Thursday, May 31st, 2007...9:30 pm
Thrice a Quisling?
There was a story in the Los Angeles Times this week about Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Included in the article is a list of other big city mayors and their picks. Check out this sentence:
…and Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, has crossed party lines to back Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate who is a longtime friend and supporter.
I found no evidence of this in the local papers of this endorsement. Maybe it’s because they have become used to it, with his endorsements of Andrew Thomas and Jim Weiers in recent years. In fact, the only high profile endorsement of a Democrat in a close race that Gordon has given is his endorsement of Harry Mitchell last year. At the time, I surmised that someone in his circle reminded him that when he tries for higher office, he may need to get the votes of a couple of Democrats.
I’ll try to give Gordon the benefit of the doubt here. This could be either a McCain staffer spilling beans that are not supposed to be spilled or a reporter over interpreting some signal. I found no announcement of it on McCain’s site, but I found that Lt. Bubba Skinner endorsed McCain.
Yeah, Phoenix mayor is a non-partisan office. But one has to remember that Gordon was elected with the support of the Democratic party, and more importantly, Gordon is mentioned as a candidate for Governor in 2010. It may be helpful to remind Gordon that he may need the support of a few Democrats, including some that he seems to be willing to shiv, to win a Democratic primary. I dunno, I may not know what I am talking about but that seems to be a reasonable expectation.
The article characterized Gordon’s endorsement as that of a “long time friend.” He said the same thing when he endorsed Thomas and Weiers (by the way, neither one a moderate Republican). One has to ask, does he have Democratic friends?
24 Comments
May 31st, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I first noticed something about his endorsement of McCain in a Phoenix New Times article before the election that pretty thoroughly explained why Dems were going to win in Arizona, so it’s at least been floating around print for awhile.
You might also be shocked–and a little disgusted–to know that at the time of the article, Gordon had a picture of not only Bill Clinton, but also George W. Bush in his office.
Also, the name of the Republican he defeated in the 2003 Mayor’s race? Randy Pullen.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Wait, isn’t this the same Mayor Phil Gordon that the Democractic Party said they would give preference to over other Democratic Mayoral candidates? Jarret Maupin maybe insane but at least he won’t endorse McCain.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:57 am
Okay, if Gordon was elected with the support of the Democratic Party, had endorsed Jim Weiers and Harry Mitchell who appears to be opting for Blue Dog membership , as Blog for Arizona has posted, and has crossed party lines to endorse McCain, I’m pretty sure this guy is a DINO just for name recognition. Why exactly does the Democratic Party still support him now? It seems like they’ve drawn someone from a hat that happened to be Republican and ran him with the support of the Party on a “non-partisan” office just for names sake. This doesn’t make sense
June 1st, 2007 at 9:58 am
Just a comment:
At least out here in rural Arizona, no one knows anything about Phil Gordon, but Terry Goddard is much loved and much respected. So if Phil Gordon wants to run for Governor in 2010, he’d have a real tough time (at least out here in the sticks) peeling voters away from Goddard.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:22 am
I second that about Rural Arizona. Goddard stopped by the Posada this year as part of his Arizona Inaugural Tour and then stopped by the county and and junior high. I remember Gordon showing up hear on election day and all of us saying “why is the mayor of Phoenix here? Doesn’t he know we hate his city?”
June 1st, 2007 at 10:33 am
Mayor Phil Gordon has ALWAYS been a DINO.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:08 am
Does anyone think that a third person might be able to win that primary? I mean two white guys from Phoenix? Could, say, a woman from Southern Arizona who represents an 8th of the state beat the two of them? Just a thought.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:11 am
I don’t believe Giffords has any interest in the Governorship, nor do I think she could win if she ran.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
C’mon people, put the pieces together.
Phil Gordon’s Chief of Staff is Deb Gullett.
Deb’s husband is political consultant Wes Gullett.
Wes Gullett is one of John McCain’s closest advisors and best friends.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Brad, what’s your point? Tedski mentioned the “close friend” portion. Many of us had put the pieces together regarding the the Gullett connection ages ago, but that is not really the point of the post.
Funny thing endorsing someone you can’t vote for. Or will Phil register as an independent so he can get a Republican ballot?
I think the point of this post Brad is Thomas, Weiers, and now McCain. Does this guy plan on being the democratic nominee for state wide office like this? It’s not like this is John McCain circa 2000, this is Bob Jones University, right-wing pandering McCain.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Joe - get your facts straight. Independents can’t vote in the Presidential Preference Election in Arizona. That’s according to an opinion handed down by Attorney General Goddard. To vote for McCain, Phil would have to switch his registration to Republican.
As for the Gullett connection, it’s good that you knew about that, but why do you assume everyone else does as well?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Brad- Yes, you are right, it is a presidential preference primary, I should have said republican to not botch the joke, opps, sorry.
I don’t know if others do know about the Gullett connection, it is old news, but that is still not the point. Your statement was, “C’mon people, put the pieces together.”
My point was that maybe we have, or hell, we haven’t, but that is not what we are talking about in this post. It’s not like we were missing a huge piece of the puzzle. The main point is about the effect of this in a statewide run. Your statement seemed to imply that we need to put the pieces together to answer that question. But I don’t think the Gullett connection really addresses the way this issue plays out in a dem primary. But I could be wrong, just my opinion.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Umm….jeeesshhh, this is a comments section yes? If we’re agreed on that then any comments relavent or or not go, so….we’re on the same side of the fence, relax
June 1st, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Ok…enough of this nonsense. Phil Gordon is one of the best mayors in the country and certainly one of the best Phoenix has ever had.
But his accomplishments have happened because he is smart enough to avoid ideology in favor of solving problems for the citizens of Phoenix. And, for my dear progressive friends and colleagues who haven’t looked recently, solving problems in Arizona means having relationships with Republicans…including the state’s senior U.S. Senator.
In fact, the people of Phoenix embraced this approach decades ago by establishing non-partisan elections instead of partisan brawls.
But here’s a point that seems to be missing: Mayor Gordon has openly disagreed with McCain on most issues that we progressives consider important including the Iraq War and subsequent occupation.
So if he wants to support McCain out of friendship, go for it. At the end of the day, the odds are that McCain will still be Arizona’s senior U.S. Senator, not living in the White House and that friendship will benefit the Arizona’s citizens.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Eli Blake is correct, If Terry Goddard wants it, he’s the guv after Napolitano. Not strictly a Phoenix white guy, he was born in Tucson, and has kept up his connections with Udall/McNulty and DeConcini factions. Around the state, many Dems remember his father fondly. What Napolitano decides to do about it will be important, but I’ll bet it’s Goddard.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:24 pm
The race is Terry’s to lose and Terry is unashamed to be a Democrat, unlike Phil.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:09 pm
How exactly is “Phil Gordon one of the best mayors in the country and certainly one of the best Phoenix has ever had.” I haven’t been here long enough to keep tabs on the guy so you’ll explain that to me now would you?
I agree, “solving problems in Arizona means having relationships with Republicans,” but with what Weiers has recently done with last month’s House Budget bill I don’t see how that’s good progress for Democrats, certainly not worthy of support from a Democrat.
Non Partisan elections in the mayoral office doesn’t seem to matter much in this case since Gordon wouldn’t have been able to win without the support of the Democratic Party, how is he best serving the Party if he leans Republican with who he supports?
Now this support out of friendship thing, I’m sorry I don’t buy into that anymore, Bush has relatively run the guantlet with that act in Washington, I don’t think cronyism in State representatives is going to fly here. Support someone else is isn’t your friend and is as qualified, fat chane it’d be a Democrat though….
June 1st, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Gordon is now supporting tax breaks for the NBA to lure the All Star Game to Phoenix. Even his Gordon’s fellow Republicans have problems with this one. Best mayor my ass!
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 am
Bob,
You may be right about Gordon being a good Mayor, but he is not a good Democrat. If he wants to run in the Democratic Primary then he has to answer for his actions as a member of the Democratic Party not just Mayor. Good luck to him when he goes to a Tucson precinct captain and asks for his/her support.
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:03 am
Phoenix mayors don’t win races for Governor anyway… just ask Terry Goddard and Paul Johnson. Many people throughout the state, and particularly in Tucson, dislike Phoenix and would never vote for someone whose highest previous position was as Mayor.
Goddard is a front-runner now for the nomination because he is the Attorney General and many voters didn’t even live in the state when he was Mayor of Phoenix.
Phil’s problem in being a doctrinaire Democrat is that he is the mayor of a city where the economic and business interests are substantially dominated by Republicans. While he might not have been elected without the Democratic party, he also wouldn’t have been elected without a substantial amount of support from the Republican party establishment. While it may hurt him in a statewide Democratic primary, it’s no surprise he has ended up repaying the favors with endorsements and joint appearances.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 am
I’m told that Janet and Phil despise each other and won’t be seen in public together.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:07 am
I guess I don’t understand why Phil remains a Democrat. With a registration disadvantage and his constant willingness to endorse Republicans like Weiers and Thomas why does he not just switch parties and be done with it?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
pfft. Bob is an obvious Gordon plant. probably by someone who should be walking neighborhoods at 5:33pm for his or her boss not trying and failing to defend their boss.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
[…] Campaign Director who comes directly from the Arizona Democratic Party, I wanted to respond to your recent post. Feel free to use any or all of it in your […]
Leave a Reply