The mood at the last night’s Republican Party bash at the Radisson Hotel, 6555 E. Speedway Blvd., was positive but subdued as voters rejected numerous Arizona GOP candidates—including high-profle Congressional District 8 hopeful Randy Graf.
Julee Dawson, a Republican Party fundraiser, attributed Graf’s loss to a bruising primary that robbed him of an opporunity to define himself.
“The thing that I wish I could convey to people is that Randy Graf is a really good man,” she said. “The people who say the things that they say about him just don’t know Randy. He’s really a human being of substance and quality.”
Graf shook hands and chatted amiably with supporters, soldiering on with a broad smile even as the negative results rumbled in.
“I really think that Randy would make a better congressman than Gabrielle,” said Agnes Hannley, vice president of Tucson Republican Women. “I just feel like Gabrielle is kind of a lightweight.”
The man currently holding the CD8 seat, Republican Jim Kolbe, shook hands with Graf and congratulated him on a “tough, issues-oriented campaign.” Graf mounted a significant challenge to the congressman in the GOP primary two years prior. Kolbe had refused to endorse Graf in this election cycle.
Judi White, chairwoman of the Pima County Republican Party, said she wished things had gone differently for Graf. Still, she admitted Giffords had run a well-organized and spirited campaign.
“Gabby had a lot of money real quick,” White said. “She left the position that she had; she was right there, and she started to run.
“I’ll tell ya, though, nobody’s worked any harder than Randy Graf.”
This article appears in Nov 2-8, 2006.
Interesting. Jim Kolbe also showed up at the Democratic party at the DoubleTree and gave Giffords a great big hug and kiss on live TV during the approximately 2 minutes I watched local news last night.
That’s amusing — Graf lost “a bruising primary that robbed him of an opportunity to define himself.” Let me offer this counter-theory: Graf lost because he defined himself all too well — as a venal, rightwing extremist whose positions on the issues were about as popular as Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush’s leadership of the Iraq war. In today’s issue of the New York Times, Frank Rich alludes to Graf in the following way: “Arizona voters, despite their proximity to the Mexican border, defeated two of the crudest immigrant-bashing demagogues running for Congress, including one who ran an ad depicting immigrants menacing a JonBenet Ramsey look-alike.” And then he includes the following link to one of Randy Graf’s more self-defining TV spots:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqRMMe2JpnI
Oh, and did The Weekly ever report on Randy Graf’s links to the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) — the brainchild of Tombstone white supremacist Chris Simcox? The Southern Poverty Law Center labels the MCDC a hate group, and in the Fall 2006 edition of their highly regarded Intelligence Report, they report that Graf was one of only five U.S. political candidates this year who received thousand-dollar donations from the Minuteman PAC. This puts Graf in the rarified company of notorious anti-immigration extremists such as Tom Tancredo (R-Co.) and Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist. That may have been one of the key reasons that the national Republican organization declined to give Graf’s campaign financial backing — they realized that the Republican image was already plenty tarnished with ruinous strains of corruption, hypocrisy, and intolerance. They wisely realized that going to the mat for a neanderthal like Graf could only burden them with more of the baggage that was destined to sink them this year.
Yep. Graf’s connection to the Minutemen was mentioned at least several times, including here: http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid:88117. And here’s an article about the SPLC’s coverage of Simcox and the Minutemen: http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=76815
Thanks for the pointers — glad to see that The Weekly was on to Graf long ago. Although, frankly, that meekly uncritical report from Saxon Burns above (“Republicans Disappointed But Not Depressed”) is what spurred my observations. You’d think that, in a year when Karl Rove’s divisive, fear-mongering strategies failed so decisively, Burns might’ve offered a couple of common-sense rejoinders to the delusional thinking on display at the Republican’s “victory” bash. I mean, come on … Gabrielle Giffords a lightweight? Didn’t Graf’s knee-jerk dittohead parroting of Rush Limbaugh prove him the real political lightweight? And how ’bout his desperate attempt to engineer an October Surprise — lamely trying to tie Giffords to a supposedly corrupt Pima County land deal. Graf was apparently the only one surprised when that baseless charge blew up in his face and put another hole in his sinking ship.
Again, why would a Weekly reporter feel the need to simply parrot the pronouncements of a Republican party apparatchik, uttered on the evening of her candidate’s humiliation … in a political blog, no less?
Dude … it was a blog entry about how the Republicans were acting at election headquarters. Chill.
Gee dude, that’s my point — it’s an uninspired, milquetoast posting … especially for a blog associated with an allegedly alternative newspaper. Ever wonder why this blog generates so few comments? And do you ever check out a few blogs that do? Here’s a clue: They typically have a little edge; they actually offer informed, opinionated commentary that stimulates discussion. (And, by the way, I’d think you’d welcome a little more of that around here instead of responding in a thin-skinned, defensive manner.)
Since when is using the word “chill” thin-skinned? And since when is reporting on how Republicans reacted milquetoast when, in fact, that is how they reacted? Richard, the problem is your constant criticism lacks any constructive nature. It’s just ill-informed whining.
I’m glad to hear some spirited debate on this start-up blog. As I look at the initial posting, I think I understand why R. Howard responded. I teach freshman composition, and if a student turned this (the original positing) in, I would ask for analysis and a claim. We need to know where the writer stands. This is essential for a blog – without a claim/position, why would anyone respond? Posting #7 (J. Boegle) misses this important point.
In response to comment 7: Whining perhaps, but hardly ill-informed or without a constructive purpose – or do you imply that I got something wrong in my summary of Graf’s affiliations with the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps and the contribution his campaign received from the Minutemen PAC? Or in pointing out the mention in a New York Times column of Graf’s demagoguery on the illegal immigrant issue – something, by the way, that prominently reinforces The Weekly’s prior reporting on this issue? Or did you find something amiss about my critique of Agnes Hannley’s charge that Gabby Giffords is a lightweight? Are you suggesting it was unconstructive to point out the irony in this charge, given Graf’s bungled and groundless attempt at an October Surprise? Or was my real sin simply in suggesting that the election-night coverage from Graf’s campaign headquarters might have had the temerity to interject an irreverent comment or two in response to the drivel being peddled by those dutifully quoted Graf mouthpieces?
In this vein, your last comment is most curious: “And since when is reporting on how Republicans reacted milquetoast when, in fact, that is how they reacted?” Hmm … did someone instruct Saxon Burns that he had to adopt this Joe Friday (“Just the facts, ma’am”) ruse of objectivity? What publication did he think he was writing for, anyway – The Congressional Quarterly? As an analogy, take the following remark by George Bush during his radio address yesterday: “Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war.” The response to this insidious suggestion in the progressive blog universe was instant and scathing. For example, Salon.com quotes the remark and then links to a variety of blogger responses, of which the following is typical: “We should be ‘proud’ that the federal government didn’t cancel our elections? That the Bush administration didn’t use the war as an excuse to interrupt the democratic process? Setting the bar a little low, aren’t we?” The Weekly’s blog might do better in displaying a little constructive skepticism, chutzpah, and critical thinking on behalf of its audience … that was the gist of my “whine.”
Richard: Mentioning the NYT thing is cool. Asking if we covered something that we — and most other media outlets — did, in fact, cover is ill-informed, especially given we have free, searchable archives going back to 1995. Hinting that I may have instructed Saxon to be objective is also ill-informed, to say the least, given the nature of our coverage overall. That’s all. Thanks for reading and taking advantage of this forum.