Reporter Blake Morlock, writing in the Tucson Citizen, recently noted:“The first real dust-up among Democrats seeking to replace retiring Republican congressman Jim Kolbe is turning on who pays for campaigns. Patty Weiss, a former newscaster, accused former state Senator Gabrielle Giffords of coming late to the idea that government should fund federal Campaigns.”
That could be a powerful indictment, except that while it makes tough-sounding campaign rhetoric it falls short of accurate reporting.
On the occasion of Giffords’s signing of the “Voters First Pledge,” which calls for public financing of election campaigns, the Giffords campaign published excerpts from a letter by Charlene Bozack who served as the Executive Director of the Clean Elections Institute from 1999-2001. The letter praised Giffords’s record of strong support of campaign finance reform.
The letter says, ““without your strong commitment to seeing that the [Clean Elections] law not be overturned, the State of Arizona would not have such a system today.” The letter hailed Giffords for having “stood firm in your support of the system when it was under challenges at the state legislature,” and noted that Giffords “helped strategize with me to make sure the system did not get overturned in the legislature.”
The Giffords campaign continued: “Giffords also has a record of fighting to preserve fair elections by ensuring that a paper trail exists for voting machines. In 2004, Giffords authored a Senate floor amendment to the Help America Votes Act (HB 2083). Her amendment required all voting machines purchased after April 1, 2004 to provide a paper statement of each person’s vote. The amendment was approved and the Senate passed the bill with Giffords’ amendment.” (Reference link.)
Now what are we to make of all this? Either Weiss knew Giffords's record and deliberately ignored it for purposes of political aggrandizement, or she didn’t know Giffords’s record of support for election finance reform and simply said what sounded good without checking. Take your choice. Odd behavior for a “journalist.”
………………………………
Giffords was on NPR today. Check her interview out here. Link
13 comments:
Dear SAOL...
Patty would be entitled to make any criticism she wanted if she were running clean herself...which of course she isn't.
I'm glad she isn't, too. Why? Because the whole point of this election is to get a Democrat into Congress. I don't see any reason to turn oneself into a sacrificial goat to the principle of public financing of elections.
And neither does Patty, apparently
Our best chance to get public financingof elections isto win control of Congress.
Note to George Tuttle...
Should Latas win the primary he will surely need all the charismatic punch he can deliver.
What's your best judgement,should Latas lose will he bring the full force of his public persona to a support of whoever does win?
I have also participated in the now 130+ comment thread at Stacy's blog.
I stated there and will state here that we are talking about 20 people or so over there at most.
Roger, I really believe that you are interacting with bloggers who are going to "hack away" at any possible angle, any possible interpretation, any possible argument that they feel will "harm" the front runner, who is pulling ahead by all of the traditional measures.
Although not as prolific as Roger, over the past couple months I have on occasion chosen to engage these folks myself, challenging them for real data and solid argument, and for that I am called "as neutral as Gabby's boyfriend," which is OK, but all I am doing is asking for a solid argument. As I have said, on 9/13 I am fully behind whoever prevails.
So why are these people duking it out with Roger and working so hard to "harm" Giffords? Some clearly come from campaigns or out of support for a particular candidate. Some may be truly coming from their view of Giffords positions on issues, but frankly I think that number is very small and that most issue remarks are inside of support for another candidate.
There is another force showing up--people that just cannot stand Giffords, period.
Eye of Camel is one of them. He is not in support of a candidate. He is against one, period, and it's personal. If she gets the nod on 9/12, he will vote against her on 11/7. I don't think I could vote for Graf if Giffords shot my dog.
Now, does the "Gabby won't be my friend anymore!!" kind of resentment have political relevance in the "real world"?
What if there are 20 of these guys? What if they organized a "dropped from rolodex" recovery group and pooled funds to take out an ad? What would they say? Who would care?
This clean elections thing occurs to me as mostly noise, one of more efforts to come. Pointing out how Giffords ran in 2000, etc., is safe ground, but I think Patty is venturing into dangerous turf the closer she gets to alleging corruption. Didn't hear the Scott show, but it sounds like she is close.
Outside the blogosphere, folks, the issue of whether or not you use Clean Elections funding is "inside baseball" minutiae. My hunch is that the average voter cares less about how you raise money to get their vote and more about HOW you vote once in office. If the former was true, all the anti-Giffords bloggers ranting about this issue should be talking about how wonderful and high-minded Len Munsil, Don Goldwater and Al Melvin are!
What people are going to remember most about this tempest in a teapot is how Weiss unconvincingly sought to make Giffords look corrupt and beholden to so-called "special interests." Despite her well-honed verbal skills, that aspect of Patty's attack has her coming off as clumsy and poorly prepared to defend her baseless assertions. What she is left with is endlessly reminding people that Giffords did not use Clean Elections funds in her legislative races. Unless a specific pattern of voting by Giffords to appease supposed fat cat contributors is cited, the average voter yawns and moves on.
Most people will care less about where Giffords got her funding, but they will take a dim view of the questionable tactics Weiss has employed of late. Weiss has also done harm to the cheery, wholesome image she cultivated during her time on local TV news by coming across as just another desperate politician. The tongue-clucking act in Willcox that so many of you crow about will cause people who thought they knew Patty Weiss to furrow their brows.
While this moment during a long campaign has given anti-Giffords bloggers who already dislike her further reason to pile on, the larger backlash from the electorate will be against Weiss.
Patty is quoted in The Weekly on July 6th as saying that "there are certainly ties to the money that she came into and the votes that she took" with regard to Giffords' campaign contributions. Yet, she declines to back that up with anything resembling a FACT!
Her blogger defenders, however, have been quick to paint Gabby as some kind of corporate tool, but they also engage in finger-pointing bereft of FACTS.
Gabby did a masterful job of responding to the Weiss attack by getting a Clean Elections leader to release a statement lauding Gabby for her work in getting Clean Elections legislation passed in the first place.
Weiss, meanwhile, followed her quote in The Weekly with a statement on The John C. Scott Show alleging that Gabby's contributions were from so-called "special interests" she declined to name.
Neither Weiss nor the bloggers fighting her battles FOR HER on the Internet can put any substance behind their flimsy charges, but they assuredly hope that repeating them over and over will have the desired effect!
Rex,
Welcome to the "Quest for Facts" game. Anyone who reviews the various blogs involved with CD 8 election will find a lot of what you are seeing, not just about clean elections, but about any other conceptual morsel that can be twisted into a useful assertion.
With clean elections, of course, Patty has luxury of never having run for office, so it's easy to throw these stones about how Giffords should have run.
Whether I am only one or not, I thought this thing stunk at the very outset with the fabricated debate "invitation." I think the whole thing is "fabricated" in hopes of desired political result.
Not clear at all it will succeed, and taking it further into alleged corruption, as it seems Patty is doing or has done in some fashion, occurs as dangerous. If her smoking gun is a committee vote on SB1065, please.
TooBlue...
Well, as we used to say, "That was then, this is now." Suppose neither Latas nor Weiss win the primary... are you indignant enough about a past you can do nothing to change to vote Republican in November?
"If this turns into a real cat fight, I think our man will win!"
Latas Supporter to other Latas supporters, at the Tucson 7/13 Forum
As we might have predicted, the gals got spicy for a moment tonight. If a particular squad thinks some of the footage is useful, youtube url's are headed this way and soon.
I think every campaign had a camcorder running.
Patty found an opportunity to launch SB1065 front and center, and clearly each candidate was prepared for this. The format didn't technically give Giffords the opportunity to respond, but the hunger of the audience was so deafening that finally someone spoke up for Giffords to answer, which she did, saying what has already been posted on these blogs.
1. Bad bill
2. No provision for enforcement
3. Opposed by some huge health care advocacy group due to its flaws.
and coming soon to a youtube url a remark on Patty's behavior, "that's not a person running for congress, that's a reporter for Fox News!"
The mike then went to Jeff, who came from the angle that the other democrats voted for it, that it cost millions, and the good ol' "tie breaker" line.
Alex, as usual, was almost painful to listen to, and Francine, as usual, was delightful and witty.
One final item I found interesting was the notion of supporting whoever wins on 9/12 in November, with every candidate saying, "Of course" EXCEPT Latas, who made an additional remark--Bill Johnson.
Although academic and one could argue it isn't worth mentioning, good catch, Jeff. The point is valid.
The place was packed.
Gabby looked "tacky and ruffled?" Nice try, SAOL. She looked like someone who finally had a chance to rebut and rebuke a desperate opponent who has tried (along with her supporters on the Internet) to portray Gabby as a tool of corporate interests for the last several weeks by touting one lousy committee vote.
Gabby not only did an effective job of describing the flaws inherent in the bill, but she also put Patty in her place. Patty started the fight and Gabby ended it with both logic and wit. Moreover, Gabby also sent a message to the GOP that they can go after her with all they have and she will be ready for them.
As for the rest of the debate, Gabby offered the most comprehensive and sensible answers and proposals. Patty brimmed over with platitudes, Jeff had his usual righteous anger, Francine was charming and irascibly funny and Alex stuck to his canned speech and themes.
I don't see how a bill without an enforcement mechanism (as Gabby pointed out yesterday) would have recouped money for the state. That's almost as lame as using this one vote to tar Gabby's entire record in Phoenix. Both Patty and Jeff have no facts to attach to their attacks and Jeff looked like he was trying to be a last-minute passenger on the train Patty has been riding for the last several weeks.
By the way, I am an educator working in our public schools, not a lawyer. I met Gabby when she gave some of my students a tour of the Arizona Legislature and later when she visited our campus. She has the support of the Arizona Education Association and many other educators because of her advocacy for children and oublic schools while in Phoenix. We expect the same when she goes to Washington.
The Giffords record on issues that affect my professional life and the well-being of the children I serve is the main reason I support her. Feeble, baseless attempts to trash that record wither when confronted by the facts. Gabby effectively and soundly rebutted Patty for leading the attacks against her last night.
Zona Dem...
"why didn't she just amend the bill??
Why didn't some other Democrat?
Has it occured to any of the political naifs who can't let go of this that she can count? An amendment would not have gotten past the Republican Senate.
Get a grip, guys.
Oh God!
Now you guys have me positively laughing!
These blogs would be key to the cutting edge strategy envisioned by.....
You have literally made my morning!
All right, love to cite facts. Click on my name, and you will see that I didn't post a thing, zip, zilch, nada, until April 2006.
Can't speak for Art, but TDP archives (links to the left, geniuses) do not suggest this blog is a CD 8 project. Arizona 8th is.
But you bring up a subject that interests me, campaign blog strategies and whether they exist.
For Jeff and Patty, the answer is a clear, solid, yes. The candidates themselves have posted and Weiss's communications guy is now posting at TDP. Both Weiss and Latas are launching stories at kos through names I assert act on campaign direction.
Francine has posted, but hey, it's Francine.
Frank has posted on the R side, but I don't think blogging is part of the republican CD 8 thing yet. Have no clue if that will change.
Giffords?
Of course there is Roger and fact that Art and Tedski have voiced support for her. Is this a campaign strategy? My gut says no.
Art and Tedski are Category #2 "Professional Bloggers" who totally pre-date this election. This election is a significant event, and it has become part of their worlds, but their worlds contain a lot more than this election.
Yes, when bad things are said about Giffords, there is a response, but this is also true of the other candidates.
It is reasonable to speculate that the Giffords campaign has some policy or strategy about blogs. I have to believe that they read them, but what they post, or even if they post, is not clear to me at all.
Have to say, though, that sitting in some dark room with Art and Roger having martini's and cigars and discussing blog strategy sounds pretty fun!
Perhaps some day, but we'll have to be pretty cloak and dagger.
Check out the final paragraph of today's Citizen article and remember there is an anti-Rog on the loose.
Wilcox Jim...
Suggest you call Campaign Headquarters and ask if they can refer you. The phone number is listed at the bottom of the Giffords web site: http://www.giffordsforcongress.com
Art
Post a Comment