* A press release from the Weiss campaign reports that Nina Roosevelt Gibson, Granddaughter of FDR, has endorsed Weiss. The endorsement is part of the fund-raising push of the Weiss campaign, and stresses the “I am not politician, I am a citizen candidate” meme.
As of this post there is no link to the press release on the Weiss website, the press release section of which hasn’t been up-dated since May 17th. I imagine that the new Weiss communications guy, Andrew Myers, will be taking care of this.
* There’s a new blog covering CD 8 politics with emphasis on the Republican side of the aisle: Arizona 8th.
* Why you need bloggers: Today’s Arizona Daily Star has 25 articles and six blogs about sports. It has no story that I could find about local politics. I grant that bloggers are not certificated “professional journalists” but at least they let the rest of us know what’s going on behind the scenes.
16 comments:
This is the same vote that sparked the shootout last weekend at kos, SB1065 and this notorious lobbyist that donated a whopping $300 last December and $250 in 2004.
Oh, and that Walmart is one of the untold number of clients served by the consulting firm for which this guy works...........
Dig into SB1065 and cracks emerge.
Now they're bitching about Reagan day at kos.
Could not agree more that Giffords record is going to be scrutinized for every possible nugget that can be spun into something that supports the agenda of an opponent.
I find the rather weak attacks on Giffords, and the rather LACK OF attacks (sure, there are some, but few) on her opponents, very interesting.
I suspect that the lack of attacks on Weiss and Latas is due to a number of factors. Most importantly, the Giffords campaign and her supporters are tightly focused on their own game plan. They hardly need the distraction of floating gratuitous attacks on their opponents who, after all, have no legislative records.
The ‘Reagan Vote’ complaint is a non-issue. It probably reflects a simple ignorance of the fact that the Senate frequently honors people on their passing by bipartisan majorities…Senator Andy Nichols, for instance.
"De mortuis nihil nisi bonum" is frequently a matter of legislative courtesy.
What do people expect, a chorus of "I’ll be glad when you’re dead, you rascal you?"
Giffords fans,
The above quote from Louis Hollingsworth is an "attack?" Are you serious? Unless there's more to it, the guy is saying why he supports Patty Weiss. He goes on to explain why he no longer supports Giffords and references the AZ state bill that Giffords voted against which would have required large employers (like Wal-Mart) to reimburse the State for providing health care for employees of these companies. Not a great vote for the newly "progressive" (former "centrist") Ms. Giffords.
Hollingsworth also states that Giffords accepted money from a Wal-Mart lobbyist and questions the connection.
This is not an "attack." This is information about Giffords, easily verifiable, and the opinion of an individual who also encourages readers to do their own research.
Don't we all question the connections between the sources of an elected official's financing and their voting record? To not do so would be extremely naive, as special interests have pretty much taken over the government.
Giffords was an elected official and it stands to reason that her voting record will be scrutinized. How else can you correlate her "progressive" positions with her history? At least this kind of scrutiny can be based on facts that are part of the public record.
sirocco,
I love it when people agree with me.
Giffords fans, here's another thing to think about. Yes, its true, Weiss and Latas do not have voting records. Neither does Jim Pederson. Shouldn't Jon Kyl's voting record, which has been in complete lockstep with the Bush Administration agenda, be scrutinized? That's the downside (or the upside) of being an elected official. Your voting record speaks volumes about whether you're representing your constituency or towing your party line and/or voting in favor of whoever is giving you money. It also casts light on how committed you are to your professed values. John Kerry's vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq didn't serve him well in 2004, but there it was, big as a Buick. I voted for Kerry because I had to, but that Iraq vote really bothered me.
OK, Liza, you got me thinking semantics, which is terrible for a recovering semantiholic (don’t ask). I will work hard to keep the pathology in check. Also, in case I get nasty, after this sentence I’m addressing all, not just Liza.
What is an attack?
Most probably agree that stating a fact (Giffords voted against SB1065) is not an attack.
We could add Fact #2 (SB1065 makes huge employers reimburse the state for expenses AHCCCS incurs to care for any of their employees) and still say no attack has occurred.
Or could we? What is a fact?
Is Fact #2 a fact? Read Hollingsworth and you are left with the taste of requiring Walmart giants to pay their due. Sounds simple and right. SB1065 states “all employers” and kicks in at 100 employees counting part time workers. Is 102 “huge”? Do you realize what counting part time workers does? Does “all employers” include our community colleges, universities, and schools ? Have any idea how many part time adjunct faculty they employ? Substitute teachers in K-12?
Run the scenarios yourself, and, uh, we’re going to administer and enforce this how?
As an aside, IMHO if this country handled health care, universally, with the greed removed, costs would plummet.
Back on subject, we all might nod that stating a fact is not an attack, but rarely are we stating facts. We jump from “over 100” to “huge” without blinking and still think we are factual. Full time versus part time doesn’t even reach our consciousness.
But even if we rigorously stick to facts, which facts? What is said about Rip Wilson (spoke for Walmart—a fact) but not said (also speaks for 100’s of other clients including promoting wireless internet for school libraries—also facts but excluded). In crafting our message we select which facts, for every one stated there are those excluded.
So, like Lebesgue in Measure Theory, if we jump from “content” to “results/intent”, it gets simpler. An attack is a communication intended to harm in a particular context. Here, we are pretty much talking about someone getting elected. An attack is a communication designed to reduce the target’s ability to get elected.
Addressing Liza again, Hollingsworth praise of Patty is not an attack (a promotion of ability to get elected) but his words on Giffords are an attack (an effort to reduce ability to get elected), and I am not saying there is anything wrong with this.
Not sure at all that “attack” carries a bad connotation. Those who see why a candidate should not get elected should speak up.
X4mr,
I think we can all agree that legislative bills are generally complex and can be misleading. Sometimes this is deliberate, as we all know. What may sound good in summary format can be something completely different in the details.
However, I would argue that 100 employees (full time and/or part time) is significant although certainly not huge. And, I think we all know that some employers hire part time employees and contractors specifically to save on health care and other benefits to hold down costs. In addition, some employers withhold health care benefits for the first six months of employment for full time employees. In all these cases, the cost of whatever health care these people get is paid by someone other than the employer. It sounds to me as though SB1065 attempted to address these issues, although I will concede that there could have been some major problems with the bill as written. Clearly, the legislation should have been written to target the worst abusers, not to create another administrative nightmare. Given that the legislation was based on a good concept, had popular support, and attempted to correct abusive employer practices, then why was the legislation scrapped instead of rewritten and salvaged?
Universal health care is a no brainer and all we can do with that is preach to the choir. Health care has become a huge burden for many employers and the current situation is not sustainable. However, we are years away from universal health care in this country, and until we have Democratic rule, we are not likely to see much change within the current system. Unfortunately, that means that employers will have to provide health care and the states will have to step up to fill in the gaps. Even more unfortunate, it should also be apparent that regulation of employers who abuse publicly funded health care is going to have to occur at the state level until progressive rulers occupy Washington DC.
X4mr, I do not agree with your definition of “attack” because it’s just too broad. In this context, which is writing about political candidates, you say that “an attack is a communication designed to reduce the target’s ability to get elected.” I think that to qualify as an “attack” you need deliberate lying with a malicious intent to cause serious harm to the candidate’s credibility and character.
This brings me back to Hollingsworth and I have just one point here. Everyone is a political writer these days but not everyone has been trained to be an investigative journalist. I think we have to accept the fact that a lot will be written that has not been comprehensively researched to originate from only credible or factual sources. Knowing that, the burden is on each of us to question the source, and as Mr. Hollingsworth himself suggested, do our own research.
As for our elected officials, the burden is on them to defend their voting record. It’s just too bad that it takes an election for their voting records to become interesting. If we want to take back the government from special interests, then we’re going to have to get better at holding our elected officials accountable for their votes.
Sirocco..
Sure. It may take me a couple of hours, but I'll try to do it today.
I could not have said it better, sirocco, than the last sentence of your 1:44 post. That is exactly what is going on, and I do think the "tarring" constitutes an attack.
By the way, not at all attached to my earlier definition, and maybe I'll take another crack at it after thinking more. I hear Liza saying that to be an attack it has to involve "deliberate lying" and be aimed at character.
Hmmm. Well regarding character, it certainly is a subset of the earlier definition, because character clearly influences electability. So I might call something an attack and Liza would disagree because character was not involved. I can see that view.
I don't see the need for deliberate lying. I think it is possible to construct something brutal, something all would agree "Now that is an attack!!" without ever really lying per se.
I think Liza's remarks on SB1065 are very sound considerations, but will confess I've reached my depth on that bill. I think everyone here would agree that large, profitable organizations playing games to avoid insuring employees is "bad" and should be addressed. As I wrote, SB1065 may have been really problematic, but I like what those of you said about fixing it instead of killing it. Very good point.
I said that to qualify as an “attack” you need deliberate lying with a malicious intent to cause serious harm to the candidate’s credibility and character. Unquestionably, the ultimate goal of an “attack” is to prevent the candidate from being elected. Otherwise, why do it? The purpose of an “attack” is to disseminate false information about a candidate that leads voters to perceive that individual as someone who is less than truthful or has other character deficits, thus being unfit for public service. An “attack” is about using lies to create voter perceptions about credibility and character.
I think that deliberate lying is essential to qualify as an "attack" on a political candidate. If someone writes the truth for the purpose of informing the electorate, how can that possibly be an "attack?" The truth is the truth, flattering or not. Furthermore, if the intent is to provide information that voters can use to evaluate the candidate, then how can that be an “attack?”
How people draw conclusions is another issue. Sometimes people are just too quick to connect the dots without supporting information. As I said earlier, not everyone has been trained to be an investigative journalist. If someone deliberately and knowingly draws false conclusions from facts or partial facts, then I think one can argue that this is akin to lying. If these false conclusions are disseminated to cause serious harm to the candidate’s credibility and character, then this is an “attack.” However, unless there is boldface lying, intent can be subtle and difficult to judge in the absence of repetition and consistency. I just think that we need to know that an “attack” is really an “attack” before we call it that. People write about a lot of things these days and not all of them do it well. The burden is on the candidate to set the record straight.
Sirocco,
I can’t disagree with you on any of your points. I believe, as you do, that someone who writes about a candidate should not draw conclusions that are not supported by verifiable facts or information from credible sources. And, I also agree that if a writer wants to be considered credible, then he/she needs to be accurate. No argument there.
However, we live in the real world. Anyone can write on blogs. We’re talking about a population of writers that has the full spectrum of every characteristic you can think of including education, writing skills, work experience, life experience, etc… But we are total strangers who know nothing about each other. We can’t possibly know each other’s motivations. And, you can’t just assume that what is obvious to you is obvious to everyone. Unless I can be sure of malicious intent, I’d just as soon give the benefit of doubt to the writer. Recently, I have noticed that a lot of people on Kos are asking writers to identify their sources when they make unsubstantiated statements. I think that’s a good way to weed out those who really are just attacking candidates they don’t like.
I think it’s sad but true that the burden is on the candidate to set the record straight. Who else can do it?
Sirocco...
Identifying sources is certainly a good idea, although even jornalists sometime have to hide behind the "a highly placed government official" dodge.
When that happens we at least know who the reporter is, his or her reputation for reliability, and the newpaper or TV news outlet he or she writes for.
Forgive me for putting it this way, but who the hell are you...or any of the other pseudonomous posters on this and other blogs?
In addition to identifying sources let's also honestly ourselves.
'gards
Art
Ooops...
make that "honestly identify ourselves."
A lot to think about here.
First, just want to say I find this particular “thread” or exchange very interesting, and I don’t think it is abstract blah, blah. I think these ideas are very pertinent and applicable, because there is a storm brewing with SB’s and HB’s and this candidate said this and that candidate said that and this means this…….
Based on comments (primarily liza and sirocco) and my own thinking, I’ve refined “attack” to be a deliberate falsehood or misinterpretation of facts designed to damage the image of a candidate’s suitability for office.
Key distinctions are: 1) deliberate, 2) creates a false notion, 3) hurts our view/image of the person, 4) in a way that we consider them not suited for office.
This captures liza’s notion of deliberate lying but includes what sirocco is pointing to about an intentional twisting of facts to create a false view. I think we are going to see a lot of both and soon.
So, with this definition, a blogger presenting facts and interpretations in a straight fashion, no matter how negative it may be for a candidate is not attacking. There is no deliberate “falseness” in the mix, or the way sirocco put it, “mis-use of facts.”
My gut still has the sense that this misses something that can be an "attack" but enough of that for now.
I can appreciate Art’s dander rising up a little with the “original posters being held more accountable” remark.
For what it’s worth, IMHO there’s a HUGE distinction between folks like Art, Tedski, George, etc. and those characters who post an original story at kos. There is no comparison, and I can’t think of a single example, not one, where the original posts at this blog or those like it contained the kind of nonsense we’ve been discussing.
By the way, not criticizing kos itself. That’s just a different animal that plays a different game.
And, yes, the original stories over there can be pseudoname sourced and play reagan day games.
Whooops. Got emotional and overspoke. I actually can think of some nonsense original posts, but not at DataPort.
What timing, speaking of such, I think George has eaten some funny mushrooms.
George's Blog
Not sure if I can develop a definition for that piece of work.
I also think Hollingsworth email was an attack.
I think we will see a lot of efforts to take some fact or event (a vote, a statement, whatever) and make it mean something bad about a candidate that just isn't accurate (not pretending this is profound). What might be new is the volatility of the blog world and how "out there" folks can get.
Apparently Patty Weiss wants to take us to Mars!
The campaigns will have their hands full with all of this, and it will be interesting to see how much of the stuff that can be blogged anonymously actually makes it to television, etc...
Finally, wish to retract my mushroom statement about George above. I misread his post. What it actually says is not as nuts as I thought. I apologized at his blog.
Post a Comment