Wednesday, November 1st, 2006...10:00 pm
Facts Are Silly Things, Ain’t They?
Randy Graf has dredged up charges that Gabrielle Giffords supposedly had some “sweetheart deal” with the city involving some polluted parcel of land over by the freeway. I first heard these allegations during the primary being spread around by supporters of one of Giffords’s opponents. Not too much came of them back then.
There was a good reason for it: there was not a heck of a lot to it.
You don’t have to believe me; you can check the “ad watch” in this morning’s Star. Not only is the land not owned by Southern Arizona’s next congresswoman, but it ain’t even polluted.
I’ve noticed though that when it gets this close to election time, facts become, not so much less important, but more maleable. The maleability seems to increase in a close race or if a candidate is losing by quite a bit.
Before anyone alleges that this is some sort of Giffords spin masquerading as an article: the “ad watch” was co-written by Daniel Scarpinato, the same person that tore into Giffords’s “night time vote” ad. Also, much to the chagrin of several campaign staff people I have talked to, the “ad watches” are written with no input from either the campaign running the ad or the campaign being attacked. The other Star reporter was Rob O’Dell, who covers city hall, so they actually talked to the city officials responsible for such things. Go figure.
7 Comments
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:17 am
So true Tedski!
The Star and Citizen both weighed in as well, blasting the “golf pro” Graf for his lies.
http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/153919
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/
daily/local/31246.php
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:22 am
The thing I want to know is who is this ad aimed at?
Was this to depress turnout among Demos who favor the environment?
Was this to get independents thinking twice?
I mean, the only other thing I can think of here is that it is designed to portray her as rich and snobbish and appeal to rural Nascar dads.
Otherwise, I am left thinking. What Republican really cares about a profitable land deal and harming the environment? Not to paint you folks in one brush, but let’s face it. Your party has done everything to cut government regulation so such deals are easy to make. When some of us talk about toxins, you all lay out the cost-benefit equations of whether that amount of toxin REALLY causes cancer or not. OR if it is 5 cancers per million…well that is ok as long as we can provide profits and jobs for people.
Again, who is this aimed at? If it were true, I would think it would ATTRACT Abramoff Republicans TO Giffords!
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:19 am
The word on the streets that I walk is that these ads occur as exactly what they are, a trashy hit. It has nothing to do with issues or politics, just pure hit piece.
One guy I know, who is not biased or particularly inclined one way or the other, said it came on the radio while he was driving, and it was so obnoxious he changed channels.
If they wanted to hit her effectively, they needed to do it a lot sooner and with a lot more intelligence.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:58 am
So, you think there is nothing wrong with receiving a million dollars in rent while the City cleans up the property?
And now it is finally admitted that Gabby actually does benefit from this deal. This after vehement initial denials!
Gabrielle Giffords is profiting from this deal, nobody denies this now. So, lets have Gabby come out and tell the taxpayers that it is OK to get one million taxpayer dollars in rent while the city cleans your property up.
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Marco-
Not paying a lot of attention, eh? Giffords does not own the land, and the city checked it out and it isn’t contaminated.
Next?
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Tedski,
Of course the land isn’t contaminated now!
Leaking underground fuel tanks, heavily oil stained earth and asphalt, asbestos… the City removed all this contamination. Plus they demolished all the old buildings as well.
The City cleaned it up and paid a million dollars in rent during the cleanup.
And Gabrielle Giffords was and still is a manager of Giffords MAnagement Group the LLC that controls El Campo Property Rentals, the company that rented the land to the city.
And Gabrielle Giffords is benefitting from this deal through the Gabrielle D Giffords Exempt Trust.
So Tedski. it appears that you haven’t been paying attention.
She doesn’t have to own the land to be a beneficiary of this sweetheart deal.
There is public record that the property had leaking under ground fuel storage tanks and other serious environmental concerns, as evidenced by ADEQ records and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
You cannot deny there was contamination, the city cleaned it up and paid nearly a million dollars in rent while they were doing it.
You cannot deny that Gabrielle Giffords did not have managerial authority over the deal.
And you cannot deny that Gabrielle Giffords is personally benefitting from the deal.
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Your charges Marco make no sense at all…nor does this ad. For what reason at all would city hall in Tucson just give the Giffords millions of dollars for their land and clean up a so called mess (that by the way is not an environmental mess whatsovever). Under what rationale would city hall give them tax-payer money? Are you alleging some sort of collusion between the city just to make the Giffords’ rich for nothing?
Come on…this is bogus.