Sunday, July 09, 2006

CD 8 Election Finance Reform

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


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

Several things:

1) Patty did not say anything inaccurate about Gabby's record. She questioned how much Gabby truly supports clean elections when she had the opportunity to run clean in three elections over four years, and chose not to each time.

She essentially accused Gabby of talking the talk but not walking the walk. That's all.

Show me one false statement that Patty has made about Gabby and clean elections. It's not out there -- clearly you would have quoted Patty if she'd ever said such a thing. Instead, you quote what a reporter paraphrased Patty as saying.

Art, you can use your blog to try and question Patty's journalistic credentials, but you just end up looking like a blogger who can't bother posting a link to the video of the actual exchange so people can make up their own minds.

Also, simply quoting a press release to make your argument is the worst kind of reporting and a sign of lazy blogging -- I'm sorry you fell into that trap.

2) Roger, you've encountered people who are exceedingly passionate about their politics. I'm sorry some of them have been so vitriolic, and that you've taken their flamewar bait and exchanged fire.

But when you say "but that change needs to come from getting rid of the Republicans...and not just ripping apart any public servant that doesn't fit your mold," realize that many of those people disagree with that statement.

Change will NOT come from just getting rid of the Republicans. We'll return to the same old corrupt Democratic party that got tossed out in '94. Change MUST come from electing principled public servants who truly believe in what they say and what they vote for -- not ones who look at votes as a scorecard from each special interest lobby.

There are many people in Southern Arizona who see Gabby, young as she is, as a very "old school" politician -- one who doesn't inspire the masses, but is deeply loved by the interest groups who paid for her campaigns. That's why you're seeing so much anger from them.

sirocco said...

azyoulikeit, you make a comment "but is deeply loved by the interest groups who paid for her campaigns" ... yet interest groups provided at most about 18% of her funding (in 2002, less in other campaigns).

As for Patty's statements, there is inaccurate and not telling the whole story. As a journalist, knowingly withholding relevent information from your story would be inappropriate. However, Patty is no longer a journalist, so the standards no longer apply.

Patty is without question guilty of only presenting the limited set of information that supports the picture she is trying to create, and ignoring the data that conflicts. That's her job now -- but lets not try to portray it as the epitome of "accuracy".

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Where is the data that conflicts with what Patty has said concerning clean elections?

Gabby is tricky by half, supporting clean elections, but never running as one. She could have immunized herself from this debate with $5 contributions, opting instead for bigger checks from special interests and a rolodex that can morph into a campaign warchest.

George Tuttle said...

You know what the problem is here with Gabby..

She talks the talk, but never walks the walk.

Is it any wonder why many have a hard time supporting her. I like the comment about inspiring the masses. She certainly can't do that.

One look at Latas on stage and you are inspired.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Lets see the transcript and the quotes for the out of context remarks Patty is making.

She is also allowed to have opinions based on facts.

Every candidate suffers from political aggrandizement. It is a symptom that chronically affects every candidate in the US.

More than a thousand grand can contribute to this political aggranizement. Even more more money turns this affliction from chronic to acute.

Winning an election makes it a near permanent condition that can only be put in remission through electoral defeat, retirement, or death.

Professional politicians and newcomers catch this horrible condition and their egos all prove the extent of this malady.

Reregistering as an independent will lessen the condition but not stop it.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

As I recall:

Patty is pointing out that Gabby never ran as a clean elections candidate and that her support of clean elections is something less than actually BEING a clean elections candidate.

Gabby preferred the $300 special interest strings to the $5 clean elections string.

I believe that falls under the category of hypocrisy, and has less to do with that horrible condition of political aggrandizement.

We all suffer less from political aggrandizement when candidates take the $5 contribution, rather than the Rip Wilson/Walmart contribution.

Art Jacobson said...

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?

sirocco said...


There is, of course, no contradictory data for Patty's statements, which basically amount to "Giffords never ran under clean elections".

There is, however, plenty of contradictory information for the claim made by Weiss supporters that "Giffords doesn't support clean elections".

You are well aware of this. :)

AZYouLikeIt said...

Art said: "Patty would be entitled to make any criticism she wanted if she were running clean herself... which of course she isn't."

That's the whole point! There is no federal clean elections system! The need for one has been a tenet of Patty's campaign since she started.

Gabby apparently decided we needed one when she finally signed the Voters First pledge -- months after Jeff and Patty did.

If you wonder why Gabby comes across as an opportunistic, reactionary politician who can't take a position until she's cornered, last week's press release shows exactly why.

x4mr said...

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.

sirocco said...


According to the Common Cause web site, the Voters First campaign was launched June 20, 2006. Hard to see how either Latas or Weiss managed to sign it "months" ago, although I suppose Latas could have access to some super-secret military time-travel machine, and Weiss knows about it via her journalistic contacts.

To the best of my knowledge, neither of them have actually signed the pledge yet. They may have. If they have, they did it recently as well.

anonymous said...

We will all need a Gabby Recovery Group and lots of therapy regarding political aggrandizement and other maladies found in the analysis.

The best way to recover from Gabby is to support someone with less political baggage and more friends.

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

Getting emotional here. Seems Patty was more effective than anyone would realize. If this post is damage control, then its obvious that the damage is real.

If its to correct some kind of record or slight, then we need the entire transcript or recording of John C. Scott to even parse what Roger is complaining about.

What is really sad is that everyone suffers and dies.

And guess what? Patty Weiss was not married to Alan Gelenberg when that donation to Jon Kyl was made.

Is Roger in full attack mode?

If he was, he might be more effective, and less professorial.

Would someone please post the complete Willcox debate? I know Jeff Latas has a copy.

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

This is what Janet Napolitano has to say about Patty Weiss's community involvement:

"Your efforts at enriching the Tucson community are truly commendable, and I hope they will not stop with your departure from KVOA."

We can rest assured that Patty's community involvement has not stopped with KVOA, and we can be reasonably certain that Patty Weiss has many more issues besides Clean Elections that will show a stark contrast between Gabrielle Giffords and Ms. Weiss's positions on the issues.

There are major differences between all of the candidates. One happens to be more objective and certain about the issues, one happens to want a future debate... and then says never mind.

anonymous said...

Roger don't be a dork. Any reporter who donates to a party or candidate, does pro bono or in kind work for party is either a Fox reporter, or they are fired for breach of contract.

Only the editorial staff gets to comment, and they too are tightly contracted regarding honorariums, and other support that is in any way partisan or poltical. This is the real world of news reporting, and Patty played her hand well for over thirty years. She showed no bias, and no one could tell what her opinion was. Kind of like Gabby. No one can tell what her opinion is either.

George Tuttle said...

Roger, can you explain why Billie Stanton did an article blasting Jeff's supporters while in the same reporting period gave an organization money whose organizers gave Gabby the max?

Sounds Fox-ish to me.

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

Lets not drift from the inspired query by Art Jacobson regarding whether political aggrandizement rather than vote getting is at the bottom of Patty accusing Gabby of never running on public financing but supporting it in theory, with a vote in the AZ House and in some letters of endorsement from her friends.

Not a soundbite.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Yogi Berra once said, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

I say, In theory there is no difference between being in favor of Clean Elections and being a Clean Elections Candidate. In practice there is.

This is a soundbite. Yogi said it would be like this. Patty would say it better. Gabby would have her friends explain it for her.

Rex Scott said...

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.

anonymous said...

Damage control or backlash?

Either way, the heat is on Gabby to be more assertive and better prepared.

Rex gives the best defense of Gabby, by diminishing the arguments that Gabby is a special tool for special interests. Who says that Gabby is corrupt? She is merely 'corporate friendly.' She is a friend to big business and there are certainly ties to votes that are fair game for all candidates.

Speak for yourself Gabby. Sharlene and Rex are your better defenders but Rex keeps insinuating and denying that your votes are somehow corrupt, as implied by Gabby's detractors.

Gabby is not corrupt, she is compromised and misunderstood for her sterling ability to support Clean Elections and never take a dime in public funding. She relied on her special interest friends, but this is legal not corrupt.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Rex says:

"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.

Rex is right. Gabby did come off as clumsy and poorly prepared when she made the baseless assertions that she was an avid Clean Elections kind of gal.

Check it out:

Rex Scott said...

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!

AZYouLikeIt said...

Careful, Rex. You're starting to sound a bit like Roger with that last post. Take a breath before you reply and we'll all take you much more seriously.

Let's remember folks -- this is the blogosphere. The only minds here to change are each others', and no one's doing a particularly good job of that.

Or, as someone wiser and less PC than me once said, arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics...

x4mr said...


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.

George Tuttle said...

"Anti-Giffords People"

Reminds me of the republicans and their "Anti-Bush" mantra.

So Rex, I guess you could be called "Anti-Patty" Anti-Jeff" "Anti-Alex" and "Anti-Francine"??

Just wonderin'

sirocco said...


You finish your last statement with:

" She relied on her special interest friends, but this is legal not corrupt."

Considering donations from special interests never amounted to as much as 1/5 of the money she raised for her campaigns, how, exactly, did she "rely on her special interest friends"? Looks more to me like she relised on a large number of individuals.

FEDUP said...

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is not corrupt. Just look at Bush as a good example.

Remember, tyrants create their own laws.

FEDUP said...

In the debate on fact versus fiction, has Giffords ever come out and stated why:

1) She took money from a Wal-Mart lobbyist
2) She voted against the bill requiring them to repay AHCCCS?

I have heard all the theories, but I am seriously wondering if Giffords herself has made a statement?

I know many have stated the amount was so small, but then why take it at all? Her boyfriend never donated to her during that time (until the current race) and her parents didn't donate until her last election. Seems odd she wouldn't have her loved ones donate but would take it from a lobbyist who then testifies against a bill she votes "no" on.

Just sayin'.

sirocco said...


I don't believe she was dating her current boyfriend at the time of her previous campaigns.

FEDUP said...

Wasn't her last run in the 2004 election cycle? She has know him for 3 years according to a recent interview she gave.
Wouldn't explain why her parents never donated until the 2004 cycle, either way.

sirocco said...

Known and dating are not the same thing. I could easily be wrong, though.

I have a good notion as to why her parents did not make donations ... but I don't see why it's relavent, really. Her parents have clearly contributed vast amounts of time and resources to each of her campaigns.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
kc9mh said...


kralmajales said...


Test worked...


TooBlue4U said...

So glad GG defended the act. Now if only she'd say she's willing to LIVE by it. Fat chance.

sirocco said...

Hmmm ... signing the Voters First proposal means she has committed to "LIVE by it" if public financing is implemented for National elections?

TooBlue4U said...

Right, and she did that long after Latas and Weiss. And she's so willing to do that that she decided not to run "clean" what, three times?

AZYouLikeIt said...

Sirocco, Signing the Voters First pledge does NOT commit Gabby to living by it in the future:

By signing below, I pledge to put voters before lobbyists by supporting legislation to:

1. Make Elections Fair.

Establish and enforce campaign spending limits by providing a set amount of public funding for all candidates who agree to take no private contributions.

2. Restore Accountability.

Pass and enforce meaningful new restrictions on gifts and travel from lobbyists and other powerful interests for members of Congress.

3. Protect Voters’ Right-To-Know.

Require full disclosure on the internet of all lobbyists’ contributions and any fundraising help members of Congress get from lobbyists.

It only requires Gabby to do what she's done before -- support the legislation. She's still free to take as much quid-pro-quo lobbyist money as she likes.

Patty, on the other hand, has said she will run under a federal clean elections system once it's available.

I'd love to see Gabby say the same -- but she doesn't really like that whole taking positions thing.

Art Jacobson said...


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?

sirocco said...


Ahhh, I originally misread item #1. You are correct, sir (or ma'am, whichever is appropriate) :).


Would you mind informing me on exactly when Weiss and Latas signed the Voter's 1st pledge please? I would appreciate it.

outlander said...

We should be glad that Art Jacobson is not a journalist. He makes a better actor than he does a pundit.

We should be as glad that Patty Weiss was a journalist, and not a product of a focus group looking for glowworms such as 'access' to health care, 'affordable' heath care and other shibboleths that make Democrats into candidates with the spark and appeal of our own dear Gabby.

George Tuttle said...

We should be glad that Jeff Latas is a decorated military officer who has worked in the Pentagon.

At least he is addressing the pressing issues that REALLY matter.

Darapti said...


sirocco said...

Congrats Darapti - you passed! Welcome! :)

x4mr said...

"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.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

If the guys had gone at it in a debate, would it have been termed a bullfight? A dogfight? A stud match?

Jeff Latas brought up a point that bears repeating. Walmart saves 18 million a year from not having to reimburse the state for the tab picked up for one tenth of their employees.

Gabby claims not one Arizonan would have been insured by SB1065, which is pretty stupid considering the bill was to reclaim lost tax dollars paid to AHCCS from employers with more than one hundred employees. It was to get back money, not insure one Arizonan.

A person in the crowd demanded that Gabby get a chance to speak out of turn and Ash Silverberg obliged.

When Gabby called Patty a Fox news reporter, Ash rebuked her for a personal attack and implored the candidates to return to the issues.

If Gabby does some cut and paste editing, she can post this on Youtube. If the entire exchange includes Patty, Jeff, Ash, Gabby and the guy in the crowd, then Gabby looks tacky and ruffled. The Fox comment implies that Patty is somehow Republican! Nice try, Gabby.

sirocco said...

Yeah ... like no one pulls information out of context. :)

Just to be clear, SAOL, you feel it's ok for Weiss to insinuate Giffords is corrupt while in the same breath saying she can't prove it, but it's not ok for Giffords to refer to Weiss as resembling a Fox News reporter?

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

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.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Check out the video. Jeff was effective in pointing out the costs to the Arizona taxpayers that Gabby's vote cost.

He said $18 million.

Gabby was visibly angry at both Jeff and Patty. So to characterize it as a fight between Gabby and Patty is too simple.

This anger I call (in my constitutionally protected opinion) tacky and ruffled.

anonymous said...

Rex Scott. Are you a Republican this election round? You change around, and I would like to know if you reregistered independent to vote in the primary.

Its probably been awhile that you registered Democrat.

You give a spirited defense, ignoring Latas' strong rejoinder to Gabby, and you ignore the fact that SB1065 was to reimburse Arizona for lost tax dollars, not insure uninsured Arizonans.

When Gabby said it would not insure one Arizonan she was right. It was designed to recover lost tax dollars from employers of over 100 employees.

Bashas, McDonalds, Bashas all say thank you Gabby. Rex Scott may or may not be on retainer with some of these folks, if corporate law is his specialty.

Rex Scott said...

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 said...

If Gabby thought 1065 was a good bill, if she agreed with cutting corporate welfare for Wal-Mart, and her only objection was this alleged lack of an enforcement mechanism... why didn't she just amend the bill??

What this says to me is that Gabby either supports allowing Wal-Mart to abuse the state's AHCCCS program... or she doesn't even understand the legislative process enough to offer a simple amendment. So much for "experience," huh?

AZYouLikeIt said...

What was really tacky and ruffled was for Gabby to admonish Patty with
"You don't have a strong record to run on so you turn around and you go negative. We don't do that here."

Then in the next breath toss out "This sounds like a reporter for Fox News."

Which is it, Gabby? Either we don't do that here or we do. Take your pick.

Oh, that's right, you pick both sides.

Art Jacobson said...

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.

anonymous said...

But it would have made it out of commttee into the sunshine of the full Senate.

Gabby was the shortstop that killed the bill, not the Republican Senate.

You are gripped with grief, Art. Get loose.

outlander said...

The naifs, the holier than thou political aggrandizement and the friction that defending Gabby causes has made the Dataport the go to place for... naivity, political punditry light on facts, and pro-Gabby excuses.

It was so simple back in December when the money was thought to overwhelm all opposition and critical thought, allowing an easy primary coronation on the way to November. It looked good on paper, and these blogs would be key to the cutting edge strategy envisioned by Art and Kralmajales, x4mr, and the squad that blogs.

Who would have thought that WalMart, Bashas, SB1065, universal healthcare, Clean Elections, special interest money, Rip Wilson and the unfairness of it all would be issues?

Its not in either Emily's List playbook, nor in the DLC's topics. Guess it doesn't have much traction beyond the primary voters who care about such issues.

x4mr said...

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.


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!

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
x4mr said...

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.

Willcox Jim said...

Where can I find anyone who is a Giffords supporter out here in Cochise County?

I know about her through these blogs, but I don't necessarily trust her own stuff on her site and I don't like what the pro Gabrielle bloggers are saying about her.

Where can I get her complete voting record and information about these infamous committee votes like the Walmart one? She says its flawed, but others say she could have offered amendments to fix the flaws.

Where is Gabrielle's rural supporters who aren't business people?

They aren't in northern Cochise County, and most of my democrat neighbors have never heard of her, and probably weren't buying their tires from El Campo. Is there anything besides ALIS that makes this task easier?

Art Jacobson said...

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: