Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Jaw Dropping

Quote you won't see on Gabby Giffords' next frankenmailer:

"I will release all the earmarks as they get funded," Giffords said. "Just because I have a neighboring congressman who decides to do something, I don't necessarily feel pressure to do the same thing."

"I just don't think that releasing a list of earmarks is the best transparent way to explain to the people all the work that you're doing."

Entirely true, if by "I will release" you mean "bloggers will dig up," if by "all earmarks" you mean "the earmarks that are forced into the public domain" and by "best transparent" you mean "best way of hiding something inconvenient."

Ms. Giffords, how about you just show your work and let that be your best explanation? I'm pretty sure that this wasn't a part of the platform you ran on. Maybe change can wait until you get your fill at the trough, however.

UPDATE- For those who miss the last few weeks of telephoning Congressional Staff, ThinkRight has all of the phone numbers you need to state your concerns.


thinkright said...

the link to TR isn't may have to re-post it.

Sirocco said...

Just out of curiosity, is it a "frankenmailer" when it's sent from a Republican candidate?

I would like to see the full list of earmarks. From the quote, it sounds like any she requests which aren't funded won't necessarily be made known.

Framer said...

Indeed, frankemailers are abused by both parties. End 'em all. Some are cheesier than others, however, amd Giffords is a big offender here. I could be less offended if it were a "frank" didcussion of issues (in newsletter format, for instance)rather than an obvious campaign flier.

And earmark transparancy is becoming a bi-partisan thing. For those who like Gabby, you still might want to put in some feedback to her here as well. She is not safe enough in her seat to go all-Trent-Lott on us. Especially as she made clear statements in her last campaign about improving earmark transparency.

This will have legs.

Anonymous said...

hahaha earmarks transparency becoming bi-partisan. I for one would like to see her bring goodies back to this district. The Republican party did all they could to hide them, and did a lot of corruption, so I would like to see them public too.

However, it is fun to watch them press the issue now that they are in the minority and have been caught over and over with their pants down.

By the way, when is that rotten corrupt Renzi going to resign? He is a mockery to your party.

Framer said...


What possible reason could Gabby have for NOT wanting to release her earmarks if people are excited about her "bringing the pork home?" I would suspect that you wouldn't need to look far to find Democrats who are troubled by earmarks, especially non-transparent ones.

You like to reference all the time about the money that she is bringing in. Do you think that there might be any congruency between this list and the high amount of special interest money that makes up her overall total?

If there is not, what possible reason can anyone give why she would hide her earmarks, especially after explicitly campaigning for earmark transparency?

If she really is innocent, her actions here boggle the mind as it makes her look as if she has something to hide. Especially with the way she dismissed her responsibility to her constituents with her statements. That was looking for a fight that she didn't need.

A journey to the Star editorial office should have been like a trip to the ice cream shop for Gabby, but she somehow managed to tick them off.

Again, this will have legs.

Anonymous said...

Clean up your own party first Framer...then start attacking this one.

There is no way that you can hit her on earmarks and pork unless you as a candidate won't do the same...and if you will finally decry what your party has been doing in spades since 1994.

Oh well...

This is the REAL news of the day. I was soooooo right about this.

Look at the names on that is Jim Click...perennial funder of the GOP.

I think the fight that has started in the Republican party on this, and this very result, will be the end of the Republican majority in this state...and probably the nation.

Framer said...


Little defensive aren't we? Gabby is my congresswoman, so what she says and does affects me far more than any other congressperson. Nice deflection however. Please answer to me why Gabby will not reveal her earmarks after she campaigned on the issue.

Our Arizona delegation is actually quite solid on earmarks for the most part. Even Grijalva releases his list.

And as far as your article goes, I might have some problems with the employee sanctions INITIATIVE if some points are not addressed, and there is a possibility of the law being an issue, depending upon how it is enforced. Indeed, there needs to be some activism on the part of the business community to address these concerns. I would suspect, however, that any real concerted effort to try to unseat people that voted the bill would probably backfire. And didn't Janet sign the bill?

If you have dreams of Jim Click becoming a big Democratic Party backer, however, you will be sorely disappointed.

Anonymous said...

I feel like she will release them honestly. Arent they public record and in the bills anyway?

As for employer sanctions...nice try. This is a big big deal...this stance...and the wall...does not make those who fund your campaigns is what will be THE split of the gop. I would look for Click dollars to go to demos that help and dont harm his business..they all do it. THEY ALSO MAY JUST NOT DONATE...and not vote for radicals like Graf...and the likes of Melvin.

Be wary of your stances...unless you plan to run Clean.

I was shocked that they would actually attack though.

And Janet, best political move ever. She grudgingly signred it...and wants to call a special session to correct it. Who will business love more?

Sirocco said...

I am in favor of as much transparancy as possible. I can't think of any good reason why the earmark list shouldn't be posted.

Well, unless there is a concern that some of the requested earmarks might spur controversy, thus leading to their not getting funded ... but if there is anything along those lines, it only increases the need (in my mind) to have them made known in advance rather than after the fact.

Framer said...

Again, I would like to see some clarification to the bill as far as the accuracy of Federal database goes. We covered the Swift debacle forever (in blog time) ago. That needs to be accounted for before business licenses are yanked. Note that this is not one of Janet's stated concerns.

If this is resolved, or exceptions made, however, I don't see what leg those opposing the bill have to stand on (although I also don't like something that permanently denies a business license on the first infraction.) I believe you would (and have) get pretty wide support from Republicans, Independents, and even Democrats for the bill.

Are Democrats going to go on record as being violently against the bill? They sure didn't when it came up for a vote. I get 47 to 11 in the House and 20 to 4 in the Senate. Hardly a squeaker.

Do you believe that Click is going to go after 67 scalps? I would assume that you will see a primary challenge to Pierce and Weiers and that will be the extent of it. I suspect that that was in the works regardless.

Jim Click is a Republican for a reason and I doubt that this is his only, or even most important issue. He does have more power than most, and advocacy on any issue you agree or disagree with is certainly welcome.

Again, if you think he becomes a Democrat, or even begins funding Democrats, you will likely be disappointed.

Anonymous said...

Well, Giffords released her earmarks. She must have read your column, Framer (smile...).

Also, she has nearly $1 million on hand for the 2008 campaign. Raised more than last reporting period...and without a finance director in place. Many many small donors too.

By the time Tim Bee or Jonathan Paton joins the race, she could have $1.5 Million to $2 Million.

I still think Bee should stick it out and run for Gov. If Janet goes into the next administration, his wait will be less that 2010.