Monday, September 11, 2006

CD-8 Latas Opposes Giffords Support of Troops

The latest Latas attack ad on Giffords strongly opposes her support for the 2003 Senate Concurrent Resolution 1026. Does that mean that if he had been in the Senate he would have refused to vote for the following language? I don’t think so, but that's what he criticizes Giffords for doing.

The Members of the Legislature express their gratitude for the members of the United States armed forces who are serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and recognize their excellence, patriotism and exceptional bravery.

The Members of the Legislature extend their prayers and best wishes for the families of the United States military personnel who are serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The trouble with the “Die For a Lie’ ad is that in the last analysis it won’t get him elected this time around and it damages any hopes he might have for a future political career. (Personally, I hope he pursues those hopes by taking a shot at the legislature. We haven’t had a hell raiser since Kromko.)


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

Interesting, I guess he just couldn't keep from falling prey to the itch to run an attack ad on a fellow Democrat.

Giffords never ran a single ad or mailer attacking her fellow Democrat opponents.

Kralmajales said...

Oh and since he plays the hypocrisy card so damned well. Why does the Center for Responsive Politics list his number one set of contributions coming from Raytheon? $3100. To be fair, they could be friends who just happen to work there and not like the fact that they build the very weapons that he decries in his bio. He say how he unsuccessfully fought weapons at the Pentagon..."some of which are made right here in Tucson."

This would be an unfair attack frankly...until we let him explain where the $3100 came from. Too bad his little attack ad does the very same thing in how it implies that Giffords is a republican and that the vote was recent.

Blue in AZ said...

Um, what has Giffords done to support the troops besides voting to give Dub an atta-boy for sending them to die for a lie?

By the way, here's the ad:

Kral, do you have a link to support your claims? The OpenSecrets site shows that Jeff Latas hasn't taken any PAC money, let alone Raytheon PAC money.

Kralmajales said...

Blue in Az:

Here you go!!! It is under "Top Contributors."

Jeff Latas (D)
Raytheon Co $3,100
US Army $2,200
Musclar Distrophy Assn $2,150
IBM Corp $2,000
Pinal County $2,000
Brooks Joprgensen $1,700
Star $1,050
Gt Realty Assoc $1,000
SecureUS $1,000

The link:

Again, it could be friends of his that work at Raytheon and list it as their employer.

What I AM getting at is that I could have run a 15 second ad stating only that "Jeff Latas' number one contribution according to Open Secrets comes from Raytheon Co...a company that he essentially decries in his bio."

It would be true, but it doesn't tell the whole side of the story now does it? Just like his little 15 second attack on Giffords showing her between Huffman and Graf. Disgusting!

Kralmajales said...

Maybe they are anti-war employees who don't like what their company does...anti-war Raytheon employees!!!! Or maybe they know that Jeff used to work for the Pentagon and might have contacts there.

Might be worth some research on the campaign's part to set the record straight?

boohoo said...

To bad you support GG, Art.

You could have a real hell riaser in the US Congress if you send Jeff. But you instead wish to continue the Milk-Toast Democratic parade by supporting GG. Too bad. Your making a mistake.

boohoo said...

Maybe I should do the same type of list for GG??

I really don't think you'd like this. Give me some time, I'll compile the links to her corruption.

Now don't start crying again, Kral, make's you look less than a man.

Kralmajales said...

hahahahahaha boo hoo...

Fact remains my friend that the Giffords campaign never ran an attack ad against Patty or Jeff or any other democrat.

FEDUP said...

To be fair, Roger, Giffords never had to run an attack ad with her name on it because she had plenty of people behind the scenes doing it. Latas and Weiss never got the biased press coverage Giffords' got nor did Giffords get push-polled. I do respect that when Jeff or Patty have something to say, they put their face, name and reputation on it and don't do it through others which is a cowards way. My problem with the Latas ad is that he waited way to long to have any impact.

There is nothing noble about the way Giffords let others do her dirty work. It is politics as usual.

Kralmajales said...

No where near as many behind the scenes attackers as the other campaigns and on the blogs, Fedup. Just look at DailyKos, which was a veritable attack machine on Giffords by Weiss and Latas folks.

And by the way, most of us here just responded to the Giffonators and their holier than thou attacks, like this one by Latas. After letting his people bash Giffords for months and months, he tried to remain above it all, but here at the end, he just had to go where Patty went.

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

GeeGee supported the troops? How?

Wearing a flight suit in front of a fighter?

I think Latas did a lot more supporting the troops then your girl, Art. But you don't get it because you aren't patriotic enough to have served.

Kralmajales said...

I think Art is referring to the vote that Jeff Latas...this time Jeff Latas...uses to attack his Democrat opponent. It was a unanimous vote to support the troops, which I think Latas would have supported himself. And the vote was shortly after these men and women were sent into battle...well before most of America learned that Bush lied about the war. Jeff, like Weiss, (like Weiss) fashions a complicated story into some kind of 15 second yarn implying Giffords is a republican and is in favor of Bush's war...when she plainly opposes it.

If Jeff wanted to say that he was the first or near first to oppose it publicly, then by all means let him say so, but he crossed the line into attacks...and why really? Is he really going to peel off Giffords voters a few days before the election? Is it worth it to attack the very opponent that he has pledged he might support when the primary is over?

This ad is exactly what many of you seemed to say that Jeff was above...all this time. The fact that he didn't attack was one of the reasons I appreciated his campaign despite my support for Giffords. But, he is no more above "politics" than anyone else in this race.

x4mr said...

The last sentence of your 1:36 post, Roger, nails it.

The ad surprises me in that I cannot understand the context that produced it. What is the big picture objective of the ad? He can't possibly believe (can he?) that it will actually produce votes in any quantity. It undermines his ability to support Giffords if she wins tomorrow, and whether he believes she will or not, the scenario has a probability worth including in his planner!! Finally, the vote he is attacking is not a bad vote.

Maybe folks are just worn out, cranky, and desperate. Not meaning to play Monday Quarterback, but from day one the home run for Latas in this thing would be a positive campaign that sends a strong message, gets his name in the limelight, and generates $100K or so of support and 15% or so in the primary. He then gives a fabulous speech on tv congratulating the nominee and voicing full support for "her."

Obviously that didn't and won't happen. Still, if he stayed positive and supports the winner, could eeke out a single or double.

Showing Giffords with republicans and attacking this vote looks more like wild swinging in hot air-- with predictable consequences.

Liza said...

This is off the subject a bit, but I was just in one of those Sally Hansen Beauty Supply Stores and they had this country music station just blaring. The song had lyrics that went something like "have you forgotten" then they made that rhyme with "bin Laden." I asked the little airhead at the counter why they didn't play Dylan's "Masters of War", a much better song. I asked her if she ever wondered what it felt like to live in Iraq. Then, of course, I had to begin to wonder if I'm really starting to lose it. You can't hate people just because their music sucks. So, to reassure myself I told the guy at the post office about this and he said, "Do you know what you get when you play a country song backwards?" I said, "No, what?" He said, "you get your wife back, you get your dog back, and you get out of prison." We laughed and I felt better. This just happened, I swear to God.

Moral of the story: if we can still laugh together, maybe we'll be okay.

boohoo said...

You all are getting a little touchy here about your GG voting to give Dub a pat on the back for sending our kids of to die for a lie. Maybe you shouldn't take it so seriously, or maybe you should.

x4mr said...

Always a pleasure to hear from you, Liza.

Fate is smiling on CD 8, I believe. With only one exception, I actually like and respect every candidate for this nomination and could support any of them.

Head over to Arizona Eighth and look at what is happening there.

I think we are choosing someone for Congress tomorrow.

sirocco said...


You discuss Giffords "having others do her dirty work" without actually providing any evidence in support of it.

Of course, it's not just you saying this ... boo hoo does as well, and so do others. It's like a refrain, and if I were the cynical type I'd accuse it of being organized by a campaign ... but I don't really believe it. I think it's just people repeating stuff they've heard in a vicious circle until they believe it, because it confirms their biases.

As a counter-example, there is no question whatsoever Latas organized blog-posters back in the early part of the campaign. It seems to have toned down since they got called on it, mind you. Still, it kind of breaks up the "he-puts-his-name-on-it" mantra.

Liza said...

The Republican side of this CD8 primary is absolutely unbelievable. I would never have been able to predict that they would screw it up this badly.

Well, its not going as well for Democrats in New York state. This is a quote from the Times: "just a few months ago, Democrats envisioned significant gains in New York, perhaps picking up as many as four seats, possibly even five. But that goal now seems increasingly remote, and there is an emerging consensus among political analysts that the party’s best chance for capturing a Republican seat is the battle to succeed Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress, who is retiring."

I haven't seen any recent information about how things are looking for Democrats overall, but New York is surprising given that its a blue state. Interesting, huh?

Blue in AZ said...

"the vote he is attacking is not a bad vote"

Well, to me it is.

Giffords has said, at various times during this campaign, that she would have voted for the war, that she doesn't know how she would have voted, and that she woud have voted against the war. But this vote tells me everything I need to know about how she would have voted. She would have been sucked along with the crowd, afraid of being accused of not supporting the troops, etc.

Art Jacobson said...

Dear Blue,

Lucky you! We have a great system, well stocked with candidates, and you don't have to vote for her.

If Gabrielle wins today you can always vote for Graf in November!

Liza said...

You know as well as anyone that there was a lot more to that resolution than "Support the Troops."

"That the Members of the Legislature express their unequivocal support and appreciation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing global war on terrorism."

Well, the Commander-in-Chief has ramped up his warmongering rhetoric, as we all know, getting us ready for Israel's soon to happen attack on Syria and our soon to happen attack on Iran. Will these new wars really happen? Well, nothing is for certain, but I'm putting my money on "very, very, likely."

I have believed from the very beginning of this CD8 campaign that we, the electorate, needed to take advantage of every opportunity to elect representatives who have in-depth understanding of this administration and the origins of their reckless and violent foreign policy that is destroying the Mideast as well as our own nation.

Voting on the above resolution shows me a lack of that understanding that is so crucial to altering the destructive course of endless war that we have endured for the past five years.

Sorry, that's where I stand and maybe a few other people. If my precinct is at all representative of the district, then its a nonissue. People, for the most part, really don't care. They understand recessions, high gas prices, and immigrants "invading" their neighborhoods. But, tens of thousands of dead civilians in Iraq and Lebanon, destroyed infrastructure, and decimated economies in the Mideast really don't seem to bother them.

So, bottom line, I wouldn't worry about this. Very, very few have noticed.

sirocco said...


I would argue that had, Giffords, in fact voted against the resolution at the time, a similar ad would now be running with a slogan along the lines of:

"Giffords was the only member of our legislature to vote AGAINST supporting our troops in a time of war."

... and those committed to finding reasons not to vote for her would be just as rabid on the matter, if not more so.

I do agree it's largely a non-issue, though.

x4mr said...

I think the reality of what our new Congressperson can do in the first couple months is more complicated than what is usually discussed. My sense is that early on they are mostly a mark in the blue column that can help established leaders go up against horrors of the current administration. Obviously getting to majority is a huge deal, but any blue victory for CD 8 contributes to this.

In reality of Washington, my opinion is that it's a toss between Gabrielle and Francine regarding who would most quickly reach the ability to influence and "work the system" to some degree.

But, hey, I'm done arguing about who should be the D nominee. I've cast my vote, and whoever prevails will get my enthusiastic support.

Frankly, at this point my blood pressure is more tied to the red side of this thing.

Go Randy!

Liza said...

Have you ever thought about how different Colin Powell's life would be now if he had resigned from the Bush Administration instead of delivering his ill-fated WMD speech before the UN Security Council? He would be the most sought after Republican candidate of all time and very possibly could have been the first African American president of the United States if that was his aspiration.

I agree that politicians are often between a rock and a hard place and those who act on principle rather than political expediency often get left behind. History may vindicate them, but how many people really want to be vindicated by history? Its easier to "go with the flow" and hope it never comes back to haunt you. And, this is what the real, career politicians do all the time.

Just another good argument in favor of term limits, in my opinion.