Thursday, June 22nd, 2006...4:19 pm
And One More Response to My Friend at Espresso Pundit
Espresso Pundit tried to play “gotcha” with Gabrielle Giffords and accused her of “waving the bloody shirt.”
One thing he took issue with was her supposed “claim” to be the youngest legislator. Well, the trouble was, she never made that claim.
Espresso Pundit pulls the offending quote from an article quoted on Gabrielle Giffords’s website. The original article was in the local Spanish language tabloid La Voz, and the translation was posted on Giffords’s campaign website:
Giffords, a 36-year-old third-generation Tucson resident, says she has all the experience the position requires. She’s young, but has an impressive political resume. She represented the 28th District in the State Senate, and the 13th District in the House of Representatives. Giffords was the youngest legislator in Arizona history.
She was, in fact, the youngest woman to ever be elected to the State Senate, but not our youngest legislator. If one were to check the Spanish, the term used is “legisladora,” so there isn’t a question of more precise terminology being lost in translation. The reporter made a mistake. If the Giffords campaign had irresponsibly placed this up on their website without correcting the reporter’s mistake, then I could see Espresso Pundit’s point.
But, there, at the end of the piece, as quoted on the Giffords web site, is the following:
[Clarification: Gabrielle Giffords is the youngest woman ever to have been elected to the Arizona State Senate. She was not the “youngest legislator in Arizona history.”]
Given that the clarification was there, this is a cheap shot, even by the standards that blogs such as mine have established.
The other thing that Espresso Pundit accused Giffords of was “waving the bloody shirt.” I have to be a bit sensitive to such an accusation, given that 19th century bloody shirt waving is what provided the title for this blog. Espresso Pundit believes that Giffords’s claims that Republicans aren’t for funding childhood immunizations are tantamount to the “bloody shirt” of old.
A bit of a history lesson is in order here. “Waving the bloody shirt” was first used as a rhetorical technique by supporters of the third Caliph, Uthman round about 656. After Uthman was assassinated, his supporters used a shirt drenched in blood, allegedly Uthman’s, to rally the public to their cause. 
We get the term in American history from Massachusetts Representative Benjamin Butler, who brought the shirt from a Republican politician who had been beaten to death by the Ku Klux Klan to the floor of the House. The term came to refer to the Republican tactic of connecting Democratic candidates to succession, Copperhead appeasement, mob violence in the South, or lack of support for Reconstruction.
So, why did such charges stick? Well, for the simple reason that the Democratic party in the late 1860’s and 1870’s was connected to successionists, Copperheads, the Klan and opposed reconstruction. As long as such charges were plausible, “bloody shirt” arguments worked.
Here is Espresso Pundit’s rebuttal to what Giffords said:
That’s right, the Republican platform calls for leaving children without vaccinations or medical attention.
Next time someone describes Gabby as “moderate” or non-partisan, remember that she claims Republicans always want to cut funding for low-income families.
Giffords does not, nor does any other Democrat, claim that Speaker Jim Weiers or any of his collegues is walking into some clinic and knocking syringes out of the hands of nurses as they are about to immunize a low income child. What Giffords says is that the Republicans, in general, have a record of not supporting state funding for immunizations for the poor, or much other health care for the poor. Except for some notable exceptions, the ones always condemned by RINOs by the Republican’s activist wing, this seems to be the case.
Heck, many Republican office holders and activists condemn programs for low-income familes and pooh pooh Democratic arguments for such things. Silly of us to assume this means that Republicans don’t support them.
If Republicans don’t want to be accused of not supporting programs for the poor, a good solution is to vote for funding such programs. I know, this is pretty radical of me to say this. I need to learn to be more measured.
11 Comments
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:12 pm
What this makes the point about, is that Republicans can’t actually win when they point out what is true, so they try to win by the use of distortions, intentional misstatements, or on occasion outright lies.
Of course on the immunizations for the poor, it isn’t that Republicans are against it, doncha know, they just want to wait until some private company figures out a way to profitably provide immunizations for kids whose parents can’t actually pay for them. You know, the ‘free market’ has a solution for everything. (like their overall solutions for health care which have now, according to the most recent W.H.O. statistics, put us so far down in the rankings for infant mortality and life expectancy that we now are even behind Cuba in both categories– if that isn’t a source of national embarrassment, then I don’t know what is.)
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:30 pm
The Democrats don’t seem to care much about immunizations or schools or any other social welfare spending when they vote for pork projects like Rio Nuevo.
Manny Alvarez, Phil Lopes, Olivia Cajero Bedford, Ted Downing, David Bradley, Linda Lopez, and Tom Prezelski all voted yesterday to siphon of sales tax revenue to pour into the black hole of spending know as Downtown Tucson. $600,000,000 will buy a lot of vaccinations or support for the classroom but they just voted to waste it on a place no one want to go. I guess we all have our priorities.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/134765.php
June 22nd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
I don’t think the “correction” was there when I wrote the piece.
June 22nd, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Here’s what Gabby said.
“We know that Republicans always want to cut funding for low-income families. A fifth of the residents of Arizona live in low-income situations and so state health care programs should not be cut; it would be very serious to leave children without vaccinations or medical attention,”
Your interpretation of what she said would be reasonable if she had said it, but it’s not what she said.
June 22nd, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Greg (Espresso Pundit),
If Republicans at the leg had not just voted to build a “YUMA WELCOME CENTER” to help one of their Senate candidates and allowed their leadership to block universal health care, maybe you could defend them.
As it stands, the Republicans at the leg stand for pork for re-election, but not supporting health care for low income Arizonans.
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:08 am
Phx kid,
A number of your Republican leglslators puffed the Rio Nuevo extension as well. One of the biggest leaders was Steve Huffman.
You can’t decry government as a Republican if your party is thrilled when the government benefits go to business…and they have since you all took power.
Frankly, I applaud them all on this. This is just the type of government/business partnership that can lead to some progress downtown. I also have no problem if the tax dollars I pay here, get to stay here in some fashion instead of heading to phx.
-Rog-
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:05 am
Roger, very good point. As I have said before the Republican Party is not one entity but the many different people with separate agendas. Apparently not everyone agrees with Huffman’s sweetheart deal for a few select businesses.
See http://www.sonoranalliance.com/
I think getting more money for Southern Arizona is a great idea. It would just be nice if that money went to something that makes sense. Rio Nuevo does not make sense. If you have to pay business to go someplace it’s a hint that the location is not economically viable. You end up throwing good money after bad.
Have you seen the AIMS math scores at Cholla High School? Why not spend the money on education. Democrats are always crying that the schools and heath care are under funded. So what do they do, vote for an insider deal for a few well-connected companies to cajole people to go someplace they are not interested in visiting.
They did a good job securing $600,000,000 for Tucson. They just ended up wasting it on nothing.
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:35 am
Thanks for the thoughtful response Phx. However, I don’t think it is money poorly spent. The viability of downtowns is crucial to both downtowns and the inner city rings of most cities. I go down there a lot and live in the inner ring. Housing has become old and depleted student rentals…we need more people living in the inner city area. If for no other reason than that commutes are long and expensive as gas rises.
As for the success of downtown…it is slow but I go there a lot and see progress. There are a host of condo projects and revitalizations of buildings…private sector investment with some public support. There has been a growth of viable and fun restaurants and entertainment. I implore readers to not only visit Hotel Congress, but also the Monkeybox on Stone for food drinks and great local music, Milano’s by the fox, which is now open for dinner Thurs. - Sat. (best Italian in town…no kidding…and affordable), Cushing Street Bar and Grill, Casa Vicente for tapas, paella, and live music, these are just a few.
And damn it, it just isn’t dangerous…I am not an imposing figure and I have never been beaten, robbed or exploited as I visit downtown late at night(smile).
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:03 am
Roger you make a great case for visiting downtown. One of my favorites is El Charro. I am sure it is as safe as anywhere.
You did not make a case for spending the $600,000,000. There is already a lot of new housing going up within a few minutes of downtown. Drive along Star Pass between I-10 and Mission and then go south on Mission. Not everyone works downtown so housing should be spread out in different areas anyway.
Another question not answered is why downtown. Why not the East side? Why not a sports stadium in Corona de Tucson? Why not a new park near Roger and Oracle?
There is nothing crucial about downtown. It is a myth that the downtown area matters. It is no more important that other important spending needs. It should have been balance against other “investments.” If it had been there would have been a lot of other options that could have improved education, transportation, housing, or any number of other things.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:44 am
Not a myth about downtowns at all Phx. Look at city after city where economic developers, those who know what they are doing, have great concerns about the health of downtowns and economic development. Check out the public/private investment in Atlanta in order to attract people to live and work downtown.
The benefits are these. As people move further out into the suburbs away from their jobs, they abandon the neighborhoods within. The tax base follows them (I know that this does not hold true for Eastside Tucson). Those areas become blighted, crime ridden, and socially can become disasters. There is only so much room to build economically viable businesses on the city limits and most east-siders would not want a skyscraper in their backyards…which is why traditionally such offices go into downtown areas. In order for increased tax base and economic development for the city of tucson, we need to attract business and people back downtown.
Don’t the eastsider work there (the U. or downtown) anyway? Wouldn’t we like more there for people to commute to?
Roger
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“Check out public/private investment” The public part means they had to pay business to got downtown. If you pay a business enough it will do most anything. It does not mean that it is economically viable or worthy of limited tax dollars. Atlanta is a little larger than Tucson and may not make the best comparison.
Maybe people move out to the suburbs because that is where they want to live. Have you driven through Gladden Farms in Marana? It is quite nice. Sidewalk, parks, trees. Young families can’t get enough of these places. If dad works at the local middle school it is only a few minutes drive. Mom may have a small business run out of home. They couldn’t find downtown if you drew them a map. And they don’t care either.
Sure the tax base follows them. Marana, Oro Valley, and Sahuarita love that part. If downtown Tucson has a crime problem a few cops walking the beat could solve that for a lot less than $600,000,000. “There is only so much room to build.” There sure is so much room. Drive out by Ryan Airfield and look at Star Valley at Wade and Valencia. You can do lots of office space that is one and two story. With internet and faxes businesses do not have to be next to each other. “Traditionally such offices go into downtown.” You said it, traditionally. That model is over. Look at the office space along River Road between First and Campbell. That is the new model and it looks a lot mice then a skyscraper ever will. The downtown model of high rises is dead and $600,000,000 will not bring it back to life.
Tucson could attract plenty of business to the city by spending the Rio Nuevo money a lot of other ways. Rio Nuevo will never fully pay for itself. Sure some more people will visit. But the vast majority of people would rather save the gas and go to a pool party right in their neighborhood. They might even walk down the street to a friend’s house and avoid the hassle of parking.
Leave a Reply