Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
On Tuesday, Attorney General Terry Goddard issued a challenge to the Accidental Governor for a series of debates on their plans for the future of Arizona — pretty standard fare in campaigns.
GODDARD CHALLENGES BREWER TO SIX DEBATES
"There is no more urgent obligation than to clearly and publicly explain our plans for the future," says GoddardPHOENIX – Attorney General Terry Goddard today issued a challenge to Jan Brewer, calling for six public debates in locations across Arizona before the General Election on November 2, 2010.
"I propose Jan Brewer step up with me and debate the issues that matter most to Arizonans. In these incredibly difficult times, the people of our State deserve answers, not just sound bites," said Attorney General Terry Goddard.
Full text of the challenge letter can be read here. In it, Goddard voices the concerns of many Arizonans that our State is plummeting downhill. He wrote,
"Arizona is facing critical decisions that will affect each and every Arizonan for better or worse for decades. Arizona's budget deficit for this fiscal year is over a billion dollars while thousands are struggling to find or keep jobs. Arizonans are seeing their homes go into foreclosure and their neighborhoods deteriorate. Our schools rank among the worst and funds for vital social services have been cut or eliminated. The tourism industry has been seriously damaged and many our greatest treasures – our parks – are closed."
Goddard's challenge includes a proposed schedule of debate topics and locations that touch every corner of Arizona. His proposed topics and locations are:
Balancing Arizona's Budget – TucsonPublic Safety and Protecting Arizona – Kingman
Immigration and Securing Arizona's Border – Sierra Vista
Jobs for Arizona – Yuma
Creating a World Class System for Education in AZ – Phoenix
Tourism, Energy, the Environment and Reviving Rural AZ – Flagstaff
Goddard, the Democratic candidate for Governor, added today that he is confident Jan Brewer will accept his challenge. "There is no more urgent obligation as a candidate for the State's highest office than to clearly and publicly explain our plans for the future," Goddard concluded.
Goddard's confidence that Jan Brewer would accept his challenge was misplaced. Brewer wasted little time responding in her typically insulting acid-dripped tongue style:
"The voters of Arizona know who Governor Jan Brewer is and her record of accomplishments over the past 28 years.
"Similarly, the voters of Arizona know who Terry Goddard is and his 30-year record of failures: Wrong on Prop 200, wrong on SB1070, wrong on Obamacare, wrong on English Language Learners, just to name a few.
"Now Mr. Goddard wants to weigh in on the issues. Where has he been? For over a year, the Governor has challenged Goddard to provide a definitive plan to help resolve Arizona's fiscal crisis. She challenged him to join her in supporting Prop 100. His response? 'It’s not my job.'
"Terry Goddard is Obama's Arizona apostle.
"Governor Brewer will participate in the televised debate sponsored by the Clean Elections Commission on September 1st. The scheduling of any possible future debates will be revisited after that time. In the meantime, we anticipate that Mr. Goddard will use his campaign funds to try to redefine 30-year record of failure. We look forward to seeing his TV commercials in the weeks to come."
There are three take-aways from Brewer's acerbic response:
1. Jan Brewer lacks the temperament, character and judgment to be governor of Arizona. She has a long history of such intemperate comments and conduct. She is nasty by her nature.
2. Jan Brewer does not want to run against Terry Goddard — she wants to run against a straw-man candidate, president Barack Obama, who is not on the ballot.
3. Jan Brewer is too chicken to debate Terry Goddard and to explain her plans for the future of Arizona. Following her Clean Elections GOP primary debate for governor, Brewer was roundly criticized by the political media for butchering the English language and sounding incoherent. Brewer wants to limit her exposure to the media and to the public — appearing unintelligent will cause voters to question her competency.
My recommendation to the Arizona Democratic Party: time to revive the Sue Lowden chicken ad campaign for another purpose — Jan Brewer is too chicken to debate Terry Goddard. Keep pecking at her to get her angry and she will say something foolish eventually as she is wont to do. Jan Brewer will shoot her mouth off and give you exactly what you need. Go on the offensive.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I thought that was your position…?
Then write it. Geez!
What is the purpose of “speculating” that Jlamb isn’t outraged enough over Brewer’s strategy, if not to question his outlook on the illegal immigration debate as a whole? Was there some other point you were trying to make with that statement that I missed?
Steve wrote, above “Where in the world do you get off thinking Brewer is more qualified than Goddard?” This is a similar point echoed by both yourself and steve — that I think conflates Jlamb’s criticism of Goddard’s strategy with support for Brewer’s candidacy or positions.
Like I said, something that annoys me about this side of the debate, and something that I’ve encountered before. I think there’s plenty to discuss here without insinuations about our motivations on immigration.
And I agree with Jlamb — if there’s an argument to be made against the conventional wisdom that candidates should always debate regardless of their popularity, than that post should be written.
You got all that from a speculative statement that he did not appear to be bothered by Brewer’s strategy to demagogue immigrants — when we are discussing political strategy? I never suggested he supports 1070 which from his comments I clearly understood that he does not. There is a whole lot of speculation, conjecture and supposition on your part. Take a chill pill.
Wow… I have different perspective.
Goddard does not suffer from lack of name recognition and does not need to debate Brewer in order to siphon off some her name recognition. We all know who he is. And most of us respect him for maintaining integrity with the office of Attorney General. He made a couple statements about defending the bill as AG, but Brewer took him off that job. We know he couldn’t be out there campaigning and simultaneously maintain the integrity of his office. He took the higher road, which is what we respect in our public office holders.
No, there is another dynamic at play.
Brewer and the Republican SB 1070 immigration fiasco has been all about distraction, and the Republicans needed to get the public’s attention off their undeniable failures: their tax policies have put our state into deep debt; their trickle down ideas like their recent “Jobs Bill” that was just a big corporate tax cut are completely idiotic and can’t be defended; their massive cuts to public education has further degraded our state’s ability to attract high paying jobs; the legislators (like our local Antenori, Gowan and Williams) continually get on the airwaves and parrot GoldWater Institute talking points, which are always offensively incorrect and often just massively stupid; and the only notable laws this Republican legislature has passed that could even be argued as beneficial in any sort of way (and even these are very debatable) are the ones that allow concealed weapons and to get rid of those speed trap cameras off the highways.
They can’t campaign on successes. There haven’t been any. Just massive failures.
(They are even worse than failures, if that is possible: in committee this last year, they voted to give boy scouts a free fishing license, but denied the same to girl scouts. Offensively bad.)
But guess what, is anybody talking about all those failures? No. The massive budget deficit? No. The obviously unfair and unworkable, regressive tax policies? No. Underfunded schools? No. Private prisons? well, a little bit.
Goddard is correct in his call for debates – the public needs to know how a lot of things are going to get fixed and made to work again. This is what we expect from our public servants. We pay them. They work for us. We want answers.
The political dynamic assessment above is correct, imo: no upside for Brewer, and nothing but upside for Goddard. But the important thing from my perspective is not the political dynamics related to winning and losing, but rather what helps further progress in our state. We have problems that need fixing. Right now they are just being ignored. And my perspective is if Brewer is going to ignore her public duty to serve the public interest and ignore her duty to let us all know how she is going to fix the massive problems (no, another tax cut to corporations will not do it) as a strategic political calculation, to help her win, then she doesn’t deserve any respect. Period. Maintain integrity with the duties of your public office and remember you work for us. Let us know what the plans are. Goddard is willing to do so. And I am anxious to hear some plans, because I hear nothing but SB 1070 from Brewer.
@AZBlueMeanie
///////”The fact that you do not appear to be disturbed by Jan Brewer’s calculated demagoguery on immigrant bashing is a bit disconcerting.”
Now, hold up here. I think this is completely uncalled for. Jlamb was commenting on Brewer’s decision from a strategy standpoint. It is absolutely unnecessary to question Jlamb’s own position on SB 1070 and immigrant-bashing when he’s talking about Brewer’s political tactics.
Frankly, this is something that pisses me off about our side of the aisle lately. If you criticize the Left’s tactic of “immigrant-bashing”-bashing — and in general advocate for a more reasoned, less inflammatory tone of argument — there’s always someone waiting in the wings to call you a Republican plant for not being outraged enough. It’s as if the debate has been so polarized that either you must want to deport all illegal immigrants, or you must think AZ Republicans are nazis in disguise. There’s no room for the in-between — “I dislike SB 1070, but I’m not willing to call the AZ Republicans a new branch of the KKK.” It’s insulting to have to play this game of over-simplification — besides, aren’t we the party of nuance?
Jlamb is praising Brewer’s political strategy. And I think he has a point — just by turning herself into the most rabid anti-immigrant voice in the nation, Brewer successfully changed the subject of this year’s election for both side of the aisle AND pushed out all of her Republican opponents. She went from a highly contested Republican primary to a shoo-in candidate. Just because she did that via race-baiting, doesn’t make her strategy less effective.
And folks who point that out shouldn’t be accused of agreeing with Brewer’s divisive rhetoric, just because they don’t want to waste time having to flash their progressive street cred.
//////”Brewer’s GOP opponents dropping out is not a sign of her political prowess. This is typical in GOP primaries for higher office. It is a herd mentality where the GOP faithful will coalesce behind the candidate they think has the best chance to win and the other candidates will drop out even before the vote.”
True, except that prior to the signing of SB 1070, Brewer was not considered the “best chance to win”. Lest we forget, she was unpopular in Republican circles for her opposition to the Republican’s state budget. That tide didn’t change just by accident.
//////”Your statement that “Goddard, a challenger who has little name recognition and support in the state” is entirely off-base. Goddard was a successful 3-term mayor of Phoenix and has been an outstanding Attorney General recogized by his peers. He has near universl name recognition.”
Goddard’s not just some guy off the street, but he is suffering from poor name recognition amongst non-party insiders. He has known he would be the only Democratic challenger for the governorship since the start of the year — why has his campaign not been capitalizing on that early lead? His signs have only just now appeared. He’s only just appearing on television. He has eradicated what advantage there might be to not having to compete in a primary by being silent. Ask a casual Democratic voter — many won’t know who Goddard is.
I remember trying to write about the Goddard campaign during the passage of SB 1070 — his website was lackluster, and there was no way to even donate to the campaign. Even then, I was frustrated with how Goddard wasn’t capitalizing on the media attention or even providing bloggers with SOMETHING to reference in regards to his position or his campaign. With all of the national attention on Arizona earlier this year, Goddard should have been the first person issuing statements critical of the bill, yet he has been virtually invisible on this or any other issue.
Now, Goddard is facing Brewer knowing that she has incredible name recognition and growing popularity amongst Republican and independent (particularly female) voters. Asking for debates is textbook from a candidate who knows he or she is suffering in the name recognition department — I think we can all agree on that.
The point that Jlamb is making is that Goddard shouldn’t be in this position of needing to siphon off some of Brewer’s recognition through debates. His name should have accompanied Brewer’s in every sentence written about SB 1070, voicing the reasoned Democratic opposition. But for some reason he has been asleep behind the wheel for more than four months.
Bottom line, this isn’t about Goddard’s credentials. I have no doubt that he’s been a good AG. But, this is about how he has fucked up a state-wide campaign for the governorship, not whether or not he deserves to be governor. In our zeal to attack Republicans at all costs, perhaps we shouldn’t be unwilling to point out where our side has messed up, too.
And yes, for full disclosure, I know Jlamb personally and we’ve already had conversations on this topic before.
Jlamb1313: From a purely political strategist point of view, I would agree with you if I were advising Jan Brewer. I would argue the conventional wisdom that when you are ahead in the polls you do not debate your opponent. When you are behind in the polls, you challenge your opponent to a series of debates amd make an issue of your opponent’s failure to agree to debates. This has been done in campaigns forever. I’m not breaking any new ground here.
The fact that you do not appear to be disturbed by Jan Brewer’s calculated demagoguery on immigrant bashing is a bit disconcerting. That alone should disqualify Brewer as an acceptable candidate. Her phony posturing as a “truth teller” while just making up shit and lying should also disqualify her as an acceptable candidate.
Brewer’s GOP opponents dropping out is not a sign of her political prowess. This is typical in GOP primaries for higher office. It is a herd mentality where the GOP faithful will coalesce behind the candidate they think has the best chance to win and the other candidates will drop out even before the vote. This deprives voters of any real choice.
Your statement that “Goddard, a challenger who has little name recognition and support in the state” is entirely off-base. Goddard was a successful 3-term mayor of Phoenix and has been an outstanding Attorney General recogized by his peers. He has near universl name recognition.
If you want to focus on immigration, Goddard has done more to fight drug trafficking and human smuggling to secure the border than the bogus SB 1070 which even its supporters concede does nothing to secure the border and, oh by the way, much of which was struck down as unconstitutional. If you want to compare Goddard’s record to Brewer’s record on border issues, it’s no contest. Goddard has actually had success. Brewer only postures.
Mr. AZBlueMeanie, with all due respect, if you want to write a post about the candidate’s duty to engage voters in public debates, write that post. I’d be interested, and I suspect that many of your readers would be as well. I agree that in the absence of candidate debates and other forms of political discourse and media fact-checking, many candidates offer very misleading marketing campaigns to voters.
However, this post link-blogs a Terry Goddard press release to accuse Gov. Brewer of cowardice for refusing to debate AG Goddard. She’s not chicken, she’s being sensible given her interests, and you’re suggesting that Democrats spend money calling her names for her choice. Who is that supposed to appeal to? I don’t see how Mr. Goddard can win without independent voters supporting him in vast numbers, and I fail to see how a chicken ad will serve any purpose other than to turn those voters off.
But I’d really like to read that post on the need for candidate debates. That would be cool.
Hey James:
If you believe this, that’s fine with me. But, I’m working my butt off for Goddard because I honestly feel he has a good chance to win and we dems absolutely need him to win. You’re right about strategy here. He needs a clever campaign to beat her. But he has the best campaign people behind him. As for the Senate race don’t underestimate the distaste for McCain all over this state.
Steve, I’m not discussing qualifications; this is about strategy. It’s not sensible from Gov. Brewer’s perspective to debate AG Goddard at this time. You don’t give your lesser known opposition free media in a general election, especially when you hold a commanding lead. It’s just not prudent.
Further, Gov. Brewer doesn’t want to remind voters that there are many worthy issues in the race to discuss; she wants to ride anti-illegal immigrant hysteria into a full term. (Just ask Buz.) If Mr. Goddard wants to prevent this, maybe taking some stand on the most publicized issue in Arizona politics makes some sense. His strategy should involve neutralizing Brewer’s opportunism by strongly opposing the act of entering America illegally as well as the fiscally irresponsible (and constitutionally prohibited) state laws that don’t solve the illegal immigration problem.
Instead, Mr. Goddard is asleep at the wheel. Add this to the cluster—- that is our Dem. Senate primary and Arizona Democrats can look forward to a November election where the top two high profile races have weak, uninspiring candidates with D’s beside their names.
Right on BlueMeanie! I heard the ad too! It’s so offensively false, I have to change the radio station when it’s on!
Candidates owe it to the voters to debate as often as possible. I despise campaigns by TV commercials, worse, campaigns by proxy TV commercials from independent expenditure committees, which is something we will see here this fall. Candidates should personally defend their positions to questions posed by reporters, constituents and their opponents unfiltered and unvarnished. If they truly believe they are correct, they have nothing to fear.
I just heard a radio ad for Jan Brewer on the way back to the office and each of the claims made in the ad are demonstrably false. The media no longer does fact checking (too lazy) so the uninformed public hears this bogus ad and may be mislead into believing it is true. The only way to correct this misinformation is for reporters, constituents and Terry Goddard to confront Brewer with questions when their is a captive audience paying attention to a televised debate – sadly, one of the only times voters pay attention.
Hey James:
I couldn’t disagree with you more! First of all, Goddard could not take a stand on SB1070. He is the Attorney General and his job to enforce the law not make it. There are so many issues to debate in this race. Apparently Brewer does not want to address them. The Republican legislature has made this state a laughing stock in the country. How about her statements on the beheadings in the Arizona desert which lost tourism revenue. Goddard is not a weak opponent! He put Phoenix on the map when he was mayor. He has won the state much money from his tireless efforts investigating and convicting unscrupulous companies like Western Union. Where in the world do you get off thinking Brewer is more qualified than Goddard?
Gov. Brewer is too chicken to debate AG Goddard because … she’s willing to debate him once, for the televised Clean Election debate?
I’m sorry, but this post doesn’t make sense to me.
From Brewer’s perspective, there is little upside to debating Goddard, a challenger who has little name recognition and support in the state at this time. Brewer capitalized on the support for SB1070 and the ethnic studies ban so effectively that she eliminated the worthy opposition from her own party – a feat that was unpredictable and unfathomable nine months ago. Debating Goddard six more times only increases his profile and cements him in the minds of voters as a worthy alternative – something the Governor should avoid in order to win.
I just find it improper to characterize a incumbent as cowardly for refusing debate proposals. There are plenty of reasons to refuse to debate, especially when your refusal promotes your victory more than debating. Terry Goddard had the entire year to make himself into the principled Democratic opposition to the cynical opportunism that was SB1070; instead I see Sheriff Dupnik dissing the law on Anderson Cooper 360 way more than I’ve ever seen Goddard, anywhere.
Goddard’s a weak candidate; begging for debates late in the third quarter won’t help.