth felt that he should be more careful about who he quotes, since it gives people reason to entertain the more vile parts of Ford's ideology. I suppose that Stephen Lemons is entitled to disregard that. I do, however, take issue with one paragraph of his story:
Believe it or not, that's the insinuation of the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, the Arizona Democratic Party, the Arizona Republic, and countless blogosphere crackpots, some of whom have lumped Hayworth in with Malibu meshuga Mel Gibson and Gibson's tequila-fueled tirade against matzo-munchers worldwide. Hayworth's far more sober sin was quoting famed auto titan Henry Ford in Hayworth's tome Whatever It Takes: Illegal Immigration, Border Security and the War on Terror, which Hayworth penned with his chief of staff Joe Eule.
I'm hoping that I am not what Lemons considers a "blogosphere crackpot." Crackpot or no, I went back and checked the Democratic Party's press releases, and found nothing accusing Hayworth of anti-semitism. I also checked through the various blogs that wrote about this, and only one, Down With Tyranny!, (the name suggests a certain distance from quiet, polite discussion of the issues) refers to Hayworth and his publisher as fascists, but not anti-semites. The Jewish News article that he refers to is an editorial that includes the following:
We're not saying that Hayworth is anti-Semitic - only that he should choose his heroes more carefully.
Looking back on my writing on the topic, you will see that I said something similar. Also, I couldn't find anything comparing Hayworth to Mel Gibson. Hayworth may like the comparison though. He'd be thinking Mad Max, we'd be thinking Chicken Run. Besides, we all know that Hayworth is not an anti-semite. His best friend is Jack Abramoff, after all.|W|P|115592156771916827|W|P|I'm a Crackpot|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/18/2006 11:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|Lofty Donkey did the Mel Gibson comparison.


Awesome graphic, actually. I've called J.D.'s rhetoric and positions racist and xenophobic, but I've never called him an anti-Semite. His worship of Henry Ford is obvious enough to imply that...8/18/2006 01:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I'll give you credit Tedski for implying that Foghorn is just an idiot who didn't do his homework and doesn't know what he's talking about when he mentions Americanization, but others were indirectly implying that JD is an anti-Semite.

The whole thing is getting out of control. Has anyone else realized that the CD5 race has yet to touch on an actual public policy issue?8/18/2006 02:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Bored - Some people, and I'm one of them, would argue that the integrity of public officials is always the single most important public policy issue.

However, other than that, you have a valid point. So far, neither side has talked about the unending war in Iraq, the massive budget deficit, our reeling healthcare system, etc....

I can only guess why they haven't -
The Mitchell campaign knows that "ethics" is not only an issue they can hammer Hayworth with, it's a broad-appeal, non-partisan one. No voter likes corruption, and highlighting it expands Mitchell's base of support to beyond Tempe Dems.

The Hayworth campaign, for their part, realizes that while their candidate can run on his record, that only appeals to his base; they also know that doing so pushes most of the Independent voters and many moderate Rep voters to the Mitchell column.

Due to the Rep registration advantage and Hayworth's well-funded war chest, Mitchell still has an uphill battle, but he controls his own fate.

If he runs the campaign he knows how to run, and JD keeps being himself, he doesn't need JD to make any huge mistakes for Harry to win in November.

Though an indictment would be really nice. :)8/21/2006 10:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Lofty Donkey|W|P|What's Wrong with Congress? JD Hayworth Video8/17/2006 12:46:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P| has finally found a way to counter Harry Mitchell's attacks on his ties to Jack Abramoff. He's calling Mitchell out as a "hypocrite" for pointing out his failings, while Mitchell himself had taken money from disgraced savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating...close to two decades ago. Hayworth had to dig back to when Guns'n'Roses were still on the charts before he found a problem? Heck, never mind Guns'n'Roses, the River Roses and the Stone Roses were still together back then. No matter, Hayworth manages to summon up enough indignation to put out a press release pointing out that Mitchell had taken money from Keating. Plus, he throws in the requisite demand that Mitchell donate the money to charity. (QUIZ - Who was the only member of the Keating Five not to return the money or donate it to charity? Answer below.) Putting aside the fact that this happened during the Rose Mofford administration, I guess it is only fair for Hayworth to make the same demand of Mitchell that Mitchell has been making of him. Except for one problem: Mitchell donated the money to the United Way sixteen years ago. I hope the researchers he has working on legislation are a bit better than the ones that work for his campaign. QUIZ ANSWER: The only one was everyone's reformer hero, . NB - Is it just me, or does the title of Hayworth's press release ("Divest from Keating, Hypocrite Harry!") sound like the title of a Harlan Ellison story?|W|P|115584541915578900|W|P|Hayworth Is Also Preparing a Press Release About the Time That Mitchell Acted Up in 8th Grade Language Arts|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/17/2006 01:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Reminds me of why John McCain was so anxious to pass campaign finance reform with his name on it. The Keating Five8/17/2006 03:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|J.D. must be a tired guy. All that time running from his record and the late nights at the library looking up stuff to bash Harry Mitchell with.

That's okay, November 8... he won't be tired anymore. He'll be home for good.8/17/2006 04:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|I have to wonder what is going on with JD. He may be a lousy Congressman but he's always been a fairly effective campaigner (hey - he had to do something right to keep the job in spite of the poor way that he has done the job.)

On another note Tedski, how's it feel to be one of us "crackpots"? :))

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2006-08-17/news/Bird.html8/17/2006 08:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|In the title wars, Harry has Hayworth beaten. I got an email from the Mitchell campaign called: Jack and JD: A Love Story. :D8/17/2006 09:59:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A letter appearing in a recent issue of the West Valley View:

Editor: My name is Ronny Drake. I am the son of Ron Drake, a candidate for the 7th Congressional District in Arizona. I have never responded personally to [David Compton's] letters, though I have read them all. I would never knock the freedom of speech, nor would I dare infringe on it. But, Mr. Compton, I just want all of your "loyal" readers to know that you have never spoken to my dad, nor have you ever tried to contact him personally. Writing letters to your local newspaper is your only method of action. Please Dave, call him at his campaign cell phone at 520-***-****. Anyone who has dealt with my dad over the past six years knows he has never avoided a response. He would love to hear any suggestions you might have. So there, I challenge you, in front of anyone reading this to actually try and do something instead of just complaining. But, I also guarantee if David doesn't try to call my dad or e-mail him I will let you know. I am sick and tired of reading his trash about my dad. You can be anti-Republican all you want, but you have no right to bad-mouth someone you have never met. People disagree with politicians all the time, people probably disagree with some of my dad's points of view, but he makes himself available to anyone who has questions or comments and has always kept an open mind and an open office door. I encourage anyone who is interested to call him or check out http://www.drake4congress.com/. Ronny Drake Avondale

A new rule: nobody can criticize a politician that they haven't met. That may be a good rule for this blog. I'll look into it. Yes, the original letter had Ron Drake's cell-phone number printed. I decided to cut Drake a break and not re-print the number. Putting up numbers like that on the internet doesn't seem like the brightest idea Drake's campaign has had. I went through the archives, and found the offending letter. By the way, the West Valley View's letter page makes this here portion of the blogosphere look like the Paul Duke years on Washington Week in Review. Before reading through the letters, I had no idea there was a large portion of our political class that are "Hezboliberals" (funny when you understand what the word Hezbollah actually means), or that secretly supports terrorism because Anderson Cooper is gay (I found that logic hard to follow). The folks on our side don't seem to be much better. In a longer letter, nay, rant, from frequent letter writer Compton regarding what he sees as an apparent secret neo-con plot to supress turn-out in Arizona, this was what he said about Drake:
The neocons know that they cannot afford to let this happen and they are taking every measure to distract, confuse, intimidate, restrict, and abuse every possible dissenting voter against this administration. In addition, certain office holder's districts have been targeted for this chicanery including that represented by . Be assured that Ron Drake is the "neocon's man" in this district.
That was it,the sum total of the "personal" attack on Ronny's father. That really ain't much. If he and his family can't handle that, it's no wonder he's been so scarce on the campaign trail.|W|P|115583640956782787|W|P|Junior to Epistolarian: Don't Say Bad Things About My Daddy!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/17/2006 11:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Chris|W|P|Back to Huffman. I understand he is now claiming to be a conservative.

From some of the blogs I have seen it looks like that wing of the GOP does not much like Stevie.8/17/2006 12:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Not being able to criticize a politician you have never met?

That's an idea. And I wonder if Drake Jr. ever heard dad criticize Bill Clinton while he was growing up.8/17/2006 11:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|People criticize Bill Clinton? When was this?

heehee8/16/2006 03:32:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I caught a glimpse of Steve Huffman's ad (entitled "Best Hope"), and I am a bit confused. (Some regular readers think that I am always confused, but never mind.) In the ad, Huffman points to a bill that Randy Graf authored to put "term limits" on bureaucrats. This bill was unfortunately typical of the knee-jerk anti-government bumper sticker stupidity that often is presented among our solons. This bill, as is common with such things, had all sorts of unintended consequences. It was so broad as to include police, firefighters and teachers. Because the bill was so poorly written, cooler heads prevailed and it was stuck in a drawer somewhere. Flash to the next bit: Graf hung a picture of George Bush upside down in his office. The picture was of Randy Graf and George Bush after the fires on Mr. Lemon. In a fit of pique over administration immigration policy, Graf hung the picture upside down for a time. Huffman's narrator (the woman that Republicans always get in their ads when they want someone to be indignant) is shocked that Graf would do this "in a time of war." Then, we go back to shots of Huffman in an office, and talking to good white folks that vote in Republican primaries. Then we hear that Huffman is the "true conservative." The true conservatives that post on here will no doubt have a great deal of fun with that one. I've posted on here about rumors that Huffman's polling shows that Graf's numbers fall through the floor when voters are told of his positions on Medicare and Social Security. Also, bills such as the one featured in the ad and others such as the "guns in bars" bill could be highlighted to show how out of touch he is with even most Republican voters. But, he cuts off this line of attack and switches to a rather minor attack about the picture. This causes the message to be mixed and results in what Steve Nicol would term "poor finishing." If he is trying to say "I'm a conservative, but Randy is a nutcase," then he should present more of Graf's record. There is plenty there. Heck, I think that more of an attack on his record could even score points among conservatives, since often his bills seemed to be a parody of conservatism rather than serious legislation. The thing that is odd to me is that it looks as though Huffman is still trying to go after Graf's rabid conservative base rather than going after moderate and not-so-conservative voters. Why? Graf owns these people, and Huffman is an obvious late comer to their issues. What the heck is he thinking?|W|P|115577005666521618|W|P|Stevie Goes on the Attack!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/16/2006 04:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|The great thing about this ad is it shows how Democrats are the winners if we face Huffman OR Graf!

Graf is the poster boy for the extremist GOP leadership. The Democratic nominee will have plenty of examples from his voting record and his public statements that amply demonstrate how out of touch he is with the voters in his district. Expect many stark references to what "Randy Graf's Arizona" would look like if he is the GOP choice.

If they pick Huffman, the Democrats can point to how he has tried to reinvent himself over the last year to appease the far right. The Star gave us a taste of that this morning when they noted how his votes on immigration bills in 2006 versus the votes he cast on the same topic in 2005 couldn't have been more different. Expect the question "Which Steve Huffman is actually on the ballot?" to be asked by the Democratic nominee.

My only worry is that the GOP will nominate Hellon, who has run a smart campiagn on a shoestring budget and who has proven himself to be more mature and more savvy than either Graf or Huffman.8/16/2006 04:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|I will copy and paste yet again, just because I want to make sure this gets read. And since Rex is posting I would like to hear his opinion, because i have always respected, if not always agreed, with his viewpoint.

Gabby is in the field with a push poll spreading lies about Weiss. I know because I got the call and so have a couple of my friends.

Below is a copy and pasted statement I have on the subject from before. I can't even tell you how disappointed and angry this makes me.

Push polling is a dispicable campaign tactic designed to circumvent federal election law. They want to circulate negative messages -- blatantly false negative messages -- without having to indentify who is paying for the "poll."

Polling firms do not have to disclose who their funders are because it would corrupt the data, so the Giffords campaign is diguising a blatant smear campaign as a poll to circumvent the system.

Honestly, this makes me sick. I have gotten this call myself, and I'm rethinking whether I will support Giffords in the general.

An OPEN, HONEST debate on the issues, even the tough ones, is fine. But hiding behind push polling is dirty politics of the worst kind.

The Giffords campaign should be ashamed.

And I'm shocked that anyone on this blog would support such a practice. I have disagreed with many of you, but I have respected you all along. If you endorse this kind of campaigning... you're no better than the worst of the Republicans.

Also, I guess this puts to rest whether the Giffords campaign thinks they are ahead. I've never heard of a winning campaign doing push polling before. But then again I've never heard of a Democratic campaign doing it either.

I still can't believe this... it's just like Bush/McCain in 2000.

I don't even know what else to say...8/16/2006 04:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Shall i post my responses to yours ZonaDem...

I will just lead with this. You declare this as out of bounds and not in the open and all kinds of things.

I don't know if the Giffords campaign did this, or if it is even as you all speak it. Because, frankly, it has been you and Ben r. and outlander and Anon and a host of other who have anonymously attacked Giffords on blogs in a most furious and vitriolic way.

I frankly don't see any difference in calling voters with a ridiculous push poll with assertions about her donations AND getting on a blog anonymously and hammering away for months with the very same M.O. Take a fact...distort it...and leave an impression for party activist who read blogs to think about.

I also know that it was Weiss herself and her bloggers that opened the field of distortion...and on the John C. Scott program...it was particularly deep.

Enjoy your outrage...I know how it feels.8/16/2006 05:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...I am hearing that this push poll did not come from the Giffords camp. Sounds like a dirty trick...could be anyone...RNC...Graf...anyone wanting a good fight over here.

Since you all posted it? Does it have a declaration of who paid for it at the end? How do you know it came from the Giffords campaign?

That aside still relishing that you all are the ones so angry after you all have done the same for months.8/16/2006 05:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I never thought I would be the one getting back on topic.

Here are the numbers from when Steve and Randy were in the house together.

Goldwater Institute, 2004 Report .
Graf gets a B with a score of 65%.
Huffman gets a C- with 51%.

Randy was the 7th most conservative member of the house that year. So either he is more moderate than people think or there are 6 very right-wing wack jobs out there.

Huffman was the 6th most liberal Republican that year.

The Arizona Federation of Taxpayers, 2004 Report.
Graf gets a 25 / 41 and is labeled a “Friend of the Taxpayer.”
Steve gets an 11 / 41 and is categorized as a “Big Spender.”

Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association, September 2004.
Graf is rated A+ in his race against Kolbe.
Huffman receives a C in his legislative race.

Graf is endorsed by Arizona Right to Life.
In the past Huffman has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood.
Steve’s current score for 2006 with Planned Parenthood is 50%. Steve’s score is tied with Michele Reagan and on the Republican side only exceeded by Pete Hershberger. Huffman missed 2 out of 7 votes that PP measured in 2006.

Border issue.
Huffman supported public services for people illegally in the U.S. when Proposition 200 was on the ballot in 2004. Now he is Mr. Get Tough. The Arizona Daily Star has a story on Steve’s recent transformation.
Randy has always been pretty consistent on this issue.

Steve Huffman may be a nice guy. I don’t know. Every time I see him at an event he and I do not have too much to say to each other. I can unequivocally state that he is NOT a conservative. Steve’s current campaign amounts to Election Fraud.

Was that clear enough?8/16/2006 05:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|They were pushing Gabby positive and Weiss negatives.

So... it's either Giffords, or it's someone on behalf of Giffords, or it's the Republicans because they know that Weiss is the strongest candidate.

Those are the only possibilities. And if it isn't Gabby, then she should come out and condemn push polling.

As it is, I don't believe that it wasn't from Gabby. Sounded a lot like they were softening up the ground for an attack on Patty.

And no, Roger, there is no "paid for by." If you would have read my post -- the one I posted multiple times -- you would have noticed I touched on that. After all, that is the advantage of push polling. You can be a coward and hide while spreading lies about your opponent.

What a great system...8/16/2006 05:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Back on point of the original post...Sorry Ted.

You raise intriguing points about Huffman. Why he didn't bring up Grafs weird record and why he is trying to appeal to the conservative base.

I find it strange too. We do know that conservatives are more likely to turn out in primaries and in this one...it looks to be even more true given what the Gallop says about moderates in the doldrums.

What blows me away is this. I have argued that Huffman would/should use his considerable money to turn out early voters...to get moderates...who dont turn out ...to do so. Kind of like what the people behind the RTA did by getting turnout up.

In the Skinny today, they seem to indicate that Hellon is turing in early vote requests...as is Graf...but very few from Huffman.

If this is true...short of a major major blunder by Graf (which could happen)....

Huffman is toast in this primary.8/16/2006 05:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Zona Dem:

First, I have seen nor heard of any poll from anyone but you or Ben r. Not sure I believe it coming from you guys. I also love your switch of rhetoric...well if it came from the Republicans...they must really want Weiss.

I am really not sure I believe you now. I do not believe that this came from the Giffords camp and if there was no "paid for", I think it might be illegal.

Until you produce some evidence...and the burden is on you...I don't believe the poll came from Giffords. It would have been a bad idea and would have given them no advantage and...it would have done nothing but give you all ammunition....and the Star...and other media sources.

Seems to benefit you all...if there is even a poll. I would also like to know who was called. Primary dems...or independents.8/16/2006 06:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh...and lest the mischief of Weiss supporters continue.

Giffords received the endorsement of the Arizona Republic today. 3-3 on major papers.8/16/2006 06:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Now, we see the brilliance of push polling. It's hard to prove it even happened.

I assume it was primary Dems who were called, since that's what I am. Maybe they only start in if you identify as a Weiss supporter.

Here's how the call starts.. maybe some others have gotten it.

They asked me to rate four individuals on a scale of 0-100.

Patty Weiss
Gabrielle Giffords
Jeff Latas
Don Diamond.

Anyone else get this call?8/16/2006 07:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Okay so how is that push polling 'Zona Dem? We need to hear the rest of the questions before we can say "oh wow, that is push polling and I bet it was candidate X who did it."

As for the adverts from the Republicans: I think it will be Graf, base votes in the primary...he ran before and has been a state legislator so people know him.8/16/2006 07:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Zona Dem is right. Push polling is a loathesome practice. No one should be subjected to it.

I am confident after making some inquiries that this is not a Giffords effort. Indeed, why would the campaign think this is even necessary? Other than a discredited story written by a cub reporter who used to be a College Republican, all the good news in the CD8 race is going OUR way. Going negative now would make NO SENSE.

Giffords supporters have also received phone calls from purported pollsters that have trashed our candidate. It is likely that the GOP is field testing negative attacks for the fall campaign aganst the two Dems most likely to be the nominee. Huffman has already used this tactic against Graf in their primary and, for all we know, this could be coming from his camp.

Gabby has been subject to more personal attacks on these blogs than anyone else, albeit not from ZonaDem. George Tuttle's blog (where things are supposed to be "relevant and civil") has been a bastion of Giffords-bashing. He also had one negative post against Weiss after Don Diamond contributed to her campaign.

If you look on the Weiss campaign website, there is a press release and a blog entry attacking Gabby. Weiss has also trashed Gabby on two radio shows, on Daily Kos and in the Tucson Weekly. I guess I can understand the strategic thinking behind these moves when all the support is going to Giffords, but if anyone has "gone negative," it's Patty!

If the Weiss camp can prove that this is coming from us, let them bring forth the evidence.8/16/2006 07:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Elizabeth -

That is how the call started. I was just giving everyone a reference point. Like I said, it was a 20-minute call.

If Gabby is getting the same treatment, I don't understand why the caller would be pushing Gabby positives while bashing Patty.

Whoever was making these calls, they were very interested in Gabby winning the primary.8/16/2006 08:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Wow,

A cigar and then dinner with daughter and I miss quite a blog fest.

Just one observation--somewhere between four to a dozen bloggers seem hellbent to trash Giffords. I've called them Giffonators in the spirit of humor, but not really thinking it's funny anymore.

Notice that there are no Weissinators or Latassinators, none. Sure perhaps a little jabbing between P and J, but nothing, not even close, to the venom directed at Giffords over these past few months.

I guess that's what it looks like when you are winning.

Just under 4 weeks, and it's a new game.8/16/2006 08:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Ben R|W|P|I have no doubt that this push poll is happening. To blame it on Huffman is BS. That guy has enough problems with his own primary to be worried about this. To blame it on the RNC is also foolish. Why would they be pushing Giffords? If it was them they would bash Giffords and Weiss, and probably wait at least until after the primary. This isn't polling to gain info. This is widespread negative push polling.

And why would the Giffords campaign tell you? Rex and Kralmajales like to act like insiders. If they are push polling, I can assure you they aren't telling everyone. I can pretty much assure that it is kept to the innnermost circle of the campaign, and if you ask someone in that circle they aren't going to be stupid enough to own up to it.
Don't flatter yourselves Rex and Kralmajales, you don't know all that goes on behind closed doors, and they aren't going to tell you.8/16/2006 08:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Hahhaha we don't know? You made the baseless charge fella!! And then got ZonaDem all charged up about it.

It totally fits your pattern of distortion and that of the Giffonators that X4mr speaks of.

There is no way that Gifford's staff would pull such a stupid move this close to the election, when by all accounts...they are winning or damn close to it.

Anyone who puts out such a poll would know very well that people would get wind of it and make hay of it.

I don't trust that you didn't make this up yourself, but more than likely, you found it...didn't know who it came from...but used it to draw out more attacks and distortions on Giffords the candidate and person. Your assertions that it was Giffords were quite strong...strong enough to make me wonder. Also, when I reacted by saying it might be republicans...you were quick with the "well...see...Republicans really want to face Giffords."

Makes me question the integrity of your posts even more...but more than that...that you didn't even know who put it in the field.8/16/2006 09:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Like I said 'Zona Dem, have to get a list of the questions to make a judgement on it being a push poll. Now if you said one of the questions was "if you had a choice between a person in show business or a person who has devoted their life to the community and a family business?" THAT would be obvious. But until we have the questions...8/16/2006 09:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|The Tuttle residence did get that same poll tonight.

My response is that this is a Latas household-we won't vote for a charletain.8/16/2006 10:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Can’t a right-winger get a break?

Ted writes a Republican story and I am the only one on topic. I know you guys are all upset about that so I just wanted to share my pain.8/16/2006 10:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Ben R|W|P|Kralmajales:

I got news for you: Giffords isn't winning. You guys are desperate because your big bag of cash isn't buying the votes like you thought it would.

These dirty tactics have no place here, and I don't doubt that the voters of CD 8 will reject them outright on September 12.8/16/2006 10:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Elizabeth -

Haha... no. They were much worse than that.

After I IDed as a Patty supporter, they started listing off Gabby legislative achievements... of course this is fine. They then asked me to rate her again on the 0-100 scale.

After that, they ran off a litany of charges against Patty. Here are some of the greatest hits. They are strangely similar to Roger's talking points on this blog.

1.) She has accepted donations from big pharma. I think they said PAC, but that would be untrue, so maybe I misheard.

2.) She has no legislative experience.

Here's where it gets nasty...

3.) Her husband is in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies and Patty will be too. He's a psychiatrist, folks. And attacking families is really awful.

4.) Some kind of nonsense about unreported campaign contributions and some allusions to Patty evading taxes. I don't remember the specifics, and the caller had a thick accent so it was difficult to understand.

Bottom line.. this was a hard core negative push poll. And whoever is doing it, Gabby or otherwise, really wants Gabby to win.

I now know of seven people who have gotten this call... in the last 24 hours. This is obviously not a tracking poll, for which you would only call 400-500 people, but something with a far larger universe.

This is nasty politics at its worst.

I hope you're all proud of Gabby and her "operation."

And, seriously, if it's not Gabby, will she come out and condemn this type of politics?

Rex, Roger? You seem to know the right people. Can you find out?8/16/2006 10:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh sorry Phx Kid, I do find it annoying that this blog is just awash in the D CD8 side fighting. And no polite requests to stop seems to work. The Ds on here should be all united in bashing your candidates but...:p

As for the push polling, I actually find it very disturbing that Patty accepted money (or has given the appearance of doing so) from Big Pharma. But then I am in CD5 so my opinion is just that.8/16/2006 11:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Hmmm, zona dem, thanks for the more complete information and appreciate it, and, yes, this is a disturbing event.

The math confuses me. You suggest that this is big, and I am in no position to argue, so let's say you are right and it is. How big are you thinking?

1500? 2500? 5000+?

And the folks doing it expect it to go unnoticed? Blogosophere is already on it like white on rice, and if numbers are as big as you suggest, we'll have the script of the thing by dinner tomorrow.

And an email hasn't already been shot Scarpinato's way?

Let's face it, this thing seems designed to get noticed, and upon the noticing, hits Giffords if folks take the easy interpretation.

Clearly, someone's up to some mischief that none of us like, but I don't think the easy answer is the right answer.8/16/2006 11:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Oh, phx kid, wanted to acknowledge your frustration, but you are a victim of bad timing.

Yes, original post is about Stevie's hit piece, but this phone nastiness has tsunamied just about every blog since ben r went on the rampage. He even launched over at Arizona Eighth and for all I know, Oprah and Larry King.

Perhaps when dust settles you'll get the forum you deserve. I will participate.8/17/2006 05:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|There are any number of plausible explanations for this alleged "poll," but the one that does not make sense is that this is a Giffords efforts, both because she is winning and because HERS HAS NOT BEEN THE NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN!!!

This is an inconvenient truth that the other folks posting are happy to gloss over. I recognize that campaigns have no say over what bloggers write, so I don't blame any other campaign for all the abuse (MUCH of it personal) that has been heaped on Giffords on these blogs. But, the FACT remains that the one candidate who has launched negative broadsides at one of her opponents virtually since the outset of this campaign has been PATTY WEISS!

And, to get back to the original intent for our pal Phx Kid, he can count on this negative ad hurting both Huffman (it reinforces his well-earned reputation for hardball politics and will rile up the conservative base) and Graf (it ups his already high negatives and does so among people who may not already be mad at him for the negative campaign HE ran against Kolbe) and helping Hellon. Negative ads work when they reinforce pre-existing perceptions of the candidate(s) in the public mind. Thus, Steve's blast hits its target...and then ricochets back on the shooter himself!8/17/2006 06:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|P.S. Negative campaigning in a multi-candidate field is a risky proposition as affected voters have somewhere else to go besides the camp of the attacker. I would assert that this is the main reason Huffman's tactic will backfire. Moreover, this is also why Giffords has been smart to run a positive campaign and has no reason to resort to the tactics other bloggers allege...and can not prove. Patty Weiss should grasp that lesson and end her litany of negative attacks on Giffords.8/17/2006 07:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|AZ Dem said:

"So... it's either Giffords, or it's someone on behalf of Giffords, or it's the Republicans because they know that Weiss is the strongest candidate.

Those are the only possibilities."

However, AZ Dem is wrong. The other likely candidate is the Weiss campaign itself. Campaigns regularly do polls like this trying to find out for themselves what attacks might stick that they need to be prepared for. If, while doing so, their opposition gets blamed for it and they get some good press, well, that's even better ... but it's not the primary purpose.

Not that it amounts to any form of proof, but I haven't seen the Weiss campaign decrying the poll either.8/17/2006 08:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Ben R|W|P|First of all this push poll exists:

This is from Blog for Arizona. The author got it, and Francine Shacter did as well.


So Kral and Rex, who insinuated I was lying about it's very existence are wrong. As usual.

And to compare Patty making comments publicly and being able to be held accountable for what she said is vastly different than push polling. Push polling is a dispicable, underhanded practice that allows someone to bash and lie about another candidate without taking responsibility for what they have said. Push polling is cowardly, and if you guys really think that it is an acceptable practice, then I question your integrity.

Sirroco, you are out of your element. This is not an informational poll being done by Patty to test her negatives. This is a push poll, plain and simple. And its the sign of a desperate campaign.8/17/2006 09:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger kralmajales|W|P|Ive enjoyed the laughs, Bye!8/17/2006 12:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/17/2006 12:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|ben r,

It's _exactly_ the type of poll done to test negatives. Thats the entire purpose of that type of poll.

Of course, the question as to whether it's the Weiss camp trying to test her own negatives, or an opponent (current or potential future) trying to test Weiss negatives, that's what is uncertain.

It's certainly not proof, but I'll note that, to the best of my knowledge, the Weiss campaign hasn't said anything about the poll yet, there is nothing on the web site, nor has Patty made a new entry about it on her DailyKos blog. It's suggestive, at least.8/17/2006 04:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Self Appointed Opinion Leader|W|P|The same company that did push polls for the Lieberman campaign is doing this poll.

Why should Patty comment on this push poll when she can play it safe and campaign for the people dropping off the Gabby bandwagon?

Patty has Celinda Lake for polls, not Mountain West Research.

Celinda has credibility and she also does the polling for Governor Napolitano.

She would not allow this type of polling to ruin her reputation.

But would Gabby Giffords?8/17/2006 05:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|(This is a cut and paste)
Ok- can I please clear something up here? This was not a push poll, this was a POLL. You don't run 20 minute push polls for two reasons 1)It's too expensive- I mean a 20 minute poll is like 25k; 2)The entire point of a push poll is you dont care about information- you ask three or four NASTY questions then get off the phone. Please for the love of god, don't accuse people who are polling arguments against candidates (that is what they are doing) of push polling because you don't want to hear arguments against your candidate.

Oh and by the way, I not only don't work for anyone in CD8 I don't LIVE in CD8- you know for the conspiracy nuts out there.8/18/2006 09:35:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Quick Draw|W|P|I don't understand the big deal with the push poll. I think it is obvious now that someone sponsored a push poll but that's about it. We don't know whom it came from but I don't really care. It is part of politics. I think the GG and PW supporters should stop crying about it and start getting serious. I mean honestly Giffords momentum isn't picking up like it needs to and the Weiss media buy is a joke.
If they would stop crying about everything the other did maybe there would be fewer undecided voters. It's like we're forced to choose between Beavis and Butthead.
In short, push polling sucks but then again so do all the major candidates in CD 8. Maybe Shakter is the best one...at least she's got a sense of humor.8/16/2006 08:13:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Tucson's own Linda Ronstadt had some choice words about the president:
The Dixie Chicks said they were embarrassed he was from Texas. I'm embarrassed George Bush is from the United States. He's an idiot. He's enormously incompetent on both the domestic and international scenes.
What is most interesting was that this remark prompted Joe Scarborough to have a segment on his show entitled "Is the President an 'Idiot'?" Scarborough's answer seemed to be, "sort of." Geez, if a partisan hack like Scarborough is willing to entertain this notion, it's no wonder these guys are in trouble. I'm looking for the press to ask Howe Gelb and various surviving members of Chuck Wagon and the Wheels and the Lewallen Brothers for their political thoughts too.|W|P|115574175488303904|W|P|You're No Good, Baby You're No Good (Sorry...It's So Easy)|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/16/2006 09:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Well, I don't know much but I can tell by just one look that Linda marches to the beat of a different drum. Unfortunately, it'll be a long long time before she and the rest of America won't have to cry poor poor pitiful me about the idiot back in the U.S.A. who occupies the White House.

In the meantime, anticipation is making me wait. (oops. wrong singer.)8/16/2006 10:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger The Screaming Centrist|W|P|Ooh, a picture from back when Linda was HAWT. Very nice.

I've actually started to warm up to Scarborough recently. First, his appearance on Colbert and now this. It frightens me.

Bored, something tells me if I were more familiar with Linda Rondstadt's songs, I'd be groaning really load right now.8/16/2006 01:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|HA HA!

Yes, most eager to hear what Chuck Wagon and the Wheels have to say these days.

Great photo of Linda. Mmmm. Reminds me of old times. Those high school fantasies sure didn't involve her cousin on my porch with a clipboard.8/16/2006 03:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|boredinaz,
It doesn't matter anymore but could it be that George is just a simple man, simple dream kind of guy? He must be wondering, when will I be loved? You're right that Linda and the rest of us can cry like a rainstorm and howl like the wind but we're stuck with him until 2009.

(I'm out of songs. I lost interest in Linda when she started singing with Nelson Riddle).8/16/2006 07:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I love people who can pun.8/17/2006 06:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|Why does everyone insist on referring to Linda Ronstadt as "Tucson's own"? Yes she's from here, but didn't she recently say she was moving back to San Francisco to get away from "strip mall culture" and conservative wackos?

It's like the Phoenix media constantly referring to Mike Tyson as a local. Including everytime he gets in trouble.

Do we really want to claim these people for our state? They certainly don't want to claim us.8/17/2006 11:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Consider only one piece of evidence: The President's truly bizarre behavior at the recent G-8 summit. He cussed at people, He made comments into an open mike with a mouth full of food, then he groped Angela Merkel (if you haven't seen the video, you should-- if I did that to a female colleague, it would be called sexual harrassment, and rightly so).

I'm embarrassed to have this kind of a jerk representing me.8/17/2006 10:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|I heard some of the folks at FOX News have really figured out that George Bush is a complete idiot.

Fox has implemented a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy banning any solicitation or divulging of opinions on Bush's intelligence.8/13/2006 03:28:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|This morning's Star carried a profile of the four Republicans running for Governor. Each one of them talked about how out of touch Janet Napolitano is with the average Arizonan. This must be why she polls so well. El Don de las Aguas Doradas once again tried to stake out a position as the candidate toughest on thirsty migrants, calling , and the "three amnesty amigos." He went further to say this:
They have a personal agenda. They believe that somehow by ingratiating themselves to these people they'll vote for them.
Um, okay Don. I realize that your previous career of arranging forks for gubernatorial dinners may not have totally prepared you for this, so here is a little civics lesson: Illegal aliens cannot vote. Nope. Not for John McCain, not for Jeff Flake, and certainly not for Jim Kolbe, who is not even running for re-election. Now, there has been an ongoing unfortunate theme on the part of some members of your party to assume that any significant Hispanic support for a candidate automatically means that non-citizens are illegally voting for them. I have yet to see the people who state this actually give any evidence of such things, and it is, to state it as charitably as I can, borderline racist. Should the governor, between now and then, decide to join a convent or tour with a re-united Concrete Blonde (it would only make sense) and you become elected, you will find that the state is full of Hispanic citizens (the ones you seem to call "these people"), some of whom have roots here going back even further than the Goldwaters. And yes, they can vote.|W|P|115550980489032497|W|P|Don Also Wants to Keep the Muslims from Taking All the Good Ham|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/13/2006 04:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Ted,

I am going to try and explain Don’s reasoning. I know I am treading in dangerous waters so please have mercy on me.

Part of McCain’s proposal was an eventual path to citizenship for some of the people who may have initially entered the U.S. without proper documentation. I think Don meant to imply that McCain was courting these hypothetical eventual citizens.

On another note Don, unlike some other GOP candidates, realizes the first job is to win the primary. So far he is leading in that contest. I have not seen a poll lately so maybe Len’s standoffish, elitist technique is winning but I doubt it. Criticize Don all you want but he is giving Mensal a run for his money (or Clean Election Commission’s money as it were.)

I keep wondering if Len is so smart why he can’t knock off a “fork arranger.” Really, Len was editor of the ASU paper, got through law school, passed the bar, clerked for Court of Appeals Judge. To top it off his wife graduated summo cum latte and has a masters in Political Science. The pair of them should have left ol’Don in the dust a long time ago. Unless, maybe, just maybe your IQ does not count for s*i* in politics. Just a theory.8/13/2006 04:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Good point about why Munsil hasn't pulverized Goldwater yet. I don't know know a heck of a lot about Munsil's campaign strategy, but looking at the numbers, I would bet he is talking to a very limited group of people. This may work in a low turn-out primary. However, given the interest in the CD 8 Republican primary, an area where it seems Munsil has little presence, it could backfire.

Summo cum latte? I just thought of something involving Japanese wrestlers at Starbucks. Gotta give you grief about something.8/13/2006 05:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Squib aka TwistedOreo|W|P|Len Munsil's wife graduating summo cum latte? Ted, you should not be thinking about Japanese sumo porn, the thought police will be coming after you soon.8/13/2006 05:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|It was recommended that Munsil make nice with Graf. His people turned up their noses. Maybe they are too highbrow for that crowd.

Say what you want about Randy, he is not afraid to go someplace with a little sawdust on the floor and talk with voters. Len’s seems like he is worried about germs.

I had better stop now because this thread is getting awfully sticky.8/14/2006 03:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Hmmm, Phoenix kid:

Tedski was commenting on why Don Goldwater is not only out of touch with 'the average Arizonan', but lacks a rudimentary knowledge of who over a million Arizonans ARE, and somehow you change it into an attack on Munsil.

OK, go ahead and attack Len Munsil. I really don't give a flying leap about who will win the GOP primary (although just as an observation from a rural part of Northern Arizona-- Munsil is much stronger up here than he apparently is down there) because whoever it is will clearly get steamrolled by the Governor.

And yes, thousands of those Hispanic 'average Arizonans' who are citizens and who can vote, will vote, and it won't be for a guy who talks about them the way Don Goldwater does.

Just a piece of political education: Back when the GOP behind Pete Wilson still ran California (as they had most of the time for decades) the GOP there put through a proposition (prop 187) in 1994 denying services to illegal immigrants. Though it only targetted illegal immigrants, its proponents made the same mistake that I see immigrant bashers making here in Arizona, talking about 'those people' and failing to differentiate Hispanic citizens from illegal immigrants, or at least blowing off their concerns that they might be racially profiled or targetted as 'a diversion' from the real problems. Well, the result was that from being a swing group, Hispanics in California swung reliably and it appears permanently to the Democrats. Combine that with demographic changes (California is now a 'majority minority' state with Hispanics being the largest minority) and that resulted in California moving from the land of Reagan to its present status as a solidly blue state. True that the shift was beginning before 187 (Bill Clinton became the first Democrat to carry California in 28 years in 1992) but the reaction to 187 among Hispanics really accelerated that process. And I suspect that if the GOP continues to bash immigrants as they are then you will see a similar change happen here. Arizona Hispanics are still willing to consider Republicans but if Republicans aren't willing to consider Hispanics, well you will only have yourselves to blame if one day you look around and find they've moved over to the Democrats.8/14/2006 07:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Eli,

You and Ted have an excellent point about the way Don addresses a huge part of this states population. Those words would not come out of my mouth if I were running for governor, for many reasons.

I did not mean to attack Munsil. I just keep hearing from a lot of GOP voters that they think Don is a little slow and Len is so bright. (OK, I used a little poetic license.) I was commenting on what that gets you in politics. I am very interested in seeing a poll of the GOP side of the governor’s race. I’ll admit who ever wins has an uphill battle but it is still very interesting for me to watch the primary. I am not sure Munsil thought it would be this tough to get ahead of Goldwater.8/14/2006 08:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|kid,
first of all, that first post of yours was funny. great way to start the week!

second, if i may, i'll try and explain Len's reasoning, but i'm also treading in dangerous waters so...

i think Lenny is trying very hard to tap dance on a narrow beam. he's trying to soften the edges of his far right wing social agenda to attract more moderate Republicans and Independensts without losing the base that got him on the ballot and swimming in $ so early. Additionally, i think he is also trying to court the socially conservative Hispanic vote, which means he needs to keep the anti-hispanic rhetoric to a minimum while trying to sound tough enough on illegal immigration to attract some people who look at that as a top five issue. Finally, i think he got cocky too early and didn't spend enough $ before Donnie got his because he read too much into his ability to have his base fund him. i'm guessing he figured he could look ahead to the general and underestimated the power of the Goldwater name and the issue Donnie is running on. then there's that "slow" factor. i'll bet that played a part in underestimating Donnie as well.8/14/2006 09:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Could not have said it better myself.8/15/2006 07:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Apropos of nothing in this thread, Salon has an article today discussing six states it considers most likely to see vote supression in advance of the upcoming election. Suprise, suprise, Arizona is among the six.

Other states mentioned include California, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri. The full article can be read free (after watching a brief ad) at www.salon.com.

The AZ portion of the article:

By Art Levine

Aug. 15, 2006 | Eva Steele has a son in the military who is supposed to be fighting for freedom in Iraq, but sitting in a wheelchair in her room in a Mesa, Ariz., assisted-living facility, she wonders why it's so hard for her to realize a basic freedom back here in America: the right to vote.

Arriving in Arizona in January from Kansas City, weakened by four heart attacks and degenerative disk disease, Steele, 57, discovered that without a birth certificate she can't register to vote. Under a draconian new Arizona law that supposedly targets illegal immigrants, she needs proof of citizenship and a state-issued driver's license or photo I.D. to register. But her van and purse were stolen in the first few weeks after she moved to Mesa, and with her disability checks going to rent and medicine, she can't afford the $15 needed to get her birth certificate from Missouri. Her wheelchair makes it hard for her to navigate the bus routes or the bureaucratic maze required to argue with state bureaucrats. She's unable to overcome the hurdles thrown in her way -- and in the way of as many as 500,000 other Arizona residents -- by the state's Republican politicians.

"I think everybody should have the right to vote, no matter if you've got two nickels or you're a millionaire," Steele says. "I think it's a shame you have to jump through so many hoops to prove that you're the person who you say you are."

But Steele's plight has gotten relatively little notice from pundits and progressive activists confidently predicting a sweeping Democratic victory in November. Opinion polls show that a majority of the public wants a Democratic Congress, but whether potential voters -- black and Latino voters in particular -- will be able to make their voices heard on Election Day is not assured. Across the country, they will have to contend with Republican-sponsored schemes to limit voting. In a series of laws passed since the 2004 elections, Republican legislators and officials have come up with measures to suppress the turnout of traditional Democratic voting blocs. This fall the favored GOP techniques are new photo I.D. laws, the criminalizing of voter registration drives, and database purges that have disqualified up to 40 percent of newly registered voters from voting in such jurisdictions as Los Angeles County.

"States that are hostile to voting rights have -- intentionally or unintentionally -- created laws or regulations that prevent people from registering, staying on the rolls, or casting a ballot that counts," observes Michael Slater, the election administration specialist for Project Vote, a leading voter registration and voting rights group. And with roughly a quarter of the country's election districts having adopted new voting equipment in the past two years alone, there's a growing prospect that ill-informed election officials, balky machines and restrictive new voting rules could produce a "perfect storm" of fiascos in states such as Ohio, Florida, Arizona and others that have a legacy of voting rights restrictions or chaotic elections. "People with malicious intent can gum up the works and cause an Election Day meltdown," Steele says.

There is rarely hard proof of the Republicans' real agenda. One of the few public declarations of their intent came in 2004, when then state Rep. John Pappageorge of Michigan, who's now running for a state Senate seat, was quoted by the Detroit Free Press: "If we do not suppress the Detroit [read: black ] vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle."

For the 2006 elections, with the control of the House and the Senate in the balance, Salon has selected six states with the most serious potential for vote suppression and the greatest potential for affecting the outcome of key races. In nearly every case, the voter-suppression techniques have been implemented since 2004 by Republican legislators or officials; only one state has a Democratic secretary of state, and only one has a Democratic-controlled legislature. The shameful six are:

Thanks to a legacy that includes denying Native Americans the right to vote until 1948 and decades more of scheming to block minority voters (the state still has to submit its voting regulations to the Justice Department for approval), there's a good reason that voting reformers view the state's latest "voting integrity" weapon with skepticism. The sweeping Proposition 200, passed by the Republican Legislature in 2004 and enacted last year, was designed to bar illegal immigrants from accessing state services and voting. It makes Arizona the only state in the country to require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Despite right-wing fear-mongering, hordes of unwashed illegal immigrants aren't lining up at polling places to vote. In Arizona, out of 2.6 million registered voters, a handful of legal resident noncitizens who responded to voting registration drives have been charged with crimes in the last year or so. But, according to the Arizona ACLU, there hasn't been a single case in state history of an illegal immigrant charged with falsely voting.

Yet spokesmen for Arizona secretary of state Teresa Brewer, a Republican, praise her for minimizing fraud while "single-handedly" working to increase voter registration. Privately, though, she may hold more disturbing views. A former Republican candidate for the state Legislature, Thom Von Hapsburg of Phoenix, told Salon that he was shocked at a fundraiser when Brewer told him she doesn't want "the wrong kind of people voting." Deputy secretary of state Kevin Tyne flatly denies she holds such views, contending, "I think her record in this area speaks for itself."

"I don't care what they say to deny it, the function of this statute is to discourage people from voting," says Joe Sparks, the veteran voting rights attorney who serves as counsel to the Intertribal Council of Arizona. "It's not about protecting our borders; it's about keeping minorities from voting," including Hispanics as well as Indians born without state-certified birth certificates. In fact, the law asks Native Americans who lack other I.D. to produce a Bureau of Indian Affairs card number or a "tribal treaty card number" -- cards and numbers that don't exist. No tribe in Arizona has them, says Sparks.

But, as Eva Steele's experience shows, you don't have to be a Native American to be denied the vote in Arizona: More than 500,000 registered voters and eligible but unregistered voters lack state-issued photo I.D.s. In the first weeks of the new law, about 70 percent of new voter-registration applicants were rejected in Maricopa County, site of Phoenix, although the rejection rate has been reduced to a still sizable 17 percent this year. Linda Brown of the Arizona Advocacy Network, a statewide progressive coalition, says, "With these I.D. and citizenship proof requirements, we've sealed the fate of the least among us: the elderly, the poor and the disabled, people who are already disenfranchised."

Key races: Republican Sen. Jon Kyl is vulnerable, as are two incumbent GOP representatives.8/15/2006 01:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Huffman just went negative with a hit-piece ad against Graf.

Steve WILL loose in November is he wins the primary running ads like this.

I now understand why Kolbe chose to back Huffman over Hellon. Mike Hellon has too much honor to be Jim Kolbe’s surrogate in attacking Graf but Huffman is a willing patsy to carry Jim’s message to Randy.8/15/2006 08:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Sirroco, when Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas took his laser eye off of trying to help find serial killers (hey this accusing people of not doing something about something beyond their control is fun! No wonder the Republican candidates do it in droves) he tried to hustle up a lot of illegally registered voters. I believe the number he found was 110 out of over a million registered voters.

I almost never praise Republicans but frankly Helen Purcell is doing a good job with her crew if he could only find that few people. And I think it could possibly, just maybe, mean that perhaps the problem of illegal voting is just well a myth meant to suppress people from exercising their right to vote?

Naw!8/15/2006 09:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tony GOPrano|W|P|Politics 101......Munsil's voters are much more likely to vote than Don Goldwater. Munsil's supporters are much more organized than Goldwater's. In a low turn out primary (remember 2004 folks; 14% turnout, Munsil will win the Primary). If Goldwater does win the Primary, Gov Jack wins by 40 points....she only beats Munsil by 20 at this point. Goint to be an interesting next 30 days...8/16/2006 02:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Politics 102 … A fair number of Munsil voters are not too happy that the campaign is paying Nathan Sproul $6,000 a month so he can run off and endorse the vehemently pro-abortion Carolyn Allen.

Has a new poll been released? I know Janet is ahead of Don and Len but I have never seen anything suggesting 40% or is that your own number?

Who is Gov Jack? You don’t mean Jack Williams do you?8/12/2006 10:12:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Patty Weiss's campaign suffered a bit of an embarassment this week when they were scolded for campaigning on the public dime. TUSD had an event at the community center as a kick-off for their employees for the upcoming school year. The trouble is, the event was funded by TUSD and TUSD money can't be used for political purposes. A minor screw-up to be sure, probably generated more by the enthusiasm of an offer for help from the Tucson Federation of Teachers than any nefarious attempt to skirt the law. I doubt that any "legal action" will take any form stronger than a letter from TUSD's attorneys rebuking the campaign and describing in mind-numbing detail the state law. Weiss campaign flack Andrew Myers described this as "The beginning and end of the story." He's probably right. Once in a while, he is. All of this is in the Star's Political Notebook this morning. So, why am I covering this ground all over again? I'm just wondering what the reaction would be in our little portion of the blogoverse if a certain other candidate did the same thing. I'd probably read all sorts of handwringing talking about her incompetent and desperate campaign, how the association that invited her are sell-outs, her abuse of the process, and a statement that punishment should stop just short of mounting her head on a pike. I'm just guessing, of course.|W|P|115540416193804336|W|P|Oops!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/12/2006 11:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|The difference is in the campaigns' responses to screw-ups.

When Gabby got caught running a false ad, the campaign tried to spin her way out of it.

When Patty got caught making a campaign appearance where she shouldn't have been invited, the campaign said "sorry" and moved on.

Gabby could have nipped the Star flap in the bud if she'd put out a statement that morning saying "the wording in the ad was not accurate, and I apologize for that. I have a long record of fighting Republicans in the Senate, and my colleagues back me up."

Instead, she waited 12 hours, then released an incomprehensible explanation trying to say the ad was mostly accurate even if the words and pictures weren't true. That's just bone-headed politics.8/12/2006 11:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|What, is this another lame attempt to take the focus off of Giffords' and her lies?

If this is the best you can come up with against Weiss, you just affirm that voters should choose her.

At least she isn't a "dirty liar".8/12/2006 11:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|What azyoulikeit said.8/12/2006 11:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Ted, I will tell you this. It was a bit of incompetence for her campaign to do that knowing that they will be under the microscope considering all Giffords friends at the local papers want their vengeance (trashing her all these months apparently wasn't enough).

Weiss campaign should have known better, just as Grijalva has when he has done similar, just as Napolitano has done in the past.

Yet, unlike Giffords, it isn't a bold face lie, there is no corruption involved, and the campaign apologized and took responsibility.

It is about ACCOUNTABILITY. We don't see that from Giffords.

I could have forgiven a lot with Giffords if she had owned up to it early on but she keeps digging herself in deeper. She should have learned from Clinton but apparently she is her own worst enemy.

I want to know what that land contamination deal is about regarding Giffords' and El Campo that some blogger wrote on the AZStarnet comments. Anyone here know what that is about?8/12/2006 11:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Well said, Tedski.

If a certain other candidate had made this mistake, actually breaking election law, a certain campaign wouldn't be able to issue a press release or post at kos fast enough, and I fear some of our bloggers would become so unhinged they'd injure their keyboards or themselves or both.8/12/2006 11:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Ben R|W|P|The difference is that this isn't an integrity issue. A mistake was made by Weiss and co. No attempt was made to cover it up. No lies were told. It was a mistake.

And no, I would not jump all over Giffords if she made a similarly minor mistake.

And one other thing about the ad. Alot of the Giffords spin squad are saying "So what that it wasn't actually night. What does the time of day matter?"

The time of day matters because it was part of the central premise of the ad. All of the images and portions of the narrative were based on a nighttime/dark theme. It was an attempt to decieve viewers. It's an integrity issue.

If the time of day was irrelevant, why make that an important (and untrue) aspect of the ad.

And spin it how you want but it's still the integrity, stupid.8/12/2006 12:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|All campaigns make mistakes folks.

The bigger issue here to me is that Giffords is the only one in this race, save for Schacter and Rodriguez obviously, who has a record on education and a GREAT one.

She fought for our universities when they were beening creamed and cut by the right wingers (by the way..did you see that the same crowd is trying to censure university classrooms?). This is what she dealt with and fought for years. I remember she fought for faculty and staff raises when our universities were being bled by Republican cuts.

Giffords has been endorsed by the about every teacher and education group, except the one Weiss eroneously showed up for.

I really can't imagine she knew she was violating the law. Eh...it doesn't matter to me. Giffords has the record on education and has almost every endorsement. We educators know who fought for us.8/12/2006 01:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger UAgoldstein|W|P|Patty's camp is full of unethical moves -- not just this one.

Her campaign aide Andrew Myers lied about his role in the Gov's office. The Weiss press release said this about Andrew when he first came on:

"He left his job as a speechwriter on Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano's communications staff to join the Weiss campaign."

But, the Yellow Sheet in the AZ CAPITOL TIMES reported about a month ago that this guy wasn't a Napolitano speechwriter -- that she didn't have an official speechwriter and that his title was "assistant." Hardly an "ethical" move from the Weiss camp.8/12/2006 02:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Wow...that's pretty freaking amazing. This certainly torpedos any credence that SOME commenter here gave about Myers being "sent" as a defacto endorsement by the Governor. PULLLLLL....EASSSSSSSE!

The Weiss campaign and HER blog squad have nothing but talk and accusations. There is no record for her to run on...there is nothing here but deception and vitriol from her camp...and name recognition.

Well...chock today's story up for some more name recognition. Ted is right...AZYOULIKE it, FEDUP, the ever present ANON, would have ripped Gabby apart for each of these accusations.

They are clearly hoping to try to make a Lieberman out of Giffords...no one is buying it...because it is simply Bullshit!

Waiting for the attacks to turn to me now...cause that is what generally happens.

Still kungfu figthing Xm4r! Doing my little part to not let the bloggo world sink an excellent public servant.8/12/2006 02:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Oh..if we apply your same standards of "dirty liar" Fedup to Patty...then she is a lawbreaker....a criminal.

Both are ridiculous to say.8/12/2006 03:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|The exchange seen above is just the sort of fifth grade silliness one would expect to see in one of those over-resourced Republican primaries in Maricopa County. I thought we were supposed to be better. Fortunately, as far as I know, little or none of what we read here actually comes out of the campaigns.8/12/2006 04:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger UAgoldstein|W|P|Tom--

All it takes is for someone to ask Myers what his job title was, and if the Gov ever expressed to him that she was "sending" him down there as a back-handed way of endorsing Gabby?

And if Myers admits what was reported in the Yellow Sheet -- that he misrepresented himself -- ask how people are supposed to trust what he says as the spokesperson for Patty -- especially when he's been attacking Gabby's ethics?

Asyoulikeit didn't just make up this rumor about the Gov's support of Patty on her own. She got it from someone -- and the smart money is on the suddenly-deceptive Patty spokesperson.8/12/2006 04:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger UAgoldstein|W|P|of endorsing Patty, I meant.8/12/2006 05:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/12/2006 05:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Like azyoulikeit said,

The difference is in how the campaigns responded. Maybe the deception wasn't deliberate from the Giffords campaign, but the ad was misleading, the Star called them on it, and they refused to admit anything was wrong.

Personally I have a problem with that.

The Weiss campaign made an honest mistake, admitted the mistake, and moved on.

And about the Myers thing... especially since there is no one called the "speechwriter" in the Governor's office, shouldn't the question be, "did myers write speeches for the Governor?"

If this answer is true, then it seems to me that the press release is completely accurate.

I'm no expert on political communications, but are speechwriters usually titled "Speechwriter" anyway?

And the first place I saw anything about the rumor that the Governor was pushing Patty behind the scenes was here on Ted's blog, in a post he made long before this press release was ever put out.8/12/2006 06:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Roger, why is the Giffords campaign so afraid she will be "painted as another Lieberman?" Could it be that she is just as bad, if not worse, and the campaign nearly had a heart attack when Lamont won?

If Weiss’ communication's director lied, the campaign should fire him, plain and simple. No, I don't buy that the Governor sent him to the Weiss campaign either. That is just hype. I don't see that he has done anything amazing since he joined her team. The best communication has come from her directly. Giffords and Weiss both suffer from a lack of maturity on their campaigns, which has downgraded the discourse. Latas may only have a bunch of volunteers but they have done a more professional job than the paid staff of the other campaigns IMHO.

Then again, Giffords should be fired as an endorsee of everyone who has supported her for all the numerous lies she has told. Her lies aren't minor, they are biggies. They show her lack of integrity. How do you know when Gifford's lies? When she opens her mouth.

I am convinced her supporters don't really want to take the seat back for the Democrats. There is no other logical explanation of why they would support the most vulnerable candidate.

On a side note regarding production, what is up with that bright pink lipstick on her 3rd ad? The ad was sort of creative and interesting until they go up for that close-up and she has her hair and makeup done like in a pageant. My girlfriend burst out laughing when she saw it. She said it reminded her of the movie Legally Blonde. Was it supposed to be a humorous play or something? We don't get it. That doesn't make sense with the rest of the visuals. They should have gone more natural since that was an environmental ad.

Looking forward to receiving my Latas DVD in the mail.8/12/2006 06:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I think this was Ted's incredibly nice way of saying: Cool it with the nastiness folks.

Ted can be oblique at times and he hates to make people feel bad so maybe a little less rancor? By now we all know the story of XYZ and how ABC's campaign did whatever wrong. Post about the story du jour once, defend it once and then move on.8/12/2006 07:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/12/2006 07:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|So what's Tedski trying to say here? Does he mean if Jeff Latas had done something like this, he would have caught hell?8/12/2006 10:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|zelph,
Note the languaging: "her head on a pike."

Some folks turned sharply negative this week. I for one am pissed.

Tom P,
Anonymity degrades maturity and civility, especially when folks start fighting.

For what it's worth (three more bucks gets you a Whataburger), some of us endeavor to post with same standards as if not anonymous, but how many bad apples does it take?

Want a real treat? Read the threads that follow the online newspaper articles.

Finally, concur that campaigns are probably not involved at this thread, but speculate Latas and slam dunk Weiss campaigns are blogging. Patty posts her own stories and jumps into the comments herself.

Do kingkong or NCC1701 or Tuttle receive Latas direction? Don't know.

Sure, there are Giffords supporters on the blogs, but none receive campaign direction as far as I can tell. Based on his posts (and no offense, Roger, saying nothing bad), Kralmajales has too much emotion to be an operative.

He's a devotee and has told us why.8/12/2006 10:49:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|The article in the Star today about Weiss at the TUSD function was silly and trivial. C.J. Karamargin (sp?) did a much better job of covering local politics when he had that beat. Scarpinato seems more interested in the tabloid-like "scandal du jour" approach. That doesn't require much from him and it doesn't do much to keep voters informed or interested.

I'm sure the Weiss people figured the union that invited them had cleared the matter and that they didn't need to check into it. No scandal or lack of due diligence here by Weiss or her staff. Just another foray into sensationalism by a cub reporter who needs to readjust his sights.

The exact same points can be made about the aticle he wrote dealing with the Giffords ad. She played a key role in preventing the GOP Senate leadership from doing something underhanded. Legislators serving with her and press coverage from that time attest to the wisdom and courage behind her move. Scarpinato took the easy way out in reporting on the ad and set off this rather silly debate over what was (we can all admit, I hope) in the end a victory for DEMOCRATS and the children and seniors whose interests they defended against the callous GOP Senate leadership!

Did the ad condense that complex tale of legislative sleight of hand into a dramatized, simplified tale that could be told in 30 seconds? Sure, it did! Is that "lying" or "corrupt" as others have asserted? Absolutely not and to use incendiary language of that sort is a disservice to the civil discourse that should occur between rivals in a party primary.

Three legislators who were there at the time back Giffords. Another one who was there at the time backs Weiss. All of them were united in common purpose against an unscrupulous foe at the time. Let's hope that's the case for all of us after the September primary.

Giffords is my candidate and I will sing her praises and defend her against unwarranted attacks. However, the minute I allow that calling to serve as an excuse to engage in heavyhanded rhetoric, or to launch personal attacks against others of my party who seek the same office, I dishonor myself, my candidate and my party. If anyone feels I've done that in the past, you have my apologies and my pledge that it won't happen again.

Whether our nominee is Giffords, Weiss, Latas, Rodriguez or Schacter, we need to emerge from this family fight as a strong and united party. We don't need to sound like the folks in the GOP AG primary back in 1998, or tear each other to shreds the way Colette Rosati and Al Melvin are ripping and gouging at two honorable, decent GOP senators in their districts. What I mean by this long rant is that Elizabeth and Tom were right in asserting earlier that we ARE better than this.8/12/2006 11:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Al Melvin is very clearly sticking with the issues in his race against the out-of-step incumbent. He is running a good, solid race focusing on the differences between he and the more liberal Hellon.

http://www.votealmelvin.com/8/13/2006 06:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Dogma|W|P|Tedski,

Very nice! And the Giffords bashers obliged immediately by repeating their worn-out, false accusations and misinformation. But, as I have said before, these folks aren't interested in the truth. They only seek to tear down Giffords hoping to prop up their candidate(s) of choice. Understandable behavior, but totally unethical!8/13/2006 08:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Nice tactic Rex, excuse the Weiss mistake and say "oh, yeah, and Giffords' lying ad was the same mistake". No go. Weiss' campaign certainly could have assumed it had been cleared. Giffords can't plead innocent since it was HER campaign that had total control of the ad and she chose which vote (or lack there of ) to focus on. It was a lie. She did not vote, she didn't stop a vote, it wasn't in the evening or dark out. She has no credibility, end of story.

Besides, CJ sucked as a political reporter choosing to do the most biased reporting I have seen. Same with that Nintzel guy over at the Weekly. Daniel seems to be dishing it out on all sides so at least so far he is the most impartial of the lot. When I see him slam Huffman and Graf, then I will know he is impartial.8/13/2006 08:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|As far as the unity, I will support any Democrat who gets the nomination except Johnson and Giffords.

I support corruption regardless of the Party it comes from and any moral human being would not either. You can't complain about Republicans when your own candidates are just as corrupt.8/13/2006 09:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Fedup,

Your last post was quite instructive. I am not a Weiss fan as many here know, but even I would grit my teeth and vote for her over any of the Republican candidates. I would write her a check. I would pop by the office once in awhile and make a call or two.

While I am not thrilled about her campaign, I can see that it is just a campaign and that any of the Democratic candidates (save Johnson) would be thoroughly preferable to what we have on the Republican side. We need to take back the house.8/13/2006 09:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Fedup,
Somewhere on some thread you asked Latas supporters to give you a reason to vote for Latas. Here's a letter that one of my friends wrote to the Tucson Weekly and I think that it very eloquently states why many of us are supporting Latas:

"I was sorry to see Tucson Weekly follow the money in the CD 8 races—especially after noting Jeff Latas as the candidate “with a lot of great ideas.” As for me, I will follow the candidate with the ideas who also possesses the personal passion to represent our district as an effective citizen legislator. I have had the opportunity to hear all the Democrats and most of the Republicans. I have been impressed by Latas’ knowledge of Pentagon weapons systems, the Iraq occupation and our nation’s failed Middle East and energy policies. We need a strong candidate who is willing to take a tough stand on the most pressing issue facing our nation-- the Iraq occupation that is draining not only the lives of some of our best young leaders, but also diverting other scarce national resources to a failed policy. Latas has a unique ability to understand how so much is tied to our dependence on foreign oil. He has the technical knowledge to serve as a leader who can help us refocus on alternative fuels, which will enable us to redirect resources to universal health care, better education programs and sound environmental policies. I encourage other voters to toss aside politics as usual and vote for the candidate with the great ideas and personal passion to pursue them."

Also, the Latas DVD is informative and very well done, so make sure you see that too.

And, to answer another question posed here, the Latas campaign does not provide direction to any bloggers, as far as I know.8/13/2006 10:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Paper: The Arizona Daily Star
Title: Rios entering Ward 1 race
Date: May 19, 2003

Political Notebook


Democrat Jose Ibarra's bid to retain the Ward 1 Council seat he's held since 1995 gets interesting Thursday, when Armando Rios Jr. officially enters the race.
Rios, the business manager for former UA basketball star Sean Elliott, has set his sights on becoming the first Republican to represent the West Side ward since the early 1970s.

It won't be easy. Ibarra, who announced his intention to seek a third term in March, has a clear registration edge. Ward 1 has more Democrats than any other ward in the city - and it has fewer Republicans than all but one, the South Side's Ward 5.

Then again, that might not make that much difference because council members are elected citywide. Ward 6 is No. 2 on the list of Democrats and Republican Fred Ronstadt has represented that Midtown bastion since 1997.

Ibarra's 1999 contest against former City Councilman Ray Castillo (whose campaign was led by Pam Ronstadt, wife of you-know-who) was distinguished by intense animosity between the candidates. The Ibarra-Rios matchup could slide down the same muddy path.

Rios kicks off his campaign at 10 a.m. at the Steve Daru Club House of the Boys and Girls Club, 1375 E. El Rio Drive.

He told the Arizona Daily Star last week that he plans to run a vigorous campaign.

Ibarra isn't flinching. "I look forward to discussing and debating the issues," he said.


Giffords wins one

Tucson Sen. Gabrielle Giffords sure showed Republicans she had the chutzpah.

As GOP leaders were lining up to ramrod their budget through early last week, they wanted a quick process, starting with introducing bills late Monday.

Giffords, the lone Democrat on the Senate floor, had a simple request. She asked for a quorum of the Senate. The problem was, only one other Democrat and less than a dozen Republicans were in the building. The Senate needs 16 to conduct business when a quorum is called.

After about a half-hour of standing around and trying to figure out if Giffords had stymied them, Republican leaders disbanded for the night.

Gabby 1, Republicans 0.

Republicans tied the score Thursday. Because a day after Giffords' triumph, she bolted to Washington, D.C., for a Democratic Leadership Council conference.

That left a hole in the Senate Appropriations Committee, where Giffords sits. In the discussion on the budget bills, Democrats were outgunned 8-4.

However, one Republican opted to side with the Democrats and another GOPer hadn't been sold on the plan yet. With Giffords in the nation's capital listening to a former president give advice on how to beat the opposition, the liberals fought a losing 6-5 battle on every bill.

Still, Giffords showed how to build an effective speed bump.


Walkup's big week

Mayor Bob Walkup was lucky last week. He got not one, but two not-so-big surprises.

One was from the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, which thinks he's doing a great job. The other was from the Pima County Democratic Party. It doesn't.

The chamber's Committee for Responsive Government endorsed the Republican mayor's quest for a second term, saying he "accomplished some great things for the business community."

The press release announcing the endorsement made no mention of the Democrat in the race, former Mayor Tom Volgy. But unlike the Tucson Police Officers Association, which endorsed Walkup in February, the chamber at least interviewed both candidates.

Volgy is not surprised by the chamber choice. "They've never endorsed me," he said, adding that he's won four citywide races without their blessing.

Democrats, in their press release, criticized Walkup over his recent vote to increase fees for KIDCO, the city's child-care program. Noting that Walkup expressed concerns not long ago to the Legislature about cuts in state child-care programs, Democratic Party Chairman Paul Eckerstrom lambasted Walkup for saying one thing and doing another.


A loyal Tucsonan

Byron Howard is staying in Tucson.

Howard, a top aide to Ward 4 Councilwoman Shirley Scott, has decided against going to work for Gov. Janet Napolitano.

The former director of Pima County Wastewater Management told the Star last week that he has no interest in moving to Phoenix for a gig with the state's Registrar of Contractors Office.

"I'm not a Phoenician," he said.


Richardson is in

And from the better late than never file, Elaine Richardson is working for Napolitano.

Richardson, a veteran state lawmaker from Tucson, was confirmed earlier this month as the commissioner for the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

A onetime commercial real estate broker, Richardson ran unsuccessfully for Congress last year. The Department of Real Estate regulates the real estate profession in Arizona.

Star reporter Barrett Marson contributed to this notebook.

Contact reporter C.J. Karamargin at 573-4243 or at cjkarama@azstarnet.com.

Copyright 2003 The Arizona Daily Star
Author: C.J. Karamargin
Page: B6
Copyright 2003 The Arizona Daily Star8/13/2006 10:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Joel Ireland, Judith Belcher, Chuck Phillips, Jim Toevs, Gary Auerbach, Mort Nelson, Tom Volgy, George Cunningham, Mary Judge Ryan and Eva Bacal all have something in common - they each ran against Jim Kolbe as the Democratic nominee for Congress, from 1986 - 2004 and lost, most of them badly since the Democrat’s had basically given up on reclaiming the seat from a then entrenched incumbent.

That’s history now since Kolbe, either tired or has read the “handwriting on the wall” or “political tea leaves,” is leaving Congress at the end of this year. So a contest for the open seat has ensued, with both political parties nationally, eyeing Arizona’s Congressional District 8 (CD - 8) which covers most of Tucson, Pima County and Southeastern Arizona.

A multitude of people have filed to run as candidates in the Democratic and Republican party primary election that will take place Tuesday, Sept. 12. Some of these individuals could be considered contenders for the position, raising vast sums of money or forming strong, credible campaign organizations while others are just pretenders, enjoying the limelight under the delusion that they will actually succeed Jim Kolbe to represent CD - 8 in January 2007.

One of these individuals first ran for political office, in 2000, for the Arizona House of Representatives for then Legislative District 13 which covered Eastern, Central Tucson North to the Catalina Mountains. In that race, a political rarity had occurred with the state Senate seat, as well as both seats in the state Houses of Representatives were open, resulting in a free-for-all on the local level for the three posts.

When contacting these individuals to see where they stood on issues of concern to Tucson’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, one candidate stood out, actually knowing the two bills before the Arizona Legislature during the session pertaining to HIV/AIDS testing and protecting the rights of LGBT people in the workplace, they knew the bill number, sponsors and stated their position on both, citing information, studies as well as the attempts to enact legislation on the federal level.

This candidate was elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in 2000 and elected to the Arizona Senate in 2002, serving her constituents and people across the state with their knowledge and caring for the betterment of everyone’s lives. Not paying just “lip service,” but taking stances and action (through sponsorship or co-sponsorship of legislation) when needed, especially for the LGBT and HIV/AIDS communities.

From protecting the rights and privacy of those wishing to be tested for HIV; ensuring funding for Arizona’s AIDS Service Organizations; attempting to ensure that medically accurate information is given on HIV/AIDS in the state’s public education system, allowing governmental entities to provide medical and dental benefits to the domestic partners (same or opposite sex) and their families; the creation of a real, right-to-work state, in which all Arizonan’s, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, perceived or otherwise, could earn a living without fear of losing their job because of whom they are; expanding the state’s bias crime’s law to cover misdemeanors; and, preventing the scape-goating for political profit of Arizona’s LGBT community by the Republican majority on worthless “postcards,” this person, Gabrielle Giffords, has stood with Arizona’s LGBT and HIV/AIDS communities, one of the few who did in Arizona’s Legislature and it is time to stand with Giffords during this election year.

Giffords is running for the Democratic nomination for Congress in CD - 8 for which voters will decide their respective party’s nominees in the primary election that will take place Tuesday, Sept. 12. Registered voters have the option of casting their ballots for their choices, by mail or voting before Sept. 12 and will do so for this race, as well as the other contested primary elections for the Democrats and Republicans.

Gabrielle Giffords is this individual’s first choice in the CD - 8 Democratic primary. There are other qualified and honorable candidates running as well for the open seat in the election and if one of them comes out victorious on Sept. 12, this individual is prepared, on Sept. 13, to support them to ensure for the first time, residents of Congressional District 8, especially LGBT residents and those living with or affected by HIV/AIDS have real representation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

It is time that the LGBT and HIV/AIDS communities to take advantage of it and not let their choices slip away.8/13/2006 10:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TucsonMark|W|P|Now after those two posts, questions:

Why should someone vote for their first choice for the CD 8 Democratic nomination?

What position, stance on an issue sold you on that candidate?

Thank you now start blogging!8/13/2006 10:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|TucsonMark,

Longer posts than I have ever made...you win!

As to your questions, I can only refer you to this post I made further up. A snip:

"She [Giffords] fought for our universities when they were beening creamed and cut by the right wingers (by the way..did you see that the same crowd is trying to censure university classrooms?). This is what she dealt with and fought for years. I remember she fought for faculty and staff raises when our universities were being bled by Republican cuts."

Supporters of other candidates call her corrupt and argue that there should be a "newcomer" to stir things up.

As you mention her support for the HIV/AIDS community, I note her support for education. Change should only come if it is really really needed...like with Lieberman. Democrats should not toss their excellent leaders who have delivered, into the fire in favor of the "new"...they should go with the proven.8/13/2006 10:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Liza-

The Latas DVD is very well done. Got my copy yesterday in the mail and popped it in the DVD player this morning. It is also a clever strategy that I predict will be copied by others this year and in the future. Kudos to him for thinking of it.

Another novel approach has been taken by Lena Saradnik in LD26, where she is the only Democrat seeking an Arizona House seat. She sent people who signed her petitions and/or gave her contributions a thank you post card that had a bumper sticker adhered to the back. You just peel it off and slap it on your car. The audience she targeted are people likely to display it, too. Good one, Lena!

On Latas, I heard him on Emil Franzi's show yesterday afternoon. Franzi asked him why the Dems were shunning Bill Johnson. Latas, to my surprise, said that he thought Johnson SHOULD have been invited to the Nucleus Club debate and that Johnson had "a few liberal ideas."

I was proud of Latas for stating at the Nucleus Club that he would not support Johnson if he were the nominee. He also clearly made it sound like he was glad Johnson hadn't been ivited to sit on the dais that night. Why the change yesterday on the radio? Latas was right the FIRST time when he said that all Dems of conscience SHOULD shun Johnson!

Fedup, you have marginalized yourself by calling a fellow Democrat "corrupt" when you have no viable evidence to back up that serious charge. Throwing a charge around continually without evidence to back it up is a smear tactic that Americans have encountered before in our history. It is beneath contempt and it won't work with Giffords mostly because there are people in this community like tucsonmark who know her REAL record and can speak to her integrity, values and achievements.8/13/2006 11:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Wow Rex, you and I are agreeing more and more lately.

Calling Gabby corrupt is smear politics of the worst kind.

Has she cast important votes that I find very questionable, such as the Walmart/AHCCCS vote? Yes, absolutely.

Has she missed key votes, like all the Appropriations votes on the Senate budget in 2003? Yes, of course she has.

Does she have misleading television commercials? You may call them "hollywooded" but yes, they were misleading.

For these and other reasons, I am not supporting Gabby, but rather Patty, whom I believe is very bright, articulate, and holds herself to a very high standard of integrity. I trust Patty, I know exactly where she stands on the isses, and I believe she will fight very hard for Progressive values and stick to her guns in Washington.

On the point of knowing where she stands, Weiss is one of the few candidates to fill out the Project Vote Smart survey. Some of the questions are difficult to answer if you like to tailor your message to your crowd and tell them what they want to hear. But Patty Weiss is not that kind of candidate and she answered the questions.

That's something that Huffman, Graf, and Giffords CAN'T say. And Vote Smart is none too pleased. Look at the page that pops up when you try to see Gabby's survey. It's the same page for Graf and Huffman, too. (Please copy and paste, I don't know how to do links... Sorry!)

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=MAZ926768/13/2006 11:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger CD8Dem|W|P|Gabby has no credibility nor integrity.8/13/2006 11:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Rex and others,

The hits keep coming on Giffords and Weiss herself did so over on DailyKos in her Diary on the race...about the ad. AZYOULIKEIT is carrying the torch like a good soldier too.

Zona Dem,

It is unfortunate for you that THAT is all you got. A few obscure committee votes and a hollywooded ad? But, it is your choice to vote for who you like and I hope that you will support Giffords if she wins on Sept. 12.

While some of you go over to http://vote-smart.com and look up Gabrielle do stop and take a look at the ratings from groups that have and do support her. Take a look at her ratings and then ask yourself about whether they are miscontruing who she is and her record.

Finally, as you know the Tucson Weekly endorsed Giffords over all the other candidates...on the record.

Http://www.tucsonweekly.com8/13/2006 11:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Roger,

All of these things had been said before, I'm not trying to be mean-spirited. Someone asked why I'm supporting my candidate, and that was my answer.

And let's be serious, the committee votes were not obscure. They were among the most important votes of that legislative session. The lion's share of the GOP budget passed out of committee 6-5 while Gabby was absent and out of town at a DLC function.

Rex and I have gone around and around on this at another blog, and I think while we -- I believe this is true, correct me, Rex, if I'm wrong -- agree on the main factual points of the situation, it is open to interpretation whether her action "blocked" the GOP budget.

There were many other factors at work at the time beyond a simple quorum call motion.

My main question on that ad is why, in her five years of legislative experience that she has to draw on, did Gabby choose this one instance? One that was so complicated that she felt compelled to spice it up with details that were less than factual? That is the part I do not understand.

Why did she not focus on key legislation that she sponsored? Ted Downing in LD28 is. And he was in the same minority as Giffords.

The Tucson Weekly made their choice and I respect it. Their reasons are less than stellar though. "She's the one we know the best."

Now, a lot of that is that she has a proven legislative record. That certainly is a strength of her candidacy.

However, I just wish they would have taken the time to acquint themselves with the other candidates. Perhaps they would have found one they liked more.

Perhaps even one who took the time and the risk to fill out the detailed Project Vote Smart survey.

Hope everyone is enjoying their Sunday!8/13/2006 12:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|ZonaDem,

Am enjoying my Sunday and hope you are too. Getting out of the house soon.

A few things since you brought them up...

The Tucson Weekly endorsement wasn't just because she is the one they know. It is because she is the one they know with a real record of achievements for her district. She really has done a LOT of good her in Tucson and her record was stellar. I see the few instances that some here bring up as the few instances in any difficult career like politics where things go wrong, mistakes are made, or that really there was a lot more to it and it is hard to explain.

I just don't know if there are similar instances in Weiss' career and I don't know that she would be as effective as a proven, tested, legislator.

I do agree that Giffords' campaign needs to do a better job of reminding voters of her real record and all that she has done in S. Arizona as a legislator. More testimonials like mine and TucsonMarks. In the end, that is what matters.

Last, on integrity, I am seeing less and less of it from Weiss. All I have to go on with her is what she says, how she says it, and how she has behaved in this camapaign.

Attacks are normal in campaigns, but it doesn't mean I have to respect it. It is also a little shallow coming from someone who has really never done anything on the issues that she is espousing. Can we believer her? Maybe...I don't know.8/13/2006 12:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|Rex,

Jeff Latas never stated that "he would not support Johnson if he were the nominee." All the other candidates said they would support WHOEVER the Democratic nominee was (even if it were Johnson). I was proud of Jeff Latas at Nucleus, too, because he was the only one to point out the hypocrisy of being asked to support the Democratic nominee by a club that had not even invited all the candidates to speak.

You are also mistaken if you think that Jeff Latas "clearly made it sound like he was glad Johnson hadn't been ivited to sit on the dais that night."

Here's what he actually said:

"There is one individual that is not up here tonight that will be on the ballot. Now I heard he was not invited. That’s what I heard in the press. I hope that wasn’t the case. I hope he was invited to come here. I don’t know who Bill Johnson is. I don’t know very many people here that do know Bill Johnson. I find it hard to actually give my full endorsement at this time to someone I haven’t even met and that I haven’t had the opportunity to debate with. It’s very tough to actually make that blanket decision to endorse anybody at any time when you don’t know that person. So there is a caveat to my endorsement. My endorsement will always be for a Democrat who’s willing to carry the Democratic values forward to the American people, values that we have forgotten about because the Republicans have hijacked our Congress. I will back the Democrat, but I want Democrat values to be installed into our Congress."

You can see for yourself here:


or here:


He did not change yesterday on the radio. A month later, he's had the chance to meet Bill Johnson and hear his views. Jeff Latas never said that "all Dems of conscience SHOULD shun Johnson!"

He said at both Nucleus and on the Franzi show that he thought Johnson SHOULD have been invited to the Nucleus Club. On the Franzi show yesterday, after having met Johnson and after having attended several forums with him in the past month, that Johnson had "a few liberal ideas."

In fact, he does. Johnson supports withdrawl from Iraq, universal healthcare, and corporate regulation, stances that are to the left of all the Republican candidates. Johnson does, however, seem to think that illegal immigration is the cause of all our problems and wants to deport all illegal immigrants. At least he'll have the support of Giffords and at least four others if he wins the primary. Jeff Latas has not yet said whether or not he'll support Johnson, that I know of.8/13/2006 01:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|Oops, Rex, I forgot to mention that by your logic, you have marginalized yourself by suggesting that a fellow Democrat should be shunned.8/13/2006 01:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Rex Scott,
Regrettably, I didn't attend the Nucleus Club forum and I haven't heard Latas on the radio. I'm sure that none of the candidates would support Johnson, but its a moot point, because he won't win. Election fraud is not yet that advanced in our part of the country. It sounds as though Franzi was trying to get Jeff to go negative so that he could spice up the interview.

I would just say that I really think that all that happened here is that the Giffords campaign aired a TV ad that is marginal at best and it backfired. I can understand why Scarpinato latched onto this because he's a young reporter trying to break stories, get promotions and raises, and he apparently thought he had something. However, I've got to say that what I found to be the MOST DISTURBING thing in all of this was the Weiss campaign's reaction especially the Patty Weiss post on DailyKos. The tone of her post and her own comments that followed were just so totally self-righteous and arrogant. If I had been someone who was considering voting for Weiss, that post by itself would have made up my mind not to. That's my honest opinion.8/13/2006 01:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Blue in Az,
Didn't see your comments before I posted. Thanks for clearing up what Jeff has said about Johnson with actual quotations.8/13/2006 04:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Are we calling Johnson a "fellow Democrat???" That's like saying that Lyndon LaRouche was a kindred spirit when he had a "D" after his name! That's like saying we can excuse the racist politics of Lester Maddox and Theodore Bilbo because they were Democrats!

Blue in AZ was right to correct me. I certainly recalled Latas' words from the Nucleus Club debate inaccurately. However, the words he cited also implied that he would not support Johnson if he won the nomination.

While it was hardly a defining moment by any means, I didn't think that Latas needed to find something nice to say about Johnson while on the Franzi show. Johnson is a xenophobe who minimizes the deaths occurring weekly in our deserts. For all I know, he is not only a Minuteman apologist, but also a GOP Trojan horse. None of us need to feel that we have to say anything nice about him.8/13/2006 05:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|FYI--Patty is not the only candidate who has filled out the Project VoteSmart issue stance section. Jeff Latas, Francine Schacter and Bill (?) Johnson have also done so and it's up on the Project VoteSmart website.

HOWEVER, Project VoteSmart indicated that Gabrielle Giffords and Alex Rodriguez twice have "refused" to fill out/submit answers to their questionnaire. Project VoteSmart's questionnaire is not full of tendentious/loaded questions, such as "Do you support repealing of the 'death tax'" (for the estate tax). It has questions covering a large number of diverse issues and DOES allow for you to enter your own answer if you don't agree with one of their multiple choice offerings--so you're not locked in.

Oh--and of course Huffman also "refused" to fill out/submit the questionnaire. He's a no show in many regards.


If you actually go to the "issue" portion of the CD 8 Democratic candidates' websites, you'll see that Jeff provides stances on the largest number and diversity of issues. I admire that he is willing to be open and put in writing his stances on so many issues, particularly controversial issues.

For this reason and many others, I'm a LATAS supporter.8/13/2006 05:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|Rex,

Like it or not, Johnson qualified as a Democrat for the ballot. He is just as much a "fellow Democrat" as GG.

Saying that Johnson has some "liberal ideas" does not qualify as saying something nice about him on the Franzi show.8/13/2006 06:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Johnson isn't any less a Democrat than Giffords. Afterall, she changed her registration to run in a race for the first time too. By that logic, we should all be shunning Giffords.

Well, actually, I am!8/14/2006 12:00:00 AM|W|P|Blogger CD8Dem|W|P|Gabby has no credibility nor integrity.

I WILL NOT be voting for her if she survives the September Primary.8/14/2006 03:42:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|cd8dem:

Most long time readers of Ted's blog already know what I'm going to say in response to you, but here it is anyway:

I live in CD 1. I have no horse in the CD 8 race, other than understanding that it is one of the fifteen seats that Democrats need to take in order to control the house.

In 2002, we had an open district in CD 1 (which is 43-35% Democratic in voter registration). After a hard fought multi-candidate primary, the nominee was a surprise winner, a guy named George Cordova. The Republicans nominated Rick Renzi, a Virginian who had moved to Arizona only to run for the seat.


And that is WHY there are fifteen (rather than fourteen) seats that Democrats have to win to take back the house. I did not work for or vote for George Cordova in the primary. I did vote for George Cordova in the general election, but I did not work hard for him then. Neither did a lot of Democrats up here. I regret it every day I realize who is now my 'representative' (he still lives with his family in Virginia pretty much all the time-- the house he owns in Flagstaff is more of a campaign headquarters.)

We are probably stuck with Richmond Rickey (who incidentally made the list of the 13 most corrupt congressmen) for the foreseeable future (and something that really disturbs me at that is that this year, because it is a Democratic year, we probably have the best chance we are likely to have any time soon of taking him out, and I still see Democrats saying they won't support a particular candidate if nominated; I don't plan to vote for that person in the primary but I will support the nominee, whoever it is, in the general.)

No matter what you may think of a nominee, consider this then: If Republicans retain the house, then Denny Hastert is still speaker. Two more years of a rubber stamp Congress that will do as the President wants and give him his agenda on everything from Iraq to the budget. If Democrats gain fifteen seats, then Nancy Pelosi sets the agenda and George W. Bush will have to do something he has not had to do as President of the United States-- sit down with Democratic leaders in Congress and negotiate instead of getting his way all the time.

What if Democrats get less than fourteen seats? How may less will still be huge-- if it's very close then they may still be able to form a coalition on some issues with the handful of Republican moderates who remain in Congress-- at least forcing Bush to negotiate a little (the hard right just kicked another one out last week in Michigan in a primary). And if Democrats get more than fifteen seats? Every seat they get will strengthen the speaker's hand.

So, whatever problems you may have with a particular candidate in the primary, they are petty and trivial compared to the big picture and the high stakes we are faced with.8/14/2006 07:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Eli brings up a very important point -- I'm backing Patty because I truly believe that she has the best ideas and the absolute best shot at winning the seat for the Democrats in November.

If I were to rank the candidates in order of "ability to beat the republicans in the general election," it would look something like:

1. Patty
2. Jeff
3. Gabby
4. A-rod
5. Francine
6. (nah, I won't even include him)

I realize that Gabby's supporters don't like seeing their candidate crticized during the primary, but it's not like the Republicans are planning to handle the nominee with kid gloves come September 13.

It's far better to get all the dirt out there and in the open as early as possible. If there's any dirt on Patty or Jeff (and I doubt there is at this point), it should be on the table now.

The criticism that's been leveled against Gabby is not personal or capricious -- it pertains to her job performance as a lawmaker and credibility as a candidate. That's certainly fair game in an election, and the voters need to hear it.

All that said, taking back the house should be all of our #1 priority, and should Gabby win in September, I'll send her a check the next day.8/14/2006 08:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|The Tucson Citizen endorses Gabrielle Giffords for Congress citing her experience and overall fit to the district.


As I mentioned, also check out the Tucson Weekly's endorsement at

Have a great day folks.8/14/2006 05:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|well put, eli.

it seems that history is repeating itself in cd1 again this year, what with all the personal attacks and general mudslinging going around up there.

here's hoping that doesn't happen in cd8.8/15/2006 04:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger KR|W|P|I hope you'll all be able to attend the Young Democrats of Arizona CD-8 Straw Poll. Basically we are holding an election before the election to see which campaign has the most support. Buy a ticket, get into the event, and cast your ballot for your favorite candidate. Should be a pretty good time.

August 19, 3pm
University of Arizona Student Union

Contact David Martinez for more info: dm3_az@msn.com8/16/2006 03:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Ben R|W|P|New Giffords Poll is in the Field.

Unfortunately its a push poll. She has hired people to call CD 8 voters and lie about Patty. They are attempting to spread misinformation about Patty's stances on healthcare with threats of a tax hike to pay for it. They are also trying to trash Patty's family. They said her husband is in the pocket of big pharm, and she will be soon as well.

These Rovian attacks (a la the McCain trashing in 2000) are the sign of a desparate campaign that knows its going down. Questioning a public record is fine, personal attacks, innuendos, rumors and straight up lies about a candidate and their family are WRONG.

This is a despicable way for a fellow Democrat to act in the primary, and I'm disgusted by it.

These dirty campaign tactics are a disgrace. Gabby ought to be ashamed.8/16/2006 03:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I don't know the veracity of what you say or where it is coming from Ben R...but if true it is poetic justice for this supporter....after the kind of crap that has come out of the Weiss campaign about Giffords.

You all have insinuated that she is bought and paid by special interests, insinuated bought and paid by Walmart, insinuated that she was a turncoat Democrat at about every function of yours, and all based on flimsy flimsy evidence.

Since you like to point out facts...it is a FACT that some of Patty's largest donations come from Pharmacy ties of her husband and insurance ties from them. She tries to play it off, but after the attacks made on Giffords I would say it is more than fair game.... As to the health plan and raising taxes...take a look hard at what she says on her website.

I honestly know nothing of a push poll from the Giffords camp. How do you know it is the Giffords camp and not another? Whether it is coming from the Giffords camp or not...I would say this...

Enjoy being attacked for a change...some of us know how it feels...and some of us know where it began.8/16/2006 04:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I should mention while I am here that the Arizona Republic just endorsed Gabrielle Giffords.

Add that to the Tucson Citizen and the Tucson Weekly.

Not sure what the Star will do, as they rarely march in lockstep with the Citizen, but 3 out of 4 wouldn't be bad. It is certainly great in a baseball series!8/16/2006 04:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Please forgive me, most of this post is a cut and paste from TDP. This whole situation makes me so angry that I don't want to type out another response.

I simply can't believe that this is what this Democratic primary has come to.

Roger, now I know why you're not a Democrat. Democrats would never tolerate these types of tactics. Not on their own candidates. Tough campaigning when you challenge someone in the open and to their face is one thing. Push polling is something completely different. Giffords is running a cowardly campaign. They are an embarassment to the Party.

Push polling is a dispicable campaign tactic designed to circumvent federal election law. They want to circulate negative messages -- blatantly false negative messages -- without having to indentify who is paying for the "poll."

Polling firms do not have to disclose who their funders are because it would corrupt the data, so the Giffords campaign is diguising a blatant smear campaign as a poll to circumvent the system.

Honestly, this makes me sick. I have gotten this call myself, and I'm rethinking whether I will support Giffords in the general.

An OPEN, HONEST debate on the issues, even the tough ones, is fine. But hiding behind push polling is dirty politics of the worst kind.

The Giffords campaign should be ashamed.

And I'm shocked that anyone on this blog would support such a practice. I have disagreed with many of you, but I have respected you all along. If you endorse this kind of campaigning... you're no better than the worst of the Republicans.

Also, I guess this puts to rest whether the Giffords campaign thinks they are ahead. I've never heard of a winning campaign doing push polling before. But then again I've never heard of a Democratic campaign doing it either.

I still can't believe this... it's just like Bush/McCain in 2000.

I don't even know what else to say...8/16/2006 04:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Zona Dem:

I will admit that I was quite quick to speak after what Ben r. posted. I am not a fan of negative campaigning at all. In the open or not, but when it comes and comes and comes from one camp...er...YOURS...and now any attack back bothers you. Well...sorry...I don't feel for you. As to this being in the open or not...it appears as in the open as Weiss and her supporters attacking the other candidates at their own events (as is chronicled by Ted at the launch of Weiss' ads...and as friends have told me who have heard her speak at Weiss events). Plus, Ben r. appeared to hear of this pretty fast and post it.

I have heard that Weiss "tested" issues in her poll in June. Curious what else was in THAT poll.

Again, my haste in posting is that you all have been at this attacking a long long time. I don't know if what Ben R. says is even true OR if it even came from the Giffords camp. Guess we will find out.

In the meantime, don't try to dress up anything as out of bounds after some of you have called other Democrats LIARS and completely distorted facts to win your candidate points.8/16/2006 04:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger 'Zona Dem|W|P|Roger,

Here is the difference between "testing" issues and push polling. The only reason I know this is because I studied polling when I was in college. This was a while back, before push polling was en vogue, but you get the idea.

When you test negatives in a poll, you as a question such as,

"If you learned that a candidate blah blah blah would that affect whether you would vote for him or her."

You don't name names. Because you've probably identified who the voter is supporting higher up in the poll and you wouldn't want your measurement of the impact of the message tainted by the individual's personal feelings about the candidate.

In a push poll however, you most definitely name names. This is of course because you want the voter to be left with the impression that the target, in this case Weiss, is a horrible human being.

The worst part of this poll was their attacks on her husband, who last I checked, was not running for Congress.

So there's your difference.

Still makes me sick and angry. I think I'll probably stick around a while to hear some responses.

I don't normally post this much, but I can't believe how awful this is.

This is what the Democratic Party is coming to. Unbelieveable....8/16/2006 05:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Zona Dem:

First, are you sure you have your facts straight? That it was a push poll and it came from the Giffords camp?

Second, why would this be any different than you coming on here...anonymously...and doing the exact same thing for months?

Third, why is it any different than Patty going to a house party or her opening event for her adds and carrying a similar distorted message to voters?

So...I am left with this...you are angry because Giffords campaign might have push polled when you have been anonymously aiming the very same kind of rhetoric here on the blogs.8/16/2006 05:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|In fact, I want to elaborate on the third point in my post above. I met a voter with a Weiss sticker on her business. I know her and I said hey and what up with the sticker? We started talking and she started telling me how Giffords was bought out by the special interests and she was impressed with how Patty had said it when she met her at a house party.

I was like...where did you get that?

I am not aware of Giffords trashing her opponents at HER events when she meets new voters. I am not aware of HER mentioning her opponents by name as she tries to get support. When she talks to voters, she generally talks about her record and her ideas.

How is that any less of an outrage than a push poll as an attack?8/16/2006 05:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|One more...for the road...

I am hearing from people I trust that this push poll did not come from the Giffords camp and that there is not a push poll by them in the field.

RNC maybe? Testing voters on candidates for the fall? Or independents? Or just mucking with us?

I still do think though that it is rich coming from you guys.8/16/2006 06:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Zelph|W|P|Gabby is on with Sam Seder on Air America right now. Sounds very impressive.8/17/2006 05:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Ok- can I please clear something up here? This was not a push poll, this was a POLL. You don't run 20 minute push polls for two reasons 1)It's too expensive- I mean a 20 minute poll is like 25k; 2)The entire point of a push poll is you dont care about information- you ask three or four NASTY questions then get off the phone. Please for the love of god, don't accuse people who are polling arguments against candidates (that is what they are doing) of push polling because you don't want to hear arguments against your candidate.

Oh and by the way, I not only don't work for anyone in CD8 I don't LIVE in CD8- you know for the conspiracy nuts out there.8/10/2006 10:58:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Al-Quaeda felt emboldened by the defeat of in Tuesday's primary, so that's why they chose this week to plan an attack. Well, I don't actually believe that. I figured I wanted to say that because it will be said soon enough by some administration apologist on CNN or Fox. Oh yeah, and remember: if there are no terrorist attacks, it's because of the President's wonderful leadership. If there are attacks, then we shouldn't send the wrong message by challenging the President's leadership. Got it?|W|P|115527623365041713|W|P|One More Note on the Connecticut Primary|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/10/2006 11:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Ted,

I am glad to see that you have figured out how it works. Glad to have you on board. It is so much easier when you get with the program and stop resisting.8/10/2006 07:45:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|That , God bless him. He just keeps giving me and snide people like me material. This is from the candidate profile he submitted to the Arizona Republic:
Polls show that Americans are dissatisfied with the performance of the President and of Congress. Are you pleased or displeased with the performance of your political party's leaders in Washington? On some issues I have been displeased, on others pleased. For example, I was strongly displeased with House leadership and strongly critical of them when they tried to change the rules to protect one of their own from ethical scrutiny (I was eventually victorious). On the other hand, I am pleased that they have been very receptive to many of my requests on behalf of my constituents, which has allowed me to come through on many important projects for Arizona. I would also point out that opinion polls show that Americans are just as negative toward Democrats and they are Republicans. I can understand why many Americans have a negative view of Washington. I have a negative view of Washington. But I also have a positive view of America and its people, and I trust Arizona voters to do the right thing in November. There will be plenty of negative attacks this election season, and they are smart enough to see through the nonsense. They know I will always put them first. I am honored to serve them in Washington and I ask for their vote.
Sounds great. Then again, I think Fantastic Four comics are great too. You know what? They don't have much to do with reality. Maybe Hayworth has been spending too much time reading through old copies of the Dearborn Independent to remember his actual record on ethics issues. For example, even though he now says he was "strongly critical" about the rules change to protect (a name he wisely neglects to mention), Hayworth voted for the rule change, and only changed his mind two weeks later when he and other members reversed the vote after public pressure. Hayworth was also part of a later effort to allow indicted members to retain leadership posts, another effort to protect Delay's authority. He backed down, but admitted that it was because the ensuing storm would have detracted from the rest of the Republican agenda. Throughout this whole period, Hayworth had made numerous public appearances defending Delay, but never once was he ever "strongly critical." Well, at least until now.|W|P|115522325972391818|W|P|J. D. Hayworth: Our Newest Ethics Maven!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/10/2006 08:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Did we forget about Giffords ad debacle so quickly?8/10/2006 08:36:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Oh, I forgot...I'm only supposed to write about Giffords. So sorry.8/10/2006 08:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|There will be plenty of negative attacks this election season, and they are smart enough to see through the nonsense.

Well he would know about negative attacks, wouldn't he?

I also believe that CD5 voters are smart enough to see through the "don't steal this sign harry" nonsense.8/10/2006 08:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Im still surprised that he is doing as well as he is in that district, what with Delay and Ney and...and...and...

Will he be the next pin to fall?8/10/2006 11:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|The last independent poll showed him only five points up and if I remember correctly at 50%. That's not that good.8/10/2006 01:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|50% is a bad sign for JD, when you consider that he is an incumbent in a district where his party has a 16% registration advantage.

Kinda makes me wonder what his campaign is doing with trying to hit Harry Mitchell on ethics, when the advantage on that issue belongs to Mitchell, in a walkover.

Better yet, (for the Mitchell campaign, anyway) ethics is a non-partisan issue. NOBODY likes corrupt elected officials; not Democrats; not Independents; not even Republicans.

Keep spouting off on ethics, JD. Everytime you do, Mitchell gets more supporters.8/10/2006 02:45:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Good point, cpmaz. JD has lost his mind.

On another topic,


The Capitol Times is reporting that the CCEC has dropped charges against Munsil and is moving Arizona forward (sorry, couldn't help it) on a complaint against Janet.

I can't get past the lede on that web site, though. Anybody got additional info on this???8/10/2006 03:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I have heard someone is tagging the "please don't" signs and removing the don't and Harry from them with spray paint or something. Although why would anyone want one of those ugly things is beyond me so I doubt it will work.

JD is an incumbent in an anti-incumbent year, he is a rubber stamper for Bush when Bush's ratings are dropping all over the place, and he still supports the Iraq war while also being one of the top people to force the elderly into a shoddy and unworkable perscription drug plan. Does he really think that he is going to win against a well funded and liked guy like Harry Mitchell?8/10/2006 03:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Hey Elizabeth-

I heard that J. D. out raised the last poor soul that ran against bim 277 to 1. Have you heard anything about that?8/10/2006 05:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|If the CD 5 race is so close how come the press and pollsters are nowhere to be found?

I have not seen a poll on the district in over a month. They usually start circling in when they smell blood.8/10/2006 07:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|I also think it's been a long time since a desperately needed poll. But nationwide polling is good news for Mitchell with 48% of Americans saying they will vote for a Democrat in their district. And then the Republicans come in at 30%.8/10/2006 07:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Ted, I heard about that but Roz O'Connell had $123,941 so I have no idea what they are talking about.8/11/2006 12:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Lofty Donkey|W|P|http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/11/145128/8048/10/2006 07:20:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Apparently, Bill Montgomery is right: Terry Goddard is horrible for law enforcement. He's so gawdawful, that four major law enforcement organizations endorsed him this week: The Arizona State Fraternal Order of Police, The Arizona Police Association, The Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs and the Arizona Corrections Peace Officers Association. All in all, these groups, who are often in conflict in organizing battles, represent about 16,000 law enforcement officials in Arizona. I guess Montgomery will have to send out a press release saying that none of these people know what they are talking about.|W|P|115522076070982550|W|P|Terry Tallies Tributes|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/10/2006 08:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|nah, it'll be more like

"Those union bosses don't represent the rank and file. I've talked to officers all across the state (Maricopa and Pinal) and they are tired of blah, blah, blah..."

Wake me when it's time for Terry's champagne toast.8/10/2006 09:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Ruben|W|P|In addition Ted, check this out. The Executive Director of the Arizona Polica Association sent Terry a letter thanking him for attending an event.

“Since taking office, you have been there when we needed you, and you’ve been in the corner of rank-and-file officers on every issue.”

You can read the entire letter here8/10/2006 10:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Ted,

Does this mean you are now a supporter of George Bush since FOP endorsed him in both 2000 and 2004?8/10/2006 10:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Naw, because I am a partisan hack.8/10/2006 10:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I guess you are not the only one.

http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=122#respond8/10/2006 11:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Yeah, but Terry IS terrible for law enforcement! He goes after the lawbreakers and puts them in a position where they can no longer break the law. My gosh, with fewer repeat offenders, what will the poor cops do?8/09/2006 06:23:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Well, everyone seems to want a response to the Patty Weiss press release that was printed in the Star this morning. A fella from the Weiss campaign called me a few days ago confused that Gabrielle Giffords would even suggest that she could delay a vote with a quorum call, since no bill can pass out of the senate without sixteen votes. That is on final read, bills go through three reads. My brother summed it up best with his response to an earlier post:
The Star's story was not so much a "gotcha" as it was a display of some ignorance about the legislative process. Late night "first readings" to a near empty chamber are a means that the majority often uses to "expedite the process", in other words, to limit debate and stiffle public scrutiny. With more space, I could go into great detail about the State Constitution's requirements for three readings, and the rules and traditions of the legislature. Suffice it to say, a procedural motion like a quorum call can delay this process, sometimes even forcing an issue to fester in the open over a weekend. That's what Senator Giffords did. In other words, the ad is hardly a "total fabrication". At worst, it is an over-simplification of an arcane process that the Star does not fully understand. None of us can expect a 30 second ad to explain all this. Making a quorum call like this, incidentally, takes a bit of courage. Gumming up the works is not something that goes unpunishedby the majority leadership.
He was able to pull a similar stunt to block a bill on cable television regulation last session. Unfortunately, they brought the bill back this year. (By the way, the charge that one person threw out that Tom is part of some Giffords spin machine is absolutely ridiculous. They don't run with the same crowd in Phoenix, and he certainly isn't as close to her as I am. Just because Tom and I look alike, doesn't mean we have the same friends.) Over at Espresso Pundit, he's saying that he can't find the articles refered to in the article. I guess he is trying to imply that the articles don't actually exist. A friend tracked both of them down and sent me copies, they don't seem to be posted anywhere. One article was an AP article entitled "Dems Delay Introduction of GOP Budget Bills" by Paul Davenport, dated May 12, 2003:
A Democratic senator whose party was left out of budget talks used a procedural tactic to delay formal introduction of Republican legislative leaders' latest plan. The GOP leaders had planned to introduce their multi-bill package during brief evening floor sessions of the House and Senate, but the attempt was thwarted when Sen. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Tucson, made a motion that triggered a requirement that a majority of the Senate be in attendance.
The other article is quoted in the ad to describe the bill; it is a Republic article entitled "Budget Foe Set to Head to Australia; Trip May Stall Plan for Weeks" by Patterson's favorite reporters Robbie Sherwood and Chip Scutari on May 20th. The article in question was about Sen. Linda Binder, who also opposed the same budget bill:
But she said Monday that her more conservative colleagues are out of touch with most of Arizona in their zeal to cut early-childhood education grants, funding for community health centers and long-term care for the elderly. She also reportedly demanded that the Legislature pass key non-budget bills, including proposals to build university research labs and to expand Phoenix Civic Plaza.
And by the way, Giffords, legislative Democrats and the Governor, along with moderate Republicans like Binder and Slade Mead were able to put up enough road blocks to force a comprimise on the budget.|W|P|115517524706904483|W|P|A Bit of a Response|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/09/2006 07:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Eh...most of the commenters here won't want to hear what you say Ted. Unfortunately, they are too busy calling Giffords a liar, a DINO, and using any shred they can from this to boost Weiss as a savior like Lamont and to paint Giffords as a Lieberman.

They are too busy frolicking in the poorly written story of right-wing reporter Scarpinato (Check out his stories and opinion pieces less than three years ago when he was on staff at the Arizona Daily Wildcat).

I don't get the impression from the way he spun his story today that he has changed much as a journalist since his days as a Daily Wildcat Reporter...three years later.8/09/2006 07:39:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Ben R|W|P|So what you're saying is that the Daily Star (and remember whatever biases you say this writer has, the article still had to be approved by an editor) made up the story about Giffords leaving town to go to the DLC deal in Washington and missed these votes?

Simple questions: Did she skip town and miss the appropriations committee meeting or was she there?

Did she succeed in delaying the vote from Wednesday May 14 (when she wasn't there) until Thursday May 15 (when she wasn't there)?

Was it not still daylight when this all went down making her ad overly dramatic and a bit phony?

Answer those questions, and if I am wrong I will admit it. (But you and I both know I'm not).8/09/2006 07:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger lbcska99|W|P|I think our attention should be turned elsewhere.

I wanted to make a comment about the Arizona writer who penned the piece about Gabrielle Giffords and her new ad. The author is a graduate from Arizona and is a former Arizona Wildcat writer. He was a member of the college republicans and wrote very conservative articles which never failed to attack the left in his op/eds for the Wildcat (Google Daniel Scarpinato and Arizona Wildcat to read some of his former articles). He was constantly criticized by the student body for his one sided articles.

Now the political writer for the Arizona 08 race for the Arizona Daily Star, I wonder if we can trust him as a political reporter for this race? I do not think he did a very good job reporting the whole story (Giffords quorum call, technically not a vote, did delay the bills so the Republicans could not be put the bills in the budget. There is a reason why those bills are not law now) and has given Patty Weiss an unbelievable headline to use in attack ads and may have sunk the Giffords campaign. I have not chosen sides in this race (both are good candidates), but I do not trust this reporter covering this race. I would not be surprised if he has many friends (former arizona college republicans. The reporter is a recent grad) in the campaigns of the Republicans who are vying for this seat. I don’t know if he wrote this article or if it was slipped to him by his republican friends, but I know one thing. There is no way he should be the reporter for the general. He already sank one democrat’s campaign who says he won’t do the same thing during the general?8/09/2006 07:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger lbcska99|W|P|I think our attention should be turned elsewhere.

I wanted to make a comment about the Arizona writer who penned the piece about Gabrielle Giffords and her new ad. The author is a graduate from Arizona and is a former Arizona Wildcat writer. He was a member of the college republicans and wrote very conservative articles which never failed to attack the left in his op/eds for the Wildcat (Google Daniel Scarpinato and Arizona Daily Wildcat to read some of his former articles). He was constantly criticized by the student body for his one sided articles, and often never contacted the opposing view/group.

Now the political writer for the Arizona 08 race for the Arizona Daily Star, I wonder if we can trust him as a political reporter for this race? I do not think he did a very good job reporting the whole story (Giffords quorum call, technically not a vote, did delay the bills so the Republicans could not be put the bills in the budget. There is a reason why those bills are not law now) and has given Patty Weiss an unbelievable headline to use in attack ads and may have sunk the Giffords campaign. I have not chosen sides in this race (both are good candidates), but I do not trust this reporter covering this race. I would not be surprised if he has many friends (former arizona college republicans. The reporter is a recent grad) in the campaigns of the Republicans who are vying for this seat. I don’t know if he wrote this article or if it was slipped to him by his republican friends, but I know one thing; There is no way he should be the reporter for the general election. He already sank one democrat’s campaign who says he won’t do the same thing during the general?8/09/2006 07:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger lbcska99|W|P|I think our attention should be turned elsewhere.

I wanted to make a comment about the Arizona writer who penned the piece about Gabrielle Giffords and her new ad. The author is a graduate from Arizona and is a former Arizona Wildcat writer. He was a member of the college republicans and wrote very conservative articles which never failed to attack the left in his op/eds for the Wildcat (Google Daniel Scarpinato and Arizona Daily Wildcat to read some of his former articles). He was constantly criticized by the student body for his one sided articles, and often never contacted the opposing view/group.

Now the political writer for the Arizona 08 race for the Arizona Daily Star, I wonder if we can trust him as a political reporter for this race? I do not think he did a very good job reporting the whole story (Giffords quorum call, technically not a vote, did delay the bills so the Republicans could not be put the bills in the budget. There is a reason why those bills are not law now) and has given Patty Weiss an unbelievable headline to use in attack ads and may have sunk the Giffords campaign. I have not chosen sides in this race (both are good candidates), but I do not trust this reporter covering this race. I would not be surprised if he has many friends (former arizona college republicans. The reporter is a recent grad) in the campaigns of the Republicans who are vying for this seat. I don’t know if he wrote this article or if it was slipped to him by his republican friends, but I know one thing; There is no way he should be the reporter for the general election. He already sank one democrat’s campaign who says he won’t do the same thing during the general?8/09/2006 08:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Calm down, Roger.

It's ok. Have a margarita or three and if you think for a moment, of course this blogosphere is going to go positively apeshit when a piece like this hits the paper. The fedup's and anon's lit up like Xmas trees plugged into 220V sockets.

Time will tell, but the article and the Weiss press release scream of incest, and this does not bode well for Scarpinato or the Weiss campaign as hindsight and insight increase with time, inquiry, and analysis.

It's only been fourteen hours or so. Let's see what folks are saying about Giffords, Weiss, and Scarpinato in a week.

Also remember what I heard about republican efforts to derail Giffords and promote Weiss.8/09/2006 08:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Answer it simply:



Was she at the appropriations committee meeting or was she in DC?

She was too busy sucking up to the DLC in DC (and kissing Lieberman's rear.)

She did not stop a VOTE.
Again - She did not stop a vote.

Gabrielle Giffords has no credibility.

Gabrielle Giffords has no integrity.

Gabrielle Giffords does not deserve our vote nor our respect.8/09/2006 08:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Even if this is a Republican effort to derail Gabrielle Giffords, the fact remains. She misled voters in her advertisement.

1. There was no vote
2. It was not late at night
3. She did not care for children like her ad states. If she did, she would have not been in DC kissing up to the DLC when she could have been working in the appropriations comit.8/09/2006 08:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Posted my last comment before seeing lbcska99's remark.

However valid, it just reinforces the point I am making.8/09/2006 08:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger lbcska99|W|P|I just found the author of the negative article on Giffords facebook profile and of course like a good republican quotes george will and richard nixon...

"Civilization depends on, and civility often requires, the willingness to say, 'What you are doing is none of my business' and 'What I am doing is none of your business.' But this is an age when being an offended busybody is considered evidence of advanced thinking and an exquisite sensibility."
-George Will

"Always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember: Others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win, unless you hate them. And then, you destroy yourself."
-Richard Nixon Speech to the assembled White House staff before final departure, August 9, 1974

I really do not trust this writer to have an unbiased view while writing about politics. I think his youth also plays a factor.8/09/2006 09:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|So the ad's premise is factual and Scarpinato's implication throughout his story was poor journalism....and was a distortion of fact to give a little "O'Reilly" sting. I guess I should have expected more professionalism from our major newspaper. Instead, we have a 25 year old, right wing Republican, out to make a name for himself. Well maybe he can do it at the National Review or as a columnist on Fox News.

One phone call...one phone call to get the other side of the story. He could have then quibbled about the time of day if that is an issue or whether she missed a vote on a bill that was never to pass because she killed the first reading of it anyway.

Instead, he set up the context of a blatant lie and in a print source that is not a rumor column, or a blog, or a gossip column, but is a source that people look for to find facts.

It is shoddy journalism and this is going to be hard to undo...especially with the oportunistic "stinger" machine that the Weiss campaign has turn into.

His story is a distortion...the worst we could say about Giffords' ad was that it was Hollywooded a little...and if it had said that like most stories of this type do about 30 second spots then it would not have been irresponsible and it would not have had this kind of effect.

Some of you would have moaned anyway, but it would not have had the force of headline implying that the ad was a lie...and her service was a lie too.8/09/2006 10:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Ben R|W|P|I thought that Giffords skipped town for four days after her heroics, and missed the committee meeting where they voted on and presumably discussed/negotiated aspects of the budget bill.

Am I wrong? Note that the Giffords crowd hasn't really responded to this question.

Also, Kral, the ad's premise is not factual. She says she blocked a vote. She did not block a vote. The ad makes it out like Republicans were going to sneak in in the middle of the night and pass a bad bill after Dems had gone home.

In fact they were going to INTRODUCE and not VOTE ON or PASS any legislation.

And if Giffords cared so much about it, why didn't she bother to show up the rest of the week?

Also, Giffords is the one who brought the whole issue up. She bragged about her quorum, thereby leaving herself open to further scrutiny and criticism. Neither Weiss, Latas nor the apparently now far right-wing Daily Star brought the issue up. They simply commented on what still appears to be a fairly dishonest, or at least greatly exaggerated ad.8/09/2006 10:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Kral,
(repost from azstar)
Is this Gabby's spin? Discredit the author? Shessssh... she sounds alot of George W Bush and Karl Rove. Punish the media when they air things you dont like. You guys are getting desperate. It is almost hilarious! I do not trust Gabby, a life long REPUBLICAN before she decided she wanted to be a democrat.

The fact remains Kral and you can not deny it (nor can gabby)

There was NO VOTE she blocked... in fact she MISSED THE VOTE because she was too busy sucking up to the DLC.8/09/2006 11:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|No one seemed to complain when the author gave Giffords' the extra press or the paper in general?

Tsk, tsk, more hypocrisy at work.

If one reporter can sink Giffords' campaign while the bulk at AZ Star, Citizen and Weekly have been falling all over her...then she doesn't have much of a campaign, does she?8/10/2006 12:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Let's just summarize the the Giffords campaign:

"I say XYZ...and I did UVW..."
"But what I mean to say, the premise, the spirit of it, my intention was...ABC..."

That about covers it.

No one ever said she wasn't a good politician. She could give Delay, Rove, and her favorite Faux news a run for their money.

Just not a good public servant.

You are correct though, it is unfair to compare her to Lieberman. When he spins, he is so much more inept at it. She is just a better liar I guess. More experience with it maybe?

I am blogged out tonight. Will have to wait until the next Giffords' scandal breaks and her spin on this one will really be a hoot.8/10/2006 12:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|x4mr, couldn't resist a last post.

I lit up like a Christmas tree?

Yes, that is partly true because I couldn't f@C#ing believe it! Giffords' level of deceit even astounds me at this point.

Don't worry about voters outside the blogs finding out. I am sure Latas and Weiss campaigns will make sure of it.

I can just see that mailer...

Giffords hung by her own noose. LMAO right now. This day will live in infamy.

Maybe I will have to revise my prediction on the primary. It might even go to Latas.

Latas and Weiss supporters, convince me why I should support your candidate. Convince me and your candidate will get a decent donation and maybe some serious volunteer work the last two weeks of the campaign. That is your mission should you choose to accept it.8/10/2006 12:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Let's go back and review the statements in the ad, claim by claim.

"Nightime. Sometimes politicians think it's the right time to do the wrong things."

This would imply the ad is about things that happened at night. That's false. Everything that ad references happened in broad daylight.

"Like when they tried to sneak through cuts to care for seniors and kick thousands off health care."

Well, the bill got its first reading, just like all bills do. Was the timing of the bill sneaky? Possibly, so we'll be generous and say this sentence is true.

"I blocked that late-night vote."

Well, now we're in trouble. There was no late night vote to block. There could not have been a late night vote.

Let's repeat that: It was not late at night. There was no vote. That claim is 100% false. No one from Gabby's campaign or blog squad has ever disputed that this claim of the ad is totally untrue.

"...forced budget talks out in the open to protect our families."

Out in the open -- you mean the Appropriations Committee? OK, but how could Gabby protect our families when she's hobnobbing with the DLC instead of actually blocking a vote!? This one is definitely false.

"I'm Gabrielle Giffords."

True! She scores accuracy points here.

"I approve this message because Washington's been keeping us in the dark for too long, and change can't wait."

There we go with the "dark" thing again. Not so accurate for stuff that happened an hour before sunset.

I'll agree with her that change can't wait -- but how is a politician who lies and exaggerates to the voters an agent of change?

Sounds like more of the same to me.

Gabby's folks can try and spin this into a process story and conspiracy theory -- but that won't make the ad suddenly become accurate.

The issue of credibility isn't going to go away. Until she denounces this ad and apologizes for trying to pull a fast one on the people of District 8, this ad will dog Gabby everywhere she goes.8/10/2006 01:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger lbcska99|W|P|I am not trying to defend Giffords. Like I said before I am undecided on who to vote for. I will, and correct me if I am wrong, say that Giffords ad should have used different wording. She did use parliamentary procedures to ruin the republican plan, but was it a "vote"? No. Did the republicans try to pass this by at a late hour? Yes, but it was not uncommon to vote on legislation after 6pm.

I will reiterate that my main problem with this story is that the reporter is a hard core republican. I really believe that the net roots needs to get this guy off of the coverage of this race. He probably just sank the stronger (as republicans have it) candidate in this race. What is going to stop him from using his position to bolster the republican candidate? The opinion piece from today should have been the original story. (http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/141436)
Without "fair and balanced" news coverage this close race could eaisly end up in republican hands.8/10/2006 05:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|The idea that there's a Republican cabal working to derail the Gifford's campaign via a right-wing writer for the Star is laughable. Gabby is a GOPer at heart and the right-wingers should be happy to have her if she wins in Sept, which I think is unlikely to say the least.

Let's not even talk about the specifics of the ad. Look at the big picture here and it's easy to see what happened: GG obviously felt the need to tout herself as a true-blue Demo. So, she searched high and low for an example, and she decided to embellish this weak example to make her case. Probably because there was no other.

At best, it shows poor judgement. At BEST. If the best she can do is puff up a procedural move as her real Demo credentials, then I'm sorry, but there are other folks to consider in this primary. And now GG has given them all a reason to do just that. Integrity folks, integrity.

Somebody here's already talking about attack ads from Weiss. I don't think her camp has the dough to be quite honest. And she'll be better off just continuing to air the two spots she unveiled the other day and stay above all this. She could come out of it smelling like a rose while GG's only move now is to blame the messenger and lash out.

GG apologists can look for all the excuses they want, but this is really only GG's fault.8/10/2006 06:43:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Giffords has nothing to apologize for as far as those of us who closely followed the 2003 budget battle can attest. Linda Binder's vote was critical to defeating the budget. She was headed off to Australia to attend to some family business. The GOP Senate leadership tried to concoct a scheme that would have brought the budget up for a vote WHILE BINDER WAS ABSENT and as a result, the budget would have passed.

What Giffords did was BLOCK the first step in the GOP leadership's plan. One of her Democratic colleagues, Senator Bill Brotherton, is quoted in the Star this morning and calls her move "gutsy." Those of us who work in the public schools and knew what was in the Republican budget would call it a blessing.

This is what the Giffords ad is about in essence. Telling a complicated story in a compelling way in 30 seconds was the challenge. There are no "lies," as some of the anti-Giffords hysterics who have posted above keep asserting. The Star article was poorly researched by a cub reporter who didn't dig deep enough for the whole story.

Some of the folks who have jumped all over Giffords in the past two days hope that this is the end of her campaign. Wishful thinking, folks. No other Democrat has the broadbased support, resources or ability to win in November, including a desperate Patty Weiss who couldn't wait to seize this story like a life preserver for her foundering efforts. Your name-calling and distortions fall on deaf ears as more and more voters like what they hear from Giffords. The endorsement from The Weekly (which I guess some of you will now label a DLC tool, along with that well-known rightist, Raul Grijalva) neatly summarizes the reasons why Giffords is the obvious choice for Democrats who wantt to win AND who want someone with integrity representing them in DC.8/10/2006 06:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Tooblue4u,

You, anonymous, and host of others in the Weiss and Latas camp have done very little but to distort Giffords real record, which is laid out quite nicely in this Week's front page endorsement by the Tucson Weekly (www.tucsonweekly.com).

There is an opinion piece in the Star today that backtracks big-time from the premise of Scarpinato's article yesterday. After the damage is done from their headline and implication that she is a liar, they warn campaigns to be a little careful. The things that they and Ben R. point out, and take advantage of the Hollywooding of the ad...which all candidates do.

Again, Scarpinato could have called the campaign to the other side. They could have devoted more space to explaining the issue.

As they backtrack while chastising the Hollywooding of the ad, they are essentially guilty of doing the same thing they chastize the candidates for. The story yesterday distorted the facts, they didn't fact check enough, and they wrote this thing up in a short short story, gave it a "zinger" headline, and made it sound like a big lie, when it wasn't.

You can take umbrage with the time of day or that she took off for a DLC meeting, but that did not make the ad untrue or its premise untrue...as more eloquent people have said.8/10/2006 07:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|To address some issues ...

Post 6 pm is certainly evening hours and late hours for the legislature to be working. The ad doesn't say "it was pitch dark outside". It implies it was unusually late - which it was.

Speaking of which, the Legislature's own manual on how a bill is turned into law mentions the first reading of bills is traditionally the first business of the day, which goes to show the R's were trying something a wee bit underhanded and knew it.

Azyoulike it claims the bill "got it's first reading." I believe this is factually incorrect, that the point of Gifford's call for a quorum was to delay the official first reading of the bill.

The question as to whether Giffords was or was not present for the final vote tally is irrelevant. She had done her homework, and knew by delaying the actual vote by one day (which is the effect her quorum call had) the votes to pass the bill would not be present (the R's were aware of the math too, which is why they were trying to slip the first reading by unnoticed). In fact, that is what occurred.

Had the first reading gone as planned the vote would have been held a day earlier, the votes needed to pass it would still have been in Phoenix, and the bill would (most likely) have passed.

Newspaper articles and activisits at the time clearly credited Giffords' actions with being responsible for the budget not being passed and the budget bill being reworked at a later date.8/10/2006 07:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Regarding Scarpinato, I don't care whether he was a Republican in college and still is or not, I find that irrelevant as long as his behavior meets professional standards.

What does concern me is the rapid timing of the Weiss press-release. It certainly raises the question as to whether the Weiss campaign was tipped in advance as to the article's contents, and if so that would amount to journalistic malfeasance.8/10/2006 08:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Ben R|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/10/2006 08:30:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|I feel just so incredibly objective here because I decided to vote for Jeff Latas last January and nothing has changed my mind.

So, I think that the Gifford's TV ad was an attempt to show that Giffords is a brave and experienced legislator which would differentiate her from Weiss and Latas. The problem is that the legislative process is esoteric and the significance of Gifford's "quorum call" that has now been challenged in the "Star" is lost on at least 99% of the electorate. The TV ad should have been about legislation, if any exists, that she has initiated and spearheaded through the legislative process. In the absence of such an accomplishment, the TV ads should stear clear of trying to promote her legislative skills because, as I said, the process is just too estoric. Instead, the TV ads should stay focused on her values, her beliefs, and what she intends to do for her constituents if elected. This is a great deal more important.

Her mailers could then include the highlights of her legislative career, and I believe that would be sufficient to make the point. The Giffords brochure that I received in the mail yesterday devotes an equal amount of space to her being a native Arizonan, her running the El Campo tire business, and her legislative accomplishments. I think its time to lose the El Campo story because most people really don't care. Again, at this point in the campaign, her message needs to be about what she believes in and what she's going to fight for in the House of Representatives. Her current mailer is focused on health care, education, and the needs of "working families." This is all good, but she needs a broader spectrum of issues.8/10/2006 08:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|"I blocked that late-night vote."

That sentence is a lie. It's beyond half-true, or almost-true, or feels-kinda-true-in-the-big-picture-sense.

It's totally false. I dare you to say otherwise.

She could have said "I blocked that late-afternoon reading of the bill, or "I once prevented a pre-dusk reading of a bill." That would have been accurate, but bad television.

"I blocked that late-night vote" is a lie, and she needs to stop claiming it on television.8/10/2006 08:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I agree with you Liza...

Weiss has a lot of name recognition and didn't have to be introduced to the rest of the district. The campaign appeared to start with the introduction. I would be quite quite surprised if you don't here about her record over and over from here out.

Her clear advantage over the other candidates is the experience and the record. The best anyone has been able to do to shatter that is the nitpicks over committee votes. No need to play into that hand...just need to stress over and over what the Tucson Weekly says in its front page endorsement of her candidacy...record...record...record.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com8/10/2006 08:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|You guys slay me!

Was it not still daylight when this all went down making her ad overly dramatic and a bit phony?

Yeah and I'll bet there weren't any crickets chirping either!!

Gabrielle Giffords has no credibility,

...said the dude called "anonymous."


Liza, good points. way to stay above the hysteria.8/10/2006 09:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Someone like Ted or Tom or anyone with actual legislative experience, please correct me if I am wrong.

According to the Senate rules, section 15, it appears use of the Electronic Roll Call system is conflated with a vote.

The relevant sub-heading reads:

A. In all cases where a rule of the Senate refers to "roll call", "roll call vote" or "recorded vote", such reference shall be understood to refer also to the taking of the vote by an electronic roll call system.

In calling for a quorum, you ask for a roll call to see if a majority of elected Senators are there. Usage of the Electronic system basically asks Senators to vote as to whether they are present or not. If a majority vote Aye, they are present. Apparently a majority did not vote "Aye", and thus no quorum existed.8/10/2006 09:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|Bloggers:
Argue among yourselves if you like, but several legislators have stepped forward to state categorically that Gabrielle Giffords told the truth, and her parliamentary manuver played a critical role in the fight to get the right-wing neanderthals in Phoenix to give a few more pennies to education, victims of domestic violence and a few other left-wing causes like taking care of children and sick people.
Don't take my word for it. Don't take the Star's word for it. List to people like Tom Prezelski, Slade Mead and Bill Brotherton. All of them were in the Legislature at the time, and all of them say Gabrielle Giffords played an important role - and she paid a price by having some of her bills killed in retailiation by the Republicans.
Them's the facts.8/10/2006 09:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Yes, here's more of the official line from the apologists -- Gabby did a lot of good, even if the ad isn't correct.

Sonoran Sam -- is the sentence "I blocked that late-night vote" the truth?

Someone please answer that question!

Gabby's camp has resorted to claiming the ad is merely "truthy" rather than actually true.

This candidate (and, it appears, her hangers-on) now have a serious problem with acknowledging the truth.8/10/2006 10:08:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|If it is true an Electronic Roll Call is a vote (and I don't know that it is, although the Senate Rules appear to read that way), then she did, indeed, block a vote to have the first reading of the bill that night.8/10/2006 10:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Well, Scarpinato did what he did, and the Star found it necessary to follow up.

The blogging Giffonators, all twelve of them, whipped into a frenzy by the taste of blood, have had their orgy and crucifixion fest, making hay of Roger's blood pressure.

Can already feel the dust settling, and Scarpinato is left looking amateurish for overshooting the mark and unprofessional for not soliciting comments from the other side.

Damage to the Giffords campaign?

Haven't a clue.8/10/2006 11:09:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|Here's Gifford's response as quoted in the Star's follow up to the Scarpinato article:

"I absolutely stand by it," she said. "What I was attempting to show was that I'm willing to take risks and stand up for the people. I took a lot of heat for what I did, but it was the right thing to do."

Unbelievable. The Giffords handlers think that by standing by this ad and showing it over and over it will prove they are right.
TERRIBLE MISTAKE. The ad is TAINTED. They need to get rid of it ASAP, move on and do something else. What do they accomplish by fighting over this ad? If they keep it on the air and "stand by it" they are just showing rigid adherence to something that has failed. That is a bad quality for a politician (or anyone else.) If they pull it now, it's forgotten by almost everyone.8/10/2006 11:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger lbcska99|W|P|Can Democrats trust Daniel Scarpinato? He is a young recent college grad who was (is?) highly partisan. He smelt blood and instead of doing fact checking, or explaining the big picture, or calling any campaign, or talking to other state senators, he went right after the credibility of a Democratic candidate (the ones republicans are more worried about in the general) and straight up called her a liar. He has damaged Giffords campaign and has given plenty of ammo for her opponents for the primary and the general. Who says he won’t do this kind of "reporting" to Weiss or Giffords again? I am sure he would do plenty of fact checking for any Republican candidate and wouldn’t use that kind of title for a story. Daniel Scarpinato needs to be removed from reporting on any political race for the Daily Star, so any Democrat can have a chance in the general. In a race as close as this is going to be, one headline might be enough to lose a campaign.

P.S. Whichever consultant told Giffords this ad was a good idea should be fired. Though this ad is not a lie...it stretches the truth quite a bit.8/10/2006 12:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|In answer to a question posed my way: by calling for quorum, when none existed, she blocked consideration of a bad budget.

As noted by others, she did this knowing that the Republicans would lose Linda Binder's vote.

Check Robert's Rules. I won't claim to be an expert in the arcane aspects of rules. But my understanding is that she stopped a vote that would have allowed them to read the budget into the record. Bottom line: She acted to stop the Republicans from acting after everyone had left the Legislature that day. Whether the sun was up at the time is a silly splitting of hairs.
As for whether she missed some appropriations committee hearings, the relevant point is that she blocked that budget from coming up. As her colleagues (Tom Prezelski, Linda Lopez, Slade Mead and Bill Brotherton) have stated, this forced the Republicans to come up with a more reasonable budget plan.8/10/2006 01:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|X4mr...

I completely appreciate your concern for my mental state, the amount of my drinking, and my blood pressure. I'm really quite a level headed once you get to know me.

Gosh, I keep going away, but what would my "fans" do without me?8/10/2006 01:23:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|Oh yeah, the Tucson Weekly's endorsement packed real punch: "The candidates are real close on the issues so we'll go with the one we know best."

Gee, all the "right" people back her, so we'll add our voice to theirs.


Hell, I like that paper, so you won't hear me crying about who they endorsed. I'm expecting that they'll have a little more to say on the race between now and election day.8/10/2006 01:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|No, the TW endorsement didn't say "Gosh, all the right people know her" ... it said "We at the paper know her best".

As in "We know what her positions are, we know what she's done, and we like it. Weiss and Latas may have similar positions, but frankly we don't know jack-*$&% about them. They talk a good game, but for all we know they are closet wingnuts."

I figured if you could put words in their mouth, I could too.8/10/2006 02:55:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Liza,

Appreciate your sentiments. If you read what you quoted carefully, you will see that she is standing by something she truly did accomplish and has, in my opinion, sufficient testimony from credible and appropriate folks.

However, that said, I agree with you that the ad now has noise, regardless of any of our opinions. There is noise because it was not yet dark. Who cares? Well, fact is some do. There is noise because the act involved rules and procedures and maneuvers that leave room for bitching about "I blocked that vote."

The fact is she did, but folks want to tear into mechanics and commit semanticide.

Will the noise continue if ad keeps running? Haven't a clue, but if I were running the campaign, I would do what they have done so far, move on to ad #3, and keep campaigning.

Appreciate your concern for my concern, but I am not concerned. I'm sure you are fine, but your proloficity and commitment to your cause are inspiring. Can't resist poking fun here or there.

If they ever make a KungFuBlogging film, there you would be in the center surrounded by a horde of seething Giffonators.8/09/2006 01:28:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|
On Tuesday, the message sent by Connecticut voters was loud and clear. They want change, and they want Ned Lamont to represent them in the U.S. Senate, voting for Ned by a 52% - 48% margin over in the Democratic primary. You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party. Indeed, Connecticut Democrats recognized all of this, and yesterday they chose Ned Lamont as their nominee for the U.S. Senate. Now, I hope you'll join me in supporting Ned as he heads into the general election this November. Stand with Connecticut Democrats. Send a message to Joe Lieberman to end his Independent campaign for CT Senate. As a Democrat, I respect the will of the Connecticut Democratic voters and their decision to make Ned Lamont their nominee. Even before the election results came in on Tuesday, Ned Lamont showed his respect for the voters by committing to abide by the Democratic primary result and support whoever won. Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, began collecting petition signatures to run as an Independent several weeks ago while concurrently running in the Democratic primary. In short, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Despite his efforts to appear on the November ballot as an Independent, I held out hope that Joe would withdraw from the Connecticut Senate race after the primary votes were counted. Unfortunately, Joe has announced his candidacy as an Independent candidate, running against Ned, the Democratic nominee. Today, I ask you to email Joe Lieberman. Urge him to respect the will of Connecticut Democrats and end his Independent candidacy for CT Senate. In 2000, the presence of a third party candidate, Ralph Nader, no doubt played a role in the defeat of Vice President Gore and Joe Lieberman. Now Joe Lieberman is risking our party's claim on his Senate seat by running as a third party candidate himself. Recent news reports detail the GOP's interest in supporting such an effort. It's time to draw a line. I committed myself to supporting the Democratic nominee for the US Senate in Connecticut, and I ask you to do likewise. Because too much is at stake with our troubles abroad and at home, we cannot play games this Election Day. That's why I call on all loyal Democrats to join me in urging Senator Lieberman to drop his bid for the Senate as an Independent and endorse the duly nominated Democrat. We should thank him for his service and invite him to stay active, or even run again someday, but as a party we cannot let Joe Lieberman be this year's Ralph Nader. Email Joe Lieberman. Encourage him to do the right thing, withdraw from the Connecticut Senate race, and focus his efforts on electing Democrats across America. The 2006 elections represent a real crossroads for America. We must unify our efforts to stop George Bush's radical agenda and end this one-party government. I hope Senator Lieberman will join us in this critical fight for our nation's future. Sincerely, Wes Clark
|W|P|115515557396147783|W|P|Wes Clark on Ned Lamont|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/09/2006 02:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Liza|W|P|I'll be more than glad to send email to Leiberman for all the good it will do. But, I'll do it for Wes, because he asked. I sent email to Ralph Nader asking him not to run in 2004 but he did it anyhow. And, I truly believe that if every Democrat in the nation emailed Leiberman, he would still run, because his macro-ego will not allow him to give up.

We need term limits, folks. This Job For Life gig has got to go. There aren't that many multi-millionaires around who can take on these problematic Senators and Representatives who won't go away.

Term limits is the answer. Sure, you might lose a couple of good legislators, but just look at the upside. This is the way to save democracy, I'm convinced of it.8/09/2006 02:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Yeah, that's great. I'm sure there are 20 more Dems writing letters just like that.

Let's get back to AZ, shall we? This press release from the GOPpers made me laugh. When will the pettiness end?

http://www.azgop.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=16428/09/2006 03:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Holy F@#$!!!

Has Giffords lost her mind?

Have all her supporters?

No getting around this one.

Your candidate is CORRUPT to the core.
She must be scrambling to do damage control.

She needs to be taken out just like Lieberman. Weiss looks like the Lamont of this race so you all are making my decision a lot easier now.

And Roger, with all your hypocrisy I suggest you take a look at Giffords' and Huffman's FEC reports. Diamond has donated to Giffords and Finley has donated to Huffman. Turns out your candidate is getting it from all sides, and unlike Weiss, voting for legistlation to help the very people she is getting $$$ from.

I think Graf has more integrity than Giffords and he is bordline insane.8/09/2006 05:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Squib aka TwistedOreo|W|P|Outstanding.8/09/2006 05:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Giffords has neither credibility nor integrity. She lied, she cheated her constituents in LD28, and her supporters are brainwashed fools who can't see the light of day.

Funny how the campaign has been absolutely QUIET on this issue. The only thing she mentions is the citizen endorsed her. Whopdie freakin doo. An afternoon paper that has very low readership.8/09/2006 05:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Amazing...I didn't even write about Gabby, and y'all posted about her anyway.

I hope you have a good plan where you work, you need to get that checked.8/09/2006 06:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|That is a nice statement from Wesley Clark...my query is: Does this mean Lieberman is now a Independent?

I have to ask Thana about this.8/09/2006 07:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|No hypocrisy at all anon...Weiss has been the one attacking Giffords as special interest bought and paid and had held herself out as a purist. She can't claim she is free of interests, bash others for it, and then take money from Don Diamond himself.

OH...Don Diamond and his wife are not on Giffords FEC report. It appears that a family member did give her $250 or something. Diamond Ventures is Weiss' #7 ranked supporters in donations.

It ain't no different that attacks and distortions you have been making of Giffords.

Maybe she did take money from Diamond because he hired her back in 1974...maybe she took it because she really needed the money...

Maybe he gave it because he wanted influence...which she apparently decries Giffords for...quite hypocritically.8/09/2006 08:22:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Stoping trying to change the subject Kralmajles:

Answer it simply:



Was she at the appropriations committee meeting or was she in DC?

She was too busy sucking up to the DLC in DC (and kissing Lieberman's rear.)

She did not stop a VOTE.
Again - She did not stop a vote.

Gabrielle Giffords has no credibility.

Gabrielle Giffords has no integrity.

Gabrielle Giffords does not deserve our vote nor our respect.

By the way go to Patty's website. She answers the Diamond question. She does not hide from the hard questions unlike your Gabby baby.8/09/2006 07:37:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I wanted to write more about yesterday's Connecticut primary, but Ned Lamont's campaign took down my website...the bastards! My understanding is that today is the day that Jeff Latas's campaign "pulls the rabbit out of the hat." Hmm...any guesses as to what that is?|W|P|115513452007538994|W|P|Today is the Day!|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/09/2006 07:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Is it the video on his site?8/09/2006 07:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|He was planning to out Gabby's latest TV spot as a total fabrication... but the Star beat him to it.8/09/2006 07:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I would like to see a response by campaign on this one. The story looks more like a hit piece than journalism. Don't reporters normally ask for comment or the other side of the story before printing?8/09/2006 08:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Sorry to disturb your spin-meistering there...but he has been talking up a big suprise for weeks...long before he would have seen the ad.8/09/2006 08:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Kralmajales,

This is not a hit piece. This is mere Fact-Checking. Something you and the Campaign need to do more of. I praise the Star for showing me gabrielle's true colors. I see nothing wrong with this piece. It is FACT not fabrication (like the ad in question.) Nothing hit pieceish about it.8/09/2006 08:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|There is no need to talk to the campaign. All the facts can be found here: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/

Why would the Star want to give Gabby a chance to spin it? What happened to freedom of the press? KRAMAJALES - ARE YOU AGAINST THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? MUST THEY GET GABBY's PERMISSION? IS THIS WHAT GABBY STANDS FOR?8/09/2006 09:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Sorry tedski -- I should've put a smiley on my first comment. That was supposed to be humor. :-)8/09/2006 09:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|The Star's story was not so much a "gotcha" as it was a display of some ignorance about the legislative process.

Late night "first readings" to a near empty chamber are a means that the majority often uses to "expedite the process", in other words, to limit debate and stiffle public scrutiny. With more space, I could go into great detail about the State Constitution's requirements for three readings, and the rules and traditions of the legislature. Suffice it to say, a procedural motion like a quorum call can delay this process, sometimes even forcing an issue to fester in the open over a weekend. That's what Senator Giffords did.

In other words, the ad is hardly a "total fabrication". At worst, it is an over-simplification of an arcane process that the Star does not fully understand. None of us can expect a 30 second ad to explain all this.

Making a quorum call like this, incidentally, takes a bit of courage. Gumming up the works is not something that goes unpunished
by the majority leadership.8/09/2006 09:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Anon:

I am not against the freedom of the press moron! It is courtesy and common in journalism to not only check the facts you dig, but to confront the other side with your new found findings. You get all sides of the story and then you print the facts.

I see no indication in this story that the Star did this. If they did check with the campaign, they certainly did not print the comment.

The freedom of the press is enormously important, but responsible journalists don't tell one side of the story without checking into the others side.

It makes journalism look a bit like an ad. You print some facts in a short article when the whole story takes a bit longer to report. As State Legislator Tom Prezelski notes.8/09/2006 09:52:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Tom is just part of the Gabby Spin machine nothing more nothing less.


You kramajales are against the freedoms the press is given plain and simple. Don't deny it. Why do you want the press to get a spin/opinion when they got all the facts?8/09/2006 09:54:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|“You get all sides of the story and then print the facts.”

Roger, that’s not what newspapers do. If you what the different angles of a story where the facts eventually come out you need to turn to a blog.8/09/2006 10:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Anonymous please sell your freedom of the press crap somewhere else.

There are so many outlets these days for news and opinions it’s not funny. By participating in blogging kramajales is showing his support for freedom of opinion and expression. You are the one trying to shout down someone who does not agree with you.

The press has all the facts. Give me a break. Bloggers have show the press to be wrong multiple times. No one ever has all the facts but blogging exists to get as many of them out as possible and to allow differing voices to participate. Too bad your participation is not based more on specifics and evidence.

BTW Tom is a sitting legislator and identifies himself by name. I trust that a lot more than you snide comments about “spin” or even some “journalist” at the Star.8/09/2006 10:05:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Tom: Too bad Gabby wasn't around to watch the issue fester over the weekend.

She had better things to do than show up at the committee for which she was the tying vote!

Why let a little DLC meeting get in the way of doing the job you're elected to do?8/09/2006 10:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|Gabby's ad lies.

End of story.8/09/2006 10:09:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|The full blown facts will come out and hopefully soon.

The more I think about this article, the more it bothers me.

Let's face it, Scarpinato is flat out calling Giffords a liar front and center on the front page of the local section. Of course reporters don't have time to contact god and everybody before printing something, but an article like this warrants soliciting a comment from the party affected. Re-reading the thing reinforces my sense that this is indeed a hit piece, not unbiased reporting.

I find it interesting that he contacted the US Naval Observatory for information but apparently not the Giffords campaign.8/09/2006 10:38:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|I am surprised to find out that I am a member of the "Gabby Spin Machine." There must be a pile of unclaimed paychecks somewhere with my name on them. Next time I will use direct deposit.

"Anonymous" is a mighty funny name, by the way.8/09/2006 11:07:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|People it is not all about how liberal you can be. Damn, most of the people who voted for Clinton in district 8 are more conservitive Democrats. It is not all about how liberal you are in this district, and I suggest that you all get off of the Wal-Mart thing. I know that it is bad, but most people in the rest of district 8 would not mind having a Wal-Mart at least it means a job. It may not be the best job, but is is better than living on welfare the rest of your life. I suggest that you all get the hell out of Tucson once in a while and visit the rest of the district. Most of the Democrats out their don't like your type of elitist liberalism.8/09/2006 11:15:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|x4mr, at least now we know why he talked to the naval observatory.

Gabby's little "dark of night" stunt actually happened at 6:28 in the evening... a full 50 minutes before the sun went down.

I guess once you're running an ad based on a false premise, why should you bother including any accurate information at all?8/09/2006 02:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|I apologize for what will be a lengthy post....

The Star doesn't understand the legislative process. Their editors have consistently failed to cover the Legislature - even though it is the layer of government that affects your life the most - more so than even Congress. They rely on Howie Fischer, a smart but cynical guy, but his cynicism sometimes causes him to be a little subjective. Frankly, while his byline does not appear on this item, it looks and smells like his research and his opinion.

I also know a little about this issue, because i was involved in some legislative matters at this point in my life. The vote in question was an important issue. The Republican leadership was looking to fast-track a bad budget. Gabrielle used a procedural maneuver - calling for a quorum when in fact everyone had gone home - to stop the Republican leadership from bringing up this bad budget for a quick vote.
As a result of this step, the forces of moderation (a coalition of Ds and some Rs who were forced out of office because of these votes) were able to stall the process and force the leadership to accept a budget that marginally increased funding for education and reduced some of the bad business that the Rs were trying to stick in there.
Gabrielle is not perfect, and I wish she hadn't missed certain votes.
But she did use her legislative knowledge to stop a bad budget bill, and as Tom Prezelski has already noted, it cost her in the form of bad will from the Republican leaders.
Kralmajales is right. Good reporting would have required the Star to contact the Giffords campaign to seek out their side before they printed this "fact check."
Confession: I'm a former journalist who did these fact check articles, and I always did contact the other side before running such an article.
If the Star did not check - and I don't know if they did call the Giffords campaign - they are guilty of journalistic malpractice.8/09/2006 02:28:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|The Weiss press release this morning is too polished to be a response to the article.

The Weiss campaign knew this article was coming and had the release ready for publication.8/09/2006 02:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|People it is not all about how liberal you can be ... I suggest that you all get the hell out of Tucson once in a while and visit the rest of the district. Most of the Democrats out their don't like your type of elitist liberalism.

::standing ovation for brittf::

p.s. Tom, thanks for the real lowdown on how a bill becomes law. very informative. unfortunately, though, it looks like some people here will insist on adhereing to Arizona Bill's one page synopsis of simplification.8/09/2006 03:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Ben R|W|P|Take a look at a few basic facts that are not disputable:

1)Giffords was absent from May 13 (the day after her shenanigans)-May 16, and therefore missed all appropriation committee votes on the Senate versions of the budget bills.

2)Giffords did not prevent a bill from being voted on and the AP article that she cited in her ad says the same thing. She did delay the introduction of the bill. By one day. To a time when she wasn't there.

3)The bills passed out of that committee 6-5 with two abstentions. All she had to do was show up and vote no to thwart the bill, and force some negotiations.

4)The quorum call was at 6:28, and the sunset was at about 7:18, making the sneaking arounf bit on the ad overly dramatic and a bit dishonest.

You can all argue about whether the quorum call was a good thing (and I think it was), and who knows more about legislative procedure, but the main facts are really not disputable.

She missed the 4 days of the Senate following the quorum and as a result was not available to vote or negotiate on those budget bills in the appropriations committee.

One final point. If we aren't allowed to criticize or question another candidates boasts, what is to prevent them from making outlandish claims and then accusing anyone of questioning them of being negative. (Sounds a little like the Bush administration).

But I would be happy to hear any refutations of the above facts, and if you prove me wrong on any of them I will certainly be the first to admit it.8/09/2006 06:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Tom, this is why you need to get a blog so you can explain in mindnumbing detail for us procedure geeks so we can realize that you are right because of your huge pile of missing paychecks.8/09/2006 11:13:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Now, what will really be interesting is when the Arizona Daily Star endorses Giffords publicly, how they will explain it?

"We love her even despite how she ran an 'unclear' ad?" Such bullshit, but I am ready for the spin.

Afterall, they have been endorsing her every election, writing biased articles in her favor, and Ernesto P is on her list of endorsements. Stanton is a close friend and I could list a number from each paper.

It is a miracle this article today even got published. Either that or they already have their backup plan of how they will spin it when they endorse her.

Bravo to Latas for having someone smart enough on his campaign to do the DVD idea. He might just pull an upset.

Cheers to Weiss for coming out with a fast press release on the article and endorsement from Paul E about her ethics. After all the hits she has been taking from the local papers gotta give her credit for smart strategy on that one.

Jeers to the Tucson Citizen who gave the lamest endorsement of Giffords in their history of endorsing her. If you are going to endorse a candidate, at least TRY to sound enthusiastic about it.

Jeers to all the Giffords' supporters for refusing to speak the truth and downgrading every comment on the online version of the article that was from any poster who wasn't yet assimilated by their borg.8/09/2006 11:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|hat tip to Ben R.

Someone here actually dealing in facts? That's a new one.8/09/2006 11:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|On whether or not Weiss campaign fed any information to the paper as opposition research...hell I hope so! That would indicate a campaign doing their job.

You know, kinda like how Giffords started in January feeding all those story about Weiss like how she was an airhead who only read a teleprompter, was not involved in the community, had only her name recognition to offer...

All those "non-personal" "facts" and all.

You all really need to hold a mirror up on some of the stuff you dish out.8/09/2006 11:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|"The Star doesn't understand the legislative process. Their editors have consistently failed to cover the Legislature - even though it is the layer of government that affects your life the most - more so than even Congress."

I will be sure to remind you of that quote when they come out and endorse Giffords, lol.8/09/2006 11:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Grasping at straws. You don't have to contact the subject of your article if you have already checked the facts which they did.

90% of reporting would never happen if that was the case.

Being a journalist herself, maybe Patty already fact checked it for them, lol.

Hell, I bet Latas could have too since his supporters wrote some pretty damning charges against Giffords on the AZStar blog.8/09/2006 11:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Tom, you ARE on Giffords endorsed list and your brother has a blog he devotes a whole lot of time endorsing Giffords on...so why would you NOT be considered part of her spin machine?

BTW, if you all really did your homework you would know other blogs scooped you on the Latas surprise.

He is doing a DVD campaign to targeted voters. Brilliant really. He might just win it.8/09/2006 11:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|"On the Democratic side, Jeff Latas, the Gulf War vet making his first foray into politics, is mostly bypassing the TV stations by mailing a DVD directly to high-propensity primary voters. The documentary outlines his stance on the Iraq war (move the troops out in stages), energy (less fossil fuels and more alternative sources), immigration (enforce the laws; punish employers who hire illegal immigrants, and strengthen Latin American economies), health care (affordable insurance for everyone) and corruption (he's against it). He also features testimonials from Max Cleland, the former U.S. senator, and Molly McKasson, the former Tucson councilwoman."

Check out the Tucson Weekly

Since they need at least a week advance time, they knew it that long if not longer.8/09/2006 11:48:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|brittF, don't know where you are from but most of the race will be decided in Tucson. 80+%

No offense to you in Cochise or Santa Cruz, but you won't decide this race. Tucson will.8/13/2006 04:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Dbackerstacker|W|P|Obviously, those who challenge thoughtful responses (like Tom Prezelski's) and those who claim to understand journalism yet contradict those who explain that reporters are supposed to get both sides of an issue included in a news story --- don't get it.

Perhaps they are part of the Weiss White Wash campaign????8/09/2006 05:50:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A couple of days ago, I had to run a correction regarding a bit I did on the phony domain name scandal (the word "phony" refers to both the domain names and the scandal). I've only run a correction once before, and both times I ran a correction on the piece itself, plus I ran a second piece referencing the correction. This seems to be a policy followed by Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo. So, this leads to a question: what are our obligations as bloggers to run corrections? The reason I ask this is that a correspondent wrote me concerned about the lack of correction on a story that Espresso Pundit published a while back. Espresso Pundit wrote the following in a piece critical of Harry Mitchell's campaign:
Check out this tidbit about from Harry Mitchell's website: He has said he would not rule out possibly forcing the "mass deportation" of 12 million people. [Source: The Arizona Republic, Sept. 1, 2005; "Whatever it Takes," by J. D. Hayworth and Joseph J. Eule] Does Hayworth ever use the words "mass deportation?" Of course not. Harry just made it up. But the source looks really good. After all, Harry points to the Arizona Republic and Hayworth's own book. The fact that those sources don't discuss "mass deportation" is beside the point. At least it's beside the point to Harry.
As it turned out, the September 1, 2005 issue of the Republic did, in fact, run an article in which Hayworth refused to rule out mass deportation. The Mitchell campaign contacted Greg Patterson over at Espresso Pundit, and to his credit, he took down the post. The question that the correspondent who brought this up for me was: is this really enough? My answer is that I am not sure. The concern is that the wrong facts had already been imprinted in cyberspace and quoted elsewhere. Well, that would happen under the system that I use too. It is also a helpful to point out that even Slate magazine gets grief for its bend-over-backwards correction policies. There really are no established rules for this sort of thing. The lack of editors, deadlines and policies is the strength of blogging, but also can be its weakness.|W|P|115512999100766595|W|P|The Editors Regret the Error|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/09/2006 08:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|I will edit the post and add the corrected material, as people usually find my posts through Google and most won't also read a seperate correction post.8/09/2006 09:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|It's hard to say ... certainly removal of the original post is _a_ responsible manner of dealing with the issue, so I don't think EP should be criticized for taking that approach.

Having said that, my preference is for something more along the lines of what Jane mentions and you do - update the original post with correct info, along with a description of what was changed and why. That way links to the original, new visitors, returning visitors, will all see the correction.

If the correction is made pretty quickly, I don't think an additional follow0up post is necessary. However, if the correction occurs after the item has slid down the page a ways (and certainly if it has slid off the front page entirely), then adding a follow-up post noting the correction and linking to the (corrected) original is an additional responsible step.8/09/2006 11:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|I blogged about this, but it was a busy day in the Arizona blogging world and it got buried.

http://az05.blogspot.com/2006/07/mass-deportation.html8/09/2006 12:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger espressopundit|W|P|Tedski, you raise a good point. This was a close call because the Mitchell website had the citation wrong. The website lists two claims and provides two citations, but the second claim “mass deportation” is justified in the first citation. The structure makes it look like the “mass deportation” quote is from JD’s book. I searched the book and it doesn’t use the term “mass deportation” in that context. So I wrote my piece. When his office contacted me and said that I should have used the first cite to verify the second quote, I pulled the piece.8/09/2006 03:29:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|Did the Mitchell campaign change the text of the release, because here is the direct quote:

Hayworth has advocated a number of unrealistic measures such as enlisting bail bondsmen, who are not trained to enforce immigration laws, to "track down and deliver" immigrants. He has also said he would not rule out the possibility forcing the "mass deportation" of 12 million people. [Source: The Arizona Republic, Sept. 1, 2005; "Whatever It Takes," by J.D. Hayworth and Joseph J. Eule, 2006]8/09/2006 03:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/09/2006 03:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|I can see how that is confusing, though, citation wise.

Sorry for the three comments in a row and deleted one, my computer is giving me grief and I double posted.8/09/2006 06:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I think those who post errors should have to donate a day to a local charity.

Not really, but editing the original post with an explanation is good.8/08/2006 05:24:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|We have crossed a threshhold in this election cycle: I am starting to see political ads broadcast two in a row. It will be downhill from here until November. I attended the premier of Patty Weiss's ads last night. What the heck was I doing there? They invited me. I am that important. Patty has two ads, a sixty second ad entitled "Trusted" and a thirty second ad entitled "Your Voice." "Trusted" is a rundown of her career as a local journalist, with only tangential reference to issues. The shorter ad starts with her speaking from what looks to be a television news studio, with only a quick biographical hit. Basically it's a reminder that says "Hey, you already know me..." Then they touch all the good Democratic bases: health care, college aid, bring the troops home and stand up against Bush. I actually liked the 30 second ad a bit more. It takes advantage of Weiss's strength: the fact that people already know about her. Also, it is a bit cheaper to run. This fact becomes even more important because Weiss's campaign is not going to have the money to run as many ads as Gabrielle Giffords's campaign. This fact was even brought up by Weiss's campaign manager at the event. The crowd ate up that "scrappy underdog" stuff though. The only down note of the event was an improptu speech by former Pima County Democratic Chairman Paul Eckerstrom, who launched into an attack questioning Giffords's credentials as a Democrat as well as questioning the motives of her supporters. Up until then, this Giffords supporter felt welcome at the event. I decided that that was my cue to leave before the complimentary popcorn was thrown at me. I like Paul, but with so many positive things to say about Weiss, why did he feel this was necessary?|W|P|115508543229819393|W|P|Weiss's New Ads|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/08/2006 06:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/08/2006 10:59:00 PM|W|P|Blogger charlesaugust|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/08/2006 11:04:00 PM|W|P|Blogger charlesaugust|W|P|Over a hundred and fifty people showed up to the Patty Weiss ad premiere, where a donation of $25 was asked.

By all accounts, it was the most festive event of Patty's campaign so far, with a theme party that featured movie and TV memorabilia and hundreds of balloons.

Most of the people partying were workers and middle class supporters. For some, it was a reunion of sorts.

Patty's Chairman, Mr. Tom Chandler and Patty thanked the crowd and the two ads were played to applause.

Former Pima County Chair, Paul Eckerstrom, surprised both Patty's staff and the supporters by taking the mic and endorsing Patty.

Paul was critical of Gabby's WalMart SB1065 committee vote and the politics that went into the endorsements.

For those who do not know Paul, he has decades of campaign experience. He questioned the hypocrisy of certain key votes by Ms. Giffords and the endorsements that followed these controversial votes.

Gabby's credentials as a Democrat were not mentioned nor did anyone there dwell on the Giffords campaign, as the wine was flowing and so were the contributions.

Ted Preszelski listened to everything Paul had to say, and then he quietly departed the raucus premiere. A splendid time was had by all.

What Paul Eckerstrom had to say to this audience is compelling, and it speaks to our strongest desires and ideals as Democrats. Ask him. He will tell you what he thinks about this race.8/09/2006 12:46:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|If Gabby is such a loyal Democrat, why are people like Paul Eckerstrom so supportive of Patty?

Paul had the opportunity to ask Patty to bow out of the race early on. Instead, he encouraged her to run, knowing full well that Gabby was in the race. That's hardly something one does for a loyal Democrat.

Governor Napolitano has to "officially" stay out of the race, but she sent her speechwriter to work for Patty! That's hardly a ringing endorsement of Gabby. If Gabby did so much good for the state as a lawmaker, you'd think the Governor of all people would want to reward her for her service.

Then again, Roger's not a Democrat, so I don't know that he should be talking about party loyalty.

Why are so many Democrats shunning Gabby? I'd guess it's because a) because she's done something along the way that makes them doubt her loyalty, or b) they realize that winning District 8 is the most important thing, and Patty is the only one who can win the seat in November, or c) all of the above.8/09/2006 01:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/09/2006 01:21:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Most real democrats don't support Gabby because she is really when it comes down to it, a REPUBLICAN. She switched right before she ran for House and looking at her voting record, she was always the lone democrat voting with the GOP up in Phoenix. This is not fiction, this is FACT – look up her voting record.
Now there are some democrats supporting gabby but only for their own self-serving purpose. (And the blind democrats following the lead) They know if (though she isn’t) Gabby makes it to DC - that they can count on her to be a 'Yes Mamm.' Patty or Latas would never be any other lawmakers or lobyist 'Yes Mamm or Yes Man' Gabby though, has proven time and time again - show her the money and she'll do what ever you want. Just ask Wal-Mart.

And for the record, you Gabby Suporters critical of Patty taking money from Diamond need to look at Gabby's donors. She too has taken money from some of Diamond Venture's top execs both in this race as well as her house and senate races. Too bad she didn't run clean - she had the chance.8/09/2006 01:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Sorry to post twice in a row, but I just have to go back to something Roger said in the first comment on this thread:

"She is actually an active Democrat who has been there for the party when she was needed."

Let's compare that to this article that the Star just posted.

It turns out the ad about Gabby's proud "Quorum Queen" incident is totally false.

To quote the Star:
"Giffords never blocked a vote on the bill she's citing. She missed a vote that would have killed the legislation."

That's right... not only did Gabby NOT DO what she claims to have done, she SKIPPED TOWN instead of actually blocking the bill!

I guess Gabby hasn't been there for the party after all.

We're now talking about a candidate who put a DLC meeting and Young Elected Leaders conference ahead of the seniors she claims she was protecting.

This is appalling.8/09/2006 01:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|What kind of sweet heart deals did she cut with Senate President Bennett? (A REPUBLICAN) Did he send you packing out of town so he could get his bills thru knowing your vote could potentially kill his plan? I guess you never really did let go of your REPUBLICAN roots did you?

A career politician indeed - she flat out lies to the people she wants to represent. We do not need more people like you in DC "representing" us.

Gabby Gabby Gabby...........8/09/2006 05:33:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|Kral et. al., she has to make up her cred in her TV spots to appear to be fighting for real people and your mind is blown?

It blows my mind that someone with so much "experience" would allow this to happen to her own campaign spots..

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/141348.php8/09/2006 05:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|Okay,

I have nothing against Paul, but honestly he thinks he is the Arizona version of Howard Dean.

BF8/09/2006 06:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Before the anti-Giffords bloggers get all high and mighty and fill this site with vitriol, let's recall that Gabby's ad cites an Associated Press article, likely written by someone like Howard Fischer, who covers the Legislature full time and is more familiar with its operations than Daniel Scarpinato.

Linda Binder, then a GOP senator and one of two moderates (the other being Slade Mead) that planned to vote against the budget, was getting ready to leave the country. The GOP leadership knew that and wanted to get a vote without Binder opposing them. Gabby's maneuver foiled them and the budget was not voted on until Binder returned to Phoenix, when it was defeated.

Scarpinato points out that Gabby's vote would have killed the bills in committee, but anyone even remotely familiar with how the Legislature operates knows that the leadership would have revived the bills in another form for a second round. The KEY was having the votes to defeat the ENTIRE budget when it came to the floor. The record from that time shows that Binder and Mead's votes were crucial to the eventual outcome (Mead lost his seat in a GOP primary partly because of that vote and is now a Democrat!) and Gabby ensured that Binder was in Phoenix when crunch time came.

Look, it is pretty lame to take this story and spin it into a big lie that Gabby lacks Democratic credentials, especially when you see the support she has gotten from all segments of of the party. I don't question the party loyalty of Weiss or any of the other candidates and a former party chairman who once tried to unite all Democrats should be ashamed of himself this morning. Let's play fair in pursuit of this nomination so that we can be ready to come together behind the winner and beat the Republicans.8/09/2006 07:12:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I stand by what I said before. Giffords is the only candidate in this race with any experience whatsoever for this office. Mr. Eckerstrom has his opinion and now HE has gone on the attack along with Patty.

Again, I ask, why? It appears that they want to re-write history for THEIR own political ambitions. But as one person stated on here awhile back, politics ain't beanbag.

Giffords has a voting record that is to be commended. Again, look at www.vote-smart.org for a summary of her vote ratings by key organizations. She is hardly a Republican and you can pick and choose what votes you want to hammer...azyoulikeit...but it continues to be nothing but campaign spin, attacks, and it continues to make Patty, her campaign, and her supporters look desperate and even pretty damned sorry.

I will end with this. I have been to a lot of Giffords events. She remained positive about the other candidates in her talks and her speeches, up until the point at which Patty Weiss started distorting her record. The only attack I have seen come from her on Weiss (or anyone else in the race) yet was in her defense of her record at the Nucleus Club.

It appears that Weiss campaign and events are more about smear jobs.

I know a lot of people that will not forget this.8/09/2006 07:22:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|On the Diamond money, I am sure that Giffords has received checks before from the Diamonds. However, I have not seen Giffords attack her opponents as being tied to special interests either. I also don't see Mr. Diamond appear on her list of givers in this round.

Instead, the Weiss campaign gives a lot of hooey about special interests and then when we look at the Center for Responsive Politics site, here is what we see:


#7 on her list Diamond Ventures $2650.

Mr. Diamond himself dontated $2000 for the primary and there is another $2000 for the general.

Mr. Diamond is part of the coalition of backroom dealing republicans that is bankrolling the candidacy of Steve Huffman.

In THIS race.

Don't pull that "real" untarnished, holier than thou, Democrat speak.8/09/2006 07:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|You can sit there and whine about "smear jobs," but the reality is that Gabby tried to pull a fast one on the voters.

She ran a TV ad that claimed something that was totally untrue.

She could have stuck around to kill the bill in committee, but she took off for a DLC party instead.

That's not a smear job, that's called reporting.8/09/2006 07:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Correction...no Diamond money for the general election. There was $2000 by Don and $2100 for by Joan Diamond for the primary.8/09/2006 07:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|Just to put a rest to Roger's Rant about Don Diamond, Patty addresses it on her website.

In a nutshell -- Don was the one who hired Patty at KVOA 30 years ago. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like the fact that he and Joan gave Patty a donation, don't vote for her. It's hardly the earth-shattering event Roger seems to think it is, and I certainly I don't see anyone pulling a "holier than thou."

I do see a bunch of Gabby apologists trying to explain away a campaign ad that's totally untrue.

That's not vitriolic, that's pointing out a candidate who now has a major credibility problem to deal with for the next 32 days.

This undoubtedly will come up at future candidate forums, should Gabby grace the voters with her presence. I can't wait to see what she has to say for herself.8/09/2006 08:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Seems pretty flimsy to me...and while we are on it...it appears that Ms. Weiss' major civic project that she touts was Tucson Tommorrow. I can't find anything about it? Someone want to tell me what all the effort that she speaks about in her ad went to?

I only see a reference on google to it back in the 80s. Where is it now? What did they do? What has she done since?

I still have to ask about the Democratic party thing too. Lifelong democrat? I see no effort of hers toward the party that she is running for. Earlier, Azyoulikeit, you responded to this question by noting that "I am not a democrat." Well, you also skirted the issue.

I have contributed to democratic candidates, their campaigns with hours, have attended a few meetings...and even these modest efforts still beat her efforts for the party that she seeks the nomination for.

Even laying aside the excuse of that she was a journalist and just couldn't. She was out of journalism during the time of the Tucson City Elections...and appeared to do nothing for the party and its candidates. What up?8/09/2006 08:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|What did Gabby do for the City Council Races? What did Gabby do for the Democrats before she decided to change her registration from REPUBLICAN right before she ran for office the 1st time? What has Gabby really done for Democrats once elected? Always the lone 'dino' giving the GOP in Phoenix the last vote they needed. Supporting Walmart over the working class people. Voting to allow a computer memory card to replace a paper ballot. Skipping down while major bills were coming through appropriations. How has Gabrielle served the Democrats?8/09/2006 09:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I respect the endorsements of virtually every...and mean every...Democratic supporting organization over your assertions anon.

They know more than you or any of us what she has done for the causes that the Democratic party hold dear.

All Patty's campaign has to say about the endorsements not going her way is that the "fix was in". I doubt it. I am guessing that they saw that despite her popularity, she has no record of commitment or no meaningful track record of working for any of the issues in this campaign.

I still want to know what Tucson Tomorrow was. It is the hallmark of her public service that she speaks of when talking about her service. How long was her service? What did the organization do and accomplish? Where is it now? And...if it was the hallmark and existed back in the 80s, what did she do since?

Everyone here has given Patty Weiss a "pass". Since people are digging so deep into the record of Giffords, I would like to see some of her fellow reporter colleagues do some digging into her record.8/09/2006 09:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Talking about the ads ...

I am somewhat surprised the Weiss campaign would even do the 60-second one. The ad itself seems primarily designed to promote "name recognition" (much like Giffords' first ad).

Of course, given Weiss' big trump is her built-in name recognition, combined with her relative lack of funds, this ad seems like a poor allocation of funds. My guess is, particularly given the additional cost involved in running the longer ad, we won't see much of it, the shorter ad will be the mainstay.8/09/2006 10:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Unless Patty dips into her fortune to bail out her campaign with her own money.8/09/2006 10:31:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Jim Pederson is doing it..8/09/2006 10:59:00 AM|W|P|Blogger BrittF|W|P|Don't we have an open primary in AZ? I thin that we should stop crying about what has Gabby done for the democrats, and start asking can Gabby beat the republicans in s fairly split district. It is not always about the party.

Bf8/09/2006 11:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Good question...Britt...and the answer is Giffords is the best choice to win in the fall. The district is split and favors republicans. Giffords has the broadest support of all the candidates. The Weiss and Latas campaigns are working the left and the blogger sect like Lamont did...and are now trying to fashion Giffords as a Lieberman...so that they can win.

The problem is that in the fall. The only thing Weiss has going for her is that she is famous and, of course, all that she has said in the campaign. The republicans will seize on every bit of this. They have no other partnerships or reasons to believe anything other than her campaign speak, which has been far far to the left.

With Giffords you get someone with a record of fighting for Democratic issues, who has experience, who is known, and yes, who has worked with the other party. For everytime they attack her as a liberal, there are groups across the spectrum that can and will defend her as reasonable.8/09/2006 11:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|I never see anything more in kralmajales comments then blind rabidness. It's almost sickening how much you spin spin spin. You seriously thing Gabby will win in the General? Graf, Huffman and Hellon will all eat her alive.8/09/2006 12:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I am told that there is a point by point refutation of the Scarpinato article coming. It is sad...he miscontrues the story and extended way beyond the facts in it. Unfortunately, the damage is done now...and I doubt that will go to any lengths at all to repair it.8/09/2006 01:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Anon...

I do seriously think Gabrielle will win in the general. I am confident of it. I frankly think the Republicans are toast in the fall and I think they would much rather have Weiss or Latas in the fall than Giffords.

I think Giffords has a much better shot because it is quite obvious that Giffords has some substance behind her run for office...some real experience. People across party lines know her and have worked with her. As I have said before, she has done the job. The other canidates do not have legislative experience and it will show.

I also think her campaign is the only one that is ready to hit the ground running for the fall election. Despite her popularity, Patty could not forge meaningful coalitions nor could she raise the funds for this race. It is a great predictor of similar problems that she will have in the fall. She will get money as the nominee, but she will be starting from a deficit...and frankly will be starting all over again hitting up the same donors that Giffords did...all over again...because she tried it in the spring and couldn't.

Giffords has a broader network and appeals to people across the party and across party lines. I am not sure that Patty and Jeff can say the same thing. In fact, their supporters pretty much diss anyone who doesn't adhere to their groupthink. Just how are they going to be able to forge coalitions with these people that they don't really want in their campaigns now? Giffords is the best person for the job, despite what the Patty and Latas backers say about her.8/09/2006 01:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Hey Kralmajales, I will give you tissues September 13th.

It always sounds like you are reading off the gabrielle spin book. How much is she paying you?8/09/2006 03:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Keep trying to explain away Roger and Rex. Your candidate is a dirty liar and you know it, which makes you just as dirty.

This isn't the first lie, just a long list of them that stacks up as someone with no integrity whatsoever.

Any Democrat who wants to win will take her out before the General or you can kiss this seat goodbye.

Someone who is that ugly inside is no longer attractive to me outside either. What a completely useless Senator. Misses the most important thing a Senator does, the budget process.

Too busy running off with a married man and partying with her DLC folks I guess. Nice morals.8/09/2006 03:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|You all are getting so desperate it is hilarious to watch. Right. Huffman wants to run against Weiss even though his polls show she is the only one who can beat him.

Graf wants to run against Weiss even though her poll shows she can beat them.

Very logical.

You all sound like a bunch of incompetant attorneys trying to appeal to emotion because the facts don't support you.8/09/2006 03:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Roger, Giffords does not have broad appeal. No Republican voters support her. Even Latas can pull more Republicans.

Just because she has Republicans funding her doesn't mean she will get the average Republican voter to support her. They will go with 1) their own Party or 2) someone who represents change, which she does not.

Any logical person knows Weiss stands the best chance in the general.

Giffords may win on her sheer organization alone for the primary, but she will be a laughing stock in the general and you all know it. I am thinking since your mostly independents you purposely are trying to take down the Democrats by supporting her.8/09/2006 03:31:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|With all of the Weiss campaign flaws the big plus she has is she has been so neutral in the public eye that there is no "dirt" that can be used against her in the General. Believe you me, the Republicans have a file on all the candidates and Weiss is the one they have nothing significant on. They even have more on Schater and Latas (which makes you think, why did they even bother?).

Giffords? She is a goldmine for them in what they have dug up.

Democrats lose for one reason. They are all too stupid to see the light of day.8/09/2006 03:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Other candidates focus on facts, issues, and positions.

Giffords makes it personal.

No amount of spin will change the facts for those of us who pay attention.

Your candidate lacks integrity, is immature, goes negative on PERSONAL issues, and isn't even smart enough or has a good enough staff with all her money to hire an ad campaign team that fact checks before they send out the propaganda. I can here the Republicans laughing a mile away.8/09/2006 03:44:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|There, did I win the competition for the most number of posts?8/09/2006 04:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Fed Up-

Other candidates focus on facts, issues, and positions.

Giffords makes it personal.

Ya know, this would be far easier to swallow from you if you hadn't called Giffords "ugly" and a "dirty liar" several posts earlier. What's that the Bible says about a splinter in your neighbor's eye?8/08/2006 06:57:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A friend and I had this idea a few years ago for some political guerilla theater. We were going to make up a propsition number that would never get used, like 501 or something. Then we would make a series of confusing and uninformative signs about it. Signs like: "No on 501: Keep Additives Out of Baby Food" "Yes on 501: Stop Punishing Farmers" "No on 501: Because It's the Right Thing To Do" "Yes on 501: Help Our Veterans" We never did it because we realized how expensive it would be to get all of those 4 x 8's printed with the different slogans. I have been seeing the ads and signs against Propostion 204. The message: "Proposition 204 is Hogwash." Um, okay. The television ad (which is narrated by a guy that talks like Baxter Black) helpfully gives a raft of definitions of "Hogwash," but fails to give a viewer any sort of idea of what the proposition does or what makes it "hogwash" or, as my dictionary says, like the refuse fed to hogs. The initiative has to do with treatment of farm animals. Full disclosure: I signed the initiative because I don't like the way large factory farms treat their animals and they have a horrible impact on local economies and the environment. I could be convinced the other way, but keeping me in the dark and treating me like an idiot, which is what this ad does, is not the way to do it. Maybe supporters of 204 ought to print big orange signs that say "Ballyhoo." It would be about as informative. NB - Espresso Pundit had a piece last week on the "Hogwash" signs talking about how they are the brilliant work of Copper State Consulting. I guess running a campaign against an initiative without actually saying anything about it qualifies as "brilliance" among our consulting class these days. EP also ran a picture of the folks at Copper State. Patterson later said that the photo reminded him of a photo of the Doors. I didn't quite see that. It does smack of one of those publicity shots that bands do, but the thing I thought of first was the scene at the end of Yes's video for "Owner of a Lonely Heart". Actually, with references to the Doors and Yes, both Greg and I are showing our age.|W|P|115504766316262077|W|P|Hogwash?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/08/2006 01:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|Has there been any really good research done on what kind of farms do these practices? Are they family farms or mostly corporate mega-farms?

Granted those abuses are terrible and animals deserve humane welfare at the very least, but who (other than the farmers opposed) has done the work into looking on whether or not this is going to put people out of business?8/08/2006 03:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|Those are some of the questions I have. Unfortunately, the folks behind the ads don't seem to have any interest in answering them.8/08/2006 03:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|I heard this will really only affect one mega corporate farm in Apache County. Don't know if that's true or not, though.8/08/2006 03:15:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|Actually, I think the use of the Baxter Black voice was an attempt to reach the NPR crowd.

Next, expect their next round of commercials to feature a David Sedaris sound-a-like.8/08/2006 11:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I knew what the they were refering to when I saw "Hogwash" which is their idea of a clever pun. Gag. But that is only because I like puns and I spent hours at the D booth at the State Fair with one of their volunteer signature collectors. I made her a peanut butter sammich even.

Anyway, the fact that Ted referenced Yes's video makes him old, not the Doors reference. Lots of people have heard the Doors (thanks Forrest Gump) but how many people remember any other song from that group?8/13/2006 09:32:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Thane Eichenauer|W|P|I would like to point out that Proposition 204's signs (I haven't seen their commercials) give you a link to their web site which make their signs more informative than half the political signs out there. It is a rare thing to come across an informative political commercial and likely it always will be (after all it is a commercial-not a documentary). Political TV commercials and signs are a primitive way to say "vote for me" or "I have something to say". It is up to the voter to get more information about Proposition 204 and then vote accordingly8/07/2006 05:57:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|One of my agents claims to have seen a Randy Graf television spot. I don't see any evidence of it on his web page. I was told that the ad looks like Steve Huffman's ad, except Graf is holding a bottle of water rather than a flashlight. Between the two of them, plus some food and sunscreen, they are properly equipped for desert travel. My correspondent also pointed out that Graf is standing rather than crouching. It is helpful to note that Huffman crouching is about as tall as Graf standing.|W|P|115499894379523204|W|P|Graf TV Ad?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/07/2006 06:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Speaking of the horizontally challenged, when is Robert Reich coming back to visit Arizona?

http://www.shortsupport.org/News/0312.html8/07/2006 07:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Graf's ad has no similarity to Huffman's other than it is on immigration.

Graf's ad is actually good. He doesn't look like a nutcase. I think it will bring in some votes. Billboards are good too.

Principle not politics

Good theme to use even if it is bullshit where he is concerned.8/07/2006 08:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|I will give Graf credit for consistency. Huffman is trying to reinvent himself in order to suck up to the right wing, just like McCain. True believers will back one of their own and no one likes a hypocrite. Steve is toast on September 12th.8/07/2006 09:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/07/2006 09:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Roger,

I didn’t think Duke’s comments were angry. He actually laid out some good facts.

I am completely surprised by Steve missing the NW Tucson event. He only lives a few minutes from the venue and has represented this area for 8 years. He should dominate this forum but instead he chooses to skip it.

I have seen Steve in public a few times and he is not what you call warm, friendly, and outgoing. Maybe he wants to just let his money do the work for him.8/08/2006 05:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/08/2006 06:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/08/2006 07:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger GOPinsider|W|P|Rex -

By hypocrites, do you mean people who used to serve on Huffman's campaign committees but now do everything they can to discredit him because his attack on deseg funds in the school districts threatened their new, cushy union job?

How would you know what a "true believer" is?8/08/2006 08:29:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|gopinsider

Cushy union job? In Arizona? It’s a right to work state. You must be thinking of some other place.

From what I understand, Rex works “on-site.” He is actually at a building with students. Having been in education I can assure you there is nothing cushy about that job. I have a lot of things to say about public schools but I would never describe working at one of them as cushy (except maybe a job at the district office.)

Rex had some good points and Steve is TOAST. If he keeps running ads like his current flashlight piece he will not catch up with Randy. If he or his surrogates go negative and win because of distorting hit pieces Graf’s people will be so furious they will hardly vote for a faux Republican like Huffman.

Oh, BTW I know what a “true believer” is because I AM ONE.8/08/2006 10:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Interesting post from the person whose pseudonym is "gopinsider." Yes, I served on Huffman's committee when he first ran for the Legislature in 1998 and lost in the primary to Dan Schottel and Freddy Hershberger. As an educator, I have appreciated his informed support of most issues that benefot children during his tenure in Phoenix. He has been a true friend of Arizona's public schools and a bulwark against those in the GOP who have worked against the interests of public schools.

However, I left the GOP six years ago. One reason I did is because of the way people like McCain and Huffman were treated by conservatives who had taken over the party. That is why it is so sad to see Huffman and McCain trying to suck up to these same people who have trashed them for years. I do see that as hypocritical and also self-defeating because they will never be accepted by the right wingers.

Oh...and I do not belong to a union, so I don't know what you mean by that comment. I also don't hide my real name behind some self-promoting nom de plume claiming to be an "insider." Grow up, brother.8/08/2006 11:20:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Rex,

Sounds like you are more of an insider than “insider.”

I appreciate your history of Steve’s career but I have a question. Huffman’s legislative web site says he was elected to the State House in 1998. Did you mean to say 1996 or something different?

The way Huffman was treated by conservatives? What about how Steve treats others. Ask John C. Scott (not a right-winger by any stretch) how Huffman treats people.

Steve has been a terrible legislator. I disagree with Toni Hellon on most issues but she is always there. Quick to respond to an e-mail. Ready to talk with a constituent. Steve is a stealth representative who has not build up much good will with conservatives or anyone else for that matter. He is reaping what he has sown.8/08/2006 11:26:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Phx Kid-

You're right. I meant to say 1996.

Steve has taken his share of cheap shots, especially when Billie Jane Madden opposed him. He has proven to give as good as he gets, too. I have never understood why he was originally planning to take on Toni Hellon in the GOP primary this year. I also agree with you that he went after John C. Scott (no relation to me, by the way) in an unfair manner.8/07/2006 09:27:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Way back in 2000, so long ago that I didn't even have a blog yet, I was elected as a delegate to the Democratic convention. Mark Flatten, a reporter for what was then the Mesa Tribune sent a questionaire asking all of us delegates about our political views, occupation and religion. One question asked who we thought would be a good vice-presidential nominee. A few weeks later, Al Gore announced that he had picked the junior senator from Connecticut, a certain Joseph I. Lieberman, as his nominee. I was living in Pearce at the time, and my phone rang. It was Flatten. "I'm sure you heard that Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman. You may remember that we asked the delegates who they would pick for vice-president, and you were the only one who picked Lieberman. I just wanted to know what special insight you have." Flattery...must be where he got his name. I talked about how I had met Lieberman at a DLC meeting years before, that he is an important symbol as the first Jewish nominee and that nominating a man with such strong religious beliefs was an indication of Gore's respect for religious voters. I didn't have the heart to tell him that I picked Lieberman partially because he was Al Franken's running mate in his book Why Not Me? (Franken credits Lieberman with coming up with the slogan for the fictional all-Jewish ticket: "No Bull, No Pork") I don't share the same sunny views of Lieberman anymore. His conservatism isn't what bugs me so much, he still votes with the Democratic caucus far more than he votes against it. I don't think that his relative conservatism is what bugs the "blogosphere," since people like Ben Nelson and Max Baucus vote with the Republicans a lot more than Lieberman ever has and have never generated the same level of vitriol on the blogs. What bugs me, and probably bugs the other liberal bloggers too, is the way that Lieberman seems to be concerned more about being the Democratic "Maverick" that can get interviews with the cool kids than doing right by the party or the country. The time I changed my mind on the man was during the initial round of presidential debates in 2004. He raked Howard Dean over the coals for his foreign policy credentials and attacked Wesley Clark for lack of commitment to the party. I watched this feistier Lieberman and wondered where the heck this person was when it was time to call Dick Cheney out in 2000? I started to see that this guy seemed to be more eager to attack his fellow Democrats than the Republicans. The class of reporters who Calvin Trillin so poetically calls "Sabbath Gasbags" love this man. Why not? He's funny, friendly and is willing to go on their shows. Most importantly for the largely conservative hosts of these programs, he is willing to attack other Democrats. For some odd reason, supporters of Lieberman think that this helps give the Democrats credibility on foreign policy. I don't get how that works. The talking heads are totally blindsided by the Lamont challenge. They think that supporters of the rather colorless and not really that liberal Ned Lamont are birkenstock and bead clad radicals carrying around copies of Mao Zedong's Little Red Book. It's as if somehow it should be suprising that people in a Democratic primary aren't enthused to vote for a guy who has spent the last few years sticking with the President and defending the war with Iraq. It may be helpful to point out that not only are the President and the war unpopular with mainstream Democrats these days, but is also unpopular with a large segment of the public. I'm not sure how agreeing with a sentiment shared by 62% of the American people makes you a dangerous radical. The characterization of Lamont and his supporters as some sort of radical peacenik fringe is insulting to the voters and shows how far the Washington media have becaome separated from the actual politics they are supposed to cover. The reaction of the pundits to this whole thing is rather disturbing. They keep talking as though the Democratic voters of Connecticut are obligated to support this guy because he goes to their cocktail parties. So much for Democracy. NB - Just a strange historical note showing that politics isn't only local, it can be incestuous. If Lieberman runs as an independent, he would not be the first officeholder who loses a primary to do so. Sen. Thomas Dodd lost the Democratic nomination in 1970 to an anti-war challenger. He filed as a "petitioning candidate," and lost a three way race to the Democrat and Republican Lowell Weicker. Dodd's son, Christopher, was later elected to the senate and Weicker went on to be defeated by Joe Lieberman.|W|P|115497133860232859|W|P|My Trouble With Joe Lieberman|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/07/2006 12:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Bigger than this in my opinion, is the pick up by Democrats today in the house. Bob Ney (Ohio-R) is not seeking re-election due to his ties to Abramoff and had already won his primary. Unless they can do a late minute sub...the Demos have it. One pick up...14 to go.8/07/2006 03:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|Tedski- Do you think Ned Lamont is "colorless" or was that wordplay (for lack of a better work, I guess)?

And Ney has chosen a replacement candidate for him, but who knows if he'll get on the ballot. I'm seeing so much good news in every corner of the country. But.. can't jinx things.8/07/2006 03:14:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I've seen the guy's ads and one speech...at best, we could call him "adequate." This says nothing, of course, about what he actually has to say. I was just trying to make the point that this guy doesn't strike me as someone that can rally mobs of radicals hell bent on destroying Washington.8/07/2006 03:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Lieberman pretty much asked for it over and over again. He appeared so hawkish when I saw him awhile back on Meet the Press.

I do worry about a wave of KOSian party splitting across the country in the wake of a Lamont win. If he does win, as it appears, I hope it is by a whole whole lot so the party there can come together behind him and not have a massive unfriendly split when Lieberman runs as an independent.8/07/2006 05:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Joy Padgett, a well-liked state senator, will be allowed to replace Ney on the ballot. That is a GOP seat and will likely stay that way. The Dem candidate will find it hard to run the same sort of race he was planning against Ney versus Padgett. His one saving grace is that he has more money, but the GOP will pour dollars into that race. However, Ohio is about to have a "blue" year, so anything is possible.

I don't begrudge anyone the right to run for anything, but Lieberman has a three decade-long record of standing up for issues we care about as Democrats. He is ONE TYPE of Democrat in a party that must be broad enough to include people of all points of view, especially as the other party is becoming more exlusive and restrictive. The epithet DINO accomplishes nothing but the narrowing of the base. I am proud to support Dems like Lieberman or like Lamont, but reject completely the arguments that Lieberman is some kind of turncoat just because I disagree with him on Iraq.

Dems win either way if Lieberman runs independent and wins because he will caucus with them in the Senate...just like Jim Jeffords of Vermont...who left the GOP when they shit on him. Be careful what you wish for, folks!8/07/2006 06:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger kralmajales|W|P|Great points Rex.

What gives me hope about the Ney seat is that there was a candidate facing Ney that was doing pretty well and that has already been campaigning. The switch might appeal to voters there, but only highlights the problems of the GOP. Plus, they new person has to start a campaign, when the demo challenger does not.

It makes it an open seat now.8/07/2006 07:02:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Yay! A long passionate post about something other then CD-8!

As for CT's senate race, I have my doubts about Lamont, he maybe a good person to replace the Senator or he may not.

That said, I have always felt that if you have a problem with your fellow party member then you should yell about it behind the scenes at party meetings (rarely covered by the press) rather then attack them in the media. Attack the opposition, they are more deserving of it.

Ohio's governor race might have coattails on it, combined with this year being one of the biggest years of disgust of what the Republicans have been doing, Democrats constantly yammering about change change change (we even have multiple plans on what we can and will try to do when back in power) and a well funded candidate, I think that seat will be blue this time. Not sure if it could be kept or not.

I think it was on NPR with a poll they did in the 50 most competitive districts and they said that we can pick up probably up to thirty seats. I may be wrong though. Still...thirty seats. :D

Bush probably should get his veto pen ready because it is highly unlikely that he will go along with any of the things we want to get passed.8/07/2006 07:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|I think the point, Elizabeth, is that Lieberman IS the enemy.

When you cease representing your own constituents, you cease in being deserving of Party loyalty.

30 years of Democrats selling out their base isn't enough for you?8/07/2006 07:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|I think the point, Elizabeth, is that Lieberman IS the enemy.

When you cease representing your own constituents, you cease in being deserving of Party loyalty.

30 years of Democrats selling out their base isn't enough for you?8/07/2006 07:52:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Picking up Democratic seats does no good if those Democrats still vote right winger. They were the majority in the past and still voted right winger. Why do you think it will suddenly change now? You need new blood and more integrity or nothing will change whether it is a D or an R in the majority.8/07/2006 07:56:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Why is it always when a right-winger in Democrat clothing is being challenge we always here the meme of "we need a big tent" bullshit but when it is progressive or liberal, you don't here that...you here "move to the right". I guess unity only is one sided, huh?

Your Republican roots are showing Rex.

Lamont isn't a liberal, he is about as moderate as you get.

That said, I hope he beats the pants off of Lieberman but given the Republican involvement in the race, it looks like Lieberman will win it.8/07/2006 08:07:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Fed Up,
I try to practice what I preach, which means I refused to publicly bash a fellow Dem.

Also Lieberman actually does a pretty good job of representing his constituents or at least they feel he does. As someone pointed out recently on a talk show "an elected official represents all of his consituants not just a small section." This is why in the general public of CT, if he wins his primary, he will be re-elected.8/07/2006 08:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Fedup-

I was once in the GOP. You're right. One reason I left was because I got tired of being told that I wasn't enough of a Republican because I supported public schools, a woman's right to choose, equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians and other issues where I parted company with the GOP mainstream.

You overlooked the line in my previous post where I said "I am proud to support Dems like Lieberman or like Lamont, but reject completely the arguments that Lieberman is some kind of turncoat just because I disagree with him on Iraq."

Like the ideologues in my former party, you hear what you want to hear and you are quick to label those who disagree with you.8/07/2006 09:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|This is the interesting problem of all parties, interest groups, or other groups of people with interests.

When the militants take over a group, they squeeze out those who are moderate or cross-over or see two sides of a complex issue...or the moderates just say screw it and leave. In the end you have a worse and worse conflict because it leaves two or more groups of militants fighting like cats and dogs. This might be the very reason that most Americans tune out of politics and hate it so much. They are labelled as compromisers and are only appreciated around election time.

What is most disconcerting though is that all this bashing of moderates is fine now when the voter base is militants. Come fall, however, the moderates hold the power and each groups' candidate turns its back on the militants because they can't win without the moderates, which is what really ticks off folks like Fedup...it appears.

As to Lamont...whether he is moderate or not, the impression he has left for himself with voters is anything but. He satisfies the Kosians and readers of the Nation, but will he be able to appeal to the moderates when the election in the fall begins?8/07/2006 09:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger DRP|W|P|Joe L. is a total chump and I hope he loses big and retires for good. He is a moron for supporting the failed Iraq war for as long and as strongly as he has.8/07/2006 09:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Sam|W|P|The Calvin Trillin phrase is "Sabbathday Gasbags." Other than that, I've got nothing to add (other than to link to the most effective Internet video I've ever seen: http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2458.8/08/2006 11:45:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|The latest on Ney...thought you all might find this interesting.


Apparently, there is a real problem with the candidate set to replace Ney on the ballot. Ohio law says that a person who loses in one primary cannot then be appointed to run in another race. Let the lawyering begin. Nice to see that the repubs will chew up yet more legal money on this one.

Thoughts on the Delay issue as we await CT. returns?8/08/2006 01:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TimWilsonAZ|W|P|I was just trying to make the point that this guy doesn't strike me as someone that can rally mobs of radicals hell bent on destroying Washington.

Ah, then we are in agreement.8/05/2006 04:39:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Since law enforcement people in Phoenix have caught the "serial shooters," I've been waiting for Bill Montgomery and Len Munsil to put out a press release congratulating Janet Napolitano and Terry Goddard for the way they handled the case. I mean, if they were to blame when the shooters weren't caught, right? Also, I noticed that the two shooters were Anglo. The paranoid liberal inside me wonders what would have happened if their names were Martínez or Ochoa? I imagine endless letters to the editor and posts on the Star's web page blaming it on illegal immigration, no matter where the two of them were born.|W|P|115482185753279978|W|P|Credit Where Credit is Due, Right?|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/05/2006 06:00:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cpmaz|W|P|Hmmmm...cynical minds think alike, Tedski.

Of course we aren't going to hear from Munsil and Montgomery; they took their cheap shots at their opponents with the full understanding that by November, the voters will forget about how far off the mark they were.8/06/2006 02:56:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|In the Saturday AZ Republic, Len Munsil had an editorial published that stated that crime has gone up so much that AZ is now number one in crime nationwide (and that it has been under the Gov's and AG Goddard.)

Where does this guy get his stats? The Crackerjacks box of justice? The treat is tasty but not a place to get crime stats.8/06/2006 10:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Hell, that Republican state legislature has done everything they could possibly do to pass tough on crime laws that jail more and more people. We build private prisons and we import inmates from out of state.

They can blame crime on the Governor all they want, but they have held power here for years in the legislature and what pray tell have they accomplished? Couldn't we say that they have a great hand in whether crime has gone up or down?8/06/2006 11:34:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Jane Arizona|W|P|And no mention of Sheriff Joe, either time. What happened there?8/06/2006 12:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|We managed to get some duct tape in time Jane.8/07/2006 08:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tom Prezelski|W|P|Actually, Arizona has consistently ranked near the top in crime for decades no matter who is in charge. Being the squishy liberal I am, I blame this largely on the dehumanizing suburban culture we have promoted in this state along with the endemic poverty that we consistently ignore.

That being said, I think that we owe the capture of these two individuals to the fact that Sheriff Joe abolished Kool Aid at his jails. The timing must be more than strictly coincidental.8/09/2006 12:25:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Since they abolished the use of Kool-Aid, what are the women going to use for dyeing their hair?8/05/2006 07:14:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Over the last few days, we have been treated to new ads from two of the CD 8 candidates. Okay, "treated" may be a strong word. "Subjected," maybe? Steve Huffman (the one that the Washington Post combines with an opponent into "Mike Huffman: Super Candidate") is running a "tough on immigration" ad. The ad seems like a pale echo of Mike Hellon's ads that were recently aired. The main complaint I've heard from conservative Republicans is that they never saw him as a leader on immigration issues while in the State House, and that this seems to be a game of Stevie-come-lately. Randy Graf's web page features a shot at both Huffman and Hellon for not being "leaders" on this issue like he has been. The other complaint I've heard is with the presentation. When people are asking questions like "What is with that flashlight?" or "Why is he crouching that way?" that is a good indication that people are too distracted to hear what the candidate is trying to say. I've spoken to Huffman a couple of times before, he didn't talk at all like the guy on the ad. Let me just be blunt here: it is hard to sound like mister tough guy when your voice comes off so whiny and the lines aren't delivered with much conviction. His plans almost come off as an apology. I don't know if this is poor directing or what. I shouldn't be so hard on the guy, not everyone can hire Don Collier for their immigration ads. Hellon could sound like Stuart Smalley for all I know. Yeah, look at me. What do I know about TV? Ha, show biz... So, um, whatever happened to all of that polling that Huffman had that showed that Graf is vulnerable because of his positions on Social Security and Medicare? No ads about those issues? Gabrielle Giffords is also running an ad highlighting what has come to be known as the "Quorum Queen" incident. One night when it was late and few people were around, Republican leaders attempted to pass a budget that would have decimated what there is of a health care safety net here. Giffords invoked a quorum rule to block Republican attempts to have a vote. (Something similar was done by Rep. Matt Santos on an episode of West Wing, for those of you who miss that show) This meant that the vote had to be delayed until the next day, when people were actually paying attention. The ad highlights what can be called Giffords's "strong suit," the fact that she actually has a record fighting for progressive issues. It also breaks down what can be just an arcane parliamentary move and explains it to people who don't obsessively follow this stuff how important it actually was. The ads from Hellon have apparently stopped, and Jeff Latas hasn't run an ad in months. Graf seems to be counting on radio ads and (gasp) billboards. Patty Weiss had an appeal for money for television a couple of weeks ago, expect a small ad buy from her soon.|W|P|115479127795935392|W|P|New CD 8 Ads|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/05/2006 09:23:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Patty will debut her first ad 6 PM on Monday 8/7 at her HQ.

The ad will be very well done.

What is predictable is that Patty will:

1. Speak for herself in her own voice and do very well.
2. Note the single mom credentials
3. Distinguish herself from "career politicians."8/05/2006 10:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|The thing that bothered me about the Huffman ad was that it was clear that he was reading off a cue card or prompter. The scanning movement of his eyes as he was speaking told me that he was scripted and not speaking from his heart or from deeply-held convictions. I hate it when anyone, in any kind of ad, has to read his or her lines instead of at least memorizing them. It's poor production values in action. I have a background in theatre, so little things like "poor production values" really irk me.8/05/2006 12:17:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|I liked Gabby's ad as it spoke to her experience, knowledge of the legislative process, willingness to take on the Republicans and advocacy for concerns vital to many voters. That will resonate with people far more deeply than some broad-brushed swipe at "career politicians." I also think that Giffords does a terrific job of speaking to the camera and comes across as simultaneously tough and humane.

Huffman's ad was AWFUL! He dressed and sounded like someone looking for an errant golf ball, even though the intent was to make him look like a Minuteman, albeit one outfitted by JCrew. If the purpose of the ad was to appeal to folks who make immigration their top priority, I think they will still prefer Graf's red meat on the topic.

The most effective piece of advertising is STILL mailers where voters can request an early ballot. Last I heard, Giffords and Hellon were the only ones who had employed that tactic. Anyone else hear anything different?8/05/2006 01:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Maybe Huffman is saving the good stuff for when early voting is halfway over.

He might be getting the ineffective ads out of the way first.8/05/2006 04:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Blue in AZ|W|P|Patty has also sent out a mailer with a VBM request attached. I think that Patty's mailer was much more effective as a political piece vs. Gabby's, because Patty's actually had her picture and message on it. Gabby's looked like some kind of prescription drug come-on. Anyway, it's good that they're both spending money getting VBM requests in, whether or not the voters support them.8/05/2006 06:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Huffman's border ad surprised me and leaves me a little confused. Why didn't they have him practice the delivery until it was strong? Those who produced it should be fired.

Pretty safe to say that Giffords ad campaign is well designed and will feature a series of pieces highlighting different components and always ending with an "I approved this message because (insert well worded easy to remember good reason here) and "Change can't wait!"

Slick, smart, catchy, the product of professional grade work, and everything suggests it will continue.

Having no money, Latas is taking it to the internet with, as anticipated, increasingly sophisticated/edited youtube footage of himself as well as other videos that are consistent with his message, in particular the dependence on oil.

Here is Edited NFIB Forum footage. The obvious question is how many people will actually see these?8/05/2006 09:24:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|I did a search on for the NFIB for different candidates and came up with this.

"Clean air to drink" WTF. Did Patty’s memory create a cranium air void? So her integrity is for sale. That’s obvious now that Don Diamond bought it.8/05/2006 11:21:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|x4mr

re: Huffman – Maybe he did practice the delivery and that was the best take. That might be Steve’s strong voice.

Fire the producer? That is a little harsh. The production was fine. It’s not like he was working with Yul Brynner.8/05/2006 11:51:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|PK--We are talking about 30 seconds. Got that Steve is not Yul, but it's 30 seconds. Take all day to get it right. Try coffee, motivation exercises. Memorize completely so no reading is necessary. If that doesn't work, try scotch.

It's the audio that I am reacting to. How can you possibly not sound strong on a voice-over??!!

BooHoo--clean air to drink? Ever spoke to 100 people? Ever spoke to 100 people when you have 60 seconds, ten competitors, 5 videocameras, and 90 seconds of material to try to say, organizing those thoughts on the fly and trying to read some scribbled notes while maintaining a connection with the room?

I've committed worse speaking snafus chatting with a buddy over a cigar.

The characteristics of the Patty footage tie to the Latas footage suggesting the same camera. Hmmm.8/06/2006 08:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boohoo|W|P|OK, people get tough tied, still pretty funny. Still glad she wants to sell her integrity. This is something, mistake or not, was not good.

Just talking about it, I getting a little thirsty for a nice glass of ice air.8/06/2006 09:58:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Emersome Biggums|W|P|I would have to agree with x4mr about Patty in front of a group in that situation, but....

There is no room for the errors she made when articulating her arguments in front of the other 434 members of congress. If so, she will look very bad for us. I would also expect someone who has been in front of the public for "34 years" to do much better. She should be the most polished of all the candidates.8/06/2006 10:11:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I agree with those who have criticized the Huffman ad. It really reminds me of the "Dukakis in a tank" gaff.

Huffman looked out of place, awkward, and not at all himself...like Dukakis did in a tank.

His first ad was really good. He'd be much better off being himself. As we talked about way back in February, Huffman trying to show his border toughness plays right into the playbook of Graf, who was doing it before it was "cool"...it makes Huffman look awkward and even disengenuous. I am not sure what issue he should go with there though. He is in a real pickle in my opinion. I think all he has right now is that "Graf can't win in the fall...I can."8/06/2006 10:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|On the Giffords, Weiss, Latas race. The early vote by mail is obviously critical and it strongly benefits the candidacy with the best organization. I am not surprised that Weiss is working that angle, but the Giffords campaign is REALLY working hard on that now.8/06/2006 01:01:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Weiss said on Emil Franzi's show yesterday that an internal poll shows her up 10 points on Giffords with Latas in third, but that he is in "single digits." She also said that her campaign is the only one releasing its polls because everyone else is afraid to admit they are losing to her. Last, she claimed that her polls also show her to be the only Democrat who can win in November.

The only poll I recall Weiss releasing was earlier in the race and it was conducted by Celinda Lake, who is also listed as a donor to the Weiss campaign. I don't recall any recent polls being introduced, nor is ther enaything current up on the Weiss website. Thus, unless there are new numbers that can be backed up, this sounds like spin on the part of a desperate campaign.

I haven't heard about recent poll results from any of the campaigns. Frankly, however, I find it dubious to think that the person with the most money, the most individual donors, the greatest number of endorsements and who submitted the most petition signatures (Giffords) is losing to Weiss, who hasn't had near the success in any of the areas noted above that Giffords has achieved. Moreover, I also don't think that Latas remains in single digits. Granted, I am speculating...but where are the hard numbers Patty boasted about on the radio yesterday?

On the Franzi show, Weiss also repeated the oft-stated canard that Giffords is awash in donations from so-called "special interests," but again failed to cite the names of the people or groups she is blasting.8/06/2006 02:57:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Yeah, Rex, it continues. It is that kind of stuff that makes me go in and donate more hours to the Giffords campaign.

I am sure Weiss is referring to that last Lake poll you speak of, which just about every respectable journalist and analyst in town wrote off as a name rec. poll because the ads hadn't started yet. In fact, I still think this will backfire on her as the race tightens.

I don't believe they could have afforded another poll since that one she released. The fundraising ability for the Weiss campaign has left a lot to be desired and I am betting they are saving their hard earned dough for TV and to pay their workers.8/06/2006 07:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Gabby would be trumpeting her numbers to everyone, if she had any to show. Unless you can find some actual polling numbers from the Giffords camp, then Patty's polls have standing against your big zero.8/06/2006 08:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Outlander,

I disagree ... many (most even) campaigns don't release poll information, whatever the results.

Poll information is useful for internal purposes certainly -- it shows strengths and weaknesses, what you need to work on, etc. Why make that info aavailable to your opponents unless you have a reason?

Weiss has twice released information about her polls, and both times she had an underlying reason for doing so:

1. In January, when she first entered the race. Releasing the poll data she had was intended to help establish her as a serious candidate, which it did.

2. In mid-June, as an attempt to help bolster late-quarter fund-raising. Given the slightly anemic total she gathered, releasing the data didn't provide the boost hoped for.

For whatever reason, the GIffords campaign hasn't felt any need to release data of their polling. Detractors will claim it's because the reults are not to their liking. Supporters will claim it's beause they are confident things are going well and don't feel the need to leak tailored information.

My opinion is the only way Weiss shows a 10% margin right now is if she limits her polling to friends, family and friends of her family.8/07/2006 02:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|I do not think Celinda Lake only polls Patty's friends. She is a professional pollster, not a spin specialist.

Gabby would be bragging up her poll numbers with the same zeal that they trumpet endorsements and fund raising if there was anything there.

She would release positive numbers to drive away the opposition, if she had anything to show.8/07/2006 03:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but the Giffords has done something I consider brilliant that came completely under my radar, a podcast. This is the audio only version of a youtube, just like a radio address, featured at her website.

It runs nearly six minutes and features her speaking on issues and to her supporters with a voice that makes Huffman sound like......

No need for cameras or video editing, just a prepared piece to speak and do so effectively.

Smart. Very smart.8/07/2006 03:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|The Lake poll was released in mid-June! Patty talked about it on Saturday as if these were fresh numbers.

Methinks she spins too much and knows that the momentum has been with Giffords.8/07/2006 06:34:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Outlander, there's no "driving away the opposition" now, even if someone were up 20 points.

If you were to release numbers that indicated you were doing well, there could be a concern people would relax (this was an issue recently in CT, for example, where a poll last week had Lamont up by a bunch ... Lamont supporters were reminding everyone not to take things for granted).

So no, Giffords would release poll information, even good information, ONLY if she felt it was beneficial to do so.8/07/2006 09:27:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Sirocco stole my thunder...nicely put.

There is no advantage at all to Giffords releasing internal polls...whether she be up or down.

There should be some independent polls coming soon, I would think, and it would be a waste of money for any campaign to poll right now. By the way...those are the June polls Patty keeps trumpeting and she had better better hope that when the independent polls are out...that she is still up. If not, the momentum shifts big time. The story will be "Giffords overtakes Weiss" or "Latas is Gaining".

It is a big risk for her campaign...they have to know it too. Which is why I think this is evidence of a campaign doing what it can with what they have. It is also evidence of a campaign in trouble.8/08/2006 02:14:00 AM|W|P|Blogger AZYouLikeIt|W|P|The Giffords campaign loves touting every little bit of positive information it can. She's an exaggerator of O'Reillyan proportions.

If she had ANY way to spin her internal polling as positive, she would've done it long ago.

The "why release internal numbers" argument is total BS, and you all know it.

Yes, there will likely be more polling as election day nears. Yes, it will likely show a boost for Gabby based on her TV time.

But until that happens, this is still a 10-point race -- Gabby's playing a $500,000 game of catch-up.8/08/2006 03:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|The difference, of course, is endorsements are a matter of public record. You might as well trumpet them, since your opponents know about them anyway.8/03/2006 02:41:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|I refered in an earlier post to the the Don Goldwater site that redirects to Janet Napolitano's page being purchased by a "Republican cybersquatter." As it turns out, although the various Jim Pederson and Napolitano domain names were purchased by people who are identifiable as Republicans, the Goldwater site was purchased anonymously through a service that is often used by cybersquatters. I got confused when I recieved an e-mail full of the various site names that had been purchased. I got an e-mail from someone else asking where I got the information. When I looked back at the list, I found that what I had posted was incorrect. The facts in my first and second posts on this made up scandal are still correct.|W|P|115464186720101688|W|P|Department of Corrections Department|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/03/2006 09:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|And as I pointed out on a comment on your second post, Don Goldwater still has no money, so why should he care if someone purchases the domain name, "dongoldwater.org"?

Otherwise a perfectly good domain name would go to waste. At least it's being taken to a good home by someone who can afford it.8/03/2006 09:08:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|are domain names puppies now Eli?8/04/2006 09:10:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|more like ferrets, i think.8/04/2006 10:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|I think they are. I couldn't resist the phrase, 'taken to a good home.' (recall that the site is now set up as a redirect to the Governor's home page.)8/04/2006 02:18:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|on a completely unrelated, but potentially more exciting topic...

Did anyone catch the screed from Mike Harris' campaign manager that was posted on Espresso Pundit? Buried in the rambling plea for money was this juicy tidbit:

"We currently have a Republican candidate on the ballot that has a 40 percent over, with a much stronger case than they ever had against David Burnell Smith, and they have left him alone."

Who is he talking about?!?!! Any ideas??8/03/2006 10:18:00 AM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|A few months back, the Arizona Republic talked about Mary Peters's candidacy for governor and declared her the front runner. No polls were taken, and this was a woman that few average voters had heard of, so where this "front runner" status came from is anybody's guess. In the end, Mary Peters decided not to make a go of it. One of her opponents (who has since also dropped out) tried to make an issue of Peters's residency. I don't think that this is why she got out, I have the feeling that she took a poll and found out that nobody knew who she was. Lately, Len Munsil has been talked about as a "front runner." The Behavior Research Center released a poll last week that shows that Munsil's "front runner" status is probably about as solid as Peters's was. The poll shows Don Goldwater, whose campaign is regarded as "in trouble" by the same people who have declared Munsil the front runner, with a nearly two to one lead against Munsil. The poll shows El Don de Aguas Doradas with 23%, and Munsil with 12%. Oddly enough, when only "high efficacy" Republicans are considered, Munsil's percentage drops to 11%. I thought that Munsil was supposed to do better among the hard cores? When the numbers are broken out regionally, Munsil even looks worse. He comes in third place behind Mike Harris in the rural counties, and in fourth in Pima county (embarassingly, the pollsters listed his results in Pima County as an asterisk). It makes one wonder if he's got any presence outside Maricopa county. The overwhelming number of Republican primary voters are in Maricopa County, so it may not matter. But still, under what definition of "front runner" is Munsil doing so well? The poll also shows Janet Napolitano decimating both candidates, although Goldwater makes a slightly better showing. So, in the end, who cares who they nominate?|W|P|115462687887383239|W|P|If This is Being a "Frontrunner," I Think I'd Take Running Behind, Thank You|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/03/2006 11:19:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|There is a Rasmussen poll out there that does not show Len in a very positive light. All I could find was favorable/unfavorable. I did not see a match up number between Don and Len.

According to a story dated August 2 on Rasmussen’s web site Goldwater has favorable of 46% and unfavorable of 33%. Munsil has favorable of 34% and unfavorable of 38%. Ouch!

Tedski is correct when he says Janet is way out in front. Her numbers are 55% favorable, 34% unfavorable.

I don’t know if the link will work but here is a try. Maybe tedski could add a link to it in his story.

rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/arizonaGovernor.htm8/03/2006 12:54:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Interesting points Phxkid, but favorable among who? Likely primary voters would tell me a lot. However, it appears to me that Goldwater's success hinges on moderate, business Republicans in this primary. He has tried to run to the far right, but guess who is always waiting there for him...Munsil.

Obviously potential turnout can shift and change, BUT...

It appears that Goldwater doesn't have much of an organization or operation. Took him far too long to even mobilize to get clean funds. Munsil has a very active organization.

That organization, or lackthereof for Goldwater, will be crucial to contacting voters and getting early ballots out and back. He has to rely on moderate repblicans to turn out or to appeal to the conservative voters who DO vote in primaries. Not sure anyone but Munsil is getting that piece of the party.

I see major advantages for Munsil over Goldwater, but as Tedski says...who cares...Janet is going to win big time.8/03/2006 04:26:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Roger,

You ask an interesting question about the sample for the favorable numbers but I am not sure it matters much. Lets say the numbers are from Republican voters, then Len is not looking good to win the primary. If it is among all voters then Len has no chance in the general and Don can make that case based on Len’s negatives. Either way it’s bad for any candidate to have negatives higher than positives.

Lets say Don gets his money in time to do a huge radio campaign for the primary and wins the primary (he does well on radio, plus you can’t see his eyes.) Then if he can get the party base behind him, keep the moderates, and campaign like no tomorrow he has got a shot at it. Janet is very popular but Don might get her on the border issue.

OK it’s out there a little but who would have thought W would win after loosing 3 debates in a row to Kerry.8/03/2006 05:46:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|kralmajales,

Has Goldwater even qualified for clean elections yet? Last I heard, he was still begging for change on his website (two weeks after he said he was ready to file).

I'm not sure Agh20 can get the moderate business Republicans. Those are the people he's likely rubbing the wrong way with his immigration positions.

My guess is that Munsil has avoided real discussion of that topic because he's trying to win that business GOP vote in the primary in addition to his CAP soldiers.

But as you say, it's all academic come November (hopefully).8/03/2006 06:40:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Don has not yet qualified. You can check each candidate at

www.azcleanelections.gov/ccecweb/ccecays/elections/candList2006.asp8/04/2006 03:33:00 PM|W|P|Blogger The Screaming Centrist|W|P|Agh20

Geek nitpik:

That would be Silverwater. Goldwater is AuH208/05/2006 09:39:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I do love the alchemists on this blog!!!

Interesting about the clean elections. I wonder if he will just hang it up and forgo it. At this point, every moment spent qualifying is a moment they could be using on getting out vote by mail applications, calling supporters, etc.

I actually like the "dismal science" myself.8/02/2006 03:28:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|The Arizona Federation of Teachers has announced their endorsement of Gabrielle Giffords. Earlier, the Arizona Education Association and the CWA local that organizes school district employees in the Tucson area endorsed Giffords. Interestingly, one of the few labor affiliated groups to endorse Patty Weiss was the Tucson Federation of Teachers, an AFT affiliate. The TFT is small, but in Arizona, the AFT tends to represent teachers in rural districts. As Rorschach would say, "Hrm."|W|P|115455845244183122|W|P|Yet More Endorsements...Yeah, You Know|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/02/2006 07:10:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|If there was ever really any doubt about Giffords Republican roots and backing, her good friend Eddie just plopped down $15,000 to host Dick Cheney in Phoenix. Nice to know the corporate, anti-union, war-mongers love Giffords as much as Cheney.

In all fairness to Basha, it could mean he went around raising the money for Cheney. Like that makes a difference.

The United States of America, Inc.8/02/2006 07:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Hey Fedup,

What about Patty's apparently good friend Don Diamond who donated $4000 to her campaign and who is well known around the state for being a huge Republican supporter and who is a huge supporter of Steve Huffman?

Might this be that the Republicans would rather face Weiss in the fall than Giffords.

Oh...and say what you will, but Giffords has more ACTUAL liberal credentials than either Latas or Weiss.8/02/2006 08:03:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Fedup

Please don’t support a young, spirited, and experienced candidate like Giffords who might pick up a few GOP votes and lots of Independents. Please go for someone ideologically pure like Francine Shacter. Please!8/02/2006 08:58:00 PM|W|P|Blogger FEDUP|W|P|Why is it Giffords' gadflies have to accuse anyone who brings up hypocrisy and corruption on Giffords’ part as either ideologically pure or bring up Patty's donor?

I am not "pure" but I am logical. When you have a history of taking money from corrupt sources and voting against good legislation, then everything indicates you will continue to do it given more power. Giffords had her chance to prove herself on the state level. Up against either Graf or Huffman who are both "experience" like you all like to stress here and have their own packs of endorsements, Giffords won't stand a chance.

I notice I haven't heard too many women on the blogs defending Giffords and I wonder why that is? Are her supporters only men? Is it because she is good looking? Really, between Roger's fixation on her and the complete inability to answer simple questions about her hypocrisy I am really wondering about the motivation.

I never said I supported Patty either, but she doesn't have a record of selling out to corporations in her vote. That alone gives anyone who is not Giffords a leg up.

BTW, I don’t have loyalty to any party. I use my brain when voting. Try it some time.8/03/2006 05:47:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Fedup,

One very iffy example does not comprise a "history".8/03/2006 08:09:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Sonoran Sam|W|P|Fed Up: Your comments are sexist as well as sophomoric.
If that's an example of "using your brain," I guess I don't qualify.
I look at a six-year voting record, I look at the person, and I make a choice. I happen to know several of the candidates and their inner circle personally. I like them all. But I've chosen to support Giffords based on the facts.8/03/2006 08:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Fedup,

I bring up Patty because she and and a number of you have searched to the high heavens for some way to stain Giffords entire record. All you can come up with are a committee vote and a few supporters that not everyone likes. My point is that many of the other candidates are not so pure ideologically or finacially. Some should have thought of that before they started throwing stones.

Complete inability to answer the hypocrisy? There is no record of hypocrisy. There are only a few inconsistencies that you and others here have trumpeted as a fictional pattern. That one vote does not make a record. It won't satisfy you for me to say it, but it has satisfied many of us and I doubt very seriously that it will be the undoing of her candidacy.

The comment about only men supporting her is extremely ridiculous.8/03/2006 08:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger George Tuttle|W|P|I guess the "stain" of having the taxpayers picking up over a million dollar tab for clean up on your old property is nothing....8/03/2006 08:27:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I notice I haven't heard too many women on the blogs defending Giffords and I wonder why that is? Are her supporters only men? Is it because she is good looking?


I think this is more because of the sausage party that is the blogosphere. Go back and look, and you'll see few women posting here or on most other political blogs.

I have also posted numerous posts supporting Pederson and Mitchell. I'm sure it's because they are soooo dreamy.8/03/2006 11:01:00 AM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|Kral, you've swum past the buoys into the deep end on the idea the GOP would rather face Weiss than Giffords.

Yeah, that makes so much sense because the polls are pretty clear that Weiss is the ONLY Demo in the race who beats the GOP potentials head-to-head. So, obviously the GOP wants to lose in the general, and therefore they'll support Weiss in the primary. And THAT is the vast right-wing conspiracy that has led Don Diamond to contribute to the Weiss campaign. Why didn't we think of that sooner?!

Ever stop to think that maybe the guy who once owned KVOA might just actually like the young woman who was hired to work there so many years ago and what she turned into?

He's turned an about-face on a couple of issues, including conservation. Which is shocking for a blade-and-grade guy like him. Who knows what his motives are? But it's probably not that crazy theory of yours. "The GOP is afraid of GG, so they're backing the only candidate who can beat them in November!"

Get real. The GOP is worried about losing this seat, no matter who's up for the Dems. But my money is on a Weiss vs. Graf general elex. Unfortunately for you (and all of us who are from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party), there's zero evidence that if it were GG v. Graff, your girl could win. And that's precisely why I'm in the Weiss camp (I like Latas, but it's clear he cannot win at this point).

Bottom line for you: You will find any way possible to post stuff to support your girl, who is being supported by the keeper of this blog. That is fine. That's what makes democracy tick. But don't for a second try to get Democrats from the Democratic wing of the party to agree that we should vote for GG because of some crack-pot theory.

Here's the reason to support Weiss, and I'll make it as clear as I can: It's because you're a DEMOCRAT and you WANT TO WIN IN NOVEMBER. Period. It's not "who has 'experience,' because anybody who can balance a checkbook and meets the Constitutional requirements can be a Congressperson. And we all know the AZ legislature can only balance its checkbook on the backs of our public schools. It's not who's prettier. It's not who's got the best wardrobe. It's not even who has the fewest corporate contributions. It's who can WIN - because this race is bigger than CD8. It's about the balance of the House and the direction of the country. We've gotta get past the local squabbling over who's gonna lose face if GG doesn't win (Raul). It's about the Dems taking back the house. If you want that to happen, you simply support the person with the best chance of doing that - and Weiss also happens to be the Demo who's a real Demo, which is convenient for those us us who're sick of losing elections to conservatives.

Oh, and by the way, I've met GG and while she's not at all ugly, she's not "good looking" in my book. She's just a plan Jane. And I'm a male. I'm not supporting anybody on the basis of their appearances. And anyone who does, I hope, will find themselves lost on the way to the polls in September, and November.8/03/2006 11:06:00 AM|W|P|Blogger RMpogo|W|P|I'm female, and I don't find any of the male candidates to be dreamy! I agree with Sonoran Sam that the proof is in Gabrielle's record and her exprience. I'm not going to vote for Patty based on her experience in bashing fellow candidates. Unfortunately, that's all I know about Ms. Weiss and her fans.8/03/2006 11:16:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Sorry tooblue4u, I disagree with your base claim that polls indicate only Weiss can win head-to-head against the Republican candidates.

Since I disagree with your thesis, I disagree with the rest of your analysis as well.8/03/2006 11:28:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Tooblue,

Kral isn't just making this up.

Specifically, it's not GOP as a whole, but the Huffman campaign, that is rumored to prefer to face Patty, so much that they will take action, whether that is money from Diamond (doubtful IMHO), a hit piece of some kind, or something else.

I have heard Graf (and this is direct from the man himself) make a remark that for purely financial reasons, Giffords is more formidable, but the remark was a casual recognition of cash and unlikely a reflection of his opinion of the candidates.

If there is anything to this (and jury's out), Huffman camp has strong feelings, and they want to face Weiss.

Some GOP bloggers have said that Huffman would have a tough time against Giffords.8/03/2006 12:36:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Im in the deep end...but I am swimming along.

Your assertions, Tooblue, are based on polls run in the past that were based primarily on name recognition. None of has seen them or their methodology. All we know is that they were bought by Patty and we hear rumors of internal numbers..that I have also not seen.

You may be right and that may continue to hold true, but it does not account for Giffords closing the gap in the next month and what that will do to her name rec. and to potential voters in the fall (and I have no evidence of whether she is or that she isn't closing that gap).

I do know this. If Giffords does win she will be virtually coronated by the party and others for having beaten on the most well known figures in Southern Arizona. It will be a media event that will bring enormous momentum (Patty will get it if she wins too frankly).

I also know this. Diamond gave dough to Patty, not Giffords. Diamone is supporting Huffman. It wasn't just him either. It was his wife and another exec. in the company. HMMMM. Doesn't sound just like a friend helping a friend here.

What Xm4r has said is quite believable to me and I have heard rumblings from Republicans, I know, to the same effect. They would rather face Weiss than Gabby. I know that a few people here and there do not make a pattern, but it starts to smell funny for sure.

That said, I honestly think any of the Democratic candidates could beat the repubs in the fall. But they do not think that Giffords would be a push over as you suggest. In fact, Giffords is much more likely to pull voters from every part of the party AND independents and Republicans than Patty will. I strongly believe that, but guess I could be wrong if I see it.

Next, Weiss has about $140k on hand for the primary and then no head start organizationally or endorsement wise for the general. I believe that money will come her way if she wins, but will it be enough and will she have the ties to build an organization machine between Sept. and October? The republicans, I bet, are betting she cannot and, on the other hand, know that Giffords has this network and organization in place already.

Last, some have decried publicly Giffords fundraising and that she was able to get funds from elsewhere. These, though, are democrats nationally that see her as an effective candidate and a good bet for this race...already! That network is going to be enormously valuable after the primary to raise funds for the general election. Weiss just doesn't have it.

Patty Weiss is trying to represent what you call the "democratic wing of the democratic party". She appears effective at that so far because she turns you on as a voter. However, I have seen no indication that until January (when she announced) that she has done ANYTHING for that wing, or any other wing, of the Democratic party.

You may want an outsider badly and like her and that is great. She is a good communicator and is shaping up as a good candidate. But I don't believe that she has the network, the campaign organization, the experience, or the credentials as a Democrat, to be the best person for this race, much less the best candidate to beat the Republicans in the fall.

My opinion...and my opinion only. Not sure I hold much sway here, so don't worry so much about what I say or think. But I think I am right.8/03/2006 01:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Just an observation (is this a preview of coming attractions??), folks watching television for the next week or so are already going to be thinking Huffman vs. Giffords because each now has TWO 30 second spots running across multiple stations and cable channels.

Huffman's #2 has him at the border with a flashlight. Giffords #2 is her quorum queen story about the cuts she blocked in 2003.

All ads are available at the candidate websites.8/03/2006 06:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I think Gabby’s ads are good but Steve looks like a Home Inspector who got lost in the backyard.8/03/2006 09:11:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Fed Up, how do you know who is female or not on this or any blog?8/03/2006 09:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|I bet I know...YOU are female Elizabeth!!!

(smile)8/04/2006 06:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger TooBlue4U|W|P|Sirocco, you can disagree, but that's what the numbers say. I don't blame you for ignoring it, Ronald Reagan always said don't bother me with the facts, and we are talking about the conservatives' favorite candidate here. Us Democrats are all about two other candidates, only one of which has a shot at this thing.

Kral, please tell me how GG is "closing the gap." On who? Weiss? Where'd you hear that? Great, maybe people are paying attention to the race finally. I would expect the numbers to tighten up as people pay attention. But I've heard of no such poll indicating anything of the sort.

And since that check from Don Diamond is what's got you looking under cactus needles for vermin, can you explain what's so sinister about someone giving money to Repukes and Demos? You don't really think that's the first time in policital history (even in only AZ) that it's happened. Do you? Dang, I hope it was a short turnip truck...

I figure the guy's money isn't as tainted as that Wal-Mart lobbyist's on GG's donor rolls.8/04/2006 11:09:00 PM|W|P|Blogger cc burro|W|P|DEMs--Spend more time doing actual volunteer work for the DEMs/DEM party and less time blogging--particularly in blogging in a way that just promotes dissension. Almost all of you have your minds passionately made up, so what is the point of getting into it like this? What is the value (besides providing pleasant diversion and spreading rumors and intra-party psyche warfare] for getting a DEM CD 8 candidate elected?8/04/2006 11:32:00 PM|W|P|Blogger anonymous|W|P|Gabby's numbers are not moving. Right now it is Patty Weiss versus undecided, with Gabby running third.8/04/2006 11:35:00 PM|W|P|Blogger outlander|W|P|Sixty percent of Gabby's money comes from either out of state, or greater Phoenix.8/04/2006 11:38:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|CC,

I think what you point to is starting to happen, and I would challenge the notion that blogging is detracting from campaigning. It might be the case that some campaign resources are wrongfully devoted to blogs, but I think this is small. With the exception of Patty's corruption nonsense, I think the dem primary has been very civil, and because her nonsense failed, no blood has been shed.



Yea, Steve kneeling like that in the dark with a flashlight? I think Giffords "Blocked" ad is the best released so far.


Where have you been? That folks, especially wealthy folks, support both sides is old news and well posted all over these blogs. The Wilson character you refer to gives $100 to $400 to over a dozen people.

The reason this Diamond thing is raising eyebrows is 1) Patty's been making a big stink about donations and 2) the numbers are large (approaching $10K including associates).

For Huffman supporters, they are giving a curiously large chunk of change to Weiss. Why?

Well, for what it's worth, if Huffman wants to derail Giffords and face Patty, he will have to do more than send 10 grand Patty's way via Diamond pockets.

Somehow, I think Click, Olson, Kolbe, Walkup, Stoops, Sawyer, Rios, Aldrich know this.

Supporting Patty? So is Huffman and the folks I just listed.

Until 9/13.8/02/2006 03:11:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Supposedly, some Jim Pederson supporter has been buying up domain names with Jon Kyl's name and planting false "re-directs" at them. I haven't heard anything about it either, but it is the claim of the author of a website at the address pederson2006.net. Of course, the story that was on Plugged-In and Espresso Pundit was that some nefarous individual had used Don Goldwater's (not Kyl's) name as an address for several re-directs to Janet Napolitano's site. It came out later that the person who owned those addresses was a probable cybersquatter, and that a registered Republican had bought up several addresses with the word "Pederson" in them. But, don't worry about the facts, that poor, innocent Kyl is the victim of that horrible rich man Pederson. (See "CORRECTION" below) What we get at ".net" is a rather amateurish page which alleges, among other things, that Jon Kyl has "the highest level of integrity and morality." Um, okay. It also comes with the following disclaimer:
Note:Democrats- I don't need to hear your sniveling complaints. Remember you are the ones that started this redirector tactic and I am sorry you have the candidate you do. That is your problem. But he has money.
But, I'm not snivelling...I'm not...I'm not. By the way, the "re-director" tactic has been used for quite sometime. I even remember the George Bush campaign buying "Bushsucks.org" out from under the folks that had it and using it as a redirect to their own site. But, please, make this a campaign issue. It will interest a whole eight or nine people. And another thing, what you did wasn't a re-direct. Just so you know. CORRECTION: I was mistaken in the original post. Although the various "Pederson" domain names had been purchased by a Republican, the Goldwater redirect name had been registered anonymously through a service often used by cybersquatters.|W|P|115455759151511168|W|P|Gosh, I Don't Even Know Why We Bother|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/02/2006 05:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Is there anyone who is really bent out of shape over any of this?

I know Patterson claimed to have his panties in a twist over the Goldielocks ... er Goldwater ones, but that just sounds like a teapot tempists designed merely to rally the troops.

Does this crap really matter to anyone? If so, please tell me why.

Thx8/02/2006 06:16:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Apparently it means that Democrats are such dirty tricksters that we actually have Republicans doing dirty tricks for us before we even know they are doing the dirty tricks.

Kind of like how Bill Hicks stole all of Denis Leary's work for the "No Cure For Cancer" routine by doing the same stuff two years prior.8/02/2006 07:19:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Tedski|W|P|I don't really think it matters, which is sort of my point.8/02/2006 09:25:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You reference the Bangles, I reference Bill Hicks. And yeah, it means nothing but my idea was rather clever. :D8/01/2006 07:41:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Gabrielle Giffords won the endorsement of the Human Rights Campaign, a group that lobbies and campaigns on behalf of gays and lesbians. Giffords earned this endorsement from work she did in the legislature on bills regarding hate crimes and employment non-discrimination. This goes back to what I have been saying for a long time: groups such as this one will reward Giffords for the work she has done on behalf of progressive causes. As much as other candidates may make good speeches on progressive issues, having a record goes a lot further for organizations like this one that have had to fight in the political trenches. Giffords also got the endorsement of Las Adelitas, a group of progressive women activists that was formed, ironically enough, to counter EMILY's List during Raúl Grijalva's first run for congress. The original idea behind the group was to show that although Grijalva's opponent had the support of a national women's organization, local activists were supporting him. The group continued after the election and has been active in a number of progressive issues. Of course, this particular entry will be blooming with comments about how the HRC and Las Adelitas must be some sort of crypto-Republican corporate fifth column within the liberal coalition. Or some other such nonsense that wouldn't be said if the endorsements went another way.|W|P|115448788265959111|W|P|Yet More Endorsements for Giffords|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/01/2006 08:37:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|We may be spared the blooming comments, Tedski.

Some of us have noticed a recent drop in the anti-G blogging. The efforts over at kos have completely ceased. TDP has gotten unusually quiet, and while some stuff has shown up at Stacy's, not much.

Is this the calm before the storm, or is it recognition of the piling endorsements and the latest FEC reports?

Or have those campaign bloggers suddenly realized they need to stop blogging and start campaigning?8/01/2006 08:47:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|As one of the resident Republican contributors and can pretty safely say that HRC and Las Adelitas are not Republican organizations.

X4mr is onto something with the comment about needing to start campaigning. With early balloting starring in a few days most activist are probably out walking neighborhoods.8/01/2006 09:20:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Phx Kid:


Walking neighborhoods, dragging people to fill out those forms, and taking those forms into the office for them. Then, calling them over and over again to be sure they voted and turned it in.

All this takes organization and a similar effort will be needed in the fall. To you Phxkid, watch out, the people backing Huffman are good at this...very good at it. Second, they are also good at forming little "independent" coalitions used to attack another candidate right about the time needed to show doubt (Remember the CAVE ad that the RTA folks, Farley, and the bunch sent out?).

On the Democratic side, it is clear that Giffords has that organizational advantage here to win in the fall and in this primary...with the endorsements, with the funds, and with the volunteers. In addition to the endorsements Ted mentions, there was another Union today.

I hope that we can start rallying around Giffords as a candidate now instead of fighting it out. We will need every ounce of support after the primary. This campaign has really done the job and is earning the nomination of the Democratic party. The others appear to be sputtering or resting on name rec. At some point, the effort and work has to show for something and I just don't see it anywhere but in Giffords' campaign.

Join in, volunteer and help make this one of the 15 seats needed to take back the house.8/01/2006 09:42:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Roger,

Thanks for the warning. I am not too worried since I am not a candidate.

Those people backing Huffman better be careful. If they win the primary by playing nasty it will be a very cold Tuesday in November for Huffman when he looses to Giffords.

How does the saying go “Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.”8/02/2006 06:37:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Huffman's money, his well-known love of smashmouth tactics or even a dozen indie groups backing him will not be enough to stop Graf from getting the GOP nod. Graf is the only one of their candidates with a hardcore base of support. Some folks (including Huffman) thought that the Aiken thing would cause Graf to implode. It hasn't and the network he has set up throughout the conservative community is ready to turn out for him.

Huffman would have a chance if Hellon would get out of the race, but he won't because he also thinks (wrongly!) that he can turn back the Graf wave and his people hate Huffman, who has done more to alienate people in his own party than anyone I can think of in recent history.

I am not buying the popular mindset that says that Huffman's money, strategy or backing by Kolbe will push him over the top. He is too divisive within his own party, the Graf people are too staunch to be swayed and the opposition is divided between Huffman, Hellon and two minor candidates.

On our side, while I am happy as a Giffords supporter to see another endorsement, I am not about to give the other campaigns any "bulletin board material" by saying that it is time for them to admit "it's over." All of us should know that it most assuredly is not. The average primary voter is still not truly focused on this race, the true campaigning has not yet started and we should STILL be truly worried about the name ID of someone whose mug has been on the tube for over two decades!

Let's cut down on the hubris and keep up the hard work for Gabby!8/02/2006 06:50:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|Bah! Haven't you all realized yet that having the most endorsements, the most donors, the most money on hand, an established record of support for a wide range of Democratic causes (which has helped lead to the endorsements, donations, etc), as well as the best-organized campaign is all meaningless?

No, no, no! The candidate who will win in November will be Patty Latas, the newscaster with military experience!

- SLAP -

Oops, sorry ... was channeling someone else there for a minute.8/02/2006 08:02:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|No hubris here...Rex. I know this thing is no where near over. I would just like to welcome people aboard and get behind who I think will be the winner and who I think should be the winner in this primary. I have been volunteering to help make it happen and so should others. It is quite fun, we need you, and it will be much more fun on primary night and election night this fall.

As for Graf, I agree with you and think the conservatives will turn out for him. That said, I know you are not underestimating his supporter either.

Phxkid...I just got the sense that you were not a fan of Huffman from your past remarks.8/02/2006 08:49:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Will echo Roger about the hubris and at this point the fat lady is only practicing back stage.

There are numerous variables that could radically alter this picture.

There could be the out of F blue implosion / meltdown of ANY candidate, the sudden discovery of gods knows what.

I don't have confidence on either side. I have no clue about Patty's name and what that means in this district of folks that pay how much attention to all of this?!

On the R side, just not getting Graf's strength. Will openly acknowledge these folks are not my turf. I fear Huffman on 9/12. Do all of you really think that Walkup, Click, Kolbe, Diamond, Olsen, their families and friends, giving it their all with tv ads and massive signage to boot, combined with Graf's semi extremism and a drive to paint him as sure defeat in November......

Just don't know, guys.

I think either of the ladies can take Graf with the Democratic support they will get post 9/13. With Graf, the race will be about issues and positions.

With moderate Huffman, the race will be about the people, and that's always a mess.8/02/2006 08:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|sirocco,

Congratulations! That was the funniest comment I've seen on CD8 on any blog so far. Not that there's been a lot of humor thrown around. But maybe you'll finally get things started.8/02/2006 08:53:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.8/02/2006 08:57:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Kralmajales -

“not a fan of Huffman” … somewhere between the 63% from CAP, the C+ from Goldwater Institute, C from ASRPA, Rio Nuevo, and support for abortion-on-demand you bet I’m not a fan.

I think Steve is actually the candidate that cannot win in November. In a Steve vs. Gabby race the Democrat would have much greater party support. I do not know the outcome of a Graf vs. Giffords but at least there would be a difference on some issues. Steve is too much like Gabby to triumph. Her superior presence and financing would beat out his timid and weak appearance. Have you seen his latest ad about the border? He does not look very happy to be out in the desert. And what’s with the flashlight?

One more thing about Huffman. He was suppose to represent NW Tucson. One big issue in the area is how many roads shut down during even moderate rainstorms. So what does Steve do? He secures $600,000,000 for a dubious project outside of his district with very little benefit for his constituents. What a chump.8/02/2006 09:18:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|(smile)...that's what I'm talking about Phxkid!

Have a great one!8/02/2006 09:41:00 AM|W|P|Blogger sirocco|W|P|I have to agree with x4mr in not uderstanding the appeal of Graf. He just come's across to me as a single-issue loon.

Given the apparent solidity of his support that can't really be the case, though.

The general impression from the Democratic side seems to be if Graf were to win the Republican primary he would stimulate the base but would have a difficult time drawing votes from the moderate Republican wing, that a number of those voters would either not vote at all or, worse, vote for the Democratic candidate. What are your feelings PK?8/02/2006 10:24:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|sirroco,

It may not be that there really is widespread appeal for Graf at all. What we see in primaries is typically the most extreme of parties and their mainstream activist supporters.

That said, I think this year is different for Republicans. All indications are that the moderate, pro-business base of the Republican party is not that energized this year. The huge deficits, the low opinion polls for Bush, the war in Iraq, the border, and a host of other issues don't necessarily excite them...according to polls I am reading.

What we may be seeing is a year where we hear the fewer conservative voices loud and clear and not so much the moderate, Bob Dole style of Republican.

As a result, Graf has appeal and the question is whether moderate republicans that don't like his brand of Republican will stay home or whether they will vote for a Hellon or Huffman.

My theory...and like all polls...they can change in a days notice.8/02/2006 10:40:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Rex Scott|W|P|Phx Kid can correct me if he likes, but I think Graf best represents the profile of today's state and national party. Just look on his website and see the support he has from so many of the leaders of the GOP in the Arizona Legislature. He stays on message with great discipline, continually pushing the hot buttons of immigration, abortion, gay marriage and fiscal conservatism.

Hellon has great appeal to many party regulars on the right and in the middle. His list of supporters is chock full of people who have been active in the GOP for many years. However, keep in mind that he was ousted as national committeeman a few years ago because he was not conservative enough.

Huffman has Kolbe's backing and the most money, but he has always been distrusted by the Right and he has offended Republicans of all stripes by playing hardball in Phoenix and during his campaigns. He was all set to take on Hellon's ex-wife in the GOP primary for the LD26 Senate seat when Kolbe announced his retirement. Anger over that move and his tactics over the years is a big reason why he and Hellon are both still in the race.

I think one anti-Graf candidate might have had a chance, but there are two major and two minor candidates opposing him. He has all the advantages in this scenario. Huffman tried to use the Aiken thing to discredit Graf and that had no legs.8/02/2006 10:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Sirocco

Graf had an A+ from the Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association and a B from Goldwater Institute. He supports reigning in federal spending, is pro-life, and supports traditional marriage. This guy owns the base.

On top of all this he is the leader on the border issue. In years past that would not have meant much but for what ever reason that has become one of the top items in this election cycle. If Randy is a single issues it is being a solid Republican.

Walkup, Click, Kolbe, Diamond, and Olsen have raised a lot of money for Steve but I bet that a lot of their friends and connections are Democrats. Great for business and socializing but not much help to Huffman during the primary.

If Graf wins the primary it will be a close race in the general election. He will have a highly motivated conservative base and he will need to find a way to reach out to the center. Giffords would make a tough challenger because she may be able to peel away some of the chamber of commerce Republicans.8/02/2006 10:51:00 AM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Rex … not much to add. You nailed it, especially that Hellon got all the long-time party moderates.8/02/2006 12:12:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|One more thing. A big difference between the campaigns of Graf and Huffman could be described as plebeian vs. patrician.

To meet Randy in person you just show up at some local event in the park or town parade and there is Randy, more than willing to discuss the issues and cite specifics. You might even get a free hotdog and soda.

Want to meet Steve? The entry-level price is usually $250. For that you get some hors d’oeuvres at someone’s home in the Foothills and a chance to talk with Lute Olson.

This is part of the reason that Huffman has more money than Graf. Problem is there are a lot more plebeians than patricians. After meeting Randy in person the average Joe Republican might not be very impressed with an ad of Steve kneeling out in the desert with a flashlight.8/02/2006 12:30:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|A big difference between the campaigns of Graf and Huffman could be described as plebeian vs. patrician.

Oooooh! Class war in the Republican Party. Interesting.8/02/2006 04:53:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|I am not sure it is so much class warfare as party warfare. Each of the 3 leading candidates has something that makes him viable.

Steve got the big money crowd; Mike Hellon has the moderate to liberal wing of the party faithful. Randy has the conservative base, pro-lifers, and fix the border people.8/02/2006 05:06:00 PM|W|P|Blogger boredinaz|W|P|Then why call Graf's people pleibians and Huffman's patricians?8/02/2006 05:41:00 PM|W|P|Blogger phx kid|W|P|Poetic license.8/02/2006 10:50:00 PM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|Attended the NFIB Forum tonight. Very well done and the most candidates I have seen at one time.

Republicans: Randy Graf, Frank Antoneri, Steve Huffman, Mike Jenkins
Democrats: Patty Weiss, Jeff Latas, Alex Rodriquez, Francine Shacter, Bill Johnson
Libertarian: David Nolan
Independent: Jay Quick

Quite well organized and very civil. Questions involved health care, hiring of illegal aliens and immigration, the minimum wage, and taxes—mostly in the context of small business.

No real surprises and you can probably guess who said what. What I will report is how they answered the last question, which was what they considered their number one priority and how they would work in Congress given the partisanship environment. I will just give the priorities they spoke:

Randy Graf—Immigration policy and the border.
Frank Antoneri—The Iraq War. Give soldiers what they need to pull kick ass Rambo, win the thing decisively, and then come home.
Patty Weiss—Special Interest Lobbying and Corruption.
Jeff Latas—Energy policy and dependence on oil and fossil fuels
David Nolan—Cut government spending to 20% below its level at the end of the Clinton Administration.
Alex Rodriquez—I’m sorry, but my body has painful spasms and contortions and I find myself unable to function while he speaks. I think it was the war.
Steve Huffman—Didn’t really state a specific priority and spoke to the partisanship angle, citing his skills at working both sides of the aisle at the state level to get legislation accomplished.
Bill Johnson—a very mousy guy with soft spoken voice. Big issue is immigration and the border. I may have heard him wrong, but I swear he started talking about the massive amount of uncontrolled new home construction because of the waves of immigrants coming across the border. I turned to some folks around me and their twisted expressions suggested I had heard correctly. Hey, don’t take my word for it. Perhaps those who recorded it can provide the facts.
Francine Shacter—also concentrated on partisanship and getting the two sides of the aisle to work together and solve the real problems facing the country.
Mike Jenkins—if I recall correctly, it was the runaway spending and the deficit, but that should be verified.
Jay Quick—sorry, can’t recall, but someone should pull Quick aside and provide a crash course in microphone management.

Not sure where, but at some thread I read comments that Huffman was no good at speaking to a room of people. Bullshit. Most of the field speak very well, with Patty a notch above all of them, and Huffman holds his own just fine, with a distinguished demeanor and the confidence of an experienced legislator.8/03/2006 09:04:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|Thanks Xm4r...

There are stories on the debate last night in the Azstarnet. There is also a puffy story on why people volunteer...without mentioning who has the most volunteers right now.

Oh...there is a big debate tonight at the Doubletree near Reid Park. Sponsored by a number of Latino/Hispanic groups. At 5:30. Giffords and the other candidates will be attending.8/03/2006 09:13:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Kralmajales|W|P|A thousand pardons...the stories are in today's Citizen...not the Star.8/03/2006 10:48:00 AM|W|P|Blogger x4mr|W|P|I really don't care at all, but just have to finally ask, Roger, why you invert the m and the 4.

If it's a code with a message, I lack the cerebral horsepower to decipher.8/03/2006 11:43:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Michael|W|P|Not for nothing, and I still don't have a horse in this race, but the HRC isn't a very liberal organization. In progressive queer circles, they're derisively referred to as "queers in khakis". Very classist, and historically pretty racist too. They've gotten a bit better, but I for one don't give a lot of credibility to their endorsements. Still, an HRC endorsement is better than an HRC condemnation, I suppose. But I don't think they assign those to candidates. Yet.8/01/2006 04:08:00 PM|W|P|Tedski|W|P|Patty Weiss announced that Cochise County Supervisor and former State Representative Paul Newman has endosed her. Here I was going to make some silly joke about Newman's name...I dunno...a reference to Slap Shot or maybe Hud? Naw...I am so much more mature that that. It's all been done, hasn't it? Besides, there are so many other political names to get confused about. To wit... This morning the Cuban government announced that Fidel Castro will be incapacitated for a time, and that former Arizona Governor Raúl Castro will be taking over the reigns for a time. Castro has extensive experience as a prosecutor, judge, governor and ambassador to call on. Arizona should be proud! Some of you may remember that Maryland Senate Candidate Michael Steel made some remarks about how hard it is to run as a Republican this year. The comments made many Republicans unhappy. Some are talking about dropping Steele; they can always get Susanna Hoffs as a replacement candidate. Okay...I didn't say it would be a brilliant post, did I?|W|P|115447373308505039|W|P|Paging Emily Litella|W|P|prezelski@aol.com8/01/2006 05:05:00 PM|W|P|Blogger Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Oh using the Bangles was pretty good.8/02/2006 12:55:00 AM|W|P|Blogger Eli Blake|W|P|Well, I will attempt a serious comment:

I believe that the U.S. has really and is really hurting ourselves with the Cuban trade embargo. The embargo was put in place in the 1960's with the goal of bringing down Fidel Castro.

First of all, it has failed most miserably at that. Castro has been able to use the embargo for his own purposes, claiming that it is proof that the U.S. plans to destoy Cuba, and therefore he has, in order to protect the nation, the right to restrict the freedom of and even execute political opponents. The idea that there is any mileage at all left in an embargo that is now routinely violated by nearly every other nation in the world is ridiculous. We tried it for forty years and it failed; now it is time to try something else.

Second, as American companies have sat on the sidelines, foreign investors have invested heavily in the Cuban economy. Already, oil companies from Spain and Canada have snarfed up most of the choice drilling areas off the coast of Cuba. Other foreign companies have moved into Cuba in a big way, and when we finally do get our heads out of our rear ends, American investors will find that the best opportunities have already been taken.

3. Parallel to the economic concerns is a political concern. One day both Castros will be gone. Sooner or later there will be a new day in Cuba. Cubans will write a Constitution, vote and otherwse create a new Cuba. Only the United States won't be a part of it. We've effectively dealt ourselves out at the table, while Europeans and others will have the most influence on the new Cuba. We are left on the outside looking in.