Wednesday, July 12th, 2006...5:25 am
Dueling Press Releases
Last week, Gabrielle Giffords’s campaign responded to Patty Weiss’s campaign with a statement from a former Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute:
Giffords’ strong record in support of campaign finance reform and financial transparency is well-known in Arizona. The Giffords campaign today released a letter from the former Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute, Sharlene Bozack, which stated that without Giffords’ defense of the Clean Elections system in the legislature, “Arizona would not have such a system today.”
Bozack, who served as the Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute from 1999-2001, attested to Giffords’ support for Arizona’s Clean Elections System. The letter, dated July 6, 2006, and addressed to Giffords, states that “without your strong commitment to seeing that the [Clean Elections] law not be overturned, the State of Arizona would not have such a system today.” The letter hailed Giffords for having “stood firm in your support of the system when it was under challenges at the state legislature,” and noted that Giffords “helped strategize with me to make sure the system did not get overturned in the legislature.”
This week, Patty Weiss’s campaign responded to Gabrielle Giffords’s campaign with a statement from a former Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute:
“Running clean is important for everyone, but even more so for candidates outside of Maricopa County,” said [Barbara] Lubin. “Candidates south of the Gila who opt out of Clean Elections often take significant contributions from Phoenix-area donors. This can create conflicts of interest for Tucson-area senators and representatives when legislation concerning Southern Arizona comes before them.”
Lubin went on to say that she is confident that Weiss is the best choice to fight for clean elections in Washington.
“It is easy to talk the talk; much harder to walk the walk,” said Lubin. “I am certain that Patty Weiss is the best candidate in this race and will be the national advocate we need to finally pass a system of publicly-financed elections that will take the special interest influence out of politics. And most importantly, I know she will run under a publicly-financed system as soon as it is available.”
Since, as far as I know, there is not a third former Executive Director, we will not be seeing a release from Jeff Latas or Alex Rodriguez.
51 Comments
July 12th, 2006 at 6:18 am
In this past Saturday’s Tucson Citizen, Blake Morlock stated that this Clean Elections issue “is either a slumbering volcano that Weiss recognizes and every pollster in America has missed, or it is a bizarre cul-de-sac the race has detoured into for the sake of a fight.”
I think it is the latter and it is an attack. The clean elections issue has been used to try to link Giffords as special interest bought and paid. There is no evidence at all except a fantasyland linkage between a donation from Rip Wilson to an obscure committee vote on a bill that would have never passed in an million years. But that portray that as “taking money from Walmart” to get progressives all riled up. Some have even suggested that she is corrupt. I am sure we will hear more of this in the posts that follow mine.
I will ask this though. Patty Weiss has claimed to be the frontrunner in this race with her poll showing she is 10 points ahead. What on earth makes her want to attack Giffords then? It goes against any strategy I know of for a frontrunner to do and I think it will backfire.
Anyone who didn’t hear, Giffords was attacked at the Wilcox debate after saying she supported Clean elections with a near Reagan style line of “Gabby, Gabby, Gabby.” I am sure someone will post a YouTube video almost immediately. Go ahead and look at it and again ask what Weiss and her campaign is up to…especially as you hear what follows.
Weiss has tried and tried to get endorsements of the same “special interests” (unions, pro-choice groups, environmental groups, etc) and has failed. She has also tried to raise special interest money and it has worked for her some, but it has also failed overall.
As the Skinny reported this past week, Weiss is trying hard to take Giffords strengths of better organization, endorsements, and superior fundraising and link it to corruption. I hope that the voters will see these attacks for what they truly are.
July 12th, 2006 at 6:53 am
Weiss is definitely trying to set a negative tone, and I agree it isn’t the style of a “frontrunner” … in fact, I believe she’s conceded as much recently.
Weiss can complain all she likes about special-interest money, but she has taken some for this race, and would have more if she could have snagged a few endorsements which went to Giffords. She can tout her press release all she wants, but the statement by Bozack makes clear claims by Weiss or her supporters that Giffords “has not supported clean elections” are simply hogwash.
Weiss’ unsubstantiated insinuations on the Scott show weren’t exactly the epitome of class either.
Between being a hypocrite concerning PAC contributions and her Rovian radio appearance, Weiss has lost a lot of the respect I had for her.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Oh, give me a break. Gabby’s blog squad never had any respect for Patty.
Art’s been dissing her on petty issues since day one.
Do you really think that a pro like Frank Costanzo would let Patty make a mountain out of a molehill if there wasn’t an upside? As everyone’s noted, Patty’s done polling — to figure out what it says, you just have to read between the lines.
The clean elections dust-up tells me that Patty’s polling showed her target voters (for the primary, at least) respond strongly to clean elections as an issue.
Will this be the defining issue for the race? I doubt it. But it’s been a successful detour for Patty, it’s kept Gabby from defining any other issues, and it’s gotten the race more mainstream press than anything prior.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:20 am
AZYOULIKEIT:
That was one of my points. This was a poll tested issue. A poll driven attack. It doesn’t seem genuine as she claims the holier than thou mantel on this issue.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:26 am
If that’s true, that’s terribly sad for your district. With all that is going on in this country and the world, illegal immigration, a 300 billion dollar deficit, a bogged down conflict in Iraq, no future for social security, lack of affordable health care, you truly think this is the biggest issue on CD8 voter’s minds?!!!
Even if this is a legitimate bone to pick with Giffords (and I think there are better ones), the election of Patty Weiss will not give us a clean elections system in the federal government for several reasons, the most obvious of which is that the people who stand to lose most directly are the 535 intrenched incumbents who would have to vote for it to become law. The reelection rate in the House is over 90% and they like it that way. They’re not going to do anything about it.
Drop this nonsense and get back to fighting about real issues. Otherwise, the Republican candidates will define the election for you.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:55 am
azyoulikeit,
Obviously Weiss (or her campaign) sees an upside, or they wouldn’t be doing what they do. Whether they are correct is a different question.
Soooo … having said that … what does it say about her as a candidate that she would stoop to making allegations she _admits_ she is not prepared to substantiate (something which should be completely against her journalistic instincts to boot) in an attempt to improve her polling numbers?
July 12th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Roger, you keep saying Weiss went after the same special interests.
I don’t see a Wal-Mart lobbyist or Eddie Basha on her list of donors, so how can you falsely claim that?
A union endorsement and money isn’t the same as a corrupt corporation or a union-buster grocery mogul.
Border, I think corruption IS the main issue and the reason there is a war and immigration issue to begin with. Connect the dots.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:36 am
I’m getting kinda tired of reading that Giffords is “pro-Wal-Mart” because she voted for a bill that helped low-wage employees obtain AHCCCS coverage.
AHCCCS is nothing more than Medicaid provided through an HMO. It ain’t no bowl of tax-free cherries.
If she voted for a measure that allowed low-paid single moms to get medical coverage for her kids, that’s pro-Wal-Mart?
Only a limousine liberal would make such an argument.
July 12th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Fedup,
An individual who works for Walmart, in whatever capacity, is not a special interest.
I work for a company. I have made contributions to Giffords’ campaigns. Giffords neither knows nor cares what company I work for. My contributions in no way are associated to any vote for or against the company I work for.
I’m glad to hear you are ok with union endorsements, since Giffords has the majority of them.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Funny that all I hear from Giffords supporters is whining about attacks.
That’s the response of people who can’t debate the merits of the arguement.
I’ve got news for you: an attack would’ve been bad-mouthing your girl for her personal relationships when the opportunity arose, but that’s not going to happen from the Weiss camp. They’re running “clean” in more ways than one.
Pointing out your girl’s record is called campaigning. If your girl can’t stand it now, I fear how she would react in the hallowed halls of Congress.
So, how about some points about WHY your girl’s never run a clean campaign? Huh? It’s a fair question and so far the only response she’s given voters is whining.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Oh, yeah, and while I’m at it..
The idea that voters don’t care about the clean campaigns issue is another red herring.
I’ve got two words for you: “abrahamoff” and “cunningham.” If voters in this district don’t care about the influence of money in elections then I’m a monkey’s uncle.
So, again, I ask, how about answering the question: Why hasn’t GG ever run clean?
July 12th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Sonoran Sam, spin it anyway you want but the fact remains, she voted for a huge corporate welfare package by voting against the bill.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
sirocco said…Fedup,
“An individual who works for Walmart, in whatever capacity, is not a special interest.”
Maybe in your perverse world a lobbyist for Wal-Mart isn’t considered a ’special interest’. I know a union of hundreds of thousands of members that would say otherwise.
If you are a professional lobbyist for your company, then you ARE a special interest. Don’t compare apples to oranges. Giffords knows it was a corrupt vote or she would have come out with a response months ago.
You have to come up with a better one than that.
I am not okay with union money. I would prefer total Clean Elections with no PACs at all. Maybe with a progressive in Congress working with the other progressive eventually it will become reality.
Don’t sweat it. I still think your candidate will win the primary. She just won’t win the general.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Its sad that Gabby can’t get past her very own self made traps and evasions.
Voting for Walmart and against the Arizona taxpayers cost the state tens of millions of dollars for health care.
Supporting Clean Elections with funding from special interests is a new twist on free speech. Gabby took special interest money to help pay for her brave stand supporting Clean Elections.
It must work, because she is so popular and well liked for these difficult and complex decisions.
If only we had the brains to match Gabby’s genius. Then we could understand what the political bosses know about the greatest gal who ever ran for CD 8.
This is all so convincing, that I might have to reregister as an Independent so that I can defend Gabby against these horrible progressives. Roger Kralmajales is taking the lead in turning Gabby Democrats into Independents and Republicans. You got me onboard… for now.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Love that sense of humor, Tedski. Noting the lack of a third executive director made my morning–startled everyone else in the coffee shop.
Of course, at the macro level clean elections and corruption are a huge issue and safe turf for getting emotional and delivering moving speeches. Actually getting anything done about it for real is another matter, indeed, and not buying that Giffords is corrupt.
True she chose to run “conventional” in the past and appropriate to hear her rationale for doing so. We probably will.
Actually, I’m interested in whether it is Giffords’ or Giffords’s, Weiss’s or Weiss’, Latas’ or Latas’s, and what if it’s plural, as in Weiss’s supporters, or is it Weisss’?
Rodgriguez’s supporters?
Perhaps we should elect Francine.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
1. ONE VOTE (in committee, by the way) is the only action cited by those on this blog (and others) who criticize Giffords as being some sort of corporate shill. Weiss takes the same half-baked approach in her earlier post on Kos and in other strikes launched by her campaign. ONE VOTE does not a pattern make, nor does citing ONE ENDORSEMENT (Basha) from a guy the Democrats nominated for governor in 1998! I’m sure you could find a single position you didn’t like in the Latas or Weiss platforms. Does that then give you cause to make some blanket assertion such as the one you hurl at Giffords?
2. Is everyone who takes Clean Elections funding supposed to be some kind of saint? If so, let’s start polishing halos for Len Munsil, Don Goldwater AND all of the right-wingers in the Legislature who “ran clean.” I’ll take Giffords’ voting record, lauded across the board by interest groups who support the Democratic agenda, over those “clean” folks any time!
3. Giffords is the ONLY candidate drawing support from ALL segments of the Democratic Party. She also has a track record of attracting support from independents and open-minded Republicans, as she proved in the former LD13 and the current LD28. We need that ability to win this Republican-majority district. I’m sure it feels good to put forth these “more Democrat than thou” arguments when trashing Giffords and/or touting Weiss or Latas, but they don’t stand up to scrutiny based on her demonstrated record in Phoenix and her opponents are less likely to attract the independent and GOP votes needed to WIN!
4. The not-so-subtle attempt to inject personal innuendo into this race made by tooblue4u in an earlier post is slimy and loathesome. I have no doubt that the Latas and Weiss camps would not associate themselves with that sort of crap. I’m also certain the average voter knows how to filter such remarks
July 12th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Fedup,
I disagree with your postulate. An individual is separate from his job. If I give money in my own name, I am giving it on my behalf.
Now, if a lobbyist arranges for a PAC to give money, that’s a different matter. But individual contributions are just that — individual contributions.
It’s not debatable Weiss has accepted PAC money, and has competed for endorsements and money from others Giffords eventually received. You don’t even deny that, you simply try to spin the point.
Tooblue,
The claims made by Weiss on the radio show weren’t concerned with Giffords’ record. They were allegations Weiss admitted in the same breath she could not support, but by God she was gonna throw them out anyway, you know, just in case they stuck.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Are you a betting man?
Word of mouth trumps almost every Hollywood rollout.
Word of mouth has pretty much destroyed Gabby’s media blitz in advance, and it has changed her positions from pro-busines democrat to a progressive that takes special interest money so she can work to eliminate special interest money by promising to support Clean Elections.
July 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Border, I think corruption IS the main issue and the reason there is a war and immigration issue to begin with. Connect the dots.
Even though you got the name wrong, I’m going to assume you meant me, fedup. So let me turn the question back on you.
Connect the dots for me. I have heard nothing about what Patty Weiss will do to fix this “corruption” that is supposedly “the reason there is a war and immigration issue to begin with.” All I have heard is how Giffords is part of the problem.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that these allegations are true: this “girl” Giffords, (as tooblue so condescendingly calls her), is the second coming of Duke Cunningham because she has never taken taxpayer money for her campaigns. Weiss’ attack does nothing to tell anyone why Patty Weiss, who has also never run clean, would be any different if elected to Congress instead of Giffords.
What does she propose to do if elected to office? How will she, as one of 535, change the system? How will she address the constitutional issues inherent in any campaign finance reform? Does she think Buckley v. Valeo should be overturned? If so, how does she expect to do this when it was just upheld by the Supreme Court? How is she going to get done what no previous House or Senate member has been able to accomplish before, including McCain (whose original bill was greatly changed b/c of complaints from special interests)? How will she work with reform opponents like Mitch McConnell and his House counterparts to prevent blocks to her plans?
Unless or until I hear a positive plan of action from Weiss instead of negative attacks, I can’t take this issue seriously.
Part of the problem with the Dems is that they have been defined as what they are against rather than what they are for. That is why they lose, because negative attacks don’t move people to vote for someone. Mostly, they just turn people off and most will just stay home. In a district with such close registration numbers, that’s a fatal mistake.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Just as an aside … ain’t it kind of fun to see how fast any post about CD8 on any reasonably well-read blog fills up with comments pretyt quickly?
July 12th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
As an outsider — I have to say the supporters of these two campaigns are embarssing the candidates they are fighting for.
Seriously - you all look like a bunch of petty idiots.
A few things, and I’m prepared for the flame war I’m about to start:
1) This Clean Elections Support question is an attack, sure - I guess — but it isn’t a NEGATIVE attack - it is an issue attack. By running for office, you open yourself up to criticism by the public and your opponent for your views, inconsistencies with what you say vs. what you do, and your trustworthiness. If you feel like having those things questioned is unfair — or somehow NEGATIVE then running for office isn’t your thing. The more I hear from Gabby supporters that Weiss has turned this into some super negative campaign - the less credibility her supporters have in my eyes. Want negative campaigning? Look at the swift boats, Max Cleland, what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina … not a discussion on support of clean elections. Seriously folks — it is indisputable that Gabby HAS NOT RUN CLEAN … the debate is over what that means. That debate is a fair one - so have it and stop bitching to each other about how NASTY it is.
2) There is no such thing as a way a frontrunner should be. If Weiss thinks she needs to fight and keep fighting despite being up in opinion polls - more credit to her - it means she wants to win and realizes that polls don’t mean anything. Personally if I was on the Gabby campaign I would EMBRACE the underdog thing - use it to rally support, use it create a narrative in the press about the “little engine who could” and take advantage of people thinking I was behind to get stories in the media about MOMENTUM as I started to close the gap (which I think everyone believes will close).
2) Back to clean elections - instead of going back and forth about who likes it more … why doesn’t one of these candidates show their support by going out there and helping collect fives for those candidates currently on the ballot who still need help! Be public about it … show everyone how much you care about the system.
3) Do we have any evidence that Patty has given $5 contributions to candidates in the past? As someone pretty new to the political scene (which in my opinion can be a definite strength) I bet she hasn’t given as many fives as gabby has. Can’t someone find this out to stop the nonsense. And bringing that up wouldn’t be negative folks, it would just be good campaigning.
4) If I was a Latas campaign person, I’d be scrambling to get in a public debate with these two women, pull a Paul Tsongas and when it started getting nasty jump into the middle and talk about how important it is to respect your opponents and engage a disenchanted public. Of course this means the Latas supporters have to stop jumping on EVERYTHING trying to draw blood. Seriously - hold your fire for a little and see if taking the high ground is going to give your fledgling candidacy a boost. Hell, if the fight they get into is about clean elections - show your support for them and then pivot to issues that are more important and need to be addressed NOW.
5) Party leaders need to find ways NOW to address the embarassment that is the supporters of D CD 8 candidates fighting and the potentional fo the candidates themselves to go negative (again negative means personal, not talking about why a candidate shoudldn’t earn support). I read how in Massachussetts a panel was commissioned by the party, which included Dukakis and other big name notables, to determine if ads etc were NEGATIVE. And if they were - they will come out and criticize the person who did it. Not sure if this is a good idea (might perpetuate the pissing matches) but maybe a littler deterance would go a long way. Aside from that - we need to see a bunch of CD8 social gatherings toward issues we all care about to show how disagreement in a primary is fine - but we all need to be working on the same team NOW on other issues, and against the GOP nominee the day after the primary ends.
6) How badly do you guys wish you had a Harry Mitchell down there!
Look, I get it. I’m not from CD8 so maybe this is none of my business and I’m butting in where I shouldn’t. But here is the deal - this is my state too, my country too - and the potential we have in CD8 to get a democrat in office to help Grijalva, and Pastor, and maybe even Mitchell is way too precious to be blown with petty supporter fighting and disunity. So, I argue — it is my business and I might as well say something now.
Go ahead … flame away. What are the odds that there is someone out there who agrees with me on this!
July 12th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Crap — I numbered wrong!
July 12th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Mr. T,
I have to concur with your sentiment. Though you are correct, you’re going to draw a lot of fire
Good luck to you and Harry. I’m rooting for him!
July 12th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Relax about the numbering, Mr. T, it has no bearing on your sound remarks, and concur with dogma’s sentiment, save that I am not clear you will draw any fire.
We’ll see. As this progresses I am finding it harder to avoid the conclusion that a “seasoned” (in this context) politician is doing what it takes to get elected, and that amateur opponents are desperately flailing away to strike a wound that draws blood.
I don’t think they have. But as they try, with all these assertions and allegations we have read a dozen times, it is natural for those who support Giffords, like Roger, to respond, and of course it gets emotional.
My dander starts to rise when Patty starts accepting invitations that were never made, and in particular, when people start talking about “I have horrible secrets the republicans will reveal in time, but do your own research!”
Barring some development of real significance, and unlikely it will happen on these blogs, it looks like Giffords is walking into this nomination, with a whole lot of folks bitching every step of the way.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Then again, maybe not a whole lot of folks.
Maybe a dozen or so bloggers.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Mister T,
Amen! I agree with all of your thoughts and have been extremely worried about the aftermath of the Primary for my district. Bottom line is that the bloggers for Latas and Weiss need to stick to the issues, and quit being petty.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
boredinaz, sorry for the name mix-up. I did mean you.
You don’t know what Patty is for? I don’t think you have been paying attention then. She has talked plenty on the campaign trail on what she is for. She has differentiated herself too.
I bet your candidate wishes he had moved on that Clean Elections issue.
It is supposed to be Weiss’s, Latas’s and Giffords’, but since the papers can’t get it right, I just use their version. It has to do with the Z sound versus the S on when to add the ’s or leave as s’.
Maybe the joke will be on all of us and Shacter will win.
sirocco, I see you completely avoided the issue once again, that he was a Wal-Mart PAID lobbyist.
Mister T, love your post. Nothing like a post bitching…about people’s bitching.
Yo Se Quien Soy, “the bloggers for Latas and Weiss…” So you are saying Giffords’ bloggers don’t have to?
You all seriously crack me up. I love coming on here and TDP.
July 13th, 2006 at 5:51 am
Fedup,
No, I recognize the point you are trying to make, I just disagree with it.
The donation he made as an individual can’t simply be attributed to Walmart. If the money came from Walmart, or a Walmart PAC then fine. The money came from his own pocket, that’s a different matter.
Just bcause someone works for Walmart, even as a _paid_ lobbyist, doesn’t mean they give up their rights to support individual campaigns as they see fit.
Given the money was apparently an individual contribution, it’s most likely Giffords wasn’t even aware it had been made until she saw a donor’s list. It was probably mailed in, just like most individual donations are, and processed, just like most donations are, and whoever processed it probably didn’t even recognize the name.
July 13th, 2006 at 7:31 am
So, Rex, “one vote” doesn’t make a trend. Okay, I’ll give you that. But her record as a business person doesn’t help. Did she refuse to give her own employees bennies as a benevolent gesture - so they could get AHCCCS? That puts her solidly in the pro-business, anti-worker camp as far as this progressive is concerned.
As to the comment that GG gets “open-minded Repubs” to consider her.. That has been my main problem with her as a candidate if she were to win the primary. She’s a conservative, so naturally she’d be appealing to moderates. Put her in the general against a republican and I say she loses because middle to left-leaners stay home because they won’t be motivated for her and middle to righties will vote gop. Latas motivates, for sure. No denying that. But he sure hasn’t got much traction in this campaign. I see this election from a much larger perspective than the party insiders who are so pissed that Weiss dare to compete against their heir apparent. The issue is that it’s critical to the NATION to take this seat from the GOP. If the local demos would take a bigger picture look they’d see that, too. I don’t think GG can win in the general and I think Weiss can. That’s more important than local demos saving face because they jumped on w/ GG two years ago.
July 13th, 2006 at 8:31 am
But tooblue4you…
When you say that she is conservative and pro-business, you gloss over the fact that she also has solid liberal credentials that attract me (as a liberal independent) and a host of others helping with her campaign. It has also attracted the endorsements of liberal organizations.
Here, again, is some of the record that attract left to center Democrats and that should make them want to turn our for her in the fall.
100% ratings from environmental groups.
100% ratings from Pro-choice groups.
100% ratings from disability and community action groups.
Go to www.vote-smart.org and look up her voting record on liberal and conservative issues. If you are liberal you will find much to like in Gabrielle Giffords.
I respect what Mr. T has said. I have been vocal but it has been to try to address these charges that she is so very conservative and won’t be distinguished from the Republicans. That is just wrong. Period. No flame here, but the attempts here have been, again, to portray Giffords as somehow corrupt and conservative. It is very misleading.
Best to all.
July 13th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Sirocco said: “Barring some development of real significance”…
You mean like voting?
I don’t see how anyone can think Gabby is walking away with this nomination when all the polls (and please don’t give me the BS line about there only being one poll — we all know there are multiple polls) are showing Gabby with a big gap to make up.
As I’ve said before, half a million bucks of TV will go a long way, but Gabby has to pick off the undecideds by a 2-1 margin over Patty to make up that deficit. Not impossible, but certainly not easy in a 5-way race.
July 13th, 2006 at 9:30 am
How much did Walmart, MCDonalds, and Bashas save when SB1065 died in committee, courtesy of Gabby and the Republicans?
Was it 10 million? 20 million?
Or just the $300 check Rip Wilson paid to stop a bill that would have made these corporations less of a welfare leach on Arizona taxpayers?
Gabby’s people forget that this one vote did maximum damage:
to Arizona taxpayers
to uninsured workers
to Giffords for Congress
Her money started drying up, both over her Walmart/McDonald/Basha support to kill SB1065, and the perception that she is a snotty lightweight who cannot defend the indefensible (like the Gabber Bloggers,) regarding Clean Elections and special interest bankrolls.
July 13th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Meanwhile..Jeff Latas keeps on addressing the issues that CAN be solved.
These two catfighters are doing nothing to help ordinary American’s who need Health Insurance and clean air to breathe.
Latas’ is showing he is the only candidate serious about solving the issues that matter.
July 13th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Jeff is a good candidate and a great person.
But he is not the only candidate who supports universal or single payer health care.
Francine Schacter and Alex Rodriguez also support this need. And we of course know that this is Patty’s number one issue, while Jeff is touting the energy politics for his #1 bullet.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Energy politics, Outlander, certainly, but don’t forget his anti-war stance and his foreign affairs policy…which are linked.
As to that committee vote you keep bringing up. That would have never made it anywhere in either the House or the Senate. Sometimes legislators have other reasons for voting against a bill than what you are suggesting, which is protecing corporations.
I am sure you will get an explanation for that vote, but I am not sure you will care what it is.
Outlander is only interested in fictionally tying Giffords to corruptive corporate interests and is a lot less interested in her overall record…it appears.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Not so. Gabby does her own tying. Her overall record would show she votes with Steve Huffman about 2/3 of the time.
Research it, Roger. And then report the facts. What is the huffman:giffords voting ratio?
Is it better or worse than say, Marsha Arzberger? Marsha is at least as conservative as many of the Republicans.
Marsha voted against SB1065. Are all the horrible accusations regarding this vote the same for Marsha Arzberger? How did she get it so wrong?
July 13th, 2006 at 10:30 am
AZYOULIKEIT:
The polls you keep mentioning do have Weiss in the lead. However, do not make the fallacy of projecting that the results of that poll mean anything at all for the future. It is a great fallacy to say that everything will remains the same and that someone has to count on the undecideds to break.
Polls are snapshots in time. The polls you speak of appear to present a picture of a person with a lot of name recognition already capturing attention with that name rec. The truth is that future snapshots could show Weiss leading by more or Giffords narrowing that gap.
If Giffords does, though, be big and aware what Mr. T. said (not “I pity that fool”), but that if Giffords or Latas narrow that gap…the release of that poll will only prove to them strong strong momentum and it will only prove to rock the campaign of Weiss.
Hope she intends on lower expectations…because she set them quite high.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Just as an aside … ain’t it kind of fun to see how fast any post about CD8 on any reasonably well-read blog fills up with comments pretyt quickly?
sirroco,
So true. I’m not even in CD8 and I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I’ve been sucked into the vortex these guys have created just by reading the posts.
Help!
July 13th, 2006 at 10:40 am
fedup,
As i said earlier, i’m not in your district. i’m reading from up north of the Gila. So, think of me as someone who is only partially paying attention. A person who doesn’t go to the candidate forums, trashes the junk mail before reading it, skims the daily paper and doesn’t read blogs or volunteer. Y’know, the average voter.
Is this the impression you want to leave about your candidate? Think about it. (and that goes for all of you people, no matter who you support)
July 13th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Outlander claims that Giffords is more like Huffman than the rest of the democratic party. That she even votes with him 2/3 of the time.
I would take a look, again, a ProjectVoteSmart and look up both Huffman and Giffords under interest group ratings. On votes of interest to them, check out his ratings and hers.
I’ll make it easy:
Huffman
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CAZ52234
Giffords
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=MAZ92676
You will find similarities between the on pro-choice issues, but he rates lower some years than she does. You will also find her environmental record to be far more liberal than his (although he doesn’t seem to chop trees either).
Cattlemen association…he does well…she got an F.
Come on…quit distorting.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Roger,
Blogs are snapshots in time, with archives.
Your analysis is so skewed, that the humor you inspire makes you seem like a pundit for the Daily Planet… on planet Bizarro.
Roger sez:
…
“The truth is that future snapshots could show Weiss leading by more or Giffords narrowing that gap.
If Giffords does, though, be big and aware what Mr. T. said (not “I pity that fool”), but that if Giffords or Latas narrow that gap…the release of that poll will only prove to them strong strong momentum and it will only prove to rock the campaign of Weiss.
Hope she intends on lower expectations…because she set them quite high.”….
How many hypotheticals not based on any fact can you count dancing in the above mentioned quote?
To paraphrase the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance:
When the hypotheticals become facts, print the hypotheticals.
From Liberty Valance:
“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend,”
None of Roger Krals hypotheticals are facts… facts are for reporters, not pundits and politicians.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Roger, get Gabby and Huffman’s records, not summaries of their overall votes.
Their records are not a summary from VoteSmart.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Sorry, Roger, but asking folks to stop distorting is like asking them to stop breathing.
This is 7/13, so we’re down to two months. On 9/13, this whole thing changes.
Got an invite just now to Huffman 7/22 shindig featuring our current Congressman Kolbe. Thought about going (have never met Huffman) until I saw the suggested contribution of $250 a pop.
That’s six bottles of Laphroaig.
By the way, this entire thread consists of 16 people. Not sure what to make that mean except what many have already noted–this election is not decided on blogs.
Found it interesting that the latest kos attack by the Weiss squad drew only six comments (so far, after 4 days), three by her own people and a few nay-says from Latas folks.
IMHO blogs (or whatever they morph into) will become important, but not in this election.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:20 am
azyoulikeit, that quote you lead your last post with should have been attributed to x4mr, not me.
Having said that, I don’t think anyone has claimed Giffords is “walking away” with anything.
oulander refers to one vote to kill a bill in comittee, and claims it somehow cost millions of dallars in funding … for a bill that was so flawed it’s original sponsor voted against it, had no means of enforcement anyhow, and would still have had to pass a general floor vote (which outlander seems to forget), which wasn’t gonna happen anyway.
Outlander, I haven’t taken the time to research this, but I suspect you could take just about any two members of the legislature at random, research all their votes, and find they vote the same way well over half the time.
There are many issues that tend to pass (or get voted down) with large majorities from both parties, which would skew results in that direction.
Just an off-the-cuff thought … I haven’t look at any real numbers to test this.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I haven’t claimed that Giffords will walk away with it either. I do think that expectations can indeed be meaningful…if exceeded…or not met. As Mr. T. asserted so well earlier.
The fact that I was stating was that polls are snapshots in time and reality can change a day, a week, or a month later. We can’t count on the same folks who said they support any candidate to remain that way and we can’t count on undecideds to break anyway or remain undecided.
The prediction you make from this is based on that moment when those likely primary voters were called. Some have never heard of Jeff Latas or Gabrielle Giffords. But they will. A lot had heard of Patty.
All else I said was indeed hypothetical and analysis. That’s all…I admit it.
Since you lead off saying that blogs are archived, you can come back and make fun of me more later (smile).
July 13th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Outlander said regarding single payer health care:
“And we of course know that this is Patty’s number one issue,”
Bull%$#@ outlander. She has stated publicly that federal clean elections are her number one priority. (Although she did in the early forums talked about health care-but then she started nailing Gabby on her clean elections non-use) I have heard it and others on the blogs have heard it as well.
Well, unless she is switching around…again…
July 15th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Weiss has always said health is her number one priority, not issue.
A distinction where nothing can be solved regarding her priorities if the issue of campaign financing is never reformed.
How can you reform health care when all of the HMOs have paid for the campaigns of people like Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton.
Jeff Latas can’t get his priority of lessening energy dependence and its complexities past the lobbies of Congress, unless the lobbyists can only advocate, not pass checks along with their requests.
Either way the irony is that for either health care reform or energy reform, you must serve on the Energy and Commerce committee to effect any meaningful change.
Either Jeff or Patty would be great on this committee in Congress.
July 15th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Call her and ask her George.
July 15th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
The Weiss Campaign is desperate - they can’t raise money and can’t get the support they thought they had. Weiss’s ridiculous attack on Giffords at the Nucleus Club was childish and foolish - and her information was absolutely wrong. I’m supporting Giffords because of her solid record - fighting for us, the people!
July 16th, 2006 at 3:54 am
Hey, those HMO’s aren’t just paying for the campaigns of Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton, they are paying for the campaign of Patty Weiss as well.
Leave a Reply