Skip to main content

Gabrielle Giffords, leading (at least in fundraising) Democratic candidate for AZ-08, is must be stopped: In 2004, she cast the deciding vote to kill a bill that would have forced Walmart and other large employers to reimburse the state for the cost of state health insurance (AHCCCS) provided to their employees, right after Walmart lobbyist and donor to her campaigns Stephen "Rip" Wilson testified against it. She was the only Democrat to vote against the bill. Bashas', the third-largest private employer in the state, would also have been affected, with 721 eligible employees who applied for AHCCCS. (See the Arizona Daily Star for details, and the AFL-CIO for background.) I mention Bashas because it shows Gifford has not changed her ways: Her election committee for her current campaign originally had Eddie Basha as co-chair.

She also advocates building more oil refineries and "looking at" nuclear power (see my comment below for details).

What we can do: Support Patty Weiss! Reasons why on the flip.

Latas has gotten a lot of love here at DailyKos, but look at the fundraising numbers:
Bacall, first quarter: contributions, $0.00, cash on hand, $2,999.20
Giffords, first quarter: contributions, $321,754.84, cash on hand, $474,601.77
Latas, first quarter: contributions, $18,156.36, cash on hand, $8,934.01
Rodriguez, first quarter: contributions, 16,838.00, cash on hand, 5628.74
Weiss: first quarter: contributions, 173,719.00, cash on hand, 138,318.21
(sources: FEC Electronic Filing Report Retrieval and FEC Report Image Search)

Weiss is the only one even in Gifford's territory. Worse for Latas, look at name recognition: "Among registered Democrats in the general election, 65 percent have a favorable impression of Weiss, while 42 percent are favorable to Eva Bacal, and 27 percent to Gabrielle Giffords." Latas was and is, I believe, in single digits. Weiss's positions are good, she has funding and name recognition, and she won't make gaffes like Latas, who has made unexplained discrepancies about the 9/11 Pentagon attack part of his campaign and said things about "those dumbasses running things in Washington" (the sentiment warms my heart, but …) in public. (I overhead Latas say that at a Tucson fundraiser for Elliot Spitzer.)

I hope Patty can be persuaded to be a more active presence here at DailyKos in the near future. I'll call her attention to this post.

 

Walmart Lobbyist Contributions to Giffords
Stephen "Rip" Wilson donated $300 to Giffords so far for 2006 (source FEC Transaction Query by Individual Contributor), and $250 when she ran for Arizona State Senate (source Follow the Money).

Originally posted to zillion on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:08 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Patty Weiss (0+ / 0-)

    has name recognition because of her long stint as a news anchor here in Tucson.

    And thanks for the heads up on Giffords. I never knew this about her past record. Another thing that bothers me about her: the last time I looked at her web page, I didn't see the words Democrat or Democratic party at all. It struck me that she wasn't exactly proud to be running as a Democrat.

    And I just went back and looked at her site:

    http://www.giffordsforcongress.com/

    and not a word about her party affiliation.

    Thorby

    "The chief weapon of the sea pirates was their capacity to astonish." Kurt Vonnegut

    by Thorby Baslim on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:29:09 PM PDT

  •  But is being a TV anchor what we need (0+ / 0-)

    I feel Jeff Latas will bring the experiance nesc. to the job, tru fundraising is weak so far but then lets help him out.

    "every saint has a past, every sinner has a future" Oscar Wilde

    by buddabelly on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:44:32 PM PDT

    •  I really like Jeff Latas (0+ / 0-)

      IMO, he's real and speaks from the heart. He has one of the more comprehensive issues pages on his website and comes across as someone who really gives a shit about people. It's a shame his fundraising hasn't been very good because he's a great candidate.

      "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor" Reverend Joseph Lowery 02/07/06

      by Prison4Bushco on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:59:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  at least (0+ / 0-)

    your not advocating for jeff latas. weiss does have a chance. id say 65% chance for giffords to win the primary, 34 % chance for Weiss and 1 % for Latas

    •  any democrat … (0+ / 0-)

      Let me be clear: I will support whoever wins the primary, including Giffords, over the Republican candidate. Even if Giffords were to turn out to be another Joe Lieberman, every Democrat counts!

  •  Latas is making great moves now. (0+ / 0-)

    My guess is that the fund raising is happening. The folks here are starting to wake up and smell the coffee. Latas is gaining.

    So he made a comment here about 9/11, it was a comment and he followed up with an explaination that he has some questions because of his expertise in the crash investigation area. So what. I don't think this is part of his campaign and you, zillion, don't have shit on him other then your weak attempt at a smear.

    Remeber that Patty wants to put bases on Mars because the Chines just might get there first.

    •  Yeah, Latas is gaining. (0+ / 0-)

      If he keeps this up, he's got third place in the bag.

      Don't take my bluntness and attitude personally-the best weapon for the Democrats is the unvarnished truth, and the truth usually hurts.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:22:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  'don't have shit on him' (0+ / 0-)

      I like Latas, and I, for the most part, prefer his positions to those of Weiss. My statement about his 9/11 gaffe was not a smear: I linked to the evidence and his response that you quoted. What it shows is that he is not experienced at being a public figure, and that is inexperience we can't afford in what is likely to be a tight congressional race.

      What I "have on him," that is, my reasons for preferring Patty Weiss, are his poor fund-raising numbers and low name recognition.

      You claim that Latas is gaining and his fund-raising is improving. Do you have any data? I'd be pleased if you were right. But I think it is most important to have a candidate who can win in the general election and who supports Democratic positions. Our best shot is Patty Weiss.

      My fear is that supporting Latas is a lot like supporting Nader.

  •  Patty Weiss (0+ / 0-)

    Patty's manager, Frank Costanza, just returned from a well deserved vacation. Patty is pro labor and pro teacher.  Patty is one of the few candidates who actually listens to what people have to say.  She will make an outstanding representative for the Eighth Congressional District in Arizona.

  •  What we really need is Francine Shacter (0+ / 0-)

    What Congress is all about, is representing the people. Francine will work for the people of the district.  It isn't about a new job for her.  She's passionate about people and is a progressive to her core.

    Meet her at Drinking Liberally in Tucson on a Thursday evening and I think you will get a better sense of her.

    She's a good problem solver, able to bring people together to new forge new solutions.  

    I really think that Francine would be the best choice for the people's voice in AZ-08.  You can learn more about her at http://www.francineshacterforcongres...

  •  Giffords and Walmart (0+ / 0-)

        Is it true that Gabby Giffords accepted campaign donations from Walmart and then cast the deciding vote to let Walmart employees be covered by the states ACCESS health care plan for poor instead of having health coverage by their employer?

  •  Lies, Half-Truths and Distortions ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sheffield

    is what this diary is all about.  Let's go through it point by point.  

    Right after Walmart lobbyist and major (at least $10,000, details below) donor to her campaigns Stephen "Rip" Wilson testified against it.

    Stephen "Rip" Wilson donated $250 to Ms. Giffords' AZ-Senate campaigns.  Check out here, here, and here.

    The first link has NO money from Wilson to Giffords, the second link has $100 in 2001, and the third link has $150 in 2004.  So, a total of $250 was donated by Stephen  "Rip" Wilson to Ms. Giffords over 3 campaign cycles.  

    In 1994, she cast the deciding vote to kill a bill that would have forced Walmart and other large employers to reimburse the state for the cost of state health insurance (AHCCCS) provided to their employees

    Regarding the vote cited above, SB 1065, it was cast in 2004, not 1994.  

    Also, the bill does absolutely NOTHING to mandate more coverage to Arizonans or lower the number of uninsured Arizonans.  All the bill would have done was to have large companies reimburse the state for costs incurred treating the uninsured that worked for them.  

    The Mental Health Advocates Coalition of Arizona named Ms. Giffords the Legislator of the Year for all her hard work and support on bill  SB 1226, which would have mandated that any corporation that issues a group policy maintained by an employer with over 25 members be required to also provide mental health benefits, including substance abuse coverage. Hmm ... sounds better than going after companies with over 100 employers, no?  It mandates that companies with 25 employees give better coverage.  

    So let's re-cap what we know:

    Stephen Rip Wilson has donated ONLY $250 to Ms. Giffords.  And he represents a lot of companies, not just Walmart.

    Ms. Giffords has voted for and fought for more affordable health care for Arizonans, as evidenced by her support of SB 1226.  

  •  Giffords certainly is NOT anti-labor (0+ / 0-)

    Deaniac beat me to the punch on some of this, but just to round it out some more ...

    Giffords has sponsored a number of pro-labor bills. One example can be found at:

    SB 1256, 46th Session

    in which she was primary sponsor of an amendment to an existing law, and which prohibits any restriction on the rights of workers to organize.

    I'm sure the big business folks loved that one ...

    The only way anyone can actually try to label Giffords as anti-labor is if they:

    a) ignore the larger body of her voting record, and try to zero in on a narrow subset of it, and

    b) make the assumption the leaders of all the labor groups which have endorsed her are univerally incompetant boobs.

    Occam's razor makes it far more likely she's actually pro-Labor.

  •  The Facts on Giffords' record (0+ / 0-)

    I just checked out Giffords' web site and her issues section.  It's amazingly detailed and has a substantive track record section about how she is the only candidate in the race who has actually fought hard for progressive values.  After reading this, it is no wonder why the Teamsters, Electrical Workers, Police, Firefighters, Carpenters, Food and Commercial Workers and Locomotive Workers unions have all endorsed her, in addition to Congressman Raul Grijalva and Robert Reich.  Check out her web site and look at her record, and don't buy into the lies of her opponents who are understandably scared of her vast support in the community that her amazing record on fighting for Democratic values has created --

    http://giffordsforcongress.com

    and the issues section:

    http://giffordsforcongress.com/...

    Also, it is true that Giffords is the ONLY candidate who has signed the Democratic Unity Pledge -- to support the Democratic nominee, whomever she will be.  If Patty Weiss and Jeff Latas really cared about the Democratic Party, they would sign this pledge.

    Also, I just noticed that the Sierra Club just endorsed Giffords, calling her an "environmental champion" and "most valuable player.

  •  You mean Giffords has issues? (0+ / 0-)

    Today is the first day Giffords got those issues up. Click here for an example of the ongoing criticism of her refusal to take a stand on the issues.  Or this April 22nd article:

    "However, Giffords’ avoidance of the issues and her garbled position on the unpopular war in Iraq may hurt her. By contrast, both Weiss and Latas have called for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq. Latas, especially, has taken a strong antiwar position and will undoubtedly get the support of many progressives."

    It took her nearly 6 months to get a real issue list up, only after considerable criticism.  6 months!!! That doesn't speak well of your candidate. What, did she have to hear what all the other candidates said before she could decide? Talk to more lobbyists and advisors to create her message before she could form an opinion? Take polls to find out how to pander best?

    If you love Lieberman, you will love Giffords. Cut from the same cloth except she is cuter and more engaging and he is smarter.

    She also completely redid the front of her site so the content now looks quite like another candidate's.  After serving 5 years in the state, she should have been the most versed on the issues and from the first forum she came across as the weakest and least informed. My tax dollars were paying her salary those 5 years and I would have appreciated someone who took the time to study the issue and vote in my best interests as a Tucson resident.

    Skimming her new issues page and reading the other blogs, the environmental position is a combo plate of positions other candidates have taken, an advisor spoon-fed spiel, and the references to her record are laughable. As a couple of other bloggers pointed out, car pool lanes in Tucson?  Yes, Tucson is just full of them. Where is the big tax deduction for hybrids? I couldn't afford one but with a tax break could have. Nope, that might piss off her conservative corps who need those tax dollars to add to their millions. Ms. Giffords has no originality and the inability to form an opinion herself. Her entire career has been about advisors. They routinely advise her to take a mediocre safe route, and that is what we have ended up up with.

    What I would like to know from the Giffords' supporters is this. Specifically on the Wal-Mart/Bashas vote cited here, why did Giffords’ vote the way she did? How is forcing me to pay the welfare in the form of my tax dollars to the richest corporation in the world a good thing? She had a chance to vote in the best interest of the people of Arizona and she chose not to. This wasn't a minor vote, this vote has a huge impact. Maybe she wasn't considering Wal-Mart, maybe she was looking out for her friend Eddie Basha since he had the second largest welfare abuse in the state. Regardless, she voted against me and the rest of Arizonans in favor a friend and the big corps.

    In all the responses, no one addresses that. This isn't a "compromise" vote when millions of people are adversely affected in their pocketbooks. I am sick of being taxed so corporations can have wealthier executives. This is one of the most important votes to indicate what kind of a Congresswoman she will make, and yet you all dismiss it as minor.

    Check out Hostile Takeover and then come back and tell me that vote didn't matter.

    Tell Giffords to come on to this blog herself so we can ask her some of the hard questions she has been avoiding in all her appearances. I saw Weiss posted a small comment here. I would like Weiss to come on here and discuss with the community where she stands on the issues too. The only one I have seen do it so far is Latas. This could help or hurt all candidates depending if they really care about the Arizona voters or not. Latas is at least putting himself out there.

    •  Just another example of what a hypocrite she is (0+ / 0-)

      From her Economy page:

      "eliminate corporate welfare that puts special interests ahead of taxpayers"

      Giving corporate welfare was exactly what she did on the the Wal-Mart aforementioned bill. It wasn't the first time either. Giffords doesn't walk her talk. She was positioning herself as a strong Repug-lite, complimenting Kolbe's leadership and making it a point of saying she was a centrist.

      She said she considers herself a centrist Democrat and praised Kolbe for providing southern Arizona with responsible representation and leadership in Washington.

      "He has been nationally recognized for serving his constituents and putting the constituents first, and I believe that my representation (in the Legislature) has also put the constituents first," Giffords said. "I'm hoping to continue that on a national level."

      She was touting her centrism and business interest support as recently as here:

      Giffords, who is popular with centrist Democrats and business interests, is in a tough Democratic primary contest that also includes former Tucson television news anchor Patty Weiss.

      Considering Giffords has both editors and writers on The Arizona Daily Star and the Tucson Citizen who are both endorsing her and writing skewed pieces to help her campaign, any way she is portrayed in those papers are per her agreement. You heard it first here, it is a matter of time before both papers endorse her publicly as they have already been doing so in their biased writing. Just another way to control the election with MSM manipulation.

      When she realized she could not win the Primary in liberal Tucson where most of the votes come from, her advisors had her change her messaging to try to appear progressive. Darn that pesky internal polling. Don't be fooled by the DLC darling.

      I doubt she will be posting those votes on her site though.

      Judge a person by their actions and not their words. We have been hijacked enough by politicians that call themselves Democrats than vote against Democratic values. Lieberman can selectively pick lots of his votes on post them on his site to look great too. However, we all know his horrible votes and the impact they have had on us. Let's not make the same mistake in Arizona. We have a real chance and turning this around and getting a progressive legislator in CD8 to support the few we currently have.

  •  Taxes and healthcare (0+ / 0-)

    We have a $1 billion budget surplus that they don't know what to do with, yet we have a huge healthcare cost crisis which Giffords' Wal-Mart vote didn't help, a large % of Arizonans don't have medical insurance, and Giffords has never supported a universal healthcare plan. Her current healthcare platform totally misses the boat on why Arizona is in a healthcare crisis to begin with. Considering she has been working on this for 5 years as part of her platform each election, as a legislator, we should have seen a lot more from her.

    The middle class still cannot get insured. Of course when you are advised by politicos outside of Arizona no wonder. Her entire issues list, while looking pretty with all those bullets, inserts, and testimonials, are just typical politician fluff.

    Latas and Weiss have been advocating for universal healthcare from the start and both have talked of the corruption of the pharma companies which has caused the inflated health care costs. This is particularily gutsy of Weiss since her husband is part of that medical community and she refused to play nice with the drug companies in order to get an endorsement. She gets an A+ for integrity on that issue.

  •  Angry Supporters of Patty Weiss (0+ / 0-)

    The anger and negative attacks of the frothing-at-the-mouth Patty Weiss and Jeff Latas supporters is truly mean-spirited.  I've noticed that Giffords supporters always focus on the fantastic strengths and track record of their candidate, and always remain positive about their candidate, while supporters of the other two ALWAYS resort to slandering Giffords.  That article that was referred to appears to be from Arizona's Communist Party newspaper - literally.  I'm sure you just forgot to omit that one detail.

    But supporters of Weiss and Latas are never able to never point to ONE accomplishment Weiss and Latas have ever had in fighting for progressive values.  That's because they have none.  God bless Weiss for being a news anchor, and god bless Jeff Latas for being a fighter pilot.  But their supporters can never cite one thing they have ever accomplished in fighting for progressive values.  Because they haven't accomplished anything.  Zero.  Nada.

    To cherry-pick one vote Giffords made in the legislature out of thousands of votes, and characterize her because of one vote, is silly.  I don't know why Giffords made that one vote.  Why don't you ask her yourself?  But looking at her web site, she seems to be supported by virtually every Democratic community leader in the district.  She was endorsed by a coalition of the ten most progressive labor unions in the district.  She has been given a 100% rating by the LCV, and was endorsed by the Sierra Club.  If you can look at this evidence, and still call her not progressive, you are insane.

    Look at her track record on her issues page and you'll understand why her opponents are shaking with fear -- because the other candidates have zero track record of fighting for the values that we support.

    http://www.giffordsforcongress.com

    I'm sure Latas and Weiss have positives.  Why don't you start pointing to some of their positive accomplishments they've made, and stop ripping Giffords, a caring leader with a track record of fighting for the people, apart?

    And again I ask -- if Weiss and Latas cared so much about the Democratic party, why have they refused to sign the Democratic unity pledge?  Giffords has.  This shows that she deeply cares about the Democratic party, unlike Weiss and Latas.

    Giffords record, overall, is quite impressive and progressive.  That's why the progressive community is backing her.  And that's why her opponents can't stop frothing at the mouth -- because her campaign is propelling forward with the momentum of a freight train and they are desperate.

    •  You have to do better than that (0+ / 0-)

      And it isn't just one vote. I just haven't posted the others yet.

      The progressive community isn't backing her, and you know it. PDA and DFATucson, the two biggest progressive activist organizations in CD8 both backed Latas. Giffords wasn't even considered for PDA because she tried to manipulate the process and refused to answer the questions. On the DFATucson one, she didn't follow the instructions either. The DFA Sierra Vista one she got barely squeaking by, as the votes were very neck 'n neck. And they are the much smaller of the orgs and much less progressive. So, not exactly like the true grassroots is jumping all over themselves to support her, but I imagine with all her money and the numerous paid staff positions she has been advertising for she won't need those communities. I find it interesting she had to hire a campaign manager from out of state and post job openings out of state because she has so little faith in the campaign workers in her own state. Again, turning her nose up. Weiss has the most citizen endorsements as well as some high profile ones. She hasn't even listed all of hers. I got a letter today from Nina Roosevelt, the granddaughter of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt and she is supporting Weiss.

      If Giffords was so confident in her progressive support, she wouldn't have changed her platform or replaced the word centrist with progressive in her communications. Isn't she worried that the Republicans might get upset by that and think she is too liberal? God forbid she should piss off a Republican. Oh, that's right. She was one. Until she decided she wanted to get elected in a liberal district that is.

      Giffords turned her nose up at progressives until she realized she needed us to win. By her own definition from her own lips she called herself a "moderate" and a "centrist". Oh, but I am sure the Arizona Daily Star, Tucson Citizen and AZ Republic all lied, even though they are endorsing her. Oh, they must be communist papers.

      As far as the anger, didn't they say the same thing about Howard Dean? The myth of the Dean Scream? What was with that crazy dude who kept bitching about the war and all his hippie supporters. Oh, that's right. They WERE CORRECT! Giffords was too busy supporting Bush and the war.

      Now Giffords is going to paint anyone who points out her crappy votes as "angry"? Thank you for the Karl Rove playbook move but I am well aware of that tactic. You bet I am angry. Angry that my tax dollars paid for her salary to represent me and instead she sold out to Wal-Mart. Hey, if you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.

      •  As far as supporters (0+ / 0-)

        Though she is beautiful and I am sure those in the Giffords campaign would dismiss her as "just a journalist", this supporter and scheduler for Patty has an impressive resume of reporting on the issues no one else was covering.

        Her is an example of Rhonda Bloom covering the SOA when most of the state didn't even know they existed or what the did.

        Of course I am sure you would say he was just a journalist too.

      •  It's one vote ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... until you post more. Until then, it's just amorphous claims. You know. Kind of like "there are WMD's in Iraq".

        Of course, if you pick through all her votes you (and anyone else for that matter) are going to find a number to scream and pull your hair over. I certainly do. Taken as a whole, however, I find her positions and votes overwhelmingly in agreement with liberal positions.

        Her opponents are ciphers -- since they have no established voting record we can each imagine them to be anything we want them to be. While I appreciate both, neither has the capability to step in and be as effective as Giffords would be when elected.

        Speaking of playbooks, Giffords didn't label you as angry, someone else in these comments did. You can't play a game yourself and decry it at the same time.

        I am thrilled to hear Nina Roosevelt is supporting Wiess. It might mean a bit more if it was Franklin and Eleanor, but you feel free to take your little gratifications where  you can find them.

        Giffords did refer to herself as both "moderate" and "centrist". Are these somehow vulgar terms (much as the Repubs have been trying to make the term "liberal" a smear)? Frankly, in order to win an election in a district where Republicans hold a significant registration edge, it's a liktle pre-requisite to be moderate. The terms "moderate" and "progressive" are not mutually exclusive, nor are "centrist" and "progressive" -- if she's worried about her support among self-described "progressives", it's likely because some of your ilk seem to think they are.

        Losing isn't "progressive". Losing sucks. If Weiss or (far less likely) Latas gets the nomination, things are going to regress, not progress.

        •  Republicans hold a significant edge? (0+ / 0-)

          That is news to me. And the rest of the district. Republicans have 20,000 more registered voters but independents make up another 90,000 and in Pima county, they tend to vote liberal if given a decent candidte.

          So that argument doesn't fly.

          •  20K is (0+ / 0-)

            ... well ... 20K.

            If everyone were to vote, and vote to affiliation, Dems would have to get a 55K-35K split, or slightly over 61% of the independent vote -- which I suspect hasn't happened that often, and certainly hasn't lately. So the argument is still aloft, happily beating it's wings.

            I poked around a little looking for specific breakouts of voting percentages in CD8 over the last few decades, but I didn't come up with any, and I'm tired of doing your research for you anyway.

  •  Attacks (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, these attacks are mean spirited, and they reflect the desperation of campaigns (or supporters or both) who see an opponent running an excellent campaign that is gaining momentum by every measurement that is real: funds raised, endorsements obtained, growth in numbers of volunteers and supporters, and organization of staff and campaign efforts.

    Everything about the Giffords campaign just keeps getting stronger, and it is a reflection of the outstanding work that comes from outstanding people who have recognized an outstanding candidate.

    Unfortunately, these attacks are probably going to get worse as the desperation grows, especially on blogs where they can spew away with this crap, and let's face it, how many people are really reading this?

    It will be interesting to see what venom they are willing to put on television when real people have to claim responsibility.

    •  If that is all true (0+ / 0-)

      Then you wouldn't need to be here writing about it, now would you?

      Latas and Weiss weren't the ones asking Giffords to drop out. Obviously she is nervous about something. I guess she is betting voters are too dumb to research her history and will vote for her based on her money and endorsements.

      She might be right.

      Though this voter won't be.

      •  Don't need to be here (0+ / 0-)

        I don't need to be writing about it.

        On these blogs anyone can say anything for any reason.  You don't know why I posted.  Really and truthfully, you don't know.  I could be a political science major in Queens.

        The sell out to Walmart assertion is utter BS and you know it as do the unions that endorse her.

        Regarding the Weiss superior number of citizen endorsements, you might be less impressed upon learning that those names (the long list underneath) are nothing more than EVERYONE who EVER signed up on the Weiss website for email updates.

        Hardly an endorsement!

        •  The union leadership endorsed her (0+ / 0-)

          not the membership. Big difference. The Wal-mart vote is fact. Click on the link. When the Wal-Mart movie came to Tuscon, 1000 people showed up. We had to turn 500 away as we hit capacity. Lot's of legislators were there and joined the cause.

          Giffords was no where to be seen.

          That one vote had more of a financial impact on more taxpayers in workers in Tucson than 200+ of her other votes combined. She votes 'liberal' on fluff bills but the meaty ones she votes neocon.

          •  Facts vs. Spin (0+ / 0-)

            Not disputing factual nature of that vote, or any vote, for that matter.

            Giffords has a record.  Weiss and Latas do not.  Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows that Giffords opponents will tear into her record and try to make various pieces mean what they want.

            Of course SB1065 is a fact, and no doubt in the next few weeks (or at your current pace, this afternoon) we will hear about other SB's and HB's and told what we should make them mean.

            I doubt this entire story and its comments really surprises anyone, and while we're here typing and reading (it is kinda fun), campaign staffs are hard at work producing results.

            Or not.

            •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

              with some of what you say. Giffords will run on her record and try to emphasize what she thinks is good and de-emphasize the bad votes.

              Her challengers will run as the alternative and provide a different viewpoint.

              Giffords has both the advantage and disadvantage of having a record. The biggest disadvantage will not come from other Democrats who have been careful not to attack her (I mean the candidates themselves) but from the Republicans. I can say this, having friends on the Graf and Huffman campaigns what you have been reading here is kids play compared to what they are going to nail her with. She needs to grow a thick skin pretty fast and be ready to explain her skeletons.

              I just happen to think both Latas and Weiss do have more experience. Weiss has done so much charity and community work throughout the years in addition to her job. It wasn't to fluff a resume listing 20 organizations that she served as a board member, knowing you can only really do a good job serving on one or two at a time. It was really getting into issues that impact the state.

              Latas hasn't had the community involvement but as an engineer, pilot, and war veteran, he has some unique experience into policy issues affecting the nation in that realm.

              By contrast, Giffords resume is about having her name on as many organizations as possible, yet contributing little to no time to those organizations. She doesn't even work 40 hours at her own company.

              I checked with several friends who are very involved in some of those orgs she was on the board and they say it was just to beef up her resume, that she was not active at all. Opportunist, career climbing. I have seen that my whole life, and while those people may get ahead, they aren't the kind of people who will represent my interests in Congress.

              Therefore, I see your candidate as the weakest and the least likely to represent me. While the other candidates may need to campaign harder because they don't have the connections and aren't establishment anointed, but they will fight harder for me in Congress.

        •  No, those aren't from the email list (0+ / 0-)

          The Weiss campaign had to get permission to post those names. If anyone didn't want their name there, they would not be posted.

          By the way, I am on her email list and I donated to her campaign and I am not even listed there.

          Like I said, she has more supporters than are actually listed.

          I didn't even have to tell her not to post my name. They respectfully chose not to.

          Tim Sultan, former congressional candidate and Pelosi aid, and Tom Volgy, former mayor and candiate both endorsed her and they aren't listed on that supporter page. But I will be sure to ask Weiss to add them. :) I hear Volgy supported Weiss over Giffords because Giffords doesn't support Clean Elections. Weiss will have another endorsement from a very suprising supporter before the month is over.

          Weiss was also the first candidte to file her signature petitions, even though she got into the race 2 months later than Giffords. That shows citizen support with the huge number she got so quickly.

          •  Uhm ... Clean elections? (0+ / 0-)

            I am pretty sure Giffords' position is she does support clean elections. She didn't run under them, because her opponents weren't either. If all parties were bound by clean elections rules, she'd be more than happy.

            As has been pointed out elsewhere, she's faught in AZ Congress to keep the clean elections act from being watered down. If she didn't support them, she'd have been on the other side of the fence on that one.

            Filing the signature petitions first is meaningless, other than simply to claim you did ... I am not even sure Giffords has filed hers yet, even though I know they have had more than needed for weeks. It would have been a surprise if Weiss wasn't able to get the number needed in the 4 months or so after she announced.

          •  Endorsement List (0+ / 0-)

            There are people on that list that never contributed and never endorsed, just signed up at the website to receive emails.

            Not asserting this is intentional.  Might be a mistake and also true that the web page mixes receiving email with joining the team.  The button where one can distinguish which from which was only put there recently.

            If Weiss campaign scrubs that list and removes those where the endorsement cannot be confirmed, many names will come off.

    •  How exactly is it an 'attack' and 'venom' when it (0+ / 0-)

      is true? Since when is truth an attack or venom? Boy, that sure says a lot about what has happened to our democracy.

      As far as blogs, Giffords was the first to have her supporters create their blogs and attack the other candidates, especially Weiss. And since they could not come up with anything factual, they tried to paint her as a bimbo and make a story of her district residency. And what did Patty do? She didn't attack the messenger, she clarified it on the FAQS of her site. The difference between a candidate with integrity and one without. Giffords problem is she has had everything handed to her and can't stand that she might actually have to work for this nomination.

      I just love how you sidestepped the facts and referenced links and instead focus on killing the messenger.

      If Giffords can't handle the truth now, how is she going to handle it when the Republicans come out with all barrels loaded?

      Just another reason she should not be our candidate. When I hear her apologize for her crappy votes and pro-war support, then I will give her another look.

      •  Can you please ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... link for me some blogs the Giffords campaign encouraged to be created for the purpose of attacking Weiss and/or Latas?

        •  You can google it (0+ / 0-)

          Art, Ted and Roger all have been doing it for months. I won't do them the service of cross posting their blogs here.  Suffice to say, they went negative first because that is where I found out they all were trashing Weiss within a couple of weeks of her getting into the race.

          How come Huffman's poll showed Weiss winning and Giffords only in the 20s if she is so strong and appeals to the moderates and centrist so much?

          •  You must be seeing mirages (0+ / 0-)

            I assume you are referring to:

            Rum, Romanism and Rebellion (Ted)
            The Data Port (Art)

            Roger being a poster on both. (I don't believe he has a blog of his own ... if he does, I don't read it).

            Anyhow, I certainly am aware of the two blogs posted above. Patty announced her candidacy in mid-Jan. Here are some entry links:

            RR&R:
            Jan 2006 entries involving Patty are from 1/18, 1/21, 1/25

            Feb 2006 entries involving Patty are from 2/1, 2/21

            TDP:
            Jan 2006 entries involving Patty are 1/10, 1/20, 1/26

            Feb 2006 entries involving Patty include 2/6, 2/11

            I may easily have missed some, but I think I got all the major entries. The only one which could seem to be construed as an "attack" is from The Data Port, 1/26, in which Art extensively quotes a Tucson Citizen article which was criticle of Patty's decision to run.

            Please enlighten me as to what I am overlooking in these entries. By the way -- I agree with the Citizen writer. I spent a number of years myself as a journalist in S. AZ, and absolutely agree it doesn't do squat to prepare one for public office. She might be a great candidate for many other reasons (I do like her positions), but her background as a journalist isn't pursuasive.

            Until money starts to get seriously spent, polling means little. Everyone (even Repubs) still expect Weiss to poll well just because of her name.

            Finally, you certainly implicated Ted, Art and Roger as being controlled by the Giffords campaign. Please present your evidence in support of this, or clarify the claim is simply your opinion.

  •  Faces to the names (0+ / 0-)

    Good guy & vet:

    Great woman & candidate:

  •  Robert Reich Loves Gabrielle Giffords (0+ / 0-)

    You know, Robert Reich, that well-known right winger, former Secretary of Labor, said about Gabrielle Giffords, straight from her web site:

    “Our economic policy is headed in the wrong direction for businesses and for families, and it will take real leadership to change direction. That leadership is what Gabrielle Giffords has to offer. I have known Gabrielle Giffords for many years and she impressed me from the outset. She has the experience, the intelligence and the energy to represent Southern Arizona, and to fight for change in Washington.

    Her support of a higher minimum wage at both the state and national level is representative of the understanding that she has for the concerns of working men and women. I spent time with her in Tucson meeting with union leaders and members at the IBEW Hall on Tucson Blvd. this spring and I was impressed at her command of the economic issues facing both Arizona and the nation. She inspires people with her commitment to make the government truly represent all the people.”
    -Robert Reich, Former U.S. Secretary of Labor

    •  Great she supports this (0+ / 0-)

      although Weiss was the first to sign off on it. All the candidates support it so there is not anything unique in Giffords supporting it.

      Really, increasing the minimum wage is just a small part of what needs to be done. If the corporations were not getting such huge tax subsidies and welfare, we would have more of our tax dollars in our pockets an even the poor would have more purchasing power. I am tired of paying increased taxes to support the rich and the CEOs.

      Weiss has unions endorsing her too, and I give them as little credibility as I give the ones endorsing Giffords.  In a right to work state, unions have no power.

      Please describe "her command of the economic issues" for me? Some specifics would be great because I have not heard anything progressive on the issue from her but maybe she has learned something since I spoke with her last.

  •  Giffords' fantastic track record on Education (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sure the people would love to see other candidates' track record on education, except that they have none.  Instead, we have Giffords, with an amazingly progressive record on education, straight from her web site (particulary impressive given the fact that Arizona is a red state and CD-8 is a Republican district):

    "In the legislature, Gabrielle Giffords helped lead the bipartisan Children’s Caucus which worked to improve education and health care for Arizona’s children. Because of her strong record in supporting public education, she has been endorsed by both the Arizona Education Association and the National Education Association.

    Gabrielle worked closely with Governor Janet Napolitano on the promotion of all-day kindergarten. She supported our schools through sponsorship of supplemental state aid through bonds (SB 1344, in 2004) and tax credits that could be used for school supplies (SB 1355, in 2003). She also sponsored a bill to improve air quality in the schools (HB 2272, in 2004) and pushed for accountability on school spending (SB 1297, in 2004). Thanks to her support of reading in the curriculum, she was awarded Arizona Family Literacy’s Outstanding Legislator for 2003.

    She has also worked to improve higher education in Arizona. She sponsored legislation to support our universities and community colleges with research infrastructure (HB 2529, in 2003) and technology support (HCR 2028, in 2003). Locally, she serves on the advisory board of the University of Arizona College of Business and Public Administration."

  •  Giffords amazing record on protecting gay rights (0+ / 0-)

    Straight from her web site -- where are the other candidates' track records?  Oh, I forgot, they have none:

    "On the issue of stopping discrimination, Gabrielle has also been a leader in the legislature. She fought to provide judges with the ability to increase charges against people committing hate crimes (SB 1210, in 2003). She protected Arizonans in the work place by prime-sponsoring legislation to prohibit employment discrimination (HB 2415, in 2001) and sponsoring a bill to make it illegal to fire someone on the basis of gender and/or sexual orientation (HB 2704, in 2001)."

    •  She threw a gay man out of her office (0+ / 0-)

      for questioning her positions, not taking a bold stand on gay rights like Weiss did on her website, and asking why she voting in support of Ronald Reagan day knowing his administration was so detrimental to the gays. How is this supporting gays?  Latas has been a vocal supporter of gay rights, but Weiss has been the strongest and has not shied away from it on her website.

      The bills, once again, ended up having more token effects than meat. Enforcement sucks and the legal wrangling is nearly impossible. She should sponsor a bill on accountability in our police department and maybe we would see some positive results.

      Did she sponsor any bills supporting gay marriages/civil unions? No, I am sure she would avoid that one.

  •  Giffords' record on protecting women and kids: (0+ / 0-)

    Straight from her web site.  What is the track record of Patty Weiss on protecting women?  Oh, again, there is none:

    "In the legislature, she [Giffords] sponsored a bill to strengthen the laws regarding sexual acts against minors and broaden the evidence that can be used against the perpetrators (SB 1288). She also sponsored a bill that would have made it a felony to engage in misconduct with weapons at child care facilities, preschool and after-school programs (SB 1096). Additionally, she sponsored legislation to crack down on illegal gun transfers and to track guns used in crimes (HB 2589, in 2002).

    Gabrielle also sponsored the “Stranger Danger” bill (SB 1289, in 2005), allowing all school districts and charter schools to instruct students on the dangers of unsupervised interaction with strangers. Additionally, she sponsored a bill to waive fees for temporary restraining orders and injunctions (HB 2318, in 2001), and also sponsored a bill to strengthen the Arizona sexual assault task force (HB 2539, in 2001).

    •  All good, but not enough (0+ / 0-)

      If she really wanted to protect women against assault though she would have sponored a bill increasing the funding by at least 40%.

      I know people are loyal to Giffords because she was their legislator and don't want to consider that someone else could be stronger and better, plus able to actually beat a Republican. Giffords was my Senator too, and I liked her for a time. This was before I started to become more educated on political policy and after looking at her record and how much she COULD have accomplished in 5 years, I was really disappointed. What really killed it for me though, was talking to her in person and hearing her in debates. She came across as a talking parrot with no depth and an inability to forumlate an original opinion or overcome objections. She almost seemed irritated that I would dare to question her.

      I think the problem is we have lowered our expectations so much of our elected officials, that we see doing the most basic insignificant things as "amazing" just because we compare them to the extreme right.

      We have a chance to support a progressive. Latas has a lot of strong qualities, but he needs to get his name out there so more voters no him. Barring that he doesn't have a chance. I would vote for him before Giffords though.

      Weiss has the name recognition, what she needs to do is get out to voters in person so they can get to know her and her intelligence and integrity that resonates when challenge her. I have gotten in her face on more than one occassion, and her response was so professional - not your standard "tell me what I want to hear". I was really impressed. I had dismissed her from the start then slowly came around to see her strengths. She doesn't have my full support yet, but I see her as the strongest right now. There are several more issues I want to hear her stance on.

      I realize Giffords has the money and machinery behind her, which make her the hardest candidate to beat in the primary. I am not a person who just jumps on the bandwagon of the anointed though. I go first and foremost with integrity. I believe both Latas and Weiss have it, and Weiss has the added advantage of being the only Democrat polling so well with Democrats, Republicans and Independents that she is in the 50%+ against all Republicans. No other Democrat is coming close.

      The problem is the general, where Giffords is and will continue to be weak against Republicans because she can't seem to speak with her own voice but only parrot what is told to her. She thinks a good ad campaign can paint her in a better light. She might be right, that the controlled message of her ad blitz will help her appear better than she does in person. I personally think she is too immature and inexperienced in life (and I don't say that because of her age). She hasn't had struggles in her life that have shaped her the way a real fighter and champion needs. She can't relate to people, as much as she tries to protray herself as the supporter of the working man.

      I will vote for her if she wins the Democratic nomination, but I hope with all my heart and soul we get a candidate with more integrity, more intellect, more life experience, who represents the core progressive values of what the Democratic Party used to stand for. I don't want to get Giffords in there, and then have to watch her back every 2 seconds like a Biden or Clinton. I want to be able to trust my Congresswoman.

  •  Giffords' impressive track record on health care (0+ / 0-)

    Look at Giffords' amazing record of fighting to expand access to health care, straight from her web site.  How have the other candidates fought to expand access to health care?  Oh -- again -- they haven't!

    "Gabrielle Giffords was a leader in the legislature working to expand health care coverage for low-income women and children. From her prime sponsorship of bill that required health insurance to cover contraception (HB 2234, in 2002) to her co-sponsorship of a bill to allow schools to reach out to children without health insurance (HB 2423, in 2001), Gabrielle has shown that health care is her priority. Annually, she has fought to keep state appropriations for low-income health care coverage. She was the prime sponsor on a comprehensive cancer control plan for Arizona (SB 1083, in 2001) and she set up both a study committee and a task force on the serious crisis of cervical cancer (HB 2616, in 2002 and HCM 2001, in 2005).

    Gabrielle has been concerned about rural health care since she entered the legislature, sponsoring legislation to appropriate resources to medically underserved areas in 2001 (HB2459, in 2001), and sponsoring a bill to support to rural primary clinics (SB1039, in 2003) after that. In the Senate, she focused on access to health care in rural areas by prime-sponsoring a bill that created special health care districts (SB 1359, in 2003).

    Finally, Gabrielle took on the difficult issue of mental health services. She pushed to pass bills for mental health parity from insurance companies (HB 2327, in 2004), reimbursing costs for behavioral health (SB 1038, in 2003), and keeping mental health services confidential (HB 2284, in 2005). For her leadership, she was recognized as the Mental Health Association of Arizona 2004 Legislator of the Year."

    •  If she did such a great job in her 5 years (0+ / 0-)

      Why did she have the same goals each session? Why did the % uninsured not improve?

      Weiss has worked extensively on mental health issues and Latas knows first hand the importance of coverage since his son has cancer. In fairness to Giffords, the  confidential records bill I will give her credit for, as well as all the Republicans who also supported it. That was one time both sides of the fence did the right thing.

      By the way, I am one of the uninsured middle class. Tell, me please, what exactly has Ms. Giffords done for me in her 5 years as a legislator?

      See, when you get real people who have been impacted in a real way (and not the echo chamber of the bubble Giffords lives in) you realize those bills have little to no impact on the vast majority of us.

      Of course, this "amazing record" as you call it must be true so I as an uninsured worker should just shut up since what do I know? I only live it.

  •  Giffords and her fantastic environmental record (0+ / 0-)

    Folks, Giffords received a 100% score from the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club called her "Most Valuable Player" and an "Environmental Champion."  

    Do the other candidates have such an impressive track record on the environment?  Uh. Wait. They don't have any track record.  I guess we'll just have to take their word for it.

    Straight from her web site:

    "Gabrielle Giffords’ commitment to the environment is clear in her legislative record. She fought cuts to the Arizona Heritage Fund and was a leader on the issue of water conservation. She also served on the Tucson Regional Water Council and was the prime sponsor of legislation (SB 1483, in 2005) to give homeowners a tax incentive to install gray water systems, which conserve and re-use water. In 2005, she received a 100% rating from the Arizona League of Conservation Voters and was named “Most Valuable Player” in the legislature by the Sierra Club.

    Concerned about fossil fuels and global warming, she worked in the legislature to establish a climate change advisory committee (SBB 1227, in 2004). She cosponsored bills to allow hybrid cars to use carpool lanes (SB 1290, in 2005) and to set up a study committee on alternative fuels (HB 2317, in 2002). Throughout her time at the legislature and since her Congressional candidacy, she has spoken out against the assault on environmental protections that has been launched by this administration. The Sierra Club has endorsed her candidacy, lauding her as an “environmental champion.”

    •  I don't think folks here are too impressed with (0+ / 0-)

      The Sierra Club or the LCV.

      A bit of advice, Todd, if you are going to come to this blog and tout how great your candidate is, the least you can do is actually READ the other posts here. If you had, you would know that many of us have been downright disgusted with the Sierra Club and their endorsement of Chafee, another anti-environmentalist. So, using that to say Giffords is a progressive does just the opposite.

      The Sierra Club did not even let their membership vote in Tucson, it was decided by a small group of executives that head the local one.

      The LCV is notorious for cherry picking votes, as you call it, to give their 100% ratings and not including all. I had issues with them back in 2000 already and by 2004 dropped my membership. In all that time, I never got a voice in the endorsements or in which votes they choose to give the ratings and which they don't.

      Neither of the orgs support a strong push for renewable energy and sustainable resources as was a strong platform of Latas (and Weiss). Giffords has been reluctant in her first 6 months (until her bad polling numbers that is) to support a progressive agenda on the environment because she has supported oil and nuclear in the past.

      The organizers of the Tucson Earth Day were supporting Latas and not Giffords, even though Giffords had her big booth set up. They are the REAL environmental progressives, not the corporate backed ones that sell out their own memberships. And they support Latas.

      In fact, all the union endorsements Giffords got weren't voted on my members either.

    •  Clearly you are not an environmentalist or you (0+ / 0-)

      wouldn't have posted this. A real environmentalist can see through the fluff.

      She focuses on gray water instead of addressing the industry that is polluting and using up our water sources. Again, a token bill when the real issue is not addressed. Car pool lanes? Ask Jeff Latas who actually drives a hybrid how many lanes he gets an advantage from driving in Tucson where there are hardly any. That bill is just so damn stupid and pandering to the extreme it makes her look nutty. She should have sponsored a bill to give tax incentives to hybrid owners if she really wanted people to switch to hybrid. None of those are the real issues though, they don't deal with the transportation and big corporate influences that have caused the environmental problems to begin with.

      She establishes a "committee" i.e. SB1227 and a study HB2317. Yes, more bureaucracy. That is exactly what we need. And what are those great accomplishments of those committees in the 2-5 years? NOTHING! Anyone can establish a committee. I am interested in real, tangible results.

      Did Giffords really need a 'committee' to study the issues? Is she so uninformed that she doesn't know what is causing our environmental issues and how to address them?

      No, I don't think she is that stupid. She knows the industry connection but doesn't want to piss off her rich industry friends. In a state with over 320 sunny days a year, where is her big solar environmental push? It took outside organizations to push the corporate commissioners to get the 15% solar/renewable energy initiative now and even that is pathetic in where we should be. We have the technology, we could have had the funds had Giffords sponsored such a big, but no, once again she did her token move. She had 5 years and accomplished nothing of significance on the environmental front. She just appeased some useless groups that have long since stopped representing the environment and their own memberships.

      • No creative solutions.
      • No bills with real muscle.
      • No bills that really address the environmental issues.
      • No accountability from the polluters.

      That is her legacy.

    •  Giffords and her 'fantastic' environmental record (0+ / 0-)

      You may be interested in the e-mail below, which was forwarded to me. The information about oil refineries was also discussed in the comments to this diary.

      May 28, 2006

      To:  Fellow Environmental Organizations and Environmental Leaders

      From:  Don’t Waste Arizona, Inc.

      Re:  Gabrielle Giffords

      As a 501 c 3, Don’t Waste Arizona does not endorse candidates in elections, but we do provide information about environmental issues as part of our educational purposes.

      It came as quite a surprise when we at Don’t Waste Arizona, Inc. found out about Gabrielle Giffords’ differing positions regarding nuclear power. One of our directors personally heard her comments in Green Valley, AZ, on May 13, 2006. The information was subsequently relayed to Sandy Bahr of the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club and to Susan Culp of the Arizona League of Conservation Voters. Now we are also relaying it to you.

      What is especially dismaying, and telling, is Giffords’ assertion that nuclear power is something we should look at “because we haven’t had a nuclear disaster in 20 years...”

      And now, evidently, Ms. Giffords, when questioned about her different positions regarding nuclear power, has made denials about her statement, at least to the environmental community. What we appear to have here is a politician who tells different audiences different things. We see these actions and statements to be a very serious matter

      At our urging, the clip showing the question from the moderator of the Congressional District 8 Democratic candidates forum has been posted to a website, and we are in the process of posting it to ours. The clip is posted at www.jefflatas.com/nukee.wmv

      We also found out that Giffords made remarks on May 8, 2006, that the US should build more refineries. Don’t Waste Arizona successfully staved off a proposed refinery outside Phoenix for over a decade, and we are very familiar with these issues.

      And Giffords has been known to state that the Endangered Species Act could use some changes. We at Don’t Waste Arizona urge you to press her about what changes she would endorse, as well as why her positions on such crucial environmental issues vary so dramatically.

  •  I rest my case (0+ / 0-)

    Folks, the Weiss and Latas supporters are frothing at the mouth trying to attack Giffords simply because their candidates have absolutely no track record of their own of fighting for progressive values like Giffords has.

    Not only did Giffords accomplish all of the above-posted feats, she did it in a red state and in a red district, all by the age of 35.  It's impressive enough that she was the youngest woman ever elected to the Arizona State Senate, but she has an extensive record of fighting of progressive ideals after she was elected.  That's why she is dominating the other candidates in support of Democratic community leaders, volunteers, fundraising, and maintaining a positive message.  That's why she's gotten the endorsements of ten of the most progressive labor unions in America, including the Police and Firefighters Unions.  That's why the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Mental Health Association of Arizona, and Arizona Family Literacy all adore her.  Because they know she is a great, caring woman who fights for the right values.

    She has shown her ability to get progressive things done for the people.  Her track record stands on its own.  And as much as her opponents try to cherry pick one out of a thousand votes that they might disagree with, Giffords has a truly impressive track record that she is standing behind.

    The other candidates have no track record.  They are nice and decent people.  But they have no track record at all.  They haven't proven anything like Giffords has.  

    I rest my case.  Over and out.....

    •  Keep trying (0+ / 0-)

      By the way, we aren't stupid. We know how to read her website.

      And you are now flat out lying. Giffords was NEVER in a red county or a red district. Pima is blue. Pima went for Kerry in 04 and that was even with some tampered voting on the Republicans' part.

      She ran and represented a district that is 43% Democratic and 28% Republican. Of course, since the DINO Giffords wants to let her real Republican roots shine, she keeps telling people it is a moderate district that a centrist is needed for.

      By they way, unlike you I present facts so the readers can find the district data here.
      LD 28 is what you are looking at and you will see that I am right.

      •  Well, sometimes you do (0+ / 0-)

        On occasion you present facts, when you are pretty sure they support your contention. Like above ... certainly Giffords state district is more Democrat than republic, and Todd was incorrect to mention a "red district".

        Other times, as I have noted elsewhere, you simply make claims without support, and when called on it basically say "go look it up yourself".

        Basically, you act like any other partisan, and aren't in position to play holier-than-thou.

    •  I wish you would rest your case... (0+ / 0-)

      Folks, the Weiss and Latas supporters are frothing at the mouth trying to attack Giffords simply because their candidates have absolutely no track record of their own of fighting for progressive values like Giffords has.

      No track record?  What a load of crap.  Both Jeff and Patty have raised families and produced wonderful careers of public service.  Gabby has been hob-knobbing with freakish Republicans and jet-setting back and forth between Phoenix and Houston.  She is a DINO, and may replace Kolbe, the RINO if she gets through the primary.  Your unquestioning support of her phony positions is sad.  Your characterization of the Democratic opposition as "frothing at the mouth" shows just how desperate you are.  

      Know when to seek common ground and know when to seek the high ground.

      by raoullynotnice on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 01:57:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Aren't we all just talking to walls? (0+ / 0-)

    No one is managing to pursuade anyone to switch viewpoints. :)

  •  Gunfight at the OK Corral (0+ / 0-)

    How befitting that this congressional district contains Tombstone.

    Apparently the dust is settling, and well said, ChessGuy.  I completely agree with your observation.  No one is changing anyone's point of view here.

    I do think these blogs serve a useful purpose, and that folks like Art, Ted, George, Stacy, and others are providing a forum where a small community of folks exchange opinions and ideas, and I enjoy posting and reading what gets said.  I have learned and had some thoughts clarified.

    I won't get into full blown thing about internet and politics, but I will say that I don't think these blogs are going to be much of a factor in the election.  Obviously have no clue, but would speculate that the number of people reading this story and the comments it produced is quite small.  It is also likely that those who visit are folks that already know who they support and are quite firm in their positions.  

    Noncon's posting of the photos of Jeff and Patty struck me, because my guess is that the people reading this (or vast majority of them) have visited the websites of all candidates repeatedly and even attended forums and met them, etc..

    Maybe I will say a little about internet.  I think the "normal voters" who do happen to go online for political information probably visit the actual campaign websites and maybe scan the first one or two pages from a google/dogpile etc. search on candidate's names.  That's it, and stories like these don't show up until page twenty-something IF AT ALL.

    Don't claim to be an expert, but I think a campaign is making a mistake if they put a lot of resources and energy into posting at these blogs.  I do think they have to pay attention, be informed, and respond when necessary.

    I don't think a single vote got changed by anything written here.  I do know of several votes that got changed by a supporter talking face to face with people near a post office.

    My two cents.    

  •  Giffords and vote for Walmart. (0+ / 0-)

    Is it true that G. Giffords was one of three Democrats to vote to have Arizona's ACCESS health care plan  subsidize Walmart employees rather than having Walmart pick up the cost of health insurance for them?

HK

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site