In today's Tucson Weekly, Jim Nintzel has a profile of the CD 8 candidates. When mentioning independent Jay Quick, he said:
Jay Quick, an independent whose name makes him sound like he's a member of the Justice League of AmericaJim may be thinking of Johnny Quick, who is in fact, at least in the post-Crisis DC Universe, a member of the Crime Syndicate of America, sworn enemies of the Justice League.|W|P|115705666964607485|W|P|This Is Me Being a Smart Alec Fanboy|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I wonder if they picked the Crime Syndicate of America name because it matches the Confederate States of America.CSA=CSA?
And I think it is odd that a man of 36 and nearly 3/4s years calls himself a fanboy. :p
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|oh yeah, I forgot about that.Does this mean he still has to worry about mom throwing out his insanely valuable collection of comic books now?
Eli Blake|W|P|FEDUP:Since when do corporatists or anyone else choose election winners? I thought I still had a vote.
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.
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? 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.
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.
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. 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.
Rex Scott|W|P|azyoulikeit-I can't track two of her assertions on the website for the reasons cited above. Can you? Specific bills ARE NOT CITED and you know it! The link takes you to the Legislature's home page...and you know that, too.
The Iraq war resolution she cites on the website passed unananimously.
The Ronald Reagan Holiday was supported by many Democrats and Republicans, as Gabby has already stated. It was meant to honor the late president and Gabby (along with most of the Legislature) chose not to use it to make political hay.
The AP article cited on the website talks about Gabby's "disappointment" with Napolitano...for compromising with the GOP on matters of principle. I guess it's for Weiss to claim that Gabby is a closet Republican...except when she is criticizing Gabby for expressing disappointment in the Democratic governor when the Governor compromises with Republicans.
Your question was simple. I have answered it. However, the question was also disingenuous because I never said Patty's claims were false. Scroll back and you'll see that I said they lacked seriousness and substance. You are creating a straw man with your question because you are trying to detract attention from the silly, trivial and unappealing attacks Weiss is mounting.
Both you and Ben know that you can't answer this question, but I'd be amused to see you try: IF WEISS IS RIGHT ABOUT GIFFORDS, WHY DID THE DEMOCRATIC INTEREST GROUPS THAT CRITIQUE LEGISLATORS CONTINUALLY RANK GABBY HIGH AND THE REPUBLICAN GROUPS RANK HER LOW?
A second question would ask you to consider WHY most of those same groups endorsed Gabby over Patty.
Rex Scott|W|P|Here is a link for all of you to Patty's citations:http://www.patty2006.com/citations.html
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.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Liza,Not everyone can be Barbara Lee.
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!!
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.
Scirroco,
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 STATESIt was four days after 9/11 and she voted no.
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.
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.
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.
x4mr|W|P|Also we have Supervisor Sharon Bronson prominently supporting Weiss and County Administrator Huckelberry not so prominently (check FEC) supporting her. 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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|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.
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.com 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.
Craig|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...
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?
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.
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.com
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."
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.
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. 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... 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.
Liza|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. 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 6:5
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.
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.
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.
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.
Liza|W|P|randall holdridge,I think you might be right. I only saw him once, so I'll have to take another look.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Thanks Liza. :) 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.
By the way, Hayworth's opponent has no record of support for Israel and probably couldn't find it on a map until deciding to run for Congress.Well, funny that Mr. Simon brings it up. Harry Mitchell has been to Israel: touring the old city, visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, visiting historical sites such as Masada and even meeting leaders like Shimon Peres. This was back in 2005, before he considered a run for congress. On the other hand, Hayworth hasn't made any official visits to Israel. The thing that I find interesting is that Simon seems to set the bar rather low for what, in his words, a "friend" to the Jewish community is. He seems to be arguing that all one has to do to be a "friend" is to support the policies of the State of Israel. Hard for me as a Catholic to pick out who are good friends to the Jewish community, but I would think that "friends" would mean folks who, when given the chance, use their position to oppose anti-semitism. Hayworth has been given numerous chances to do so as a congressman, but seems to have passed them up. For example, when Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas visited the White House, a letter was circulated among house members asking that the President urge Abbas to stop allowing the promotion of anti-semetic ideology in Palestinian schools and media. Members of congress, including Democrats and Republicans, signed the letter. Hayworth's signature is not there. Another letter was circulated asking Kofi Annan to take more action against global anti-semitism. Raúl Grijalva found time to sign it, Hayworth didn't. Hayworth also had a chance to co-sponsor the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. 35 members saw fit to put their names on this bill, but Hayworth did not. Jeff Flake and Rick Renzi put their names on the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, but Hayworth couldn't be bothered. As I've said numerous times, Hayworth is not an anti-semite. However, it is disingenuous to say that he stood-up against anti-semitism, when he has passed up these chances to do so, especially because he isn't exactly shy about talking about other issues that concern him.|W|P|115651785340653174|W|P|We Say "Love Your Brother," Well, We Don't Literally Say It, Well, We Don't Really Say It At All|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
Liza|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Conservative columnist and revealer of state secrets Robert Novak recently had this to say in his column in the very conservative Human Events magazine:
As matters currently stand, Democrats should take over at least four seats without trouble -- including the seat of former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). These Democrat takeovers would include political comebacks by two former congressmen -- Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Ken Lucas (D-Ky.) -- and the loss of Rep. Jim Kolbe's (R-Ariz.) seat, whose primary is not yet settled.The most interesting thing about this is that it seems he is down on the Republicans' chances no matter who gets nominated. NB - Credit Where Credit Is Due Department: I was tipped off to this from an entry on AZ Congress Watch.|W|P|115644971484305998|W|P|"Lord of Darkness" Sees Bleak Future for Republican CD-8 Nominee|W|P|prezelski@aol.com
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.
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.com 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.Gabrielle Giffords: 45% Patty Weiss: 27% Jeff Latas: 6% Alex Rodriguez: 1% Bill Johnson: 1% Francine Schacter: 1% Undecided: 20%Republicans:
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.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You have a life? When was this?! How could you do that to your adoring fans? Craig|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.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Probably not...Eddie is not that lame. 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. Zelph|W|P|No doubt the Stone Cutters are behind this! Art Jacobson|W|P|Yeah, oversight. Michael Bryan|W|P|I want to know who Flanders is supporting... Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I thought Arnold was his campaign treasurer? Anyway, that is just awful that someone would do that.
Tedski|W|P|Oops...you are right. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Framer|W|P|OKTry 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.
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.
Michael Bryan|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?
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.com
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I thought there was something more to the story then what had been posted. 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.
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.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|How come I never get push polled? 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?
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!
x4mr|W|P|PK,For a real treat, check out Fitzsimmon's cartoon in today's Star.
Michael Bryan|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.
Rex Scott|W|P|So WHO "won" this thing? 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.
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.com
TimWilsonAZ|W|P|Lofty Donkey did the Mel Gibson comparison.http://www.loftydonkey.com/article/78/the-difference-between-jd-hayworth-and-mel-gibson
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...
Craig|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. :)
J. D. Hayworth 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, Senator John McCain.
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.com 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.
Craig|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.html
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. :DA 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 Hillary Clinton 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: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
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 Congressman Raul Grijalva. 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.com
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.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|People criticize Bill Clinton? When was this? heehee
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.
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.
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.
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.
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... 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...:pAs 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.com
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.
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).
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|I love people who can pun. 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.
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.
El Don de las Aguas Doradas once again tried to stake out a position as the candidate toughest on thirsty migrants, calling Sen. John McCain, Rep. Jim Kolbe and Rep. Jeff Flake 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.com
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.
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.
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!
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... 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.
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.
Zelph|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. 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? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Everyone,
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.
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.
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.
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.
OUR FAILURE TO COALESCE AROUND THE WINNING CANDIDATE CAUSED US TO LOSE THE RACE.
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.
Zelph|W|P|Gabby is on with Sam Seder on Air America right now. Sounds very impressive.
Al-Quaeda felt emboldened by the defeat of Joe Lieberman 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.comThat J. D. Hayworth, 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 Tom Delay (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.com
Tedski|W|P|Oh, I forgot...I'm only supposed to write about Giffords. So sorry. 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. Craig|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.
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?
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?
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%. 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.
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.com Tedski|W|P|Naw, because I am a partisan hack. 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?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.com
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.
x4mr|W|P|Posted my last comment before seeing lbcska99's remark.However valid, it just reinforces the point I am making.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Roger,
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.
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 Senator Joe Lieberman 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.com
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.Check out this tidbit about J. D. Hayworth 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.com
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. 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.html
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]
TimWilsonAZ|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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. 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?
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 accordingly 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. GOPinsider|W|P|This comment has been removed by a blog administrator. 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?
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.
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.
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.com 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.
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. 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!
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.
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.
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.
Daniel R. Patterson, Editor|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. 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. 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.
Craig|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.
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.
Jane Arizona|W|P|And no mention of Sheriff Joe, either time. What happened there? Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|We managed to get some duct tape in time Jane. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Since they abolished the use of Kool-Aid, what are the women going to use for dyeing their hair? 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."
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. 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|are domain names puppies now Eli? 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.) 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?Fedup-
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.
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.
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.
Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|Fed Up, how do you know who is female or not on this or any blog? 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.
Yet.
PK,
Yea, Steve kneeling like that in the dark with a flashlight? I think Giffords "Blocked" ad is the best released so far.
Tooblue,
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.
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.com
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.
Tedski|W|P|I don't really think it matters, which is sort of my point. Elizabeth Rogers|W|P|You reference the Bangles, I reference Bill Hicks. And yeah, it means nothing but my idea was rather clever. :D