No, little Tea Bag darlings, Ted Prezelski isn’t the kind of blogger who gets his kicks posting erroneous information on Rum, Romanism and Rebellion, although I’m sure he’s had some good laughs over the comments he received since posting yesterday about Ruth McClung backing out of a debate with U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva. You can read his post and the comments here.
Guess what, according to those radical anarchists, the League of Women Voters, they did hear from Ruth McClung yesterday — yes, she backed out of a debate scheduled Monday, Oct. 18 between Grijalva, and the other two candidates. Remember, we know from past experience of other Republican candidates who have backed out of League of Women Voters’ debates this election season that if there are only two candidates and one doesn’t show, the debate is indeed cancelled. But in this case, because there is a Democrat, Independent and Libertarian on the ballot, the debate can move forward.
The debate is Monday, Oct. 18 (no, no one is confused about the dates or getting it confused with the date of the last debate), Pima Community College at Stone Avenue and Speedway Boulevard, in the Amethyst Room, doors open at 5 p.m. and the debate starts at 6 p.m. Everyone, except McClung, is expected to be there.
There is speculation that one reason McClung pulled out would be the lack of supporters in attendance at the debate, since there is a debate between U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Jesse Kelly on the same date at the UA at 6 p.m. Probably not enough Tea Baggers to go around, so McClung sacrificed herself for the greater Tea Bag cause. We are waiting to hear back from McClung’s campaign. When we do have more info, we’ll let you know.
Here is a response from Grijalva’s campaign issued yesterday:
After dramatically demanding a series of October debates with Rep. Grijalva, Ruth McClung informed the League of Women Voters (LWV) today that she would not attend the already planned Oct. 18 debate under any circumstances. McClung went to Grijalva’s office to deliver a personal letter to his staff in late September informing him that her campaign had “secured” two dates for evening debates, which Grijalva accepted (see the attached materials). Instead of finalizing details for Monday’s debate, as originally expected, McClung told the LWV earlier today that she had decided to cancel. McClung did not inform Grijalva’s office directly and has not elaborated on her plans for other joint appearances.
Grijalva intends to appear as scheduled at the Monday debate, and has informed Independent Harley Meyer and Libertarian George Keane that he welcomes an open debate with both of them. The League of Women Voters has said it will host a debate with at least two candidates — if either or both agree to attend, the event will take place from 6:00 to 7:00 at the Pima Community College Downtown campus at 1255 N. Stone Ave.
At the jump you can watch the big Tea Bag drama when McClung went into Grijalva’s office with a TV camera crew to demand debates with Grijalva. Well, so much for that display of Tea Bag fortitude, or perhaps Tea Bag theatrics.
This article appears in Oct 14-20, 2010.
You should be banned from writing. Calling Tea Party activist’s Tea Baggers. The term is street slang of well you know… You are scum to write this way… Grijalva is going to LOSE on NOV 2 and there is NOTHING you can do to stop it. Now that IS funny!
ivoteinaz,
This shows the difference between you Tea Baggers and those who actually believe in the constitution and the rights it guarantees. You actually think banning someone from ever writing anything again if they say something that offends you is an appropriate thing to do. Besides, “Tea Bagger” is something many “Tea Party Activists” actually called themselves until they figured out the term’s previously existing meaning. In fact they still use tea bag pins to identify themselves. So don’t blame reasonable people for having a little fun with your stupidity.
So you can’t figure out that the dates McClung presented were the 15th and the 21st – NOT the 18th? I thought most of you DumoRats could use fingers and toes? I believe rather than your made up lies as to why Ruth canceled – you should try posting the truth, she has a Town Hall scheduled that day…………she has had that Town Hall scheduled for quite some time. But that might take a little integrity on your part to present the truth…………..and why should a DumoRats start a bad trend now?
Mari, you are pathetic. The date of this debate is the same date/time of Ruth’s town hall meeting which was scheduled way before this debate was scheduled. I guess honesty is not the strong suit of progressives.
Yeah not sure why shes backing out now, she does a good job appearing moderate on the issues in the debates. I am just now starting to read that she has signed pledges and is actually much more extreme than I thought. Doing more research on Keane positions now. Thanks for posting.
Yeah, not sure why she would back out. She does a good job of seeming moderate in the debates but I have been reading about pledges and her positions on paper and its much diferent than what she says. I am looking into Keane now. Thanks for posting.
Still learning how to work this post thing – sorry for duplicates.
It is factually incorrect that Ruth McClung ‘backed out’ of the Oct. 18 debate. She did NOT agree to the event in the first place because she had a town hall scheduled for the 18th. In fact, an Oct. 3 newsletter announced that she would be having a town hall with over 20,000 fliers being distributed. The article also fails to mention that Ruth was unable to attend her first townhall because she chose to attend the first debate in Yuma.
Mari, with such ‘reporting’, you do a grave disservice to readers and are not to be trusted.
This is clearly an orchestrated attempt by a desperate Raul Grijalva to try to smear Ruth McClung who handily took him to task last week. Instead of being able to stand by his record, he is employing a tactic against someone who is not afraid to remind him of the hardship he has inflicted on the people of CD-7.
Raul Grijalva wanted a boycott. Well, he’s going to get one on November 2!
Mr. Grijalva is lying about Ruth McClung “backing out” of this particular debate…as previous comments detail, she scheduled an Oct 18 Town Hall before Mr. Grijalva chose Oct 18. The McClung campaign had already delivered to Grijalva a list of acceptable “free” dates for a debate, and Grijalva chose a date she had already scheduled for her own Town Hall. Would you please print that, Tucson Weekly!? I’ll pick up the next edition and look for a retraction and an apology.
Mari, a good journalist does not just get the facts from one side.
If Grijalva truly wanted another debate, he would be flexible, rather than deceitful.
Re: “Politico: Grijalva “In A Dead Heat””
STOP THE HATE – – KEEP GRIJALVA!!!!!!
Grijalva has clearly demonstrated that protecting the people of his state means far more than politics we should all fight to keep him protecting us!!!!
Posted by RonnieG on October 10, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Gee RonnieG – from this previous post I guess I should actually believe that you were going to vote for Ruth – when Hell was freezing over? You Democrats are such PATHETIC LIARS. Why can’t just one of you come out and tell the truth? If Grijalva is such a great candidate – why are you and the left not touting his achievements and accomplishments? Could it be that after 8 years he has not authored ONE single piece of legislation that has passed? So once again it is back to lying and the distortion of the truth to attempt to SCARE people about the Republicans. The party of Hate is the DemocRats – they HATE anyone who does not walk with them lock step………lock step where does that come from…..the National Socialists, now which party is supported by the Socialists in America??? Nope not the Republicans…..the DemoRats.
Quit trying to hide behind labels like “Progressive” – be honest, you want communism but you know the American People DO NOT. You can change the wording – but those of us who stood so that you Rats could have freedom know what we fought against, and we will fight against Communism again and again. If it looks like a Communists, Smells like a Communist, and Walks like a Communists – it must be hiding under the label Progressive!!!
Ronnie G.
Very curious as to documentation you find about McClung’s “pledges and positions…” Please post when in hand.
Hey Anti-Progressive Communist.
Stop swilling the Kool-Aid put out by the Republican National Broadcasting System over at FOX.
Wake up and smell the intellegence… and read the following for starters. (It’s bulleted for short attention spans.)
• While many of the people in this district have lost their jobs and are worrying about how they are going to provide for their families, McClung is focused on re-instituting the same failed policies that got us into this economic mess in the first place.
• McClung has no answers for resolving the economic crisis. Grijalva, by contrast, has championed a new green energy economy that can bring new jobs and wealth to Arizona.
• McClung has stated that she is supportive of the bank bailout (TARP) and that she is also opposed to the recently passed financial reform bill. These two facts show her allegiance to Wall Street, not Arizona families.
• She has indicated that she would support privatizing Social Security and has even said that Social Security is “not an entitlement.
• Grijalva has fought tirelessly to improve education, reform our broken healthcare system, and protect our vital lands and natural resources which make Southern Arizona beautiful.
• Congressman Grijalva has been an outstanding advocate for this district and he continues to be the best person to represent us in Washington.
TheFreedomConspiracy, great post. But you seem to be under the false impression that facts are important to folks like out A-P Communist. All that is really important are labels, stereotypes, cliches, and a whole lot of testosterone.
Yep – guess I am just old fashioned – like thinking corruption in politics can ruin democracy. Speaking of which, in the last week, corruption has hit District 7 like a sledge hammer.
Last week Grover Norquist’s American’s for Tax Reform starting airing $230K worth of “hit” ads spreading misinformation about Congressman Raul Grijalva.
District 7 Citizens need to know the connections between Grover Norquist’s, his C3 arm of American’s for Tax Reform and Jack Abramoff. A 2006 Senate Finance Committee report concluded Americans for Tax Reform “appear to have perpetrated a fraud” on taxpayers.
This was well covered by the Washington Post in 2006 by By James V. Grimaldi
Interested? See: “Report says non profits sold influence to Abramoff”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte…
Do you call yourself a journalist? I thought I was reading the Daily Kos for a minute there.
I noticed there were two politicians who ran on the campaign of attacking the opponent through slander and trying to buy the election by drastically out-spending the opponent: Ruth McClung in Arizona and Meg Whitman in California.
In both cases, the popular support the candidate received was overwhelmingly based on very extreme statements against their opponent, whether they could verify them or not.
Since both ultimately failed to buy their elections, I wonder if future candidates will focus more on their own strengths and not put all their eggs in the “attack ad” basket.