Friday, June 30, 2006

CD 8-- Weiss and PACs: Pot Calls Kettle Black

Everyone seems to be rumbling with political indigestion (or should that be indignation) over campaign finance issues. Apparently no one who accepts PAC money can be free of bondage to “special interests.”

This lets the Weiss campaign out since it is already tainted. It has accepted $5000 from the United Transportation Union Political Action Committee. Patty has also accepted two ‘in kind’ contributions from the National Committee For An Effective Congress valued at $3000.

The National Committee, in turn, is the recipient of funds from PACs like the American Federation of Teachers AFL-CIO, the International Association of Firefighters, and the Machinists Non-Partisan Political League. Hence the campaign sucks in what I suppose you might call the ‘second hand smoke’ of PAC contributions.

Oh, Patty…Patty…Patty

81 comments:

'Zona Dem said...

What Patty has been saying all along is that when there *is* an option to run clean, you must. Obviously there is not an option for federal clean elections... YET.

In the mean time, nobody has said that there is any problem with taking PAC contributions from PACs that are ideologically aligned with you. For example, nobody is criticizing Gabby's labor contributions.

And Patty has been careful about the contributions she receives. She doesn't buy in to the "pay-for-play" notions of many groups. For example, the pharmaceuticals lobby wanted her to espouse Medicare Part D in order to get funds, saying "We wrote Medicare Part D. We like Medicare Part D. Now.... how do *you* feel about Medicare Part D?" --Patty hung up on them, because she does NOT operate that way.

And that's what I"m looking for in a candidate, someone who puts her beliefs ahead of her pocketbook.

The comparison you're making is apples-to-oranges. I'm sure that if there were an option to run clean in this election, Patty would take it. Because she wants to represent the CITIZENS of district 8.

As for Gabby... I'm not convinced that she would.

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

If you wanted to be truly ideologically pure, Patty should be running a self-financed race ... I'll willingly concede that's an unreasonable expectation mind you.

Let's run some numbers, using the 2000 campaign. I don't recall how many signatures were needed exactly to qualify for CE funds, but for some reason the number 400 sticks in my mind. So I am using that as the basis.

Ted Downing, who ran in that race against Giffords collected enough signatures and donations to qualify. Lets assume that amounted to $2000. In return he received a total of $64,824.61 in disbursements from the state for the primary in general. Funding from actual voters amounted to 3.1% of his funding for the race.

For that same race, Giffords collected $50, 278.06, of which $40,844.21 came from individual contributors, $8,086 from PACs and the difference from other sources. She got (at least) 81.2% of her financing from the voters.

Frankly, collecting the needed signatures to qualify for public financing isn't hard if you have any organization at all and you are named Hitler or Stalin or something. I could collect the first 100 or 150 I need tomorrow if I needed to without blinking. After that I have to start hitting up friends-of-friends, etc., but it's not a huge barrier.

In 2002 Libertarian Kimberly Swanson qualified even though she clearly didn't care about winning, and likely would have been unpleasently surprised if she did and actually had to perform the duties required.

Giffords, on the other hand, has regularly placed her ability to campaign at all, much less be elected, in the hands of the voters, and they have chosen each time to vote with their money as well as their ballots. So who is more accountable to the voters -- the candidate who actually relies on them to fund a campaign, or the one who merely has to get a trivial sum from a bunch of friends and relatives?

outlander said...

Kimberly Swanson was a legitimate candidate with a genuine platorm, and an authentic challenge to Gabby.

This would have been the right election for Gabby to immunize her record by running clean.

Timing is everything, and Gabby shows up late and leaves early. She had little to fear from Kimberly, unless she was worried about second hand smoke clouding her chances to move into the Big Time.

Throwing Stalin and Hitler into your metaphors does your argument no good.

Comparing Arizona campaigns to theirs is a disservice to your candidate and to the integrity of public financed elections.

Glib, but stupid.

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

Swanson ran her campaign on, basically, one issue. That's not a serious challange.

I did compare anyone's campaigns to Hitlers or Stalins. I said unless you are as inherently psychopathic as they were, it's not overly difficult to meet the necessary criteria to qualify for clean elections funding.

FEDUP said...

You are comparing taking money from Wal-Mart and Bashas and then voting down a bill costing taxpayers millions to taking money from a union?

You aren't even getting creative anymore, Art, in your Giffords apologist ways.

Patty Weiss never attacked Giffords for her union endorsements or money given by them. She was clear about the issues of a pay for play system she had and why she supports Clean Elections. Latas hasn't attacked anyone for getting union endorsements either.

Ideally, if all candidates ran clean and only clean we wouldn't have union influence either which I believe is a good thing. Freeing the candidates up to talk to voters and having to work for the $5 and signatures instead of courting big donors would work wonders for intergrity in our system.

I noticed Giffords lastest fundraising email is the slowest she has ever had. What's up? She usually fills that thing in 24 hours and it looks like this took 3 days if she fills it by tonight. The average dollar amount is pretty high too. Did her big donors all max out?

I hear she won't have the $1.2 million originally projected, but it will be closer to $1 million. Considering all her endorsements and the big money they bring like from PACS, the picture isn't quite as rosy as her campaign has been saying. It will be interesting to view the reports and follow the money trail.

Weiss needs $300,000 to stay viable. Anyone know if she is near that?

Latas needs $100,000 or he needs to drop out and look at endorsing another campaign. Do you think he would endorse Giffords? Maybe if she made him some promises, but he should get it in writing as we know her track record.

outlander said...

She never ran clean, and Steve Leal could have easily returned the money to the general fund, or not take it. He was unchallenged, Gabby had a genuine race.

Patty did more to inform voters about the San Pedro water crisis, and other issues than Gabby ever did.

Jeff Latas has brought awareness to the consequences of Iraq and has brought Gabby's recording into the vetting process. Jeff served his country while Gabby was compiling her rolodex.

Alex Rodriquez and Frank Antenori have laid their lives on the line for CD 8 and our security.

Gabby took a ride in a warjet and posed in her flight uniform to get the same credibility.

Patty was on the local scene, informing voters and viewers on the issues before Gabby learned to read.

sirocco said...

Roger,

The for Giffords' 2000 campaign I gave above. The other figures are:

2002 - Raised $38,899. $31,7640 from individual contributors, $6,910 from PACs. At least 81.6% of funding came from individual contributions

2004 - Raised $63,163.29. $54,851.29 from individual contributors, $7,192 from PACs. At least 86.8% of funding came from individual contributions.

The totals do not include in-kind contributions, since I didn't look up a breakdown to see which came from individuals, which from PACs.

outlander said...

The money figures about viability are surmises that do not reflect the facts on the ground.

Even if Jeff Latas loses in the primary, he is an upcoming force that will be admired for his positions, his sacrifices and his contribution to southern Arizona for challenging Kolbe and the establishment Democrats.

Local wags claim that Patty Weiss can still beat Gabby Giffords with 10% of the money that Gabby raises.

sirocco said...

Fedup,

Who ever projected $1.2 million Giffords? That's way beyond any figure I have heard.

I think Weiss needs a lot more than $300K ... but the numbers will be out in a couple weeks.

FEDUP said...

sirocco said..."If you wanted to be truly ideologically pure, Patty should be running a self-financed race ... I'll willingly concede that's an unreasonable expectation mind you."

Considering Patty DID finance her campaign to the tune of something like $9000 when she first got in, something no other candidate has done on the Democratic side (to that extent), your argument does not hold water.

If Latas, as retired military and making at least a low 6-figure income as a pilot had financed that amount of his own, I guarantee he would have gotten more early financial support. If you aren't willing to put your money on your own campaign, it is harder to convince others to do so.

Gabby didn't need to since it was never her money to begin with, but her Daddy's.

outlander said...

You did not say, "I said unless you are as inherently psychopathic as they were, it's not overly difficult to meet the necessary criteria to qualify for clean elections funding."

You said:

"Frankly, collecting the needed signatures to qualify for public financing isn't hard if you have any organization at all and you are named Hitler or Stalin or something. I could collect the first 100 or 150 I need tomorrow if I needed to without blinking. After that I have to start hitting up friends-of-friends, etc., but it's not a huge barrier."

FEDUP said...

siocco, why do you think Weiss needs more than $300K?

I think Giffords needs the money to buy name recognition and even her supporters on this and other blogs predicted 3-1 fundraising advantage over Weiss. If Giffords is at $1 million, Weiss would need a third. $333,333 to be exact.

The $1.2 million I was hearing from supporters of her I talked to around 3-4 weeks ago. They thought the fundraising was going very well with all the PAC and endorsement money, especially Emily's list. They knew about endorsements before announced and said there would be a lot of money coming in.

I could be wrong about what Weiss and Giffords need since I don't know what airtime costs and with creative strategies Giffords might need less too.

sirocco said...

I know ... I thought the meaning was clear, but apparently not. So I posted a clarification _just_ for you.

Aren't _you_ special??

'Zona Dem said...

I think Roger brings up a great point. It's absolutely essential that we look into a candidate's history for evidence of activism in the community and the Democratic party.

I mean, really, why *didn't* Patty attend meetings with the Pima and Arizona Dems? What could she have been doing all that time... could it be because her job was taking up all her time? Or-- oh wait, I remember!-- it's because she was a *journalist* and had to stay politically neutral to do her job well!

I mean, jeez, just look back to Dan Rather, he wasn't active at *all* in Democratic politics, and he still got completely flamed by the right for being "biased"-- can you imagine what would have happened if Patty would have been actually attending meetings and working as an activist?

So okay, fair enough, let's just compare Patty to the other candidates. What about Giffords? Surely she was an activist in the Democratic party before running for office... I mean, isn't that what people are supposed to do before they become candidates??

Oh, but she WASN'T! She was a REPUBLICAN before she ran for office-- until 90 days before hte election!

So really, it looks like *neither* of the candidates had much of a history of activism within the Democratic party before deciding to run for office.

The question is, whose reasons are more legitimate?

FEDUP said...

sirocco, collecting $5 per voter is a lot harder than getting a small group of rich corps or people wanting to do a pay for play. The whole point of public financing is it takes away influence of a small few and in the case of Arizona, gives every citizen an investment in the candidate. Your argument doesn't hold water for many reasons, the least of which PACS are still taxpayer dollars (where do you think the PACS get their money???).

No matter how Giffords tries to spin this, public financing is good for democracy, the play for pay system we have now is not.

sirocco said...

Fedup,

Hmmm ... I had never heard that figure, even from people I know within her campaign. More like $750 or $800 for the end of this quearter. I could see them hoping for $1.2 million by September though.

I just don't think 1/3 is going to be enough for Patty, or maybe even 1/2. The thing is, Patty's name recognition can't get much higher, no matter how much money she spends. Meanwhile, $700K or whatever amount Giffords will have will end up buying a big load of advertising. Her name recognition will go up extrmely quickly.

Now, that name recognition _still_ will have to turn votes, but Patty has that issue as well.

FEDUP said...

Zona Dem said...
Is that sarcasm I hear?

I don't know why Patty had to stay neutral. The reporters of the Star, Weekly, and Citizen sure as hell have not over the years. Giffords couldn't have asked for better propagandists.

sirocco said...

Fedup,

Regarding the ease of collecting money, I disagree ... things like read-a-thons and whatever else are built on the premise it's a lot easier to get many people to contribute a small amount (like $5) than to get fewer people to donate large amounts (like, say, $100).

My personal experience raising money for any issue, sports, activities, charity, has always supported this as well.

Hmmm ... I may have to actually see what's out there as far as research goes. Some doctoral student must have addressed this question already.

FEDUP said...

sirocco,
You could be right. Weiss and Giffords both need to not only have name recognition but a compelling reason to get people to vote for them. I think the Weiss campaign has been too lax in focusing on her name recognition instead of focusing on her as a public servant and future Congresswoman. The Willcox forum seemed to be the first step in defining her as a candidate.

Giffords needs to get the recognition, which she has been better at doing lately. Then she needs to get people so see her as an experienced legislator in a time where experience is what is needed most (at least I assume that is the direction she would take, playing off endorsements and experience).

I still think Giffords has the overall advanatage based on a much better field operation than Weiss. The Weiss campaign doesn't seem to get that her name is only a small fraction of what it will take to win and without a strong field operation, she is going to lose traction. I never did post our reports on checking out the campaigns but will say we went to the Weiss campaign on Sunday, first in the morning, then in the evening and the office was locked and no one there. Weekends and Sundays especially are one of the best days for calling and walking so not having your office open on a Sunday seems to indicate a real lack of field strategy/operation. By comparison, the other campaigns are very busy on weekends and Giffords has an office full of volunteers/staff every day of the week.

It kills me to sound like I am defending Giffords here since I think she is by far the weakest of the candidates, but since the other two can't seem to get it together, it will be Giffords in September and the Republican who wins in November.

You can all buy me a beer when it turns out I am right. :)

FEDUP said...

sirocco said...
My personal experience on fundraising is the opposite of yours. Harder to get many and small $$ than a few big. The issues though isn't how hard each is, but where the influence lies. Spread out amongst a lot of people or concentrated with a few.

The same problem we have with government as a whole.

I say power to the people...spread it out.

FEDUP said...

'zona dem

Regarding "Oh, but she WASN'T! She was a REPUBLICAN before she ran for office-- until 90 days before hte election!"

Is that true? I though it was a year and a half before running, since you usually do an exploratory well in advance of actually announcing. How do you know that info and is there a way I can get it?

anonymous said...

Patty is leading in the polls, and she is leading in defining her platform and campaign, against the other candidates.

This includes the Republicans.

She has favorability and name recognition over the other candidates.

She is passionate and will fight for what she believes in.

Quantify that with the crazy extropolations being mathematized by team Gabby.

What is it worth in dollar terms?

What is the Willcox video worth in dollar terms?

Does it change Gabby's TV rollout?

Does it cost her donations?

Does it bring Patty votes and money?

Will it shorten Roger's long winded confabulations?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OL2hDffM7TM

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

Which poll tested this video? It seems Gabby did the polls to determine her position at Willcox.

It seems it did not work well for her.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

Art Jacobson said...

Dear Data Porters,

Just received this from the Latas Campaign, reporting a canvas by door and phone of 1692 'likely primary voters.'

"Of 1,692 likely primary voters canvassed at their doors or on the phone, a full 32% are supporting Jeff, 8% are supporting other candidates, and 59% are undecided."

Art

anonymous said...

Then the undecideds are increasing exponentially.

Possible, but not probable.

When were the calls made, during the last month or the last week?

FEDUP said...

Roger,
Giffords will have a million. If she doesn't, there is something seriously wrong in her campaign and the hype is more than the deliverables. With all those endorsements and the money they bring, one could argue she should have 5 times the $$$ of the next closest candidate. The union list alone would do it. Her 4 online fundraisers have raised over $50,000 if I recall correctly (including the current one). $700,000 would be way too low. Maybe with $900,000 she could still save face.

Weiss has a lot of small donations if you do the math, that don't show up itemized on the FEC report. She has a big base to go back to for more donations since very few have maxed out. I suspect her next quarter will be her best as the election is nearing. It might be Giffords best too.

Adding to the criticism of the Weiss campaign, they never seem to answer their phone or return calls. Note to any Weiss fans, ANSWER YOUR PHONE! They could have gotten a few more donations this past week had they done so.

I agree with you that we need to look at spending too. Giffords was bleeding more in the first two quarters. Weiss seems to have added many new faces based on her website. The poll cost $$ too (which is curious that Giffords hasn't reported her $$ shelled out for her poll...FEC violation?)

Emersome Biggums said...

You all are missing a very important part of the Latas campaign. He doesn't need to spend $$ on media production, IT, etc, and many other area's because of his volunteers. These are highly professional people he's got backing him. There was an estimate that the campaign had a value near $250,000 in volunteered services. Add that to $100k and you have a candidate worth $350k. If the other camps don't consider this, they are in for some suprises.

FEDUP said...

"Of 1,692 likely primary voters canvassed at their doors or on the phone, a full 32% are supporting Jeff, 8% are supporting other candidates, and 59% are undecided."

WTF??? Did they just poll their friends?

Does anyone actually believe that? 32% supporting Jeff who no one has heard of, 8% supporting Giffords, Weiss and all others combined?

The Latas campaign is hallucinating. If you are going to try and send out propaganda, at least make it appear credible. Very disappointing as I thought they were above that kind of tactic. Jeff, don't allow your campaign to hijack your credibility by sending out such rubbish.

59% undecided is the only thing that sounds credible.

FEDUP said...

Emersome Biggums...
Yes, if he has $100,000 and all those volunteers, then I agree that he has about $350,000 worth. Giffords has as many or more volunteers plus $1 million. How can he compete?

Sending out some phoney poll that will make him appear a laughing stock isn't going to help him.

If I show up at your door and say I am with the Latas campaign, guess what, you might just tell me you support my candidate to get rid of me. Same with phone calls. Has anyone taken that into consideration?

I am beginning to think these campaigns are all run by morons.

Emersome Biggums said...

This doesn't seem to far off to me. These are the people they door knocked. Fedup, have you walked before? The last question is "Do you support Jeff Latas?" The message is pretty strong and if I didn't know this guy, I would like tohave someone like that in Congress, I'd say YES.

This wasn't an official poll in the same sense has Patty's name recognition poll, it's a data collection poll to see if people are convinced after the calling and knocking.

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

Art,
Does their poll give any more information? I didn't think the Weiss poll said much but it was at least done by a credible company experienced in polling. The Latas poll sounds like wishful thinking. Maybe it was a rouse to try to drive up donations by the end of the quarter.

Emersome Biggums said...

LATAS campaign canvas numbers

On Latas' web sight. These are their canvas numbers.

Art Jacobson said...

Fed Up...

Sorry, I don't know any more about the canvas than I reported. I'm on the Latas press list and the canvas was simply reported as I passed it on.

Art

Kralmajales said...

No question that contacting voters directly matters. Especially if it is the candidate doing the contacting.

TV is important no doubt, but shoe leather...especially in primaries is pretty effective.

anonymous said...

Roger has been throwing stones on these forums for months now. Memories are made of this.

Would Gabby have let a slip from Patty pass? I think not.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Jeff Latas shows Gabby beating Patty 5 to 1!

Patty has a whopping 1%.

Even the state party people do canvasses, that show these numbers are demonstrably false.

This Latas canvass is incredible.

Emersome Biggums said...

SAOL, Let's see them, your party numbers!

Big talk, no walk.

Emersome Biggums said...

The people I talk to aren't going to vote for Patty. Many have negitive opinions about her. I can believe the 5 to 1 part of this poll.

That said, I think that part is just as believable as Patty's poll.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

I like Jeff, but the numbers ARE incredible compared to everything else regarding this race. Its a morale booster for his volunteers and workers and it may get him some donations.

It has no basis in fact, and I AM working with state people who are making these calls.

FEDUP said...

1% Weiss
5% Giffords
32% Latas

Weiss and Giffords might as well just pack it up and go home. They can only muster 6% and the well-known Latas is leaving them in the dust. Weiss is so pathetic that she can only get 1% after 30 years on tv. Everyone hates her or they don't know her because they have been living in caves.

Giffords money, endorsements, volunteers. Washington insiders and State and Pima party people working on her behalf have only manage to get her 5%. She better move to Houston and get married because she doesn't have a political future.

Was the poll taken after the Latas campaign workers pistol whipped the voters? Were torture techniques involved?

Emersome, you wonder why we think this poll is nuts? Poke fun at Patty's numbers or Mars whatever she said, but she isn't issuing a poll that is so laughable I am in the processes of sending it to all my friends, including Latas supporters.

Latas just lost any and all credibility he had. He should drop out and endorse Shacter because after posting that on his site, his campaign is over.

Will Shacter now release a poll saying she is at 49% and Giffords is at 2%?

Will Alex issue a poll saying he is at 94% and the other candidates combined at 6%?

Latas needs to fire his campaign manager or whomever it was that made a decision to tarnish his credibility with such hogwash.

FEDUP said...

emersome, if everyone hates Patty and won't vote for her, explain why Giffords only got 5% in this poll? What do they have against Giffords? Can I get some of that dope you all are smoking?

Patty hired a professional company pretty well known in political circles. They wouldn't get new clients if they weren't careful about how they polled. I have my own criticisms of her poll, but it was in the same size and what is says overall at this point. By no means is her poll insane like the Latas poll.

Since Latas gave Patty the lowest of the three, he must see her as the biggest threat. It would make sense since they are the progressive candidates.

Does this mean Latas is going to endorse Giffords as a new rumor is alluding to?

This is getting more interesting each day.

Latas got his poll numbers from the Chinese on Mars. That explains it!

FEDUP said...

emersome, I have walked for political issues and other charity type campaigns.

I support Latas. That doesn't mean I will vote for him.

I support children in Ethiopia. That doesn't mean I donate to them.

To get you off my phone or doorstep, I might just tell you anything you want to hear.

If the Latas campaign called and knocked on 10,000 doors, how was the fraction of that sample size chosen?

See the problem?

Emersome Biggums said...

You still don't get it. You haven't walked have you?

Here is what goes on,

"Hi, am __________ and I'm a volunteer for XXXXX. XXXX stands for XYZ. Here is some info on XXXX. Can we count on your support?"

SOmething like that. I would wcpect these numbers and shoe leather does work. This is what the other campaigns should be seeing in this release.

Emersome Biggums said...

Don't know how it was choosen. These maight have been the people at home this month or something like that. But I think you get my point on the numbers. It's a LATAS campaign canvas, nothing sinister, data collected at the doors and used by the campaign.

FEDUP said...

emersome, your script is part of the problem. You start out taking about your candidate. You aren't doing a blind poll, you are influencing them by naming which candidate you support and asking for the support. That isn't how you poll.

Out of curiousity, when you start out that way, those 99% who don't support Patty and the 95% who don't support Gabby...do they just offer "we hate Patty and Gabby so are supporting Jeff"? How else would you know?

Hire a real pollster if the campaign is going to publish numbers. Otherwise it looks like a bad joke.

I can hear the chuckles all the way across town...coming from the Giffords' and Weiss' campaigns.

FEDUP said...

Taking a break from bashing Democratic candidates, does anyone think Graf still has a chance?

Any candidate opposing him only needs to answer one line to each Graf statement. Can anyone guess what that would be?

Emersome Biggums said...

NO ONE SAID IT WAS A BLIND POLL!!

that's been my point all along.

Emersome Biggums said...

Let them laugh, they should take note if their canvas numbers don't look this good.

anonymous said...

Desperate, not serious. No one said it was a blind poll, and no one believes it is accurate.

Framer said...

It is entirely possible that Latas got those numbers. Obviously when sending people to walk, you would start with the neighborhoods most favorable to you. Also, I would bet that most of the people contacted on the phone were people that he had in the hopper already, possibly people that had already signed for him or were known to him in other ways. There is no way his sample was random. That would be a complete waste of his time and effort.

If that is the case, however, the high undecideds should be worrisome.

The thing that can be gleaned is that Latas is doing quite a bit of groundwork this early. I wonder if the oyher candidates have contacted this many people this early on.

x4mr said...

Not sure about your riddle, fedup, but I have been told (think I already posted this) that there is no way Graf will prevail.

Republicans will do whatever it takes to see that either Huffman (most likely) or Hellon will get the nod.

That information is about three weeks old, but came from really good source, and it came well before the Aiken thing.

Also, fedup, agree with your remarks regarding the Latas numbers. Not on this planet.

The Weiss poll, while a small sample, seems reasonable given no real advertising has started.

For what little it's worth, in March I ended up having to speak with a lot of people on another topic, but felt like asking about the race. It was about 60 people. Didn't take notes or anything, but almost everyone (all but just a few) had heard of BOTH Weiss and Giffords. Only like three or four had heard of Latas.

This was middle of Tucson in March.

One item that some might find interesting. A LOT of those that knew Giffords did because of the tire company. Apparently her grandfather used to run these bizarre, long tv spots. People still talk about them when you bring up the name, and apparently she went on tv as well to sell tires.

anonymous said...

And a lot of people have heard of Gabby because of all of the heat and praise she has generated.

Jeff is still unproven and unknown. Gabby less so.

Dogma said...

anon,

You are truly deranged to make comments like "Jeff is still unproven and unknown. Gabby less so."

The first part is absolutely true about both Jeff AND Patty. However, to then go on to say Giffords is less proven and less known really shows your psychopathic side.

There is no other CD8 democratic candidate that is anywhere near Giffords in so far as being a proven commodity, and is the reason she's enjoyed so many endorsements and contributions. She's earned them through years of proving that she is a candidate worth supporting. So, to say that Giffords is unproven is just plain political rhetoric of the worst kind (i.e., lie).

By far, Weiss is the best known of the CD8 candidates, just not for the right reasons. But to suggest Giffords is even less known than Jeff is again just plain political rhetoric of the worst kind (i.e., another lie).

x4mr said...

dogma,

Drink a little more coffee, and I've done this myself, so no criticism here, but you've pulled a Rozanne Rozannadanna.

It's a language thing.

Anon used a double negative. Gabby is less UNKNOWN. Gabby is less UNPROVEN. He is in fact saying what you are saying.

Of course she is more known than Jeff.

Art Jacobson said...

Dogma...

Thanks for your defense of Giffords.
Ol' Anonymouse can be very annoying at times and make good sense at others. I think the "psychopathic side" reference is over the edge.

Probably no harm done but let's remember that when all this primary play is over we'll have to work together.

'gards,
ART

anonymous said...

Art nails it. Gabby is not a bad person, neither are the other candidates.

Its her positions, her image, and her snotty manner that has brought us to this moment. She is very smart, and she learns quickly. I think she can eventually walk back from some of her bad decisions, in the same way she went from opposing all of the good works of the Sierra Club, to actually winning their endorsement.

That is an example of good politics.

There are lots of anons here, by the way.

Dogma said...

Art,

I hear you and don’t mean to be callously offensive. But my head spins around with steam flying out of my ears when I read some of the rhetorical bunk that folks portray as fact, especially from Ol' Anonymouse as you call him/her. As you said, he/she can be very reasonable on one post and not even on the planet the next, indicating some split personality thing going on there!

Recently, you posed the question of whether these Giffords bashers out and out lying? Or is it a question of these detractors spinning the truth to suit themselves based on false, unsupported, unsupportable, and/or fallacious claims. Most often, these attacks usually follow the pattern of stating with something that’s true and then claiming that, for other reasons unsupported by fact and beyond comprehension, that true thing means Giffords is the antichrist. It truly is some tortured logic at times.

In response, many reasonable posters here asked for examples of said fabrications. It’s difficult, in the sense of being more work than it’s worth, to respond after the fact. So, I was simply pointing out that in this most recent post by Ol' Anonymouse, two of his/her three points were blatantly untrue and failed to correctly apply the one true thing he/she said to his/her candidate of choice, which I find just a bit hypocritical for obvious reasons.

I whole-heartedly agree that the overriding objective of this little democratic project should be to come together behind the primary winner and take back this seat. That’s why I take this race so seriously, and the reason I take offense when my fellow democrats (or so they claim) are so casual with the truth in such a maddeningly Rove-ian way. Our time would be much better spent sharpening some arguments against the likely Repubs that our candidate (whoever that is) will be facing.

X4mr,

I totally missed the double negative ;-) Thanks for pointing that out!

Anon,

Don’t fool yourself… Though we may not know who you are, it’s easy to tell it’s the same you. Isn’t technology wonderful! Just ask the NSA ;-)

And you never seem to get tired of making false accusations such as “she went from opposing all of the good works of the Sierra Club, to actually winning their endorsement.” She did win the Sierra Club endorsement, but the first part about opposing their “good works” is yet another blatant untruth. Giffords has an outstanding record on the environment, and scored 100% on the Arizona League of Conservation Voter’s scorecard for 2005. Do you really believe that the folks at the Sierra Club or League of Conservation Voters are all clueless morons? Get a grip!

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

She opposed the Sierra Club's Open Space initiative in 2000, both as a Republican and a Democrat.

Liza said...

Giffords Fans Giffords Fans Giffords Fans
Interesting discussion about the Latas canvass numbers. These are on his website and were also sent in email to supporters. I see no evidence that he ever referred to this as a “poll” which would imply that statistical methods were used. Political groups and campaigns do this all the time to get a handle on how the electorate, or a segment of the electorate, is leaning. Not everyone can afford a professional pollster every time that they are trying to figure out how best to employ limited resources.

So, for crying out loud, give it a rest. Latas obviously posted his canvass results, VERY OBVIOUSLY DERIVED FROM AN INFORMAL INFORMATION GATHERING PROCESS, to encourage his supporters. I don’t see the reason for some of the ridicule here. Its his website, I suppose he can use it communicate with supporters, don't you think?

outlander said...

Dogma,

Please cite the untruths, false accusations, lies and distortions you claim are posted.

Blanket accusations without citations and quotes diminish your arguments.

The best way to refute something is to refute it.

Check out the numbers, there is more than one anon, and different IPs to boot.

George Tuttle said...

Fedup said: "I support Latas. That doesn't mean I will vote for him.

I support children in Ethiopia. That doesn't mean I donate to them."

That's the way the talk the talk and walk the walk!

Dogma said...

Outlander,

Pointing out “untruths, false accusations, lies and distortions” is exactly what I just did, have done in the past, and will continue to do. I’m not going to spend days going back through past rhetoric, but will certainly highlight bunk as it’s posted. Anyone and everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not to present opinion as fact without being challenged!

I just provided a very recent, clear example of a Giffords basher playing fast and loose with the truth and will continue to do so. It is not I that is guilty of blanket accusations, and is another example of the pot calling the kettle black (stole your line Art)!

I stand corrected that there are three anonymous’ posting on this thread. However, my previous post pointing out untruths and the follow up exchange were with one and the same anonymous.

SAOL,

I’m not familiar with the 2000 Open Spaces initiative nor Giffords role, if any, in it. If SB 1065 is any indication of how past decisions have been spun and spun hard, then I’m suspicious of the validity of the inferences (where can I find some info on this?). Regardless of what the facts (not in evidence) of that situation were, since 2000, Giffords has earned sterling environmental credentials. So claims that somehow this one circumstance 6 years ago makes Giffords the anti-environment candidate is hogwash.

Dogma said...

George,

I noticed the same comment from Fedup with equal confusion ;-) That kind of support Jeff doesn't need!

anonymous said...

Giffords was not called an anti-environment candidate.

What is hogwash?

Hogs at the trough eventually get slaughtered.

She really did oppose the Open Spaces Initiative that the Sierra Club sponsored.

She really did vote against SB1065, which Rip Wilson and Walmart opposed also.

And she has an ally in both Basha and the foodworker union.

These are actual facts that support her ability to learn or be ambiguous.

Her supporters are less abstract, and more reactionary.

Dogma said...

Anonymous (zerooo3),

Aaaahh, another Anon-a-mouse comes to the table…

Other detractors certainly have been implying in no uncertain terms that Giffords isn’t really pro-environment, which is garbage.

As I just stated, I’m not familiar with the 2000 Open Spaces Initiative, but I’ll certainly do some research.

As I’ve described at great length, SB 1065 was bad public policy and Giffords was right to vote against it. It most certainly was not a pro-Walmart vote, which is usually the bashers’ uninformed accusation.

What’s your point about Basha and/or the food workers union?

What “facts” are you talking about, as I saw few in your post?

Again, calling Giffords supporters reactionary is yet another (sorry Art) case of the pot calling the kettle black.

anonymous said...

Facts:

Gabby oppposed the Open Spaces Initiative in 2000.

The Sierra Club sponsored it.

Gabby voted against the Democrats and for the Republicans on SB1065.

Basha and the foodworkers oppose each other, yet support Gabby.

Your opinion on SB1065 being 'bad policy' is an opinion and not a fact.

My opinion is that you are being reactionary rather than proactive.

Gabby does not think in the categories of her supporters, because she moves in circles far removed from most voters, and closer to the big check contributors, than to the $5 clean elections contributors.

She has planned for this race since at least 2000. I once knew her first campaign manager, and this was discussed.

Dogma said...

Anonymous (zerooo3),

Your not so factual facts:

Gabby opposed the Open Spaces Initiative in 2000. The Sierra Club sponsored it.

- I can’t find anything on this issue, so you’ll have to point me at it. There was a ballot initiative and several bills in the legislature on growth that year, but I don’t see specifically what you’re talking about or a connection to Giffords. This is another example of an accusation made that never comes with anything with which anyone else can substantiate or disprove the claim.

Gabby voted against the Democrats and for the Republicans on SB1065. Your opinion on SB1065 being 'bad policy' is an opinion and not a fact.

- She didn’t vote against Democrats. She voted against bad public policy. And, yes, that is my opinion based on thoroughly researching the bill in question, which it is obvious most detractors haven’t done for themselves and merely parrot the accusation.

Basha and the foodworkers oppose each other, yet support Gabby.

- Again, what’s your point?

My opinion is that you are being reactionary rather than proactive.

- Yes, I understand what the words mean in a political context. I suspect (correct me if I’m wrong) that you see yourself as proactive. You, however, are not proactive but revolutionary, which is a different political project all together.

Gabby does not think blah, blah, blah…

- You lost me at Gabby thinks. You have no idea what she thinks just as you have no idea of what anyone else but yourself “thinks.”

She has planned for this race since at least 2000. I once knew her first campaign manager, and this was discussed.

- Hearsay that isn’t supported by others personal experiences with Giffords since.

anonymous said...

Hearsay is when you hear it from others. Gabby happened to be there too.

You are definitely fact challenged and over-reacting to commentary that is contrary to current public relations coming from the Gabby camp.

This is my opinion.

Here is my opinion on how Gabby thinks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL2hDffM7TM

Dogma said...

Anonymous (zerooo3),

You are apparently unfamiliar with the term hearsay when used in a legal sense, meaning evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath. That is to say you didn’t personally hear the conversation in question. You heard it second hand (that’s hearsay) and, therefore, have no idea if what you were told was true, false, or a misperception on the part of whomever related the story to you.

Way to go, BTW, avoiding my all of my questions regarding specifics!

OK, you claim me to be “fact challenged.” Name one thing in this exchange that I have written that isn’t factual! You cannot, because what I have said is all true.

You are correct that your preceding posts have all been your opinions, devoid of any factual underpinnings that you seem willing to defend on their own merits. You are certainly entitled to these opinions, but if you objective is to convince others with differing opinions, you failed.

As for the coincidence or lack thereof in this case of my reasoning as opposed to the “public relations coming from the Gabby camp,” that’s because I’m not in the “Gabby camp.” I watch, listen, and read. In the end, I come up with my own opinions based on what I know and what I believe to be true.

As for your link to the Weiss/Giffords exchange in Wilcox on campaign finance reform, it was a miserable performance by both candidates. Giffords was obviously not ready for the challenge and did not respond to the attack convincingly. Weiss came across as completely uncomfortable in her own skin as she spoke, which makes me question whether she really believes the charge herself or is simply executing a strategy given to her by her handlers.

anonymous said...

Dogma is dogmatic, and a little bit slow. Kind of like Gabby Giffords on the campaign trail.

This is opinion, not fact.

He is too lazy to seek truth, challenging others over facts that are older than his knowledge of our favorites versions of Gabby.

I can't wait for the TV Gabby to debut.

Dogma is a doggone good name for this anon.

Dogma said...

Anonymous (zerooo3),

Stick and stone etc, etc, etc… Name-calling and obfuscation are the refuge of intellectual cowards and (sorry Art, I know this is a bit harsh!) liars.

I’ve spent hour upon hour researching claims for myself, and arriving at my own conclusions based on what I find. Whenever I’ve asked for directions to locate information on topics I’m not familiar with, all I get is silence; except in this case where I’m assailed simply for not knowing about something in the first place! Very progressive indeed ;-) And a great way to influence people too…

I’ve done nothing more than to challenge what the facts are. Without fail, folks like you fail completely to substantiate virtually any of your claims, more often than not resorting to just this sort of sophomoric behavior instead of debating any particular issue on that issue’s own merits.

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

Which means you ARE a lazy researcher.

Look in the Tucson Weekly archives, and you will find the answers you seek, dogmatic grasshopper.

And for inspiration:

http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2006/07/latest_polling_.html

Dogma said...

First, name-calling remains the refuge of intellectual cowards.

Second, thanks for the steer to the Tucson Weekly Archives.

Third, do you realize that CD 8 is more than just Tucson, and those of us in rural CD 8 don’t read this publication? Keep that in mind before throwing more barbs.

Now, on to the issue of the Sierra Club driven Citizens Growth Management Initiative of 2000 (aka, Prop 202) that didn’t pass. Yes, I did find the reference to Giffords saying she opposed Prop 202 because it was "highly, highly restrictive." For whatever reasons, Prop. 202 only garnered approx. 30% of the vote on Election Day and even its advocates readily admitted it was far from a perfect solution. There is other research conducted by several professors and graduate students at USC that concluded Prop. 202 was unworkable. The election results tell me a lot of Democrats voted against it, which certainly could be attributed to all the money developers and other opponents poured into that election.

So, I can see that your claim that she opposed this particular Sierra Club-sponsored initiative in 2000 is factual, but the question of whether this proposition was a good solution remains in doubt. It would likely have been better than the nothing we’ve got now, but does not support the claim by another ‘anonymous’ that “she went from opposing all of the good works of the Sierra Club, to actually winning their endorsement.”

Opposing all of the good works of the Sierra Club would appear to overshoot reality.

Aside from this 2000 voter initiative, it appears Giffords has built a sterling record of pro-environmental action as demonstrated by the aforementioned Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters endorsements.

outlander said...

Where is the momentum now in this race? According to Blog for Arizona, we have a race mostly between Gabrielle Giffords and Patty Weiss.

The strengths and weaknesses of both candidates are objectively noted, as Michael Bryan actually does some math for his analysis.

If you carefully read his article, it appears that Gabby could lose it all if Jeff Latas or Alex Rodriguez drop out.

http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2006/07/latest_polling_.html

I know that it cuts against the analysis of all of the independents, greens are republicans posting here, but its time for some real soul searching about who can best win this race for all of southern Arizona. This is not a frivolous time.

Who can win this with the least friction?

CD8Dem said...

Gabby Gabby Gabby..............

See Patty Weiss call Gabby on her hypocrisy..... (Gabby talks the talk but she doesn’t walk the walk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL2hDffM7TM

Liza said...

Outlander,
I've heard that "soul searching" comment made from two different perspectives. One is that Jeff and Alex should drop out and allow Weiss to win. Or, Jeff and Alex should drop out and allow Giffords to win. Apparently, we now have mathematics and objective truth to support the first.

The part of this that I find most interesting is the "soul searching." Someone can search their soul and come to a completely different conclusion than you. So, are some conclusions better than others? I still remember "democracy" and I hope that it still means something in twenty years.

Another thing, the Democratic Party is going to fight for CD8, make no mistake about it. There will be support for whoever wins the primary.

So, I encourage all voters to "search your soul" and vote for the candidate who best exemplifies your beliefs and convictions.