Thursday, September 14, 2006

CD-8 Fun With Negative Attacks

Let the negative atacks begin, but lets have a laugh on the way. Here's Comedy Central's take on one of Randy's sillier proposals: Guns In Bars

49 comments:

Liza said...

Congratulatins, Art, I believe that you have cast the first stone.

Art Jacobson said...

Actually the Republicans have beaten me to the punch. There are anti-Giffords ads already running on two stations in Tucson.

Liza said...

Art,
Sorry, I thought you were first. Well, that's what I get restricting my TV viewing to FSTV, LINK, and HGTV.

Dogma said...

So what's the rest of the list of 'insane' legislation Randy sponsored while in the AZ Leg.? After watching that, there must be more ;-)

phx kid said...

Go ahead laugh it up. So the Daily Show got the best of Randy.

The point is actually to allow people to carry in a restaurant even if they serve alcohol, which I have seen people do despite the current law.

Please keep in mind that Gabby received an F rating from the NRA Political Victory Fund in 2004. Based on past practices don’t be surprised if they send out a mailer supporting A+ rated Graf. Just one more voting block that will go to the wall for Randy.

Liza said...

I wouldn't try any golf jokes either. There's a lot of golfers in Southern Arizona.

x4mr said...

Yes, PK, there are segments of the CD 8 electorate that will be seething against Giffords: fervent pro-lifers, fervent NRA supporters, other staunch right wing folks that can be seen in footage of some of the Graf events, guys that make statements like, "Money does not exist."

There are also segments of CD 8 electorate that will be seething against Graf: fervent pro-choice folks, strong labor union types, social welfare advocates of a certain vein, and so on.

As Graf (and I think Giffords) has said, this election offers a very clear choice for a fair number of voters whose decisions are already made.

I say nothing profound when I say victory will go to the candidate who appeals to those who can be swayed.

Overconfidence and complacency can torpedo either candidate. My personal opinion is that Giffords is in a significantly stronger position, but if her campaign were to relax and kick back, Graf has the campaigning skills and personal appeal to take this from her.

Would speculate that not only will Giffords campaign not kick back, but will in fact press the pedal even harder against the metal.

The pool of voters to reach just tripled. They know this.

cc burro said...

ART--Hilarious segment. Thanks.

What Graf doesn't acknowledge is the right to have a gun does NOT trump the right of an owner of a private establishment to disallow customers from bringing guns into his/her business. If the gun-toting customer doesn't like that, he can take his business elsewhere. It appears that Graf did not consult with any bar owners.

phx kid said...

x4mr,

Well said except I bet a fair number of Democrats in Cochise County don't much go for gun control. It's a weakness for her in any of the rural areas.

Dogma said...

PK,

Speaking as a Cochise County gun-owning Democrat, I can say with authority that you are both right and wrong. Democrats of my stripe don’t want our right to own firearms fundamentally abridged. However, we in no way support the kind of wack-job NRA gun nuts who think they should be able to tot their machine guns into bars. In other words, we find nothing alarming (no slippery slop) about prudent restrictions society as a whole places on the when and where it deems appropriate and inappropriate for firearms to be present. Just like we don’t allow folks to drive drunk or own a gun until age eighteen or drive until age sixteen or carry a firearm into establishments that serve alcohol; these are all obviously prudent limitations on freedom imposed for the greater good. It is a mystery to me why anyone feels compelled to carry a gun strapped to their hip in public. Arizona once was the wild West, but it’s not 1888 nor did the shootout at the OK Corral happen yesterday.

Liza said...

dogma,
I have seriously considered strapping a gun to my hip when I walk my dogs. There is always some a**hole in the neighborhood who thinks its okay for his/her dog to wander around off leash. My dogs and I were attacked in our own neighborhood by a very aggressive male chow who was loose in his yard. Also, one of my dogs was almost attacked by our neighborhood drug dealer's pit bull, but the guy was able to stop the dog in time. Don't tell me to buy pepper spray. I've had a few conversations with mail delivery people who told me it does not work as often as you would like it to.

So far, I haven't carried a gun but I can tell you that I had to stop walking my dogs together because I know I can only defend one of them. And that's only with certain dogs. If it's a pit bull attacking, then I'm dead meat as well as the dog.

Dogma said...

Liza,

I completely understand that there are times when carrying a gun might be prudent, such as the situation you describe. I too sometimes pack a gun when I’m walking my dogs at night, as I live out in the sticks among the coyotes and such. However, that has no logical extension to needing to carry a gun into a bar.

phx kid said...

Dogma,

You are correct that many gun owning Democrats and lots of Republicans would consider certain restrictions on firearms OK. Janet has done a great job politically on the issue. She has signed quite a few pro-firearms bills and vetoed some. I have not seen a recent NRA rating but I am pretty sure it will not be an F.

In 2004 lots of Democrats had reasonable NRA scores. Pete Rios C; Manny Alarez D; Linda Aguirre A-; Rebecca Rios C; Robert Cannell C+; Marsha Arzberger A.

Then there is Gabby Giffords with a solid F in a congressional district roughly comprised of LD 26 and LD 30. Lets look at LD 30. Tim Bee A+, McClure A+, Paton A+. In 26 there is Toni Hellon A+ and Huffman A-. Sure Pete is an F but I hope Gabby does not look at 26 is a stronghold after they just elected Melvin.

The bar thing is a total red herring. The idea was to be able to carry into a restaurant that happened to serve alcohol. The latest version made it vary clear that under those circumstances the person carrying into the restaurant was not to drink.

Dogma said...

PK,

This is hardly a “red herring” issue for Randy. When both the police and bar owners are opposed to this legislation, that should tell you something. A quick search of the web dredges up a number of extreme gun-rights bills he has sponsored or co-sponsored, and shows a pattern of irrational support of guns anywhere, anytime, carried by anyone, under any circumstances.

phx kid said...

I sure hope Gabby brings up the issue so Randy can talk about her lack of support for the right of citizens to bear arms.

Dogma said...

Me too, so the voters of CD8 can get a load of what an extreme nut case Randy truly is...

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

Here are some more out-of-touch pro-gun legislation that Randy sponsored:

HB 2648 – The now infamous bill that would have lifted Arizona’s current ban on possession of firearms in bars and restaurants that sell alcohol.

HB 2318 – A bill that would have prohibited cities and counties from regulating the sale of firearms and ammunition on their property.

HB 2321 – A bill that would reduce the current misdemeanor charges for carrying a concealed weapon without a license to a petty offense (reintroduced in other sessions too)).

HB 2320 – A Bill that says that any "person, organization or entity" that establishes a "gun-free" zone can be sued by any victim of a criminal act that occurs in such a zone when a weapon may have been of assistance to the victim or prevented the crime.

HB 2514 – A bill that would immunize the owners and operators of shooting ranges from nuisance lawsuits and other liability if the businesses were in compliance with noise regulations in effect when they went into operation.

HB 2313 – A bill that allows anyone with a valid permit from another state to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona (I believe this one became law).

As you can see, Randy has quite the obsession with guns…

Liza said...

It's all very interesting but I don't think this election is going to be about gun laws. And, getting back to the original post, I can't see what purpose is served by ridiculing Mr. Graf by drawing attention to his appearance on the "The Daily Show." This is not "good fun" as we all know. This is clearly an attempt to humiliate Mr. Graf. While it might be amusing to some, all it does is invite similar humiliation for Ms. Giffords. I would think that all of us would hope that this campaign won't be sinking to those levels. Perhaps we should rise above the temptation to do this kind of thing because the Republicans can give it back to us tenfold.

Just my opinion...

x4mr said...

Liza,

I think you can take it to the bank that no restraint is going to be exercised regarding the character assassination of Gabrielle Giffords. It is merely a matter of timing.

The only sequence of events that will spare us would be a remarkable implosion or meltdown that puts Graf so far ahead that his campaign and those behind it see such behavior as unnecessary. I put the odds of this at lottery ticket levels.

In the beginning, I anticipate Graf material to talk about immigration, immigration, immigration, taxes, and did I mention immigration?

Just as ballpark figures, we're talking 30% already locked and loaded for Graf, 30% already locked and loaded for Giffords, and 40% in the middle that truly make the choice.

As time gets shorter with polls and research showing Gabrielle ahead, R's will let the dogs out.

The gun issue matters, but mostly to those in the already loaded for Graf column. Blasting Giffords about gun control will not win this election.

They will do something else.

Dogma said...

Liza,

I’d have to agree that this election won’t be about gun ownership per se. Though x4mr is also right that “fervent NRA supporters” will support Graf and oppose Giffords just as gun control advocates will support Giffords and oppose Graf… And there’s nothing that’ll move folks who hold polar opposite positions on this or a number of other issues (e.g., abortion, separation of church and state, stem cell research, and privatization v. protection of social security).

The differences between Giffords and Graf on the big issues of the day are really very stark and easily identified.

However, I would argue that there are a lot of folks in the middle who will be more uncomfortable with Graf’s out-of-the-mainstream views than with Giffords record. For example, Giffords poor NRA scores only reflect opposition to ridiculous and irresponsible gun legislation (offered above) sponsored by Graf among others in our Republican-dominated state legislature. That hardly equates to Giffords being against gun ownership!

Illuminating Graf’s positions that locate him firmly within the most conservative wing of the Republican party is exactly what this election will be about for those voters not already destined to support or oppose a given candidate for the hot button issues. Yes, we’re talking about the Independents again as well as moderate Republicans ;-) It’s a mathematical reality that Giffords cannot win without winning a majority of Arizona’s Independents or at least some moderate Republicans.

As for encouraging the Republicans to attack Giffords... Attacking is exactly what their general campaign strategy has been for the last several years, complimented only by scaring the electorate. They’re going to attack as loudly and often as they can, all the while explaining why it is that the world will come to an end if Giffords is elected… It’s just who they are at this point in history. It wasn’t always that way… It used to be we could have debates about the size of government or fiscal policy/priorities without focusing so much on currently irreconcilable issues that divide us and that will not be solved without the passage of. But such is life in today’s political reality after the takeover of the Republican Party by the Christian Right coupled with the unmatched cynicism courtesy of Karl Rove and his ilk.

Dogma said...

Just caught a DCCC-sponsored spot for Giffords that carries forward the criticisms of Graf already made by Huffman and Kolbe. Looks like the DCCC is trying to get some mileage out of those NRCC-sponsored anti-Graf adds ;-)

And the attacking has begun...

Dogma said...

In case you missed it, the DCCC spot can be found at:

http://www.dccc.org/news/electronic_media/dccc_az08_better/

x4mr said...

Yep, dogma, the new chapter has started, and it sounds like we are virtually on the same page.

Also saw that ad.

The allegation that Graf is extreme will draw return fire and soon.

Statements like "card carrying member of the ACLU" and then some of the difficult to swallow stances of the ACLU are predictable.

The Weiss campaign's notion that Giffords wasn't really progressive or liberal is toast.

The word extreme is a predictable buzzword on the horizon.

phx kid said...

dogma,

Nice list of bills. You did your homework.

Did you also find the part where Janet signed several very similar bills. Is she extreme also?

Dogma said...

PK,

In a Republican-dominated State House, of course some of this has gotten through.

But you’re missing the point that Graf is obsessed with 2nd Amendment Rights. Interesting how the Republicans are so interested in the 2nd Amendment while simultaneously throwing the 4th Amendment out the door!

Anyway, personally as a gun-owning Democrat, I wouldn’t have supported any of these measures, and I don’t believe anyone other than the gun nut crowd would. Meaning our legislature and Graf in particular are out of touch with the majority on the topic.

phx kid said...

I guess the Governor is extreme and out of touch on this issue as well since she signed the following bills:

HB 2325 Loosens the Concealed Carry Law. Signed by Janet Napolitano 4-25-05

HB 2074 Loosens the Concealed Carry Law. Signed by Janet Napolitano 4-17-06

HB 2649 Eases regulation of firearms storage. Signed by Janet Napolitano 5-19-06

HB 2076 Storage by public entities. Signed by Janet Napolitano 6-6-06.

And don’t tell me she was afraid to use her veto power.

Dogma said...

Janet is a shrewd politician. So long as the bill was not unacceptably egregious, she would have gained nothing by vetoing only to be overridden.

You’re still missing the point… None of these were mainstream bills that would interest gun owners such as me nor most Independents. They only beg the question why is our legislature spending so much time on gun rights when there are so many other ‘real’ problems to solve for Arizona citizens?

Regardless, 2nd Amendment issues won’t decide this election.

FEDUP said...

I believe in gun ownership. Look, let's get real here. If I want to commit a crime, I can get an illegal gun on nearly any major street in Tucson in about an hour. No gun laws will stop me. US crime rates and gun violence are not due to the availability of guns but of a more pervasive issue affecting our culture that we are not addressing. There is a huge cultural issue with our lust of violence and dysfunctional family lives that no amount of gun control will resolve. Gun banning laws are just another Band-Aid approach that misguided liberals idiotically use to try too look anti-crime when instead they just come across as anti-Constitution.

Let me put it another way. Getting back to why our forefathers created constitutional gun ownership rights to begin with, during an increasingly fascist government with more control over your private rights, do you trust the government to not invade your home for no reason, arrest you, confiscate your land? In a major natural disaster or terrorist action when you are scrounging for food, would you like a gun to protect yourself? In the final Armageddon, you might be very thankful you have your guns.

However, if you trust King George W. Bush and his administration, then by all means support anti-gun ownership laws. I am sure they would like nothing better than stripping your ability to protect yourself.

Governor Napolitano reached a fairly good balance in which bills she signed off on. She is not always right, but is not fanatical to the left on this issue.

Finally, guns have no place in bars or strip clubs. While everyone should be allowed to own guns, there should be limitations on where they can take them. Alcohol and guns don't mix.

FEDUP said...

Weiss contended that Giffords was not a progressive who honored Democratic values. She never said she wasn't a liberal. There is a difference, although the left and the right trying to hijack the progressive label would like to make it one and the same. A progressive believes in and works toward progress. There are bills and patterns of behavior to show that Giffords (and Graf) do not. However, labeling Graf as anti-progressive and Giffords as a progressive is farce. It was a slick campaign move that served her well in the primary, but it has little to do with fact. We have a Republican and a Republican in this race and it will come down to which Republican people feel is closer to their ideology or more importantly, who runs the slicker campaign convincing voters of that. My money right now is on Giffords because Graf doesn't know how to run an underhanded, ruthless, behind-the-scenes stealth campaign like her. If he gets outside groups to do to Giffords what she did to Weiss, then the race will be his.

FEDUP said...

Dogma, other than the bar law Graf sponsored, the rest don't look bad and I would even argue several were good bills to sponsor.

x4mr said...

And I was just getting ready to post something along the lines of how nice it is to see dogma and pk having an exchange of ideas without wacko assertions, and that if this is a reflection of what is coming, terrific.

Alas, it appears my holding back was for good reason.

We have a Republican and a Republican in this race.

Graf doesn't know how to run an underhanded, ruthless, behind-the-scenes stealth campaign like her. If he gets outside groups to do to Giffords what she did to Weiss, then the race will be his.


You’re kidding, Fedup, right?

What pray-tell, did Giffords do to Weiss? Facts, please.

And the part about Graf not knowing how to run a particular type of campaign is a belly buster. Graf flew to DC after his primary victory. You think they were discussing golf?

I stand by my earlier comment that each side is going to paint the other as extreme, especially the democrats alleging this about Graf, because he is, well, prime for such an allegation. Graf is going to hit hard, very hard, on immigration.

Anyone notice Scarpinato’s piece today on the black tie event for Kolbe where Huffman’s wife pledged "her entire family’s" support for Giffords?

That event was prior to the primary.

Perhaps, Fedup, you might consider that Huffman is a democrat.

Framer said...

Just a few thoughts:

Gun rights restrictions are the fourth rail for Democrats. People just don't trust them to protect the second ammendment. And in a lot of cases this is with good reason (see San Francisco). This issue is probably what ultimately cost Gore the White House in 2000, and he is not even a hard core gun grabber.

This will indeed be an issue in the CD-8 race, count on it. And it will favor Graf overall. A great number of local Democrats are pro-gun and Gabby's F rating is problematic for her.

If Gabby tries to make hay of Randy's gun law activism, that is a briar patch Randy would certainly welcome being thrown in.

Liza said...

Fedup,
Your 1:44 PM post says it all. Who among us trusts the government to the extent that we would allow ourselves to be disarmed? Most of the news and op-eds that I read most definitely come from left leaning sources and I can tell you that I can't even remember the last time I saw anything about gun control. Americans will not allow themselves to be disarmed, it just isn't going to happen. Any Democratic candidate anywhere in the US who advocates gun control right now may as well concede the election and be done with it.

Dogma said...

May I remind you all that it's the Republican Party that has controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House for six years. If you're still paranoid about the government, I suggest you look at your own party on this issue!

x4mr said...

Let's be clear that there are two threads here, one about the election, and one about gun control.

Semantic guy that I am, what is "gun control"? Are you suggesting, Liza, that we sell them on street corners to eight year olds for thirty bucks?

Seems like everyone here likes their gun, and I am no exception. What I did with the 12 gauge that one post divorce afternoon in the junkyard will, well, remain in that junkyard. (Hint: discarded porcelain items are fabulous).

Not sure, Framer, that this will be a factor in CD 8 election. The joke about bars aside, I don't see it hurting Graf in CD 8. This is Southern Arizona and land of Tombstone, for crying out loud! I have a hard time thinking of someone who doesn't have a gun. I agree with you that it would be a mistake for Giffords to tangle with Graf on this one. Speculate she won't.

Have to say, folks, that immigration and taxes, Iraq and terrorism, health care and the national debt, just dwarf the gun thing.

phx kid said...

framer,

Don’t you have a blog to write? No update since Friday. What’s up with that?

One the gun issue. Several people have said that it will not be the main or deciding issue. Correct except. Lets say the race is really close, within 3% (this is fairly likely.)

Right as early balloting begins the NRA-PVF comes in and does a targeted mailing about Gifford’s record of being anti-gun and that picks up 1 or 2 percent for Graf. It will be an issue whether either campaign wants it to or not.

Framer said...

phx_kid

DId you not notice that yesterday was perhaps the greatest College football Saturday that we are going to probably have in a decade?

It was bad enough that we let the Star and Sonoran Alliance scoop us with the Graf airport thing.

We'll be back tomorrow.

Framer said...

Oh, and indeed, the NRA is definately someone you don't want on your political bad side. If I were Graf, I would get somebody on the campaign to make sure that he remains firmly on their radar, even if that is all they did.

cc burro said...

I wish the adjectives "extreme" and "radical" would be banned from public discourse for the next 2 months. Members of both parties throw these meaningless pejoratives at each other instead of just discussing the issues at hand and allowing the voter to determine who is "extreme" or "radical". Such BS.

Liza said...

x4mr,
No, I do not advocate selling guns for $30.00 on street corners to eight year olds and I agree that "gun control" refers to a myriad of issues. I'm just saying that its a bad time to try make it an election issue. Who really wants to start explaining to the electorate how much "gun control" is good for them especially in Arizona? Most people support gun ownership and without putting too fine a point on it, they can easily get confused when politicians start talking about it.
Democrats would be wise to let it fly under the radar.

You also say, "Have to say, folks, that immigration and taxes, Iraq and terrorism, health care and the national debt, just dwarf the gun thing."

I agree with you that this election will be about immigration because it already is. Please tell me the last time you remember Democrats getting to decide the issues. First, other than to rail on Bush for being such a f***-up, what are the Democrats going to say about Iraq or terrorism that they can all agree upon? What are they going to say about deficits? What are they going to say about health care? So far, its all about Bush being a liar and a fool. It's a good start, but people might be looking for some real policy solutions. In the absence of that, they'll just go back to immigrant bashing.

The Republicans have been yakking up the "immigration problem" for years on talk radio and its working for them right now. I've seen Kyl's TV ad about immigration. Why should he get a pass? If any Republican deserves to be voted out of office, its Jon Kyl.

So tell the Democrats how to trump the immigration issue. They need to know.

x4mr said...

Excellent remarks, Liza. Will spare folks the long version, but we (self included) seem to be a lot better at bitching than providing solutions. I could write pages and pages about this.

Agree with you that if democrats think gun control is a good conversation at this time for CD 8, they should think again, and Graf should think long and hard before getting hot and bothered about abortion.

cc, while you are wishing for a ban on "extreme" and "radical" please include global warming and religious fanatacism just in case you get lucky.

Fedup's remarks aside, there will be efforts to cast Giffords as radical left.

The ads portraying Graf as extreme are already running.

x4mr said...

Whoops. Hate it when I imply opposite of what I mean. Not suggesting a ban on discussing global warming or fanaticism. Meant to say that while you are wishing, cc, please resolve those problems as well.

Fixing middle east would also be nice.

Oh my, yes, Africa.

A cure for tinnitus would be fabulous.

Randall Holdridge said...

Anyone who thinks that gun issues are going to trump social security policy and health care/medicare in CD-8 in this election, in this district, has been spooked by right-wing rhetoric.

The same goes for the vaunted "border" or "immigration" issue. A majority of about 60% of Republicans thinks it's #1, but less than 10% of Democrats do. Meanwhile, southern Arizona wages are among the lowest in the nation, and 20% of the people in Tucson live at or below the poverty level.

Very few people seriously believe that there is much danger of a Democratic Congress deciding to confiscate their guns, and probably fewer think that deporting 12M undocumented workers is a feasibility. But people in both parties are deeply distressed about the war in Iraq, the competency and candor of the Bush administration, and the corruption of the government by special interests.

The conservation of public lands for recreational use is a critical southern Arizona issue across the spectrum, and it is of particular concern to hunters, and it is a dead-weight around the neck of present-day Republicans.

So what do you suppose that Ms. Giffords's campaign is going to hammer on? Gun-laws? And who do you think is realy going to have the money to frame the debate?

Liza said...

randall holdridge,
Where do your 60% and 10% numbers come from on the immigration issue?

Liza said...

randall holdridge,
Voter turnout is usually a fair indicator of how concerned people are about the government. Pima County is way up there because 30.7% of registered voters dragged their sorry butts to the polls last Tuesday (or voted by mail.) However, in Maricopa County only 19.8% of them were able to make it. Statewide, a whopping 22.8% voted. This came from the AZ Secretary of State official website. Primary election turnout generally runs between 20% and 35% even in presidential year elections. This recent election shows we are on the lowest end of voter interest.

I would conclude that most voters don't exactly have a fire in their belly. Either that or they think voting is an exercise in futility.

Randall Holdridge said...

My stats come from the same AZ Daily Star poll that accurately predicted the outcome of the CD-8 primaries.

Another stat that interested me was the post-primary Star bar graph that showed 41% of registered Pima Democrats had voted, as opposed to about 30 for Republicans.

Randall Holdridge said...

By the way, were I determined to attack Graf on a hot-button issue, I'd choose not to conjoin him with gunfighters in bars, but rather on his know-nothingism when it comes to science: the age of the earth, creationism, etc., the future of stem-cell research and the right-to-die-in-peace issues. He is so athwart main-stream thought in CD-8, even among the educated and libertarian right, not to mention the advocates of Tucson to Benson as a biotech research corridor, and his position are so ill-informed, any clever high school student can slice and dice his positions.

Dogma said...

This item from PoliticalMoneyLine.com caught my eye... Don't know if this was what paid for the spots over this past weekend or if there's more to come....

DCCC Spends To Oppose Graf (AZ-08)
9/17/2006

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reported spending $56,608 for an Independent Expenditure "media buy" to oppose Randall Randy Graf, the Republican candidate in District 8 of Arizona.