Over at Michael Bryan’s Blog for Arizona and Ted Prezelski’s Rum, Romanism and Rebellion, they’re pointing out that state Rep. Russell Pearce has set up a Web site for his exploratory run for Congress, while state Sen. Tim Bee has merely promised that one is coming soon.
It’s curious that Democratic blogs are now complaining that Bee isn’t doing enough to talk about his campaign, since last week, the Arizona Democratic Party accused Bee of skirting Arizona’s resign-to-run law in part because he gave a brief non-answer to a reporter’s question about Iraq.
Prezelski sticks with mocking Bee for not having a Web site set up, but Bryan goes further, hammering Bee for knowing “the primary voters in his district aren’t going to get a choice. Thus, he can keep them in dark, treat them with contempt, and get away with it.”
Given that the election is still more than a year away, we’d call that a radical interpretation of the text. Bee has plenty of time to set up a Web site and roll out his positions. Although it remains to be seen how much of that Bee will do, it seems a bit impatient of Bryan at this point.
And, as Bryan notes, Pearce is dealing with a much different dynamic: He’s thinking about taking on incumbent Congressman Jeff Flake, while Bee won’t likely deal with a primary challenge. Of course he’s going to approach the race differently.
But our biggest question: Why in the world would any Democrat hold out Russell Pearce as an example of how politics should be done?
This article appears in Sep 6-12, 2007.
Oh, that one’s easy. The more Republicans act like Pearce, the more likely the Democrats are to win elections.
We call this the “Graf Effect,” and it’s what catapulted Gabby Giffords to Washington DC. The more nutty and out-there the Republicans are, the more the public recoils from them.
The “Graf Effect” – I like it, because that’s exactly what happens. The more right-wing a candidate is, the more it hurts them in a general election. Sure one could argue Hellon and Huffman divided things to let Graf slide in, but then again what about Cap’n Al versus Toni Hellon?
That’s why I sincerely wonder if Fred Thompson might alienate the middle, even if faced with Hilary (whose caricature alienates most of the right). Then again, it’s tricky — for some, Giuliani alienates the right that Thompson would cater to.
A conservative can make it big in a primary election, but then take it to all of the voters and… in today’s world, bupkus.
So are you saying it is totally legal for Bee to start raising money now, while skirting the resign to run law? Ya’ll seem to be giving him a pass on this one big time. In some way, he is breaking either federal or state law right now. He can either stay in office and not raise funds for 2008 or resign to run…its simple…its that “rule of law” thing that the GOP talks up so much, except when it becomes a pain in there tushies…and they call out the lawyers.
I will predict that this is just the beginning of the kind of law skirting sleaze his campaign will be rolling out as he has to associate himself more and more with those GOP operatives.
What sucks about this is whether we are going to get to see who has donated? I mean, doesn’t FEC law mandate that he at least pony up a report in the next FEC deadline?
Kral: I don’t think I addressed the legality issue one way or the other. I just pointed out that one hand, Dems are complaining that Bee is doing too much, and on the other, they’re complaining that he’s not doing enough. Struck me as funny, especially since both stories were being shopped around by the Giffords camp.
As for the legalities of the resign-to-run law: It’s a pretty flimsy law because it doesn’t define “candidate,” so it leaves a huge ol’ loophole for the whole exploratory thing. Though, as Blog for Az has pointed out, the feds have different definitions for these things, which leaves Bee in questionable legal ground.
In general, though, I think resign-to-run is a dumb law, so I’m not getting all worked up about it. (Voters pass stupid laws all the time. Term limits, anyone?) Frankly, I’m tired of the whole process of criminalizing political activity. What is the controlling legal authority in this case?
When it comes to the congressional race, there are bigger issues to be arguing about than whether Bee should step down. And there are advantages and disadvantages either way. If he stays, he’s got to deal with a nasty bit of budget cutting and what could be a contentious session that distracts him from his campaign. On the other hand, he has a lot of incentive to bring home gallons and gallons of pork to Southern Arizona. I like that idea; your mileage may vary.
If he quits, he has more time to work on the fundraising and campaigning, which could work to his benefit.
And as I pointed out a few weeks back in The Skinny, Democrats should probably be careful about how much noise they make about resign-to-run because if/when Napolitano wants to run for the U.S. Senate in 2010, she’s gonna want to skirt the requirements, too. Hell, she’s already created her own PAC to lay the groundwork. You want her to resign, too? Does Gov. Brewer sound good to you? Acting Gov. Brewer was disturbing enough for me.
As far as Bee’s contributors: How hard is it to figure out who they’re going to be? Round up the usual suspects!