Tuesday, September 05, 2006

WaPo is first out of the gate

Here is the first article covering the candidate announcement:

Well, OK, it's the AP

Hellon is still pretty steamed. I got that. He has every right to be.

Good to see somebody with press creds asking Ed Patru questions. Hopefully there will be more.

Not sure I agree with the final statement. It's a race by all means, but there is a favorite. That is the reason the NRCC intervened.


Framer said...

Yeah, and here we are blogging like suckers. . .

Anonymous said...

The post that started it all back on August 2nd.

Anonymous said...

To those that may not understand the process, you do not infuse money into 1 candidate's campaign during a primary race that consists of 5 individuals running under the same political party. You DO infuse money into the candidate that has been chosen by the VOTERS to represent your PARTY during the GENERAL election. It is real simple, those that have the MONEY feel that they can BUY the candidate of their choice. This is not the American political process at its best, and this is why we get the kind of POLITICAIN in office that we do.
Mike Jenkins is the kind of candidate that scares the big money brokers. He does not respond to the CLICKING sound of coins.
David B

x4mr said...

Well, just happened to have the TV on just now, and curiously enough, just saw BOTH the NRCC and DCCC ads one directly after the other. The DCCC ad was first, closely matching Graf's "Empty Desk" ad about being AWOL.

The NRCC ad was a positive piece noting endorsements of the the Chamber and, somewhat interesting, Mayor Walkup.

I suppose most folks reading here have seen these ads. What I found interesting was their juxtaposition one right after the other.

It also shows that as of a few minutes ago, the ads have not been retracted.

Anonymous said...

Randall, you are a VOTER, not a political party trying to defeat ALL of the other candidates of the same party. I infuse money to my candidate, just as you do, as a VOTER, I can't fund a political ad on national TV after I promised not to do so, because I am a VOTER. It is not so much the action, but the act of breaking your word NOT to endorse a candidate of the same party until after the Primary election. We all want to see our candidate selected by the VOTING process, not the MONEY process. Call me old fashioned, but that is the way it used to be done.
David B

Anonymous said...

Has anyone noticed the high number of REALTOR ads on TV right now? I can only speculate that 1 week before the primary election the time was originally reserved for another purpose.

Framer said...


If the NRCC totally abandoned an open seat election in this climate, especially one on the border, there would be wide scale rebellion nation-wide, especially due to the fact that there is absolutely no real evidence that either Graf or Hellon cannot win in the general. (see Toomey, Pat. . . and ask yourself that if Santorum had that all to do over again, would he?)

At the same time, if Graf wins the primary, this exclusion could actually work to his favor. Remember that he outraised Huffman in the previous reporting period. All of that money came from outside the organized Arizona GOP establishment, as Click put the clamps on that. If the NRCC abandons Graf or Hellon, either could become the poster child for Republicans that are tired of the NRCC. Spread out nationally that may not ammount to much. Focus that attention and money on one or two races, and it would be quite considerable.

In the end, however, I believe you will see the NRCC and Click, for that matter, fall behind the winner. Imagine the problems it would cause for either if the non-Huffman primary winner won, or came close to winning the district without their help in any way. Other people may begin to get the idea that either were no longer necessary.

Anonymous said...

The committee better hope they don't need to buy a new car anytime soon.

You don't know who you're dealing with.

Anonymous said...


Your points are pretty much correct except that businesses would not be crippled but the loss of cheap labor. They would be forced to offer a decent wage with some benefits. I am quite surprised the Democrats are not covering this part of the story more. The companies would still be able to exist they would just be forced to manage their labor pool wisely. Some automation and training would increase productivity and allow for higher wages. Paying an honest wage to workers will not cripple anyone.

Exploiting cheap labor is not a long term solution to the issue.