Comments on: 10 Downing Street http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/2009/01/07/10-downing-street/ "We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them!" - William Jennings Bryan Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:44:42 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ruthie http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/2009/01/07/10-downing-street/comment-page-1/#comment-16541 Ruthie Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:50:31 +0000 http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/?p=2390#comment-16541 Michael - and I also agree that the vote was, in hindsight, a mistake and fessing up to one's mistakes is one sign of good leadership. I don't, however, agree that the better candidate won - what can you point to that got done as a result of the election of Senator Aboud? Although Downing has, shall we say, a "difficult" personality, there is no denying that he was more productive than the rest of the democratic caucus combined, as evidenced by the election integrity law that was actually passed. And I do think you underestimate how personal the attack on him was, and how many were swayed by it to think of him as a danger to Tucson women. Anyway, I'm signing off now - 'nuf said! Thanks for the repartee! Ruthie Michael – and I also agree that the vote was, in hindsight, a mistake and fessing up to one’s mistakes is one sign of good leadership. I don’t, however, agree that the better candidate won – what can you point to that got done as a result of the election of Senator Aboud? Although Downing has, shall we say, a “difficult” personality, there is no denying that he was more productive than the rest of the democratic caucus combined, as evidenced by the election integrity law that was actually passed. And I do think you underestimate how personal the attack on him was, and how many were swayed by it to think of him as a danger to Tucson women. Anyway, I’m signing off now – ‘nuf said! Thanks for the repartee! Ruthie

]]> By: michael http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/2009/01/07/10-downing-street/comment-page-1/#comment-16539 michael Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:14:45 +0000 http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/?p=2390#comment-16539 Ever hear the saying, "the cover-up is worse than the crime"? This whole series of events is emblematic of the larger issue as I see it: Former Representative Downing's frequently unconventional behavior as a legislator. He could have just said, "I made a mistake" if that was indeed the case and it would have been a non-issue. Or maybe, as you say, he had multiple objections to a bill that 56 of his 59 colleagues supported, but he never expressed those objections until his vote at Final Read, and really didn't actually express those objections until a few weeks after the vote when constituents continued to ask questions. Either way, his subsequent reaction to the public objections was confusing and counter-productive to his attempt to unseat the incumbent. Many of us who are his former constituents had genuine and legitimate concerns about his eccentric performance at the legislature and his ability to effectively advocate for legislation that we care about with other Members who were turned off by his approach. Right or wrong, legislating is sometimes just as much about personality and likability as it is about policy and partisanship. I would argue that's especially true in a legislative body like the Arizona State Legislature that isn't exactly always known for its thoughtful or evidence-based approach to making laws (at least for those in the majority who control the process). I do agree with you, Ruthie, in that a single vote should never be the basis for judging a candidate's entire record. What I was trying to say (and not sure if Stan is with me on this and not sure that I'm getting my point across clearly) is that Dr. Downing's actions after that single vote seem to be representative of his style of attempting to legislate and (I would argue the majority of) his former constituents - I am one of them - did not think this was the best style for a body (the state Senate) in which our district would have only one voice and not a second voice for balance as it does in the state House. I'm sure Dr. Downing is a nice man and I certainly appreciate his willingness to step into the political arena and do what he thinks is right. We're all human, and we all make mistakes, and some of us are better suited for certain jobs than others. The voters of LD28 were not blind sheep who were just "tricked" into voting against your preferred candidate by one phone call that a small portion of us received. We just made an informed judgment (one you're welcome to disagree with) that Dr. Downing was not the candidate best suited for the job of State Senator. Ever hear the saying, “the cover-up is worse than the crime”? This whole series of events is emblematic of the larger issue as I see it: Former Representative Downing’s frequently unconventional behavior as a legislator. He could have just said, “I made a mistake” if that was indeed the case and it would have been a non-issue. Or maybe, as you say, he had multiple objections to a bill that 56 of his 59 colleagues supported, but he never expressed those objections until his vote at Final Read, and really didn’t actually express those objections until a few weeks after the vote when constituents continued to ask questions. Either way, his subsequent reaction to the public objections was confusing and counter-productive to his attempt to unseat the incumbent.

Many of us who are his former constituents had genuine and legitimate concerns about his eccentric performance at the legislature and his ability to effectively advocate for legislation that we care about with other Members who were turned off by his approach. Right or wrong, legislating is sometimes just as much about personality and likability as it is about policy and partisanship. I would argue that’s especially true in a legislative body like the Arizona State Legislature that isn’t exactly always known for its thoughtful or evidence-based approach to making laws (at least for those in the majority who control the process).

I do agree with you, Ruthie, in that a single vote should never be the basis for judging a candidate’s entire record. What I was trying to say (and not sure if Stan is with me on this and not sure that I’m getting my point across clearly) is that Dr. Downing’s actions after that single vote seem to be representative of his style of attempting to legislate and (I would argue the majority of) his former constituents – I am one of them – did not think this was the best style for a body (the state Senate) in which our district would have only one voice and not a second voice for balance as it does in the state House.

I’m sure Dr. Downing is a nice man and I certainly appreciate his willingness to step into the political arena and do what he thinks is right. We’re all human, and we all make mistakes, and some of us are better suited for certain jobs than others. The voters of LD28 were not blind sheep who were just “tricked” into voting against your preferred candidate by one phone call that a small portion of us received. We just made an informed judgment (one you’re welcome to disagree with) that Dr. Downing was not the candidate best suited for the job of State Senator.

]]> By: Ruthie http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/2009/01/07/10-downing-street/comment-page-1/#comment-16536 Ruthie Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:40:14 +0000 http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/?p=2390#comment-16536 You guys are completely missing the point. Downing's vote on the spousal rape bill is in no way a fair reflection of his overall voting record, and although you may disagree with him on the importance of strengthening the false reporting clause (and disagreement is fine and indeed a healthy measure of the democratic process), it is ridiculous to judge his entire legislative record based on this one vote. And who is to say that there was not more than one reason why he voted no... the two responses you cite are not mutually exclusive. The point is, Downing was a strong supporter of women's rights, his vote on one particular bill was used to characterize him as a demon, and while you may not be making this a personal attack, it certainly was personal during the primary campaign when robo calls were paid for fellow Democrats to portray him as "dangerous." My point is that no legislator should ever be judged on one vote on one bill, taken out of context. You two are perpetuating the myth by bringing it up yet again, two years later. You guys are completely missing the point. Downing’s vote on the spousal rape bill is in no way a fair reflection of his overall voting record, and although you may disagree with him on the importance of strengthening the false reporting clause (and disagreement is fine and indeed a healthy measure of the democratic process), it is ridiculous to judge his entire legislative record based on this one vote. And who is to say that there was not more than one reason why he voted no… the two responses you cite are not mutually exclusive. The point is, Downing was a strong supporter of women’s rights, his vote on one particular bill was used to characterize him as a demon, and while you may not be making this a personal attack, it certainly was personal during the primary campaign when robo calls were paid for fellow Democrats to portray him as “dangerous.” My point is that no legislator should ever be judged on one vote on one bill, taken out of context. You two are perpetuating the myth by bringing it up yet again, two years later.

]]> By: Stan http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/2009/01/07/10-downing-street/comment-page-1/#comment-16535 Stan Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:00:47 +0000 http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/?p=2390#comment-16535 Ruthie, No one said he supports spousal rape or hates women. I merely pointed out the fact, he did indeed vote against a bill to modernize our rape laws. That isn't "distortion". He did in fact make several excuses, and they changed depending on the day you asked him. His third excuse, yes third, was the BS false reporting line you mention. False reporting is already a crime, there is such a thing as due process. No one here is either stupid, or naive about the legislative process. This was a yes or no vote. I have to say I find it interesting you bring up "Karl Rove tactics to smear an opponent’s name" given the fact you are defending a guy who sent out an email trashing a possible opponent. I think it would be ridiculous for Pima county, the liberal bastion of our state to vote for a Chair who shares, on this very important issue; a voting record that matches Ray Barnes, Andy Biggs, and Russell Pearce! Ruthie, No one said he supports spousal rape or hates women. I merely pointed out the fact, he did indeed vote against a bill to modernize our rape laws. That isn’t “distortion”. He did in fact make several excuses, and they changed depending on the day you asked him. His third excuse, yes third, was the BS false reporting line you mention. False reporting is already a crime, there is such a thing as due process.
No one here is either stupid, or naive about the legislative process. This was a yes or no vote. I have to say I find it interesting you bring up “Karl Rove tactics to smear an opponent’s name” given the fact you are defending a guy who sent out an email trashing a possible opponent. I think it would be ridiculous for Pima county, the liberal bastion of our state to vote for a Chair who shares, on this very important issue; a voting record that matches Ray Barnes, Andy Biggs, and Russell Pearce!

]]> By: michael http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/2009/01/07/10-downing-street/comment-page-1/#comment-16533 michael Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:10:35 +0000 http://www.rumromanismrebellion.net/?p=2390#comment-16533 This isn't a personal attack. Former Representative Downing did shift his rationale for his no vote on that bill (from somebody-gave-me-bad-information-just-before-I-stepped-on-the-floor to false-reporting-penalties-weren't-harsh-enough and a few other variations in between), and nobody here accused him of being a "woman hater". And the false reporting claim is a red herring that's already been debunked in another thread of this blog. The shorter version of that debunking: there was already a false reporting statute on the books; and 'false reporting' is unfortunately far too open to interpretation, especially in cases of sexual violence, such that it can also ensnare individuals who were assaulted but for whose assaults there was not enough credible evidence to prosecute the accused. Why make 'false reporting' of a sexual assault of a spouse have a more severe penalty than falsely reporting any other crime, including any other kind of sexual assault? And if you recall, the bill that passed and that Former Representative Downing voted against, did in fact include a harsher penalty for falsely reporting this particularly crime and this crime only. This comes down to at best a misunderstanding on Downing's part and at worst a genuine mistake. Had he just owned up to the mistake in the first place, it never would have been a campaign issue. So while I enjoy being called names in a breathless and hyperbolic post as much as the next guy, the fact remains that this was a bad vote and he was held accountable for it. I would also posit it's not the only reason he lost his primary challenge. This isn’t a personal attack. Former Representative Downing did shift his rationale for his no vote on that bill (from somebody-gave-me-bad-information-just-before-I-stepped-on-the-floor to false-reporting-penalties-weren’t-harsh-enough and a few other variations in between), and nobody here accused him of being a “woman hater”. And the false reporting claim is a red herring that’s already been debunked in another thread of this blog.

The shorter version of that debunking: there was already a false reporting statute on the books; and ‘false reporting’ is unfortunately far too open to interpretation, especially in cases of sexual violence, such that it can also ensnare individuals who were assaulted but for whose assaults there was not enough credible evidence to prosecute the accused. Why make ‘false reporting’ of a sexual assault of a spouse have a more severe penalty than falsely reporting any other crime, including any other kind of sexual assault? And if you recall, the bill that passed and that Former Representative Downing voted against, did in fact include a harsher penalty for falsely reporting this particularly crime and this crime only.

This comes down to at best a misunderstanding on Downing’s part and at worst a genuine mistake. Had he just owned up to the mistake in the first place, it never would have been a campaign issue. So while I enjoy being called names in a breathless and hyperbolic post as much as the next guy, the fact remains that this was a bad vote and he was held accountable for it. I would also posit it’s not the only reason he lost his primary challenge.

]]>