Sexist Hit Pieces on Laura Pastor in Phoenix City Council Race
Posted by: Krista
Pam, from Arizona List, gave me permission to post this email message that was sent to Arizona List members:
We’ve been spending time figuring out what happened in the Phoenix City Council election for District 7, in which our endorsed candidate, Laura Pastor, was defeated on Tuesday.
The more we dig into it, the angrier we are becoming.
Attached is a hit piece on Laura that was mailed in the final days of the race (it appeared in mailboxes the Saturday and Monday prior to the election Tuesday). Please do look at it – if you can’t open the attachment, call us and we can fax it to you.
The hit piece is outrageous. This is one of the most sexist attacks on a candidate we have seen. The mailer is in shades of pink and white, and the front says, “Sugar and spice and everything nice” and the back says “Laura Pastor — Daddy’s Little Girl.” The piece is decorated with dresses and hair bows and a baby carriage. The back contains excerpts from one of the pieces from the Arizona Republic attacking Laura for being her father’s daughter.The straight-out message on this mailer (“Daddy’s Little Girl”) is demeaning to women. The implicit message with the pink dresses and baby shoes and baby carriage is that women are not fit for public office and should instead stick to playing with children. This hit piece crossed the line and should be condemned as a sexist attack on Laura Pastor and on women generally.We cannot sit silently and allow this to go unchallenged.
We’ve addressed in prior emails to our members the unfairness of the attacks on Laura Pastor levied by the Arizona Republic. Try “googling” sons of famous political fathers and see how they are treated compared to the criticisms of Congressman Pastor’s daughter. Why is it OK for sons to go into their fathers’ lines of work and not OK for daughters?
There was almost no coverage of the Phoenix City Council race in the Arizona Republic other than the attacks on Laura; on election day, the front page of the paper didn’t even reference the election. Those of us logging on to the www.azcentral.com website couldn’t find mention of the election either. The lack of responsible reporting placed a disproportionate weight on the sexist attack pieces that ran.
The hit piece was paid for by Unite Here (www.unitehere.org). According to their web site, Unite Here doesn’t even have an office in Arizona. Unite Here is a merger of the unions that succeeded the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and unions representing hotel workers. According to their web site, the majority of both unions (Unite and Here) are women. Do these women know that their union dues are going to pay for attacks on a woman – because she is a woman?
We are often asked why Arizona List only supports women candidates. The common perception among many of us political types is that sexism is a dead issue – we are not sexist and few people we know are sexist.
This piece shows that not only is sexism alive, but it wins elections.
We call on you, our members, to protest this:
1. Call the Arizona Republic and complain about their poor coverage of the Phoenix City Council race and their sexist attacks on Laura Pastor.
2. Call Unite Here and tell them what you think about their hit piece on Laura Pastor.
3. Call Phoenix City Councilor-elect Michael Nowakowski and ask him to condemn these attacks on Laura Pastor and to call these attack dogs off.
Most importantly, you can renew your support of Arizona List. Clearly our work is important. The stronger we are, the better we can fight back against these sorts of attacks.
You can contribute to our efforts by clicking here today! Or send us a check (P.O. Box 42294, Tucson, AZ 85733). You can pledge an amount to be deducted from your credit card every month, if you wish.
It is imperative that we build a sufficient war chest to protect our women in 2008 and beyond.
After all, we were all “Daddy’s Little Girls” in one way or another – and then we grew up and became successful women. Are you going to let that be used as a bar to achieving your dreams?
Pam
Pamela K. Sutherland
Executive Director
Arizona List
A Committee for Pro-Choice Democratic Women in Arizona
P.O. Box 42294
Tucson, AZ 85733
520-327-0520 office
520-327-6920 fax
520-548-1451 cell
www.ArizonaList.org
Empowering Women LeadersArizona List is a committee for pro-choice Democratic women in Arizona; Arizona List PAC is a political committee dedicated to electing pro-choice women Democrats to state and local office in Arizona.
Contributions to Arizona List and Arizona List PAC are not deductible for tax purposes. Arizona law limits the amount that an individual can contribute each year to candidates and non-party committees that support candidates. Paid for by Arizona List and not authorized by any candidate.
11 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
Holy crap, that mailer was truly wretched! Could not be more blatantly obvious: “Nepotism is one thing, but a WOMAN using her family connections?!? An OUTRAGE!!”
The first thing Nowakowski should do is renounce the attacks and apologize for them, whether or not he directly had anything to do with them, because he ultimately benefitted from them. In the end plain old sexism trumped Laura Pastor’s supposed familial advantages.
Agree, agree, agree.
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.
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!
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 :)
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.
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
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????
Maybe if nepotism had been made an issue in the president’s campaign, he wouldn’t be our president!! Unfortunately, not the case.
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?
In the first sentence I meant to write 2000 instead of 2004.