Friday, February 08, 2008
Press coverage of Sen. Bee
Some commentators have suggested that staying in the Legislature had some drawbacks for Senator Bee. Most people focused on the difficulty in navigating the pending budget crisis. Now it looks like the press is noticing that he is campaigning while in office. Giffords is also campaigning while staying in her position but don’t hold your breath waiting for the newspaper story asking, “Where’s Gabby?”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
For all the money the campaign spends on Phoenix consultants you would think they would get some good press out of their paper.
Check out the comments on AZCentral. One said Tim was probably was in a bathroom stall somewhere.
Two can play at that game.
I can't wait to see the excuses the little trolls will make when their butch Governor is off campaigning for the U.S. Senate in 2010. I'll bet instead of running the state she'll be off attending a Lilith Fair with Ellen Degenerous or shopping for battery powered male replacement tools with Sandra Bernhard.
But of course the liberal media will want it both ways saying Janet only needs to check in on the state from time to time on her Blackberry.
I think it's time to dress up like indians and get some tea wet.
I haven't seen the comment, but anyone saying "Tim was probably was in a bathroom stall somewhere." Is completely over the top.
On the hand, Duke, don't even _try_ to pretend two aren't already playing that game.
I have no problem with Bee running while in office. I think it's a non-issue, and I think it's more likely to hurt him than help him.
The only reason it might be worth comment at all is because Bee clearly manipulated the length of time his "exploratory committee" was "exploring" so as to get around the intent of the AZ resign to run laws.
'....clearly manipulated the length of time of his "exploratory committee"...'
hmm, not sure how clear that is. The exploratory started when, September? If you discount the period from Thanksgiving thru New Year {Not many folks into politics then}, it seems like his exploration was pretty compressed and that he needed to do stuff after New Year, namely re-verify that all the folks who pledged support before Thanksgiving were serious, especially the folks with $$.
I recall the Press predicting Tim's exploratory would be 'secret' and not file paperwork. He proved them wrong. Resign to run law or not, Tim was behind the curve from the start. On such a serious matter, I can't imagine anybody with scruples and character doing it differently.
Gabby can accumulate $120k per month in her 1st year in office and nobody considers that a distraction from her job? Gabby's record is that of a liberal, yet her words to the CD8 voters are that she is a moderate. Tim has been straight up his whole career in public service. These two folks are no where near playing the 'game' in the same way.
Why all Republicans, including the State party aren't vocally supporting Tim is beyond me.
Prudent,
Good question. Why isn't the State Party supporting Tim?
He's unopposed, so it wouldn't be improper to help him out this early in the game. If anything, they need to go on the attck in the media, defending Tim's record and attacking Gabby's.
I think the GOP is going down hill in AZ and in Pima County because we have leaders that are more worried about when their next Wine and Cheese event will be rather than building the infrastructure and campaign machine needed to support GOP candidates.
The "Merlot Republicans" don't seem to concerned with what's going on out here in the trenches, all they want is status quo.
I agree with both Sirocco and Duke's last post.
There is no problem with Bee staying in office now while he runs, but it is going to hurt his chances dramatically. I do object that his exploratory committee was a pure manipulation of the law so that he COULD stay in office. Now that he gets to have the cake and eat it too, I get to watch it make him sick.
Bee and his followers knew that he would be more valuable to them in the legislature than out. He needed the support of people that need his support...(I wont go on about that) BUT staying in just calls attention to the fact that he was on the watch and in a leadership position when our state went into the hock massively. The negotiations on this budget and what to cut won't make him look good but will bring him scrutiny from the right and left. All the while, Giffords is still an incumbent and incumbents win 95% of the time.
Given the paucity of his fundraising too, I give him less than a 5% chance of beating her.
Oh and why does the story that you post matter more for him than it does for Giffords.
He is challenging HER. He is arguing that his service to the state makes him qualified. He is running at a time when our state needs him the most...in a horrifying budget crisis that he helped create...actually led...
Now he is gone...during the most crucial times of these early negotiations.
duke,
How dare you insult a perfectly good wine like Merlot.
Prudent,
The state party is more than happy to support Tim. Maybe it would help if Bee attended things like the recent state mandatory meeting. Almost every other GOP congressional candidate was there, including Gene Chewning, candidate for CD-7.
roger,
it would seem that Tim raised what was needed to be able to explore whether or not to throw his hat in the ring. you seem to be saying that because he didn't manipulate the resign to run law good enough by raising much more money that his exploratory would need, then he's a bad candidate. kinda circular logic, don't you think. Again, because he is a straight up guy, you and others find fault with that? Are you in favor of the SPOILS system? Gabby as incumbent shouldn't be challenged by a qualified candidate?
Matt, if the litmus test is 100% attendance at all party meetings, I imagine everyone would get an 'F'. If the State party is happy to support and there is no primary, where is said support?
Prudent,
No, I am not saying any of those things. I am talking reality here. It is pretty apparent that he started raising funds early last year. My wife received one such email last spring through a web appeal. He also had what many would consider as a major effort with heavy hitters appealing for him in person and by mail. The fact is that with all that effort, he didn't even keep pace. This is a time, too, when the max are to come in. While he skirted the law (effectively I might add) he put out quite an effort and got very very little.
As for straight up guy, not sure I think so anymore. I did once. But the way he handled the "resign to run" law by resting on a legal technicality and a Clintonian-like interpretation of the law, is pretty sad.
What it allowed him to do was to keep his job while raising funds. He did it and did it poorly. Now he is in real pickle where even his party is wondering how he is going to provide the necessary leadership for the budget while running in the district.
Speaking reality here...all people running typically do this, (although Giffords DID resign to run the January of her quest and was not so selfish). Practically, it is a boner move...and he is hanging you all out to dry as a candidate.
The early look any analyst would have at his campaign is that it is sputtering at best...AND he is not doing the public's business either.
Prudent,
On your second question, where is the support from the party? It is a very good one and an intriguing one.
First, it is early. He should get support from the party later on as things build. But, on the other hand, he needs that seed money desperately now when the fundraising and name recognition building needs to occur to beat an incumbent.
More practically though, the party is in a pickle. They have very few resources...and it looks worse when compared to the dems right now.
They have to help defend Shaddegg.
Have an open seat to protect.
They have a LOT of pressure from Maricopa GOPers to help get rid of Mitchell.
And then they have the good GOPers down here arguing for help against Giffords.
Where are they going to get the money? Why does any rational person think they will help much at all down here when the power of the party is upstate????????
Gabby hasn't brought the troops home, she hasn't "cleaned up Washington" by ending earmarks, or even reforming the process (so much for the big "midight vote" BS ad). She didn't use her position on the HASC to get the stalled Wounded Warrior bill going. She held funding for soldier-saving MRAPs hostage in her quest for a schedule of events in a war. She's held SCHIP funding hostage to get more kids into the system. She's got a formidable war chest, in part, because she's used our tax money for some pretty blatant campaign mailings.
So all you so-called "independents" (a dubious claim in itself) can make every weak argument against Tim you can muster, and apparently some in your anti-Tim/pro-Gabby ranks have sunk to the Larry Craig insinuations about Tim, but your girl has in half of her term has not only crossed up her party's base but she's let anyone down who believed her dragging her boot through the sand saying that there are some lines she will not cross. She's crossed them and will cross a lot more this year I'm sure.
Ahh. The tirade of a Giffonator in training. Not bad. It shows considerable recollection of the last election, holds her accountable for Washington at large, and insinuates unethical use of funds.
A professional Giffonator also dives into more personal character assassination and infers more toxic meaning from the data (if any) submitted.
Not sure what the remark about Independents is attempting to say. Those of us who are Independents sacrifice our primary votes, a reality very much felt last Tuesday.
Anon is no KMBlue, but give him time.
x4mrogermajalesirocco
Gabby has really changed earmarks (the local paper had to chide her on the list to get it released and even then I'm sure it was a partial list). How is that being more transparent?
How has Washington's spending been reduced by her?
How is an oversized card being sent to constituents proclaiming a newspaper's endorsement of something she's done not a campaign piece?
How is voting to do away with the secret ballot for a union trying to organize workers looking out for some guy by allowing a union to strongarm him into joining via intimidation?
How is allowing 200 billets to be transferred away from Fort Huachuca strengthening the base?
It's easy to see what you all are against but not so easy to see why you'd be so strongly for Gabby. I mean, okay, she did do that landmark joint resolution promoting motorcycling and encouraging safety. I'll give you that.
We'll have to see who is right in the Marana/FEMA/Floodplain issue. Nobody can argue that she responded to developers lobbyists. Democrats just love that! She asked for "more time" to study the situation. So she wants the developers to be able to build, sell the houses, then leave the homebuyers holding the bag if the floodplain designation sticks. At a minimum, you'd think she'd at least get the feds to pay for the engineers and hydrologists to confirm or deny FEMAs designation. Everything I read said that was going to be on Marana's dime. Government under fire for levees in NOLA not protecting people who live below sea level and Marana is relying on RR tracks and CAP canal to function as a levee...and so now the feds are nervous about whether they are properly engineered to serve the additional purpose above what they were designed for. Who can blame them.
Anon,
You can blame her for all you want, but in a year and a half and in a still very divided Congress with a Republican President, she has done just fine, if not more than fine. You can't hang any of that on her...and some of it...frankly angers the GOP but won't anger Dems and Independents.
Last, Tim Bee has his own problems beyond the really cruddy campaign he is running (although I will give him some more time). He so called LEADERSHIP has gotten our state over a billion dollars in the red. He has promised not to raise taxes again and appears in a bit of pickle as to what he is going to do. Does he try to help dig us out of what has occurred on his watch by supporting the Governor's budget? Or does he cave to his party who appears to want to balance the budget...again...on the backs of children and education...while advocating for laws that harm our economy, spend more and more on immigration...spend more and more on prisons and the like. Finally, he will try to run as some kind of good fella moderate, but his votes tell the tale of something only a hardcore conservative Republican would love. He is FAR closer to Randy Graf than he is to the middle...and everyone will soon know it. That is ...if...and IF...he is able even to do enough campaigning or work in the Senate to remind us that he is running.
That's really funny. The conservatives see him a soft--at least what I seem to see on the blogs. Pretty funny that someone such as yourself sees him as a conservative. If what you say about him being exposed as a conservative comes to pass, the grassroots will love him. Please, by all means, expose him as a conservative. His campaign would welcome that.
The things I pointed out about Gabby were all things within her control, except the overall issue of defecit spending that she and her party ran agains. You just blamed her lack of transparancy on HER OWN earmarks on a Republican president and a divided Congress. Weak argument.
"That's really funny. The conservatives see him a soft--at least what I seem to see on the blogs. Pretty funny that someone such as yourself sees him as a conservative."
Turn this around, and you have a portrayal of most progressives views of Giffords ... while folks on your side of the aisle seem to consider her to be a rabid, foaming liberal, actual progressives find her too conservative for their tastes.
Let me explain what I mean by above. There is no question that some conservative find him to be soft...that would be on the tax and spend issues. Note his ratings by groups like Taxpayers Associations, etc. He took heat for some say "caving" on the Govs. budget for instance. On the other hand, on social issues (this will make conservatvies happy) he is rather extreme. A VERY conservative record on women's issues, civil rights, gay rights...and in a way that looks extreme.
The combo is problematic for this district though. Being moderate on taxes and budgets and business angers some GOPers. Being extreme on social issues freaks out libertarians and many independents. Put them together and it is not a good combination to win against a sitting incumbent.
Now that Shaddegg is gone, the GOP has two open seats to defend. There will be very little money to try to face an incumbent.
anonymous (1:07, 5:22, 6:07),
Wow. You're good. And you are not a "giffonator."
Your sparring partners are the following:
1. Sirocco - family friend of the Giffords.
2. X4mr - enthusiastically supports Giffords for reasons unknown.
3. Roger - enthusiastically supports Giffords for reasons unknown.
I have been reading posts and comments from the above three bloggers for almost two years. Other than Sirocco being a family friend, I still cannot tell you why they support Giffords.
Nonetheless, it has become a fact of the local blogosphere that these are the Giffords cheerleaders.
Your comments are substantive and thoughtful. S, X, and R are very capable of being substantive and thoughtful, but with Giffords they have almost nothing to work with.
I keep wondering when they will give it up, but amazingly, they do not.
I advised them some time ago that Giffords supporters should realize that the less said the better. Why not allow the power of incumbency to do it's thing? Obviously, they don't agree. So here we go again. Giffords ad nauseum until November, 2008.
You defend when attacked or get unfairly labelled, Liza. A lot of what Anon said was bunk, has another side, or just plain has a different interpretation.
It is called swiftboating. Kerrey didn't defend himself and it stuck.
As for why I support her. I met her many years ago when she joined an advisory committee for my department. She was thoughtful, smart, articulate, cared about people, and was clearly talented. She supported higher education and education....with a record behind it. She had experience. It was an easy decision to support her when she ran and was challenged. It was easier when it was Randy Graf. It is now easier as I have seen how she has done and when I consider how different things would be with anyone from that party but people like Hershberger and Burns in power.
Liza
It's pretty obvious they're the Gabby blogger brigade. I know what I said wasn't bunk. They just change the subject when confronted with the facts. On top of all the rest, I've heard several stories about Gabby's unresponsive staff here. At first it was one or two but I've heard it again lately. Well, why would any of them answer questions? She won't, why would they.
She's so desperate, she's sicing the party on Tim at any sign of campaigning. I'd be a lot more impressed if she condemned these attacks and said that the campaign should stick to the issues. But she won't. She'll have her groupies do her dirty work, like she did against Patty Weiss, so she can look like Tess of the d'Urbervilles--a pure woman faithfully presented.
Her bloggers are pretty transparent.
Will the GOP regain the seat? Tough call. Tim should be able to win it but it will be a tough fight for certain. I'd guess Gabby will get a little tired of this shortly. She has telegraphed that the 22 year stint Kolbe ran seems a little long. You can read whatever into that. She sees her husband for what? a day or two on alternate weekends. That's got to be a dynamic. Who knows what other political asperations she has or what other things she might like to do someday. Even Isabella Greenway got tired of the DC grind after a couple terms. And she's no Isabella Gree...
Bottom line is that Tim should get busy campaigning. I can't wait to see the two of them square off...too bad Gabby will avoid that until she has no choice.
Roger,
If you think that anon's remarks are "swiftboating," then what do you call discussion? I have read the comments three times each, and what I get out of it is someone who is paying attention to his representative and has some issues with what she is doing. Apparently, that is the new "swiftboating."
I do not see where anyone has addressed anon's issues and presented the other side. I see absolutely NOTHING in what anon said that is any different from what other people are discussing on blogs, yet when the precious incumbent is being scrutinized, it is a vicious attack not worthy of response because it is just an attack. NOT TRUE and NOT FAIR!
People are allowed to do this, Roger. People are allowed to question and disagree with their representatives and they are also allowed to write about it. Why not take on the issues? Present the "other side." I suspect that anon will spar with you.
If the Giffords Squad is going to carry this on until November, then you need more than "you are a giffonator" and "you are swiftboating."
You have spent months now, Roger, gleefully reporting about all of the money that Giffords has. Your other issue is the one about Tim Bee's exploratory committee. And that's it. Over and over and over again.
BTW, I vaguely remember that your support for Giffords originally had some link to education, something about the UofA wasn't it?
Well, what alarmed me about her was her 30 second sound bite knowledge of foreign policy that was so obvious when she started her campaign in 2006. I could not get past it. I still can't. And, there was nothing about her that was compensatory. There still isn't. Solar panels just don't rock my world.
Roger,
I have a quick story for you.
I have a new neighbor, Republican, a retired military officer who spent much of his career in DC. He loves to talk about politics.
I thought for sure he would avoid me when he found out how far apart we are. Well, it didn't happen. He likes talking to me about politics. He appreciates a lively discussion.
When Hillary won New Hampshire, he really felt bad for me. I was touched.
Maybe it's the face to face that makes a difference, I don't know. But, I just wish we could have more "lively discussions" on the blogs, and not call each other names.
Liza:
You are right, I don't discuss issues enough, but I also know attacks when I see em too. As for the money part, I am political analyst of sorts by training, campaigns interest me, and the things I say about them, while boring to some are interesting to me and reasonably right a good amount of the time.
On the issue of the exploratory committee stuff, I am surprised at you to be honest. Why doesn't that bother you when the strategic stuff Giffords does seems to quite a bit? We can have different interpretations of the law, but the intent and purpose of it was to prevent exactly what Tim and his campaign did. If it WAS legal, it doesn't change the ethics of it...which is akin to sliding around the law for personal gain. I think its fair and it says a bit about who might represent us.
This is what I initially reacted to...pretty remarkable charges and rather inflamatory, I thought...I called them "bunk" because most everything on that list was, in my opinion, delayed by GOPers and not a personal vote or lack of support of Giffords.
"Gabby hasn't brought the troops home, she hasn't "cleaned up Washington" by ending earmarks, or even reforming the process (so much for the big "midight vote" BS ad). She didn't use her position on the HASC to get the stalled Wounded Warrior bill going. She held funding for soldier-saving MRAPs hostage in her quest for a schedule of events in a war. She's held SCHIP funding hostage to get more kids into the system. She's got a formidable war chest, in part, because she's used our tax money for some pretty blatant campaign mailings."
I will discuss...my thoughts and opinions. I would like to hear Giffords, responses to these, as she knows more about what she has done and has not done than I do.
No Gabby didn't bring the troops home. Its not an easy thing when the bills she did vote for were blocked by the GOP and when the bills that some progressives wanted badly (and she didn't vote for) would have never gotten through the house and would have been quickly vetoed by the President. Sometimes, getting a problem solved takes reality and takes some compromise along the way. Like Liza, I would have liked her to speak out more strongly on this issue, but the result would have been the same and we all know that she is facing a tough re-election campaign where every vote or non-vote will be scrutinized heavily. I suspect if there ever is a majority of Dems and a Dem. President, we will be out of Iraq quick...I want that...so many do. If it doesn't happen, I will be back to scream bloody murder.
I don't know and don't remember if she promised to end earmarks for good and to get lobbyists out of Washington. It certainly wasn't a big reason why I supported her, but eh. I do know that her staff, to me, is very approachable and that they try to help people with real world problems, some hard, some small.
On holding the Wounded Warrier bill hostage, that was GOP speak thru and thru. It was especially useful for them to say at a time when the administration and their party was seeing evidence come out left and right that they were leaving soldiers wounded in Iraq to some of the worst medical care our country could imagine. The scandals as Walter Reed, the fact that the VA was ordered to nickle and dime veterans on their benefits until they appealed. All documented. After 8 years of control and 6 years of unified control, anon, it was the GOPs way of trying to blame someone else for failing to quickly fix the mess they created and for not doing, in a few months, what they did not do in those 8 years. I suspect that there are good reasons for why it was delayed... Riders to the bill, differences in funding levels and funding mechanisms, and a host of other things make "good looking legislation" often disturbing in its details. What I know of her is that she has much more support for funding veterans healthcare and supporting soldiers than those in your party who essentially "use" them for wars without justification and who call this kind of funding, wasteful government spending. Most GOPers don't like spending money on these kind of benefits because it is government supported healthcare and it is the kind of welfare funds that most don't support either. Give her time and she will continue to work to give soldiers and their families the benefits that they deserve.
ON SCHP, sure delay occurs when they send up a bill that will extend it and cover milllions of children and the President vetoes it, and upon reconsideration, the GOP tries to water it down and block it. Sometimes nothing is better than THAT kind of something and waiting for the right time (a unified congress and President) might get us something far far better. Frankly, I don't even mind if they use the issue to cut at those who blocked and killed it in the first place. America should know right around election time who favors healthcare for poor children and who thinks it is a slippery sloped step toward government supported healthcare. Let Americans judge those who would rather spend billions on Iraq and the Pentagon than on children's health.
Arguing that her war chest is linked to her franking privilege is spurious at best. Liza hates my money talk, so I wont impress her with this, but Giffords has a superior fundraising machine and did so when she was running the first time. Franking doesn't net you $1.6 million. Most are individual donors and most are small donations. That was the case in comparison to her closest Democratic competitor and to her GOP rival last time.
Franking...gosh darn it...is a way for a federal elected official to get out information. Does it cross the line into campaign material by claiming credit for what has been done...well...YEAH. It is legal, used by GOPers, Dems and others. Is it a waste of money?...maybe so. Most probably throw it away, but its intention is to let the voters know what a representative is doing and provide contact information so the representatives can contact them. That is what that piece, and others like it, do.
So, anyhow, I was lazy before Liza. I called it swiftboating because they were typical political charges from the GOP playbook. There is another side to each of those stories. I hope I have gone some way toward answering it and improving discourse.
With all that said, look at some of my other posts on this thread. If you would like my reason for not being a fan of Bee (I don't think I called anyone names...), I can say this:
Bee is far more conservative than I am. I think his voting record is reprehensibile on gay rights, choice, education, the environment, border politics, and the over criminalization of society. I find Giffords, with any and all flaws, so so much better.
I hope I have improved my discourse today somewhat. I suspect that when in office, a person can always find ways of doing the right thing and doing things people don't appreciate. I suspect Anon will be supporting Bee and attacking Giffords. I will be supporting Giffords because I think she is and will be a better representative. My hopes at keeping and expanding a democrat majority, punishing the GOP for what they have done to our country, are other reasons. I will vigorously campaign for her and, at times, against Bee.
Roger
I thank you for your debate on the issues. I don't agree with you on very much of your side but you did actually argue your side of the issues raised and I'll give you your due for that. Good luck with your "punishing" thing. Sorry you're so pissed off with the GOP. You're darned right I'm supporting Bee.
Post a Comment