Monday, July 24th, 2006...6:50 am
Department of Unfounded Rumors Department
Some unfounded and contradictory rumors have been circulating over the last couple of weeks:
- Alex Rodriguez will drop out of the race and endorse Jeff Latas.
- Rodriguez will drop out of the race and endorse Patty Weiss.
- Rodriguez will drop out of electoral politics and don a mask and cape to carry on his fight for justice, because Republicans are a superstitious, cowardly lot.
Okay, I made up the last one.
During the 2002 race in CD 7, a supporter of Elaine Richardson approached candidate Mark Fleischer. He showed Fleischer a poll showing him at 9% and postulating that if he were to drop out, Richardson could get his “anti-Grijalva” votes and win. Instead Fleischer looked at the numbers and said, “Looks like I’m doing better than I thought. I’m staying in.”
I can see Rodriguez doing much the same thing. I was at an event with him on Saturday, and he still comes off as a guy who is totally convinced that he is going to win this. Good for him.
Also, this sort of attention, even if it is inside baseball, can serve to bolster a candidate. If people want the votes of your supporters so badly, you must have quite a few of them, right?
The silliest thing about such rumors is the built in assumption that a candidate can quit the race, endorse someone and his or her votes would magically move over, like a player quitting a poker game handing his chips over to a friend. I suppose that with reliable polling data someone can make a reasonable assumption that one candidate’s or another votes would go one way or another. Given how low Rodriguez’s polling numbers are right now, it doesn’t seem like where his voters would go can be accurately measured.
Still, look for whoever narrowly loses this primary to claim that the “anti-winner” vote was split among their candidate and the also rans. It happens every time.
33 Comments
July 24th, 2006 at 11:49 am
So no rumors on A-Rod supporting the DLC darling? I’m wondering if he did back someone other than you know who, would that be considered “negative?”
July 24th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Nope … he can back anyone he likes if he gets out of the race.
Of course, if while doing so he criticizes the clearly best candidate (Giffords) for being “corrupt”, but then admits he has no evidence so is basically making it up … yeah, that would be “negative”.
July 24th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
July 24th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Sirocco,
Clear as mud. Just like what was thrown at NC a week and a half ago.
It’s on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W-Yb7Ti0eI&search=jeff%20latas
Not what I would think the “best” would do. She’s got along way to go before being “clearly the best.”
She was doing fine until she opened mouth and inserted foot. Going negative after saying that “Dems don’t do that kind of thing here” was a pretty big shoe sandwich.
I heard that Weiss was working the candidates to get out. A-Rod is obviously a target. I don’t think he will contribute much to any of the other campaigns. He could actually hurt them based on his anti-homosexual positions.
July 24th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
I don’t need to see the edited youtube Latas ad. Patty had a shot coming after her radio remarks, and got off easy, really. There’s a reason that remark by Giffords got the biggest cheer of the night, because the audience knew Weiss had it coming as well.
People complain first she’s too passive, then complain when she gives a return shot. Basically, you’re looking to complain.
I had heard the same thing vis-a-vis Weiss, actually. I would think she would want Latas out, but I can’t imagine Jeff leaving the race.
July 24th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Not edited. The remark of the person wanting to get GG to reply was taken out to save time, that was it.
July 24th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Bravo, Sirocco! Weiss had intimated a connection between contributions and legislative votes by Giffords in the Tucson Weekly, in a post on Daily Kos and on the John C. Scott Show…without bringing forth a shred of evidence short of the ONE committee vote Giffords explained very well at the debate. A single vote does not a pattern make, Patty!
I was in the audience at the debate, too. Gabby’s shot at Patty WAS well-received, as Sirocco says, because the audience of political junkies knew about what Patty had been stirring up on the Internet, on the radio and in the pencil press for several weeks. She got taken down a few pegs and richly deserved it.
Negative campaigning has an effect when it confirms thoughts that are already in the public mind. No one in the Democratic Party has the image of Giffords that Patty and her campaign tried to foist on them. That’s why they are unable to cut into the broad-based support Gabby has from all segments of the party.
July 25th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
I have been trying to cure my addiction to these blogs but since no one seems to have brought it up, I have to. I have a question for Giffords’ supporters.
No other candidate has gone negative and attacked someone personally. They attacked positions, records, and donation sources tied in. Giffords’ was on her high horse about accusing others of going negative, when they never pulled out anything personal.
At the Nucleus Club forum, Giffords’ clearly went negative and personal when she compared Weiss to a Fox News reporter. Hypocritically, right after she made this posturing speech about how Democrats don’t go negative. The moderator even had to step in after her childish attack and say they can debate records but not make it personal. How did Weiss react? Cool as a cucumber. What was that she mouthed? “Unbelievable” I think. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
The real kudos goes to Latas though. Having the advantage of going right after Giffords he effectively slam dunked her record on the bill by defining Democratic values and implying she didn’t support them in her vote. Contrary to what some said, he did NOT come across as the “angry man” but a seasoned campaigner.
So, how do you all feel about your candidate now? Seems the critics who have claimed she lacks the maturity and temperament for the job were correct.
Is it time for Latas and Weiss to pull out the personal file and give her a one two punch?
What about the diversion tactics and the direct lies in her response? I am surprised the Latas and Weiss campaigns haven’t issued statements on that or at least blogged on it. Giffords gave both campaigns a huge gift. Go back and view the video in both content and delivery and you will find a gold mine. Hint, a good one to use in your own ads showing how real Representatives should not act. Make hypocrisy the theme. Or let Giffords win and lose this seat for liberals in November. Your call.
July 25th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Giffords “explained very well in the debate”? Hardly.
She said the bill would not give one more uninsured person access to health care. A diversion tactic since the bill was not designed to do that, but it WAS about who PAYS for the care. Other legislation was about who gets access, as Giffords well knows.
She said it was a bad bill but never factually said why. She said there was no enforcement provision. Does Giffords’ think the legislature is now an enforcement agency? Her job isn’t to enforce, it is to legislate.
There are other problems with this response. Factually, it was inaccurate since the state DOES know who those largest violators are, as clearly the Arizona Daily Star knew when the published the numbers listing Wal-Mart and Bashas as the top two. How can the ADS find that info and Giffords thinks no one else can? Of course, she flat out lied.
The other problem is, Giffords did not address what Weiss brought up, that if her sole reason for voting against the bill was the enforcement issue, then why didn’t she submit an amendment? She never answered Weiss on that, because she couldn’t. Her entire response was a fabrication she floated after trying about 3 other responses that were effectively shot down on the blogs and at legislative meetings. If Weiss had been given the opportunity to counter (she should have since Giffords got to go on when it wasn’t her turn) then Weiss could have pointed out that everything Giffords said was bull. Of course, you all know that since you have been floating her response for weeks on all the AZ blogs to try to see how it played.
The worst part of Giffords response was not even the content, but her physicality. Her expression on her face look like a child throwing a temper tantrum. I guess the rumor she is a hot head is true. I thought her head was going to start spinning and some green pea soup was ready to be vomited out of her mouth. Latas’ filmers should have done a close-up zoom shot of her mouth. That would have been enough to scare voters away.
BTW, I was in the audience too, Rex, and the only reason Giffords response got the applause, was because she pre-packed the room with her supporters as evident by the Giffords’ stickers on their shirts. A good campaign strategy, but not indicative of how in the real voting world people perceive these kinds of disingenuous responses and diversion tactics.
Giffords came across as petty and defensive and Latas and Weiss came across as smooth and professional.
Sirocco, when you say there is “no evidence” to back up Giffords being corrupt, you had better make sure you have done your homework. Some might just look at is an open invitation to produce some not so flattery “evidence”. It is always a good idea to know more about your own candidate than the opposition knows. And by “opposition”, I am not only talking about other Democrats.
July 25th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Rex, nice to see you defend negative campaigning when it is your candidate going negative.
I can see why you all support her now. Hypocrites support hypocrites.
Lunch break is over and I have better things to do.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Fedup,
I disagree with you right at the point where you say:
“No other candidate has gone negative and attacked someone personally. They attacked positions, records, and donation sources tied in. Giffords’ was on her high horse about accusing others of going negative, when they never pulled out anything personal.”
Weiss clearly implied on the John. C. Scott show Giffords was corrupt. It was carefully worded, but the point was unmistakable.
I, at least, consider an accusation of corruption, even a thinly veiled one, to be a personal attack.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Fedup,
A follow up to your remark directed at me — my comment was sarcastically mirroring what Weiss essentially said on radio, “Giffords is corrupt, although I can’t actually provide evidence to support that.”
That of course is not an exact quote of Weiss’ words, but it sums up the meaning pretty concisely I think.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
You asked how do you feel about your candidate now?
I feel completely fine about Giffords…in fact…I feel better than before. I was worried for a bit that the attacks being made were going to just fall on deaf ears and that she would be accused of not having the ability to stand up for herself. That thought is now quite quite over. She is tough and won’t take the crap (as so many hear brag about Weiss and Latas).
The smears began with Weiss and some of the supporters of Latas on the blogs. Some of you “begged” for a response from her and not her “blog squad” as someone put it. She responded…did not look like a hothead, but instead looked quite strong.
You all would have bitched and moaned to the ages about her not responding in her own words (as some put it here) and now that she does you continue the attacks calling her a hothead and immature.
I have no worries about her campaign. It appears that her volunteers have geered up to attract and get voters. I am sure the other campaigns are too. We shall see what happens.
July 25th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Re NC–It was pretty obvious that both Weiss and Giffords had pre-planned for this intercharge.
The crux issue underneath all of this is funding of campaigns–given the INCREDIBLY large amount of government money [whether it be in the form of subsidies, tax credits, other policies] that goes to “special” interests, I would be more than happy to pay for public financing of federal candidates so that they are beholden to nobody but the voters in their congressional district or state.
July 26th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
This is my opinion only…and a philosophical point to debate. It is on clean election and public financing. I had a VERY moderate Republican state rep. come by to speak to a group today. He argued that Clean Elections had given the religious right an easy way to get candidates past primaries and a chance at office. The argument was that they were AS tied (or more so) to special interests.
Clean elections still provides special interest ties in the form of the organization it takes to get the $5 increments. It also makes it easier for those with extreme views (on either side of the party…) and who have single issue interest backing to get a platform.
I definitely see the benefits, but I ask if it really rids the system of special interest influence or if it just shoves that influence into a different place?
July 26th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
On ties to special interests…another blogger on AZ Congress Watch (and a Latas supporter) posted that Patty Weiss’ campaign had taken money from Don Diamond, his wife, and another executive of Diamond Ventures. It was a LOT of money.
Here is what I found on www.fec.gov:
Don Diamond
2200 E. River Road #115
Tucson, Arizona 85718 Self-Employed 04/18/2006 2000.00
investor
2000.00
That is $2000 twice.
I have two questions:
1. Does this silence the Weiss campaign on the taking of special interest dollars? Here it is big developer Republicans.
2. More importantly, I have heard Mr. Diamond is a huge supporter of Steve Huffman. Is this more of a move to try to get a bigger fight in the Democratic Primary, to make candidates here spend more cash, and to benefit Republicans in the fall?
I have no evidence to back either claim except for the donation. Thoughts?
July 26th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Roger,
Don’t know for sure, but Diamond is a huge supporter of Huffman, as is Click.
I heard late May that a Weiss victory on 9/12 was part of the Huffman strategic plan and that action items were associated with it. Could not learn the actions.
That’s why I got a little excited by this $14K to Swiftboat someone, although realized that may have just paid for the ad already produced.
We both know the anti-G bloggers who blast away about how she can’t win the general. That isn’t what Huffman camp is thinking.
Giffords would rather face Graf. Huffman would rather face Weiss.
I don’t think either will get their wish.
July 26th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Hey Xm4r:
Interesting points. I have heard so many say that Giffords was the one that the Republicans and their powerful backers wanted to face…it appears that they want to face Patty Weiss now. Maybe there are alternative explanations.
Maybe the repubs might finally be afraid that someone might out organize and outspend them as Giffords appears to be doing. I think they’d love a fight over on this side of the fence and would love love to have the money spent by both campaigns only to have less left for the fall. They may also get them to draw blood on each other so that the Republicans don’t have to do so.
Or…maybe the Diamonds are just friends of the family like the Chief Exec of Aetna that donated to Weiss’ campaign.
Or…maybe they are trying to buy influence.
Other hypotheses?
July 26th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Interesting post over on Gilamonsterville.
http://gilamonsterville.blogspot.com
Looks like G Tuttle is back.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Of course the notion of a bloody and expensive primary on one side would delight the other side, and some of this could be going on.
Rich folks like Diamond, Finley, Click typically spread it around according to some design. Who is giving to whom just doesn’t excite me. Campaigns desperately need funds and will take whatever they can get unless it is REALLY tainted, like the KKK or something.
I think it’s become a “hot topic” because Weiss has been loud about it, and at Nucleus Giffords smacked back. Now she can smack harder.
We’ve had fun sharing views and speculating. Reality is rapidly approaching, and my prediction:
1. Blogosphere is about to be invaded by a bunch of new folks starting to pay attention and doing google searches that lead to blogs.
2. The depth and breadth of the work done by the Giffords camp will emerge and her nomination becomes a slam dunk.
3. “Somehow” the Huffman camp will do what it takes to get the CD 8 GOP masses to believe a vote for Graf is a vote for the democrat in November.
Giffords vs. Huffman neck and neck to the very end.
But hey, what do I know?
July 27th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Xm4r…
Interesting hypotheses about the race.
On Graf/Huffman/Hellon. It is too soon for me to tell. Huffman has a lot more money on hand and will have…however there is that split potential with Hellon, who appears to have a lot more support than I had thought.
Graf, still excites the conservative base it seems. I am wondering if they are going to believe strongly that he can’t win. His border stances excite them and his pro-life and family values. That plays to the base. The “vote for Graf is a vote for Giffords” is only a reality if moderate Republicans turn out in a primary. Given some of the polls I have seen, right now, Democrats are much more excited about voting than ever before and Republicans appear to be much less so in the same polls (lowest numbers in years).
So, how does Huffman get them to turn out for him? How will he keep Hellon from grabbing some of those “anti-Graf” voters. AND…how will they keep pro-Graf voters from getting tee’d off and working even harder to elect Randy.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Excellent questions of course, and I have no answers.
But, since we’re in the unfounded rumors department.
The businessman was exceedingly confident about Huffman and that Huffman wanted to face Weiss and would actually take action to try to make that happen.
When I said I’d heard the R’s wanted to face Giffords, he cut me a look suggesting I was a complete idiot.
We were bored and waiting for our respective flights. For all I know he got on the plane and started laughing to the guy next to him, “Guess what I just told some stupid democrat!”
July 27th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Xm4r:
Very interesting. I remember a similar look from a prominent Republican when I told him back in March that I was supporting Giffords and that she had $500K (back in March).
Here I go with the money again…but…Patty was not able to match her fundraising total from the first quarter. There is no indication that she can bring the support organizationally and the funds necessary to win this election. Her name rec. is high but Republicans know very well how to fight off a name rec. opponent with no record.
Think about the last Tucson City Election folks. Not a huge voter base, but remember what happened. Two incumbent Republicans were turned out of office last year after the Democrat Party and its support of Demcrat groups (remmber that Barney bus folks?) worked hard to turn out voters.
Giffords has most endorsements and has the organization and ties to bring a much larger turnout machine against the Repubs. They know that. They also know that she can out raise them or keep up.
There is no doubt, based on this, that they fear facing Giffords most.
Although, I bet Repubs on here will tell us that they really fear no one.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
When GG loses, the endorser will come a gravally to the nominee with tail tucked.
The Demo nominee will have all the assets, no matter who wins.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
I agree “boohoo”…except for the part “when GG loses.”
It won’t, however, hurt to have the head start, relationships, organization, and money in the bank that GG already has…and that the other candidates don’t have.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
x4mr said…
I highly doubt you heard that Huffman wants to run against Weiss and are “helping” to make her the candidate.
That would be Giffords. Finley donated the max to both of them.
Huffman’s own poll showed Weiss beating the pants off him. Why would he want to run against her?
I know you are just trying to throw readers off, but my information that I posted about the April poll was correct. Check out Huffman’s FEC reports and you will find he did pay for a poll in April. That poll told him Giffords is the candidate he needs to run against in the general.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Roger,
Thanks for making the argument the extreme right and all the corporate lobbyists make against Clean Elections.
You need to join the right party. You sure like to use their talking points.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Emersome Biggums said…
And you are saying Latas would not take any money from Diamond if offered?
Get real. Latas can’t even raise enough money from small donors which makes his grassroots support very questionable.
Maybe Diamond is a “good friend” to Weiss as Giffords has claimed of Finley and Basha.
Only difference is, Weiss hasn’t had votes affected by those contributions. Giffords can’t claim the same.
BTW, her new ads are really boring. Not sure what image she is trying to go for but it sure didn’t looking like a Congresswoman. Hopefully Latas and Weiss will have better ones.
Somehow I doubt it though.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
OK, Fedup.
For the Huffman rumor here, I am only reporting what I heard at an airport over a drink with an active republican who does real estate loans (uh, what does Huffman do?).
He considered it idiocy to think Giffords is the easy target, and said H campaign felt same way.
If you think he is full of it, fine.
Shifting to my views. The funds raised and the growing list of endorsements are the ice above the water. They are the tip of an infrastructure and organization that neither Jeff nor Patty possess. Why wouldn’t a politician like Huffman get this?
Come on, Fedup, you really think Weiss is stronger against Huffman in CD 8?
Couldn’t give a ____ about a poll conducted in April. OF COURSE Weiss would look stronger than H or G at that time.
July 28th, 2006 at 6:39 am
The most endorsements from both organizations, indviduals and elected officials. The highest amount and the highest number of contributions. The most petition signatures submitted. Support from the left, center and right of the party.
These are ALL strengths Giffords brings to the table in November. No other Democrat has them. If Huffman or any other potential GOP nominee thinks they are better off taking on these attributes, than their reasoning skills are equal to those of the GOP House leadership that has worked with Bush to run this country into debt while increasing the hatred of Americans around the world.
On another note, I can’t compare this district to the one in California that Bilbray won and will hold in November. CD8 is more moderate and has demographic characteristics (more rural, more minorities, more independents) that sets it apart from CA-CD50. The GOP can’t count on the same campaign that helped them there winning here.
Last, I still feel that Huffman’s money can not overcome the dilution of his hopes by the presence of Hellon and the two minor candidates in the race. The “anyone but Graf” vote is split and Graf’s backers are “true believers.” What we need to plan for is an energized conservative base that is pumped to support Graf, Munsil and Kyl…and hopes to cut into the edge Democrats usually need in Pima County to offset big GOP votes in Maricopa.
July 28th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Wrong Fedup…the extreme right LOVES Clean Elections…as will the extreme left when they figure out that it just takes a well organized interest group to get enough $5 donations to get most any candidate enough signatures and dollars to run.
That really isn’t a big deal to me. The more the merrier. My argument is simply that there is no system that I can think of that really rids special interest group politics from politics. Changing the rules DO however allow more access for groups that might not have the money normally to fight the corporations. That might be a benefit.
July 29th, 2006 at 12:04 am
KRAMALJALES–I think you’re incorrect re public financing of campaigns. If the system is set up so that there is sufficient funding and parity between what the publicly funded and non-publicly funded candidates have [as Arizona’s system seems to be], it could make a great difference in how politics is done in Congress. Right now, given how much it costs to run a campaign, candidates are almost IMPELLED into spending a good part of their time raising money and feeling the need to meet with those who have lots of money to give them for their re-election, as opposed to those who can’t give them money. Publicly funded campaigns would at least help those who are honest, stay honest/independent.
July 29th, 2006 at 8:14 am
I think you are right about that CC to some extent…and I do support public funding of campaigns. It is the only way I could ever afford to run for office if I were to do so. Same for lots of others.
I do disagree, though, that public funding would eliminate interest group politics. It definitely allows more people with a diversity of views to run, however, that doesn’t mean that they are not connected to, or even sponsored by, interest groups.
For example, Len Munsil’s campaign is currently financed by Clean Elections funds. Because of his ties to the Christian right and the Center for Arizona Policy, he was able to mobilize the necessary $5 contributions in a very very short period of time. Where did all of that support come from and where will it be throughout this election?
Again, not opposed, more people with a variety of views can run, but does that mean the strings are gone? Not sure.
Leave a Reply