Comments on: Sexist Hit Pieces on Laura Pastor in Phoenix City Council Race

By: yeah no

yeah no — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:15:09 +0000

In the first sentence I meant to write 2000 instead of 2004.

By: yeah no

yeah no — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:12:50 +0000

I’d say it was in 2004, and here’s a big difference between George W. Bush and Laura Pastor: George W. Bush had actually done something before (regardless of the fact that he was a miserable failure at it). He had his own (shoddy and spun) record to run on, while Laura Pastor’s campaign seemed to only be, “I’ll be good because my dad is good.” Meanwhile, Nowakowski let his long resume speak for itself, and did what any smart campaign would do–point out the flaws in their opponent. Laura Pastor’s vote on her neighborhood association for payday lenders had nothing to do with what gender she was, and neither did allegations that she got her job as a result of political string-pulling. The end. If it was Ed Pastor Jr. who ran (I don’t know if the real Ed Pastor has a son), do you actually believe the Nowakowski campaign and his allies would gloss over all of that?

By: Katie

Katie — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:19:08 +0000

Maybe if nepotism had been made an issue in the president’s campaign, he wouldn’t be our president!! Unfortunately, not the case.

By: yeah no

yeah no — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:13:21 +0000

I’ve met a few of the bloggers on this site before, and I know you can’t be dumb enough to believe that the only time people make nepotism a campaign issue is when women run. Hello???? Who’s our President (a guy) related to again????

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:08:11 +0000

Wow!

Not only is this sexist but i’d advise all to get used to it as it’s a harbinger of things to come.
from UNITE HERE! the laundry & hotel union represented by their office in Phoenix Local 631.

This office is headed I believe by a woman Cristina Vasquez, a dynamic hispanic democrat from Los Angeles. Why she would authorize this I don’t know.

Her office contact info. is:
213-385-0271
crv53@aol.com

By: Lisa

Lisa — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:57:34 +0000

Sorry, for listing Debbie’s address. (Thanks for taking it off) I do think it is pertinent though that she is the one who provided the mailer. It calls to the motivation of this email blast that went out. It looks like a planned event on the part of the Pastor campaign and Arizona List to raise funds and harm Michael. As for a campaign violation, it think Krista is right it probably is not.
Now as for the analogy about the company job. I think now more that I look it does look more sexist. I still don’t think that Michael should apologize for the actions of some other group. Especially when this is obviously a pitch on the part of Arizona’s list to raise funds and the Pastors to break Michael’s relationship with Unite Here. If Pam had approached Michael privately instead of sending out a massive email blast asking for money, then this would not smell as fishy.

By: Krista

Krista — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:06:16 +0000

Lisa, I disagree with your comment about the mailer not being sexist. This is a loose example, but it illustrates how I think of it: it’s like you’re applying for a leadership position at work and one of the committee members, who wants another candidate to receive the position, sends an email to the rest of the company calling you “Daddy’s Little Girl.” It’s a phrase that is meant to be demeaning.

I think Nowakowski condemning the mailer would be a good faith gesture that he did not condone it.

As for Arizona List, I can’t speak about that because I don’t know. I disagree with negative campaigning in all areas, but that’s a comment for another day :)

I don’t think that the name on the mailer has anything to do with the piece, but I did black out the name and re-upload the image.

Lastly, don’t quote me on this, but I think mailers from groups like this are considered “Independent Expenditures.” When a group endorses a candidate, they may send out mailers, not affiliated with the candidate’s campaign committee, to voters in the area. This is particularly interesting with Clean Elections candidates because it can trigger matching funds for the candidate the mailer is against. Hope that makes sense, and again, don’t quote me on it - I’m speaking from memory :)

By: admin

admin — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:46:12 +0000

Lisa, I edited the part of your comment that listed the address of Laura’s campaign manager. I don’t think this is pertinent to the discussion. Thanks for your comment and understanding!

By: Lisa

Lisa — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:57:12 +0000

This a bit tacky, but not sexist. It is trying to be humerous. But, I still think Unite Here should apologize to the women of Arizona, since it certainly can be intrepreted as sexist. But why should Michael have to condemn there actions? Will Arizona list condemn all the nasty actions that Laura did on this campaign?
Also next time someone tries to pass propaganda, they should erase the names of person who got this piece. You can clearly tell it was mailed to [edited by democraticdiva.com Admin]. That is the name of Laura Pastor’s Campaign Manager. She obviously sent this out to diminish Michael’s victory. I would also want to check out if this is illegal campaign coordination between a political group (Arizona’s List and Laura Pastor’s Campaign). I am sure if that was the case we would all condemn it also.

By: Krista

Krista — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:33:38 +0000

Agree, agree, agree.