Friday, June 23, 2006

CD 8 A Giffords Endorsement/ A Weiss Poll

I’ve been so busy touring that I haven’t mentioned the announcement of another major endorsement for Giffords: The League of Conservation Voters. The full text of the LCV announcement is available on the Giffords web site, here.

The announcement of the Weiss poll slipped by me entirely, but not by the political observers who regularly comment here at The Data Port. Lacking a fresh post here they had to tack their comments on my June 20th post, below. The comments are well worth reading. (link)

Here’s a link to the text of the poll from the Weiss web site. (link)

My take? I don’t think there’s anything there to cause the Giffords camp any concern. As one commenter pointed out, less than half the people who have heard of her said they’d vote for her. Weiss's only argument for her election continues to be that everyone knows her name.

88 comments:

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymous said...

Gabby's people have seriously hurt her credibility by pretending that she is the inevitable frontrunner.

The facts have always pointed in the other direction and they still do.

Gabby has dug a deep credibility gap by not bringing out any human traits that would define her as a warm, caring person who is best suited to lead CD 8. She is an apologist for Big Box Business and a Buckstretcher at heart. All of the pro-business democrats are showing Joementum this year, including Hillary Clinton.

She is an unknown outside of the Pima precincts, where canvassing and internal polls show Patty Weiss with a very comfortable lead over all others.

Maybe Gabby and the Free Market can buy this election. Perhaps her endorsements will swamp the Weiss campaign. There is nothing concrete to suggest this, other than the hopes of her upper class supporters and the political insiders that owe and trade favors with the Gabby machine.

FEDUP said...

January poll
------------------
Registered Democrats:
65% favorable Weiss
27% favorable to Giffords

Overall favorability (includes Republicans, Independents, Democrats) Weiss 52 percent of voters have a favorable opinion of her while 14 percent are unfavorable.

June poll
------------------------
63% Favorable to Weiss (2 % drop)
34% favorable to Giffords (7% increase)

In 5 months Weiss has lost 2% and Giffords gained 7%.

If you do a comparison diving the % who will vote for Weiss by the number of voters who know her: 43% compared to 55%. The Weiss campaign should be very worried about that number. That means when Giffords runs her ads, if the % hold true, Giffords will kick Weiss' butt after the air time. One of my impressions from the start was the Weiss campaign was moving too slowly and focusing too much time on trying to get funds rather than crafting a solid message and getting Patty out there as a candidate. These poll numbers confirm what I suspected.

While that isn’t a huge gain for Giffords considering her lot of endorsements, money, staff and volunteers, it does mean she is gaining. She hasn’t run any ads yet, and that is sure to give her huge gains unless Latas or Weiss gets some cojones and comes out swinging against her votes in ads of their own. Why are all her competitors treating her with kid gloves? I dunno, but they might just be handing it to Giffords. Sure the supporters come here and complain about Giffords, but no one has challenged her publicly.

Alex Rodriquez is the surprise there, just 1% behind Latas. Could it be that in a liberal district with a popular Hispanic name, he is picking up the Latino vote? Maybe his drop-dead gorgeous wife is bringing in the votes for him? Latas, get out to LD28 more.

Other notes & analysis: The same size was still pretty low, 400 voters. The error rate at nearly 5% with such a small sample size could mean that Giffords is in the lead. Less than .1% of voters polled does not give a good gauge on how they will vote and there is a huge margin, 32% who are still undecided.

If the rumor is true that the polling was from LD28, Giffords strongest district, than it is good news for Weiss. If the sample was taken from across CD8, then I would say it is not good news for Weiss. She and her campaign will need to do a better job defining and differentiating her from the other candidates. They will need to do a few smart mailer campaigns, more volunteers knocking on doors, persuasion calling, and some air time. Voters may know Patty, they may even like her, but that doesn’t mean they see her as a Congresswoman and will vote for her. The campaign is being too lax on resting on her name recognition and my bet is they need to pick up the pace and their reach 2000%. I have not been contacted by their campaign in 2 months, but have been by Latas’, Giffords’, and Quick’s.

I am going to hand this one to Giffords. I think the poll means Giffords has done an excellent job on her campaign and has fast made up ground. The Weiss campaign released this very early (look at the dates of the poll, it normally takes more than a week just to analyze the data). They must think it is good news, which tells me they are really out of touch right now.

LCV endorsement does not surprise me. A month ago I heard they were ready to endorse without letting the membership decide. The problem there is, with Latas' clever video posted on his website, a question to Sierra Club and LCV would be "why would a supposed environmentalist group endorse a candidate who wants to expand nuclear energy use because we 'haven't had an accident in years'?"

Politics is just crazy shit.

I think as I have always thought, that Giffords will win the primary and lose the general. Further proof that Democrats never learn.

FEDUP said...

I disagree with you, anonymous. Gabby's image has gone through an overhaul and she does come across as warm. No one in the voting public knows of bad votes, her flip-flopping, or her out right lies (the nuclear energy thing). As long as the other campaigns are not challenging her to a large audience on these issues and showing the public the proof, Giffords is the leader and will win this. It doesn't mean I support her. It is my analysis on how this is playing out.

I find the whole game humrous on how truly unprogressive so-called liberals and self-proclaimed progressives really are. If Jesus ran against Giffords they would support her because she has the endorsements and money. ;)

anonymous said...

Black is white, up is down.

It is all good news for Gabby.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan Piotrowski said...

Hey Anonymous --

You reveal your complete ignorance with the "upper class supporters" remark. First of all, Patty has done quite nicely for herself as a newscaster, and Latas surely pulls in a six figure income as an airline pilot.

What I want to know is which part of Gabby's base is upper class:

The elitist bus drivers who have endorsed Gabby? Those aristocratic supermarket workers who have thrown their support to her? Those upper-class machinists who have backed her? All those teachers who have endorsed her -- I know my seventh grade shop teacher was a part of the glitterati.... Those hoity-toity carpenters? What about those high society cops and firefighters? I know that the locomotive engineers who have endorsed Gabby are part of the aristocracy.

Gabby cares for people. People sense this when they meet her and get to know her. Her record of fighting for people in the legislature backs it up. Her support is broad -- from all segments of the community. All of these groups have stood behind Gabby because she has a solid, progressive record of fighting for them in the legislature. A record that the other candidates don’t have. They have words and promises. Giffords has a proven track record.

'Zona Dem said...

Fedup, your comments about the favorability numbers is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

The first Weiss poll was from a general election universe, the second was likely Democratic primary voters. All this illustrates is that Weiss has equal general election support as she would in the primary. And it does not show an increase for Giffords, it just shows that she is viewed more favorably by Democrats than by Independents and Republicans.

What's also interesting to note is that those who were asked the favorability question about Weiss in the first poll were responding with their opinion about her as a newscaster, now they are responding about her as a candidate. The fact that her support has held is a testament to the strength of her candidacy.

Dan Piotrowski said...

'zona dem:

Tell me how, if a MAJORITY of people who have heard of Weiss are NOT going to vote for her, this is good news for Patty? And how the fact that she has been on TV for 30 years every night and can barely pull out a lead beyond the margin of error against a candidate who has not even begun her media blitz -- is good news?

Also, how about this -- according to Patty's poll, it looks like Gabby's favorability to unfavorability ratio is actually higher than Patty's -- do the math.

boohoo said...

Union members didn't do the voting.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
boohoo said...

Have you talked with any union members? You may be suprised.

kralmajales said...

Ok...so a bit on Gabrielle's past work on healthcare and AHCCCS. Something the naysayers don't want you to know about her.

First of all, as I have said before Giffords is the only candidate who has any record at all of actually working to expand access to health care.

Some help for some of you that are wondering about if that vote was some kind of a pattern. In the legislature, she worked to expand AHCCCS and she sponsored bills to improve health care in medically underserved areas, to support rural primary clinics, and to allow schools to reach out to children without health insurance. Check out some of these bills HB2459, in 2001; SB1039, in 2003; and HB 2423, in 2001, respectively.
pport for ACC

kralmajales said...

From a post of mine on Blog for Arizona:

On the bill that committee vote that some have trumpeted as a sign of Gabby's evil corporate ways. A bit about why she might have voted against it:

It was actually opposed by a major advocacy group for people with disabilities, the Arizona Bridge to Independent Living (ABIL). Might have been why she opposed it, not for her so-called corporate friends.

It would not have provided health coverage to one additional man, woman or child in the state, something that Gabrielle has a demonstrated track record of accomplishing in the legislature, as you can see from some of the bills in my previous post.

There was absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the bill to make sure that the state could even figure out which companies had employees receiving AHCCCS.

Just a few reasons why this one committee vote...that would have never passed either house of our legislature, was worth voting against for her. Weigh this versus all of the progressive work on healthcare that she had done for our state and I think some of you have a real non-starter here.

It might be enough for some of you to vote against her for, but it sounds pretty piddly and ticky tacky to me. Sounds like you just like Latas or Weiss better (which is fine) and no matter what she has done good for this state, you all want to bash the majority of the party.

sirocco said...

Fedup,

I know of two people who were canvassed for the Weiss poll. Neither were from LD 28. I have no reason whatsoever to think the polling was focused there. I suspect that rumor you have heard was started specifically as an attempt to make the numbers appear better than they are.

Saw the Washington Post comment, that's about as harsh a slap as a candidate can get in a brief writeup. The author clearly wasn't impressed by Patty's visit.

I agree with Roger -- the only realistic reason I can think of for the poll being published is the Weiss campaign is hoping to spin it sufficiently to pick up some end-of-quarter fund-raising. The more you analyze the numbers, the worse they look.

desertfox said...

Fedup,

Where did you get this Gabrielle and "nuclear energy" thing?

Also, I notice you use phrases like "outright lies" and "flip-flopping". These phrases are straight out of Rove's textbook!

I'm a Gabrielle suppporter. However, I love nothing more than a healthy debate. Back up your disagreements about Gabrielle with distinct facts...not propaganda.

Dogma said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dogma said...

c-h G

During a recent appearance in Green Valley I believe, in a responds to a question about energy, Gabrielle said that nuclear energy should be “considered.” While that’s certainly a wrong-thinking statement, it’s hardly the open-ended endorsement of nukes Fedup claims. The Giffords bashers and spinners know full well that Gabrielle did not endorse nuclear energy per se, though they would have us believe Gabrielle wants to put a nuclear power plant on every street corner in the state.

There’s an mpg of this exchange floating around these blogs. I downloaded it, but subsequently lost it somewhere on my hard drive. The point is, you can hear for yourself exactly what Gabrielle said and come to your own conclusions.

desertfox said...

Thanks for the heads up on where to find the file!

I find it interesting that Gabrielle supporters on this blog and others don't back up their accusations with facts. It truely makes their claims look like heresay.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymous said...

It must be good news for Gabby then. Five polls show her dead in the water, and the 'analysts' 'trash' the results.

Dogma said...

anonymous,

You are truly delusional!

Regardless, what five polls are you talking about? I know of only two, both Weiss polls that are publicly available; though this last poll was cherry picked by the Weiss campaign, which is their right since she paid for it. So what other polls are there? And if these are just the “rumored” polls that no one has seen, don’t bother…

anonymous said...

This is all good for Gabby, then.

She must be on cloud nine, with all the signs pointing to victory.

The analysts must be right, because only the nondelusional realpolitik apparatchiks are throwing for Gabby.

outlander said...

Five Polls:

1 Bacall
1 Gabby
2 Weiss
1 Republican


Gabby can tell you the numbers of every one of these.

Dogma said...

Outlander/anonymous,

While I enjoy the occasional delusional break from reality as much as the next person, you’re killing me…

I'm aware of only two polls that have been publicly released--the Weiss polls.

If there are other polls out there, please provide the links so we can all examine them.

Have others done polling? I would be disappointed if they haven’t. However, you all don’t know what those polls showed, and to suggest otherwise only serves to illustrate your bias.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dogma said...

Roger,

I agree completely. I just get weary of the complete fiction often cited by the resident Giffords bashers.

I find it very interesting that Giffords supporters often talk about the other candidates in terms of their lack of experience, record, etc…, but manage to maintain a civil discourse and are even frequently complimentary. Opponents of Giffords, however, more often than not sink to making unsupported accusations based unsubstantiated claims and often state what is obviously their personal opinions as facts in evidence.

Their muddled, disingenuous diatribes do a disservice to their candidates of choice.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymous said...

Patty has won 5 out of 5 of the above listed polls.

This is not news to the people who did these and those who leaked them.

The magic of Television and in kind pieces like LA VOZ may change her image, but Gabby must become more likeable and trustworthy than Patty Weiss, in less than three months.

She must get a better platform than Patty, while not selling out to her corporate and real estate donors.

She must prove to the skeptics that she can be effective against the Republicans that she used to vote with.

She must get past her pro Walmart vote and she must become a better campaigner.

Its do-able with all the good news that Roger found.

outlander said...

It's a glittering generality to claim that rationale discourse flows naturally from the keyboards of Gabber Bloggers, while only the most delusional fantasies come from any other camp.

This too is illusion.

Dogma said...

Outlander,

I couldn't agree more. It just happens to be the case... In this case...

A case in point "flows" from continued references to polls that are only rumors or leaks (aka, rumors). You and old anonymous keep on talking about these phantom polls as if you all "know" the results. Neither of you, of course, ‘knows’ anything except about the two Wiess polls like the rest of us.

Have other polls been conducted? Probably, but you don’t know how many, who conducted them, or what the results were.

I personally have nothing against either Jeff or Patty, and would absolutely vote for either of them should the win the primary. For various reasons, I just don't feel they are the best candidate for this seat at this time.


anonymous,

Now if you want to debate Giffords vote on SB 1065 back in 2004, by all means lets do it! I've looked at all the material still available, and it is obvious to me that that this bill was bad public policy. Anonymous' continued assertions that this was a "pro Wal-Mart" vote are complete hogwash. The bill, if it had passed, would have solved nothing, was not equitable, and wouldn’t have changed the fact that we the consumer would still be paying the freight.

Anyone who believes this was such a great piece of legislation should be spending their time campaigning for SB1232 and/or HB2522, which are the 2006 reincarnations of the earlier bill. But I doubt you all will do that. No one showed up to support the 2004 bill at the committee hearing in 2004, and the 2006 version also appears destined to die a quite death without community support in committee.

anonymous said...

Ask Eva Bacal. That poll is well circulated.

The Huffman poll is also making the rounds and it has caused some rethinking.

Gabby's people leaked her poll, to her consternation.

Not much more to share, except that Gabby is probably not going to win the primary.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

So Gabby voted against the other Democrats and with the Republicans to save us from a bad bill that would not solve anything.... except to let the big retailers continue to pass their health liabilities onto the taxpayers.

That is corporate welfare of the GOOD kind. Rip and and Waltons say thank you, Gabby.

Marsha Arzberger, a conservative Democrat voted with liberal Ken Chevraunt (sp?) against Gabby and the Republicans. What did she know that made her override her fellow Democrats?

This is class warfare and her class is winning.

Anonymous said...

Maybe that the Arizona Bridge To Independent Living, the largest handicapped advocacy group in Arizona, opposed it and she trusted their judgment. You know, those damned establishment handicapped people.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dogma said...

Roger,

I’d also like an answer to your questions… But first, let me address the spurious accusations against Giffords owing to her vote against SB 1065 in 2004, which was bad public policy…

- - - - - - - -

SB1065

The language:

“36-2930. Employees of large employers; reimbursement for services; definition

A. PURSUANT TO RULES ADOPTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, IF A MEMBER WHO RECEIVES SERVICES PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE IS EMPLOYED BY AN EMPLOYER WHO EMPLOYS AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVELY IN THIS STATE, THAT EMPLOYER MUST REIMBURSE THE ADMINISTRATION FOR THE COST OF THESE SERVICES.

B. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "EMPLOYED" MEANS FULL-TIME OR PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT.”


Which in plan language would have:

- Required AHCCCS to promulgate rules requiring all employers with at least 100 full- or part-time employees to reimburse AHCCCS for the cost of services provided to their employees by AHCCCS.


The Background:

- AHCCCS insures over 1 million Arizonans at a cost of $6 billion a year.
- Nearly half of all the adults enrolled in AHCCCS are the working poor who either are not offered or cannot afford medical benefits our largest retailers, grocery chains, and food service companies.
- State data (not sourced) showed the following breakdown of employees enrolled in this program by employer: Wal-Mart 2,800, McDonald’s 1,000, Bashas’ 700, Circle K 600, and the State of Arizona 500.
- AHCCCS costs the Arizona taxpayers $5,550 on average per participant.
- The average yearly participant cost equates to the following for the major employers noted earlier: Wal-Mart $15.5 million, McDonald’s $5.5 million, Bashas’ $4 million, Circle K $3.3 million, and the State of Arizona $2.7 million.
- Who testified at the committee hearing: Jay Kaprosy, Vice President of Public Affairs, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, testified in opposition to SB 1065; Michelle Ahlmer, Executive Director, Arizona Retailers Association, testified in opposition to SB 1065; Senator Leff announced the individuals who registered their position on the bill; Rip Wilson, Wal Mart Stores, Inc., testified in opposition to SB 1065. Note that no advocacy groups or unions or anyone not in the legislature appeared in person to testify in favor of SB 1065.
- The 2004-5 state budget was officially “balanced,” though the structural deficit was estimated to be as high as $764 million.


What SB 1065 was and was not:

- would not have changed who received benefits under AHCCCS or how those benefits were delivered (i.e., no impact on AHCCCS participants).
- would have required large businesses (100-plus full or part-time workers) with enrolled employees to reimburse the state (approx. $5,500/per worker/per year in 2005).
- would have merely shifted burden from taxpayers to consumers through higher prices for products and services businesses would have charged (that’s how business works) and, therefore, was only a smoke and mirrors shell game with the financial burden remaining on us Arizonans.
- politically expedient/opportunistic legislation that attempted to capitalize on a wave of ‘anti’ big business (Wal-Mart in particular) sentiment, but would not have solved the problem (i.e., feels good for us liberals to do, but doesn’t really scratch the itch).
- inequitable to only require larger businesses to reimburse AHCCCS given that the majority of Arizonans are employed by small businesses. If the goal was to force employers of unskilled, low-wage workers to provide health insurance either through private plans or through reimbursing the state; then the legislation should have applied to all employers-period.
- did not address the real underling issues of 1) the lack of universal health insurance (this is still a fringe benefit not required by law) in the U.S. and 2) the inability of the working poor to afford employer-sponsored plans when offered.
- unskilled labor will always pay poorly, but a better fix would have been to advocate on behalf and get passed an increase to the federal minimum wage, which has been stuck at $5.15/hour since it was last raised in 1997 (i.e., Clinton’s last year in office). Requiring employers large and small to pay a real living wage would enable more employees of companies that offer health insurance to be able to afford it. Just in case you missed it, Senators Kyl and McCain once again voted against such an increase this past week (June 20, 2006).

I say again, this was bad public policy in 2004 and its bad public policy today. Labeling this vote as having been in favor of corporate welfare is naïve and uninformed. Claiming class warfare is just plain ludicrous. There is, unquestionably, are real healthcare crisis in the U.S.; however, this bill would have solved nothing and would have saved Arizona taxpayers/consumers nothing.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Gabby was the only Democrat voting against the SB 1065 bill to reign in Walmart:

The Vote:

Yeas
Marsha Arzberger (D)
Robert Blendu (R)
Ken Cheuvront (D)
Victor Soltero (D)

Nays
Carolyn S. Allen (R)
Gabrielle Giffords (D)
Jay Tibshraeny (R)
Dean Martin (R)
Barbara Leff (R)


She must be a lot smarter, and probably a lot richer than the Democrats she voted against. That's the Gabby I know and love.

Don't let your apologists smear this by claiming a change in positions is corrupt.

If no one could change or apologize, we would never move forward.

I hope Gabby changes her positions even more.

Her platform is mediocre and could use some courage, like her change in favor of clean elections.

Her supporters should not distort her pragamatism, even if it costs her corporate sponsors.

If no one changed party affiliations, we would be frozen in time.

Its good Gabby deserted the Republicans.

I hope she deserts the lobbies that are trying to buy her loyalties.

Dogma said...

SAOL,

So… I read your rambling and virtually unintelligible reply as unwillingness or inability to debate this legislation based on its merits and you’ll continue to make baseless accusations against Giffords.

That’s certainly your prerogative, but don’t pretend to dislike Giffords because of this vote. SB 1065 was bad public policy and Giffords did the right thing in voting against it.

Whatever your reasons, it is obvious you’re convinced she is an elitist, pro business snob. Again, your prerogative. But unless you can make a well-reasoned argument supported by facts as to why you or anyone else should view her that way, you’re not going to change anyone’s opinion.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Its all about votes, not opinions.

The Walmart issue is hurting her, regardless of whether her siding with the Republicans was good or bad policy.

She could as easily disavow Walmart. She has changed her positions for the better.

In Willcox she came out in favor of federal clean elections, publically financed.

We all need that. If Gabby had been a Clean Elections candidate in Arizona, she would have lots more support now, and less accusations about furthering the cause of corporations at the expense of taxpayers.

anonymous said...

The essential problem here is the emphasis on polls.

In days past, the problem was bragging up Gabby's money, then downplaying Patty's better than expected fundraising.

What we need are more debates on issues and what is best for the voters of congressional district 8.

Money and polls may drive the campaigns, but they don't inform the voters.

I hope Gabby's TV barrage focuses on issues, rather than image.

I hope Patty Weiss and Jeff Latas continue to promote their strong positions on the serious problems that confront us.

We need more spine and less spin around here.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dogma said...

anonymous,

Amen to "more spine and less spin."

Dogma said...

Roger,

I agree with your point about Latas and Weiss supporters needing extolling the virtues of their candidates instead of spinning Giffords into an unrecognizable caricature of reality. I have to assume the silence that greets you probing questions on what have Jeff and Patty done for the party and the progressive cause, especially relative to Gabrielle, means nothing worth mentioning.

anonymous said...

Patty has done more to inform and report to the CD 8 voters than the years that Gabby has been a politician/CEO property manager. Her work with the mental health community goes way back.

Jeff Latas and Alex Rodriguez have a life of community service and come from the middle class, like Patty. All three absolutely favor universal healthcare, not the 'access' that Gabby wants.

Gabby will soon play a professional politician on TV. And this is her legacy so far.

Dogma said...

Lets play a little point, counterpoint…

Point 1: Patty has done more to inform and report to the CD 8 voters than Gabby. Nonsensical argument since Patty was a reporter and it was her job to “inform” Channel 4 viewers.

Point 2: Patty’s “work with the mental health community goes way back.” Fair statement, but it doesn’t really speak to any accomplishments. I can’t find any specific, tangible results that that “work” achieved. That’s not to say her involvement was anything other than honorable and well intentioned.

Point 3: Jeff & Alex “have a life of community service.” So does Gabby. You just choose to embellish their service while diminishing Gabby’s.

Point 4: Jeff, Alex and Patty “come from the middle class.” What’s the point? So, you’re saying you can’t be a good progressive unless you came from the middle class? So now there’s a liberal litmus test for entry into the party! That’s nonsense, but perhaps you are trying to get at something else…

Point 5: Everyone except Giffords favors universal healthcare. Not a true statement that plays on semantics versus reality. There are a number of plans to achieve universal healthcare, and all of them have to be paid for by someone who is ultimately us. So, the term doesn’t have a single, monolithic meaning. Giffords is “committed to working toward a system where every man, woman and child will have access to affordable health care.” HHmmm, lets see… everyone should have access to affordable healthcare… By gosh, I do believe that’s universal healthcare!

And I see you couldn’t resist ending with a mean-spirited, sophomoric dig against Giffords.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
outlander said...

Mo Udall, Barry Goldwater, and Janet Napolitano never served in the legislature before becoming the tough politicians that consensus says they are.


Gabby's experience, background, and her perceived class problems were the centerpiece for her campaign last December. This is the basic cause of all of this criticism. Gabby herself coined the 'pro-business democrat' moniker that brings about the disconnect between the working class and the money class.

Mom and Pop businesses underpay and avoid benefits in Arizona with the same rationales as Walmart.

They are stretching bucks, and keepiong prices (and wages) down.

Gabby and her supporters apologize for the Walmart vote, and ably defend the fact that she was born to privilege and then became a politician.

But that is the record and experience that they relate to.

Its not in tune with the working class or the voters of CD 8.

Dogma said...

Prior to her election as Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano served one term as Arizona Attorney General (an elective office) and four years as U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona. So you’re off base there. Both Goldwater and Udall were first elected to the US Senate and House, respectively. But these were exceptions rather than the rule.

Giffords has nothing to apologize for regarding the vote on SB 1065 in 2004, and you’re spinning the stuffing out of it by calling the “Walmart vote”, which is just another cheap shot. It was a bad bill and bad public policy. But I seem to recall from an earlier post that you believe that whether it was good or bad policy is immaterial. Talk about being hypocritical!

Your blanket pronouncement about what is or is not in tune with CD 8 voters belies your elitist streak. How about letting the actual voters make up their own minds instead of practicing character assassination and otherwise smearing you’re candidate of choice’s opposition, a positively Rove-like tactic.

boohoo said...

This isn't character assassination, it's fact she voted for big business and put a tax burden on the people. She is pro-business and that's fine, won't win over a lot of middle class, but that's the original road she took. When she saw the out come, she changed course. Just like Iraq, Nukes, and Oil refineries.

Her civil service is minimal compared to Latas and Alex. She changed her party because she couldn't win the first primary as a Republican and now she is put on a pedestal by the bind Dems. Boy oh boy. If she is the nominee, what a huge target she is and the biggest problem at that point, she's got no ammo for her BB gun against the Repug. Iraq Flip flop, environmental hypocrite, pro-business record, and she's taken money from Wal-Mart lobbyist. That's just a beginning.

Dogma said...

boohoo,

She most certainly did not vote for big business nor stop any burden shift off of Arizonans. You continue to mischaracterize this talking point and have apparently never looked into the matter yourself. Otherwise, you’d know better.

Lots of folks have been conflicted about Iraq, no news there. We all believe what we believe when we believe it, and sometimes beliefs change over time. Especially regarding Iraq.

She never endorsed nuclear power. She only said it should be considered.

Where to you think gasoline comes from and why shouldn’t a refinery be built in Arizona? Or are you one of the NIMBY types?

She’s only in her mid-30s and has, therefore, spent most of her adult working life (since grad school) in public service. So it’s all relative as my pappy likes to say

Since when did switching party affiliations become a high crime or misdemeanor? So did I, but came home again, and lucky for you ;-) It must be nice to be clairvoyant, able to read others minds! You’ve got no idea why she switched, you just want to us it to bash her without regard to the truth.

Way to score debating point by calling anyone who doesn’t share your views blind (i.e., stupid).

And just like those that came before you, you end with a flourish of venomous misstatements and fabrications spun to the n-th degree. Congratulations!

outlander said...

Gabby should answer these claims herself. Patty Weiss and Jeff Latas spend some time blogging at Daily Kos and it seems to be more people friendly than these pro-Gabby blogs.

For the latest on Patty's position on clean elections:

http://tinyurl.com/eswat

Jeff Latas also rebutted Gabby in Willcox regarding her conversion and support for public campaigns.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
outlander said...

One of the best things Jeff Latas and Patty Weiss have done for the progressive cause and the Democratic Party is to oppose Gabrielle Giffords and the establishment in this primary.

Gabby's record is not stupendous in a Republican dominated state unless you like her compromises.

I'm glad some progressives are opposing the DLC wing of the party and giving us a real choice.

That alone brings something to the party that Gabby is missing.

anonymous said...

I think the people that fear Patty Weiss (who happen to be beneath her) are the other candidates in the primary, in both parties.

This includes former Republican now Independent Gabby supporters, but not progressive Democrats.

'Zona Dem said...

*Weiss* treats people below her badly??

That's funny, because *I've* been hearing horror stories about ex-employees of El Campo Tire who were treated like absolute dirt by Gabby.
Just another reason why Dems CANNOT afford to elect Gabby come September-- rumor is that Jim Click has those former employees lined up and ready to come out strongly against her.

Can't we pick our battles for once??
Let's not live up to the Democratic reputation for picking poor candidates who are completely untenable. Gabby has too much on record already that can hurt her. She can't win, and this seat is just too darn important to lose...

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

The thing to remember about Roger Kraj's comments are that he is working for the interests of Gabby, and not the Democrats nor the party.

He is not a Democrat, and his politics tend towards the Gabby flavor for this reason.

anonymous said...

It would be interesting to see how many of these bloggers are not Democrats. Art Jacobson is a proud member of the independents, as is Kral. Many of the ardent supporters of Gabby are either Republicans or lawyers. Hard to tell which are posting here.

disclaimer: This is true.

George Tuttle said...

I would agree that Latas and Weiss have totally upset the Pima County Democratic Party establishment.

It's like the Demo's come in see these two sitting at their table, drinking their scotch and giving them the finger.

It's about damn time.

The PCDP is one of the most incestuous organizations in Arizona politics. They hate outsiders, they hate anyone who doesn't follow their dogma. These two candidates have brought a lot of outsiders into the fold (ala Howie Dean).

I would suspect that if anyone of the PCDP insiders decided to run against Frodo Ronstadt, they would have backed them in a minute. Farley was not one of their regulars and Trasoff certainly wasn't. So they just kept the gloves off and watched these two go at it in last year's primary.

It's getting stale inside the party, these two are a breath of fresh air.

Art Jacobson said...

Old Anonymouse Squeaks:

"It would be interesting to see how many of these bloggers are not Democrats. Art Jacobson is a proud member of the independents, as is Kral. Many of the ardent supporters of Gabby are either Republicans or lawyers. Hard to tell which are posting here."

This is really a hoot, since practically no one here has the courage (or decency) to stand up and really identify themselves. Who the f--- are you?

I'm proud to be me...are you ashamed
to be you?

Art

anonymous said...

i am a small d democrat, and proud of it.

Its ironic that most of the avid Gabby supporters are proud to be anything but a democrat.

The independents and Republicans that purport to represent Gabby's interests here do not have their arguments resonating with the voting class Democrats, because they left the New Deal and other legacies long ago.

Guys like Art and kraljamales are not friends nor supporters of the Democratic Party. Or they would be working from within like the grass roots progressives.

Proud to be a Democrat, that is who the f_ck I am.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Maybe Roger and Art's strategy is to energize Independents to vote for Gabby by turning off Democrats.

They are truly are going in a direction away from the Democrats that vote in a primary. And I don't think that they really speak for the independent voters of the CD 8 district that have a visceral dislike for both parties and the establishment candidates that seem to promise the mediocre while delivering much less.

Most independents tend to not support candidates like Gabby Giffords and prefer the challengers like Jeff Latas or Patty Weiss.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

The point of this argument about you and Art as independents is that you do not represent the Democrats, nor do you represent the best interests of the Democrats.

Your caucus is with the independents, not the Democrats. That makes your analysis suspect in that it does more harm to Democrats than to your candidates of choice. Independents may like Gabby more than the others, but they certainly do not vote for the best interests of the Democrats or the party.

Its noteworthy that not many Democrats rise to Gabby's defense, only independents and some Rs here.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Art Jacobson said...

Dear "Self Appointed"

"The point of this argument about you and Art as independents is that you do not represent the Democrats, nor do you represent the best interests of the Democrats."

Do I nose out the aroma of some sort of principle of doctrinal purity here? Why of course.

The best interest of the Democrats is to win CD 8 and gain control of Congress. Nothing else matters, because if we don't do that we're screwed.

Being registered as a Democrat does not guarantee you will represent the
interests of the Democrats. Leaders of our development industry (Don Diamond for instance) have been Dems forever and have consistently rallied to the call of the Tucson Thirty.

Should the experience-free Weiss or the financially strapped Latas actually be our candidate they are going to need all the help they can get.

In the spirit of an old Bud and Travis tune...Tell your parents not to muddy the water around us, they may have to drink it some day!"

Instead of wasting your time down here at the bottom of a comment thread you (and your candidate) would be better off if you did some work out in the field.

Incidentally, I imagine the reason you see a minority of Dems here is that they are too busy working for the Giffords campaign.

'gards,
Art

anonymous said...

If these Democrats are so busy working for Gabby that they don't have time to read their camp's blogging, then its telling that Gabby campaigns without much of a staff, especially in the rural areas.

The reason few Democrats are defending Gabby on these blogs is because she does not have the support her boosters are pretending she has.

TV may save her campaign. These blogs certainly won't.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
outlander said...

The doctrinal purity around here seems to be the Democratic Leadership Council's Playbook for losing congress and blurring your image.

As such, only independents and republicans seem to be excited by the bland taste of promising little and delivering for big business and donors.

Gabby's supporters would jump on Gabby like ducks on a junebug... if she had the courage to come out for universal healthcare or other people friendly positions.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
outlander said...

Gabby is on record supporting 'access' to healthcare, rather than universal healthcare, or single payer pools.

We have access to health care when we go to the emergency room, so she is supporting the status quo system that is currently expensive, unfair and broken.

Art says the special interests would eat her alive (ducks on a junebug) if she took a principled stand on health.

He is right.

outlander said...

I happen to socialize with all of the candidates, and I happen to be friends with most of them.

I'm not neutral, but I will be pragmatic during the primaries and go for the person most likely to win the general election and take back the house.

That does not appear to be Gabrielle Giffords, because of her campaign, her platform, and her negatives. She has burnt more bridges, than built roads during her tenure and its starting to show.

anonymous said...

Gabby has yet to support any kind of healthcare other than access. Whatever access means. If we can go to a drugstore, then we have access. If we go to an emergency room, we have access to health care.


Karen Armstead said...

I hope she endorses single-payer--that's the only "real" possibility for healthcare reform.
6:20 PM
Art Jacobson said...

Karen...

I hope so,too. Of course if she she does, the Insurance industry will be down on her like a duck on a junebug.
7:00 PM

http://tinyurl.com/l9uxl

10:23 AM

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
outlander said...

While I was walking on a stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away.

Ogden Nash


A lot of the undecideds are undecided because they won't fall in line to support a weak candidate like Gabby. Call me undecided, leaning towards Patty and Jeff.

anonymous said...

Gabby has never supported single payer healthcare, nor universal access to healthcare.

Our state system does not provide access to everyone. In fact it discriminates against single males.

Gabby is not on record for any kind of healthcare reform other than 'access' and making Medicare's Plan D less egregious, but still unworkable.

Dogma said...

I see outlander, anonymous and friends are still indulging themselves in writing works of fiction, flailing away at Giffords.

Interesting how little the truth means to some...

Also interesting that when confronted with the facts, they bob and weave and avoid and direct debate on any given issue.

If you are going to make stuff up, then do the party some good and at least make it about Huffman and/or Graf!

anonymous said...

Please cite the examples of fiction and making stuff up.

Is Gabby for universal healthcare or does she favor 'access' to healthcare?

Did Gabby have a chance(s) to run publically financed, and choose not to?

Does Gabby consider building nuclear power plants, and easing regulation of oil refineries in Arizona?

Is Gabby the frontrunner?

Are Art and kraljamales Democrats?

Is she well liked and well known?

Is she the establishment candidate favored by most of the special interests, or is she an outsider crashing the status quo?

Is Gabby's platform very similar to the DLC playbook?

Does the DLC understand the unique demographics of CD 8?

Is Gabby a pro-business democrat, or does she believe that government regulates businesses for the well being and safety of citizens and consumers?

Is Gabby capable of responding to any of these claims herself, or does she need intermediaries for her message?

Where is the fiction? What has been made up?

FEDUP said...

Leave for a couple of days and look at all the comments. I had an interesting week checking out the campaigns of some of the candidates this week and will blog about it later in more depth. It is good news for Weiss and Giffords, but bad news for them too. Latas has stalled and will have to do some serious soul searching in the next 30 days. Too bad because the man has shook up the establishment but I don't see him making inroads fast enough to unseat the other two.

FEDUP said...

"Being registered as a Democrat does not guarantee you will represent the
interests of the Democrats. Leaders of our development industry (Don Diamond for instance) have been Dems forever and have consistently rallied to the call of the Tucson Thirty."

I would agree with Art on that quote. Independents can vote in the primary just like Democrats and many independents are more liberal and progressive than democrats. Montana is a state with very liberal independents.

anonymous said...

Looking to independents to reform the Democrats is like looking to atheists to reform the Catholics.

I once was an independent, but no one takes you seriously in power circles that involve orthodox politicos. You have less influence than the Greens or Libertarians, and you are considered fringe by people who should know better.

Art Jacobson thought that by registering independent, he could effect some soul searching within the party. He was quickly forgotten, for better or worse.

Point is, he left the caucus and the caucus does not take him seriously, or respect him for his stand.

Independents are discriminated against in the electoral laws of Arizona, and both parties tend to wish they would go away. They won't and they shouldn't, because they tell both parties that, "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it!"

But they do and will, because they don't have the organizing fulcrum of the two dominant parties.

The point being driven here, is that Gabby's prominent blog supporters are not from the Democratic Party, but are either independents or Republicans.

Gabby was smart to leave the Republicans when she did, and she would be smart to either participate in the blogs, or get some professional party regulars to defend her in these spaces.

She takes bad advice, and then lets her bloggers amplify it like dexy driven cheerleaders.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymous said...

I am no Republican, and Kral and Art are not Democrats. Pretty simple so far.

Gabby is a Democrat, that much is certain. Once again, where is the groundswell of Democrats on the blogs coming to her aid and defense?

This is a primary, its not about eating anything.

x4mr said...

I may be out of my depth here, and if so, apologies in advance.

How many people are we really talking to here? How many people are really reading/listening? How much do these blogs really influence elections? Who does this discussion really serve?

Make no mistake, I enjoy doing this and actually TDP is my favorite place.

If we are 50 people, or even 100, that perhaps get watched by another 100, we mean what?! This is over 80 comments deep and I am really not trying to start anything, but I think these blogs serve the bloggers, all 200 of us (or whatever) that might actually vote in CD8.

I think campaigns need to watch what is happening, but blogging is not an effective way to get votes.