McSally challenges Barber's ad



Gallery Image


SIERRA VISTA —  While a current poll shows her in a dead heat with her Democratic opponent, GOP Congressional District 2 candidate Martha McSally also said attack ads being run by Ron Barber and the National Democratic party are false.

We are going to have a photo finish,” McSally said Saturday afternoon at the opening of her campaign office in Sierra Vista.

The recent poll shows she and Barber are tied at 47.5 percent each, and it means hard work is needed to convince the 5 percent of undeclared voters she is the best to represent CD2, she said. Noting Barber and his supporters are touting a poll which shows him with a 14 percent lead over her, McSally said “He’s’ going backwards and we are going forward.”




Full text available to premium subscribers and archive access members only.

Click here to become a Premium Member today for only $4.50 per month and get access to all of our content every day.

Or pay just $3.99 one time and receive 30 day access to our older archives. Current premium stories are not included in this offer.




Knight Rider on Sun, 10/07/2012 - 7:21am

I find most political commercials to be humorous, but the one that takes the
cake for me is the one where Ron saves some older woman’s house from
foreclosure. I don’t remember it word for word, but the gist of it makes it
sound like if any of us are in trouble with a foreclosure Ron will sit down
and go over our finances himself and cut through he red tape to save our
house! I am not saying he didn’t really help this woman, but I sincerely
doubt that if everyone from the district he wants to continue to represent
showed up at his office with foreclosure issues he would sit down and address
them. It is a feel good story, but life isn’t a fairytale.

AZ Shooter on Sun, 10/07/2012 - 8:56am

The best quote in the article is: “When I’m Ron Barber’s age in 2033,
Social Security will have no money.” Ron Barber is a not the type of leader
we need in Washington. His whole career has been either spending other
people’s money or following someone else’s lead. We need a true leader in
Washington and am tired of the current crop in Washington who “lead from the
 rear.”

Myron Jaworsky on Sun, 10/07/2012 - 10:42am

If McSally’s comment that Social Security will have no money by 2033
represents her leadership skills, heaven help us AZ Shooter. And not just
from her because she doesn’t know what she’s talking, but also from those who
believe what she’s peddling and who don’t know any more than she does. (I am
trying to be charitable. She could be lying outright, just as she has lied
about not knowing the significance of the Norquist pledge.) A moment’s
reflection is enough to prove her wrong: So long as there is a Social
Security tax, the fund will not run out of money. Period. The significance of
2033 is that benefits would need to be reduced to about 75% of what they are
now if steps aren’t taken to bulk up the fund. Given a 20 year lead time, the
problem does not seem insuperable, except to those who want to get rid of
Social Security through privatization.

franklymydears on Mon, 10/08/2012 - 11:26am

Were I a search consultant for the Republican National Committee, I’d
consider Colonel McSally an ideal Congressional candidate almost anywhere in
the country, provided her political philosophy wasn’t too conservative for
the district. But I’m not a search consultant for the RNC; I’m a 17 year
resident of what is now CD 2 and a volunteer in every campaign in our
district since Gabby first ran in 2006. I walk and I talk and I listen, and
everywhere I’ve gone since February I’ve encountered people who know, like
and admire Ron. I’m convinced that Ron Barber is the representative
tailor-made for the district. The home he’s lived in for decades is in the
district; his 45 year employment career is in the district. He served the
district as Gabby’s District Director, responsible for the exemplary
constituent services for which she was renowned. His politics are moderate,
centrist, even bipartisan. And so are those of most district voters, women
and men, Republicans and Democrats.

azannie on Tue, 10/09/2012 - 12:48pm
Title: Read it again

Obviously, she was referring to the currently leaders when she commented on
Social Security.

Myron Jaworsky on Tue, 10/09/2012 - 3:08pm

There is no obviousness about it. The quote is just a naked, dropped in
quote. It is highly improbable that the reference is to current leaders. The
message is consistent with what Republicans keep asserting. She might be
having a flashback to Jesse Kelly. In any event, like me AzShooter seemed to
take it as McSally’s view. But I concede that this interpretation might be
the result of how the story was written or edited: drop-in quotes are bad
 form.

cuperite83 on Wed, 10/10/2012 - 6:04pm

Your comment claiming as long as there is a SS tax it won’t run out of money is beyond laughable.

First a T-bill (which is what the social security "fund" has in it) is not money by itself; the United States has to get the money somehow to pay for it. Someone claiming to have worked in economics really should know exactly what a Treasury Bill is.

Second, just because you gather taxes on an item doesn’t mean all spending on it is magically paid for. You see, in the real world, there is such a thing as overspending, which is where debt comes from. Your %75 estimate also shows a fundemental misunderstanding of the  problem.

Having your comment published in the comments section of a paper doesn’t make it true. It also doesn’t give you license to think you are in a position to judge others on a subject you obviously know very little about.

Myron Jaworsky on Thu, 10/11/2012 - 12:55pm

You could have saved yourself the trouble to lecture me on T-bills. Several
months ago I actually wrote SVH op-ed pieces about the special Treasuries.
Failure to roll them over would constitute default on US government (USG)
debt, with consequences not just for Social Security, but for the economic
system as a whole. What is the risk that the USG would default? Nil, and not
just because it would be unconstitutional. USG could do what any government
could do: Raise taxes or sell assets—and the USG has plenty of assets. And
just what, exactly, are YOUR qualifications? Other than ignorance, that is.

cuperite83 on Thu, 10/11/2012 - 9:35pm
Title: Well

Since it takes too long to attempt to go into in all the things wrong with your above comment lets take just one aspect of one of your misconceptions. The risk of a default is not " Nil" as you so arrogantly put it, had you bothered to spend 2 minutes researching what you’re spouting you would know default has happened before, like in 1862, 1934, and as recently as 1979.  Since happened before, even on accident, what makes the chance of it "Nil"?  All this is also beside the point that I didnt even bring up default did I? 

Despite the fact of what you might of said in some op-ed for the fact it was printed doesn’t somehow make your misconceptions about basic economics true. 

And as for my qualifications I know basic subtraction and recent history. 

Myron Jaworsky on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 8:40am

Well, Cuperite83, you finally said something true: “And as for my
qualifications I know basic subtraction and recent history.” That pretty much
comports with my assessment that that is all you know. Just where did you
find out that the US has defaulted before in 1862, 1934,1979? (Please don’t
try to enlighten me by citing some hack on a rightwing/Tea Party website. Any
reputable source like the Wall Street Journal or Barron’s would be ideal). I
wasn’t around in 1862 and 1934. I do remember 1979, but can’t recall a USG
default. Do you even know what a default is? Your knowledge of even basic
economics is, to use that word again, “nil.” The notion of default is
implicit in your initial comment. In any event, you certainly don’t
understand the role US Treasuries play in the global economy, especially in
(to use your word now) “recent history.”

CCWHM on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 7:31pm

You made your point and he continues to display his lack of knowledge with every post.
The fact that he latches onto an obvious typo and refuses to look in a high school economics textbook or considers a subject that even NPR covered in Jul 11th of last year shows the depth of his knowledge and maturity. I find it humorous that he cant even bother to look in the very sources he names because he would of seen that wall street journal mentioned it on may 21st of last year (though they point out that the government called it a “delay” not a default but the hyperlink takes you to a wiley online piece titled “The Day the United States Defaulted on Treasury Bills
“ he probably considers them tea party though).

Do yourself a favor, and just let Myron have his pond to himself. Trust me, its really not worth the effort.

cuperite83 on Sat, 10/13/2012 - 5:15pm
Title: Why

Exactly why I should I do that? Is he immune to criticism or something?

He goes off suggesting others aren’t intelligent. He then equates with running out of money with a default and says _I_ don’t know what a default is, he fails to grasp simple concepts such as how securities are different than cash and says _I_ am ignorant?! He attempts to dismiss anyone who happens to have actual evidence as "citing some hack on a rightwing/Tea Party website" never mind again that it is common knowledge to just about anyone who even dabbled in economics and that I managed to find it mentioned on even on CNN and NPR. Mind you he said that social security wouldnt run out of money as long as taxes are being collected on it, and again, he says I am ignorant. He goes off the deep end about me creating a typo yet his spelling of, ‘rightwing’ for example means hes more intelligent?