Monday, June 18, 2007

Bee Resignation Imminent

Tucson, Arizona. Well, unless he changes his mind that is, and he is struggling.

For good reason. Still, word is out that around the end of the month or early July, it is time to get serious. He must seriously start the engine or seriously tell the GOP to find someone else. Starting the engine right means resigning, as Giffords did almost immediately (I believe it wasn't even a week!) after Kolbe announced he would not run again. She saw and she pounced forcefully, determined, not kidding, for real. If Bee is going to do this, that's how it's done. Tick Tock.

Now, should Bee fold, some are thinking about Jonathan Paton, who won an election without campaigning and has potency and potential. Further, were Jonathan to lose against Giffords, the blow is less severe. Jonathon's ability to regroup and get back in the game after a loss is without question. Of course, one should not underestimate either of these two gentlemen.

Either would make a formidable opponent in the CD 8 election, and I think both have political futures if they lose. Bee, as senate president, clearly takes the larger risk.


Blogger Sirocco said...

If Bee, Patton or anyone else is going to get into the race, they need to do it now. End of June is the end of another fund-raising quarter, and if Giffords has similar numbers to last quarter, won't she have about $1 million banked? I am pretty sure $1 million is roughly equal to what Graf raised all of the last campaign.

Both Bee and Patton would be far more palatable candidates than Graf, and would have an easier time raising money. On the other hand, it seems increasingly possible 2008 will present an even worse set of electoral circumstances for Republicans than 2006 did ... and $1 million is a big hole to dig out of. Better to start now than start $1.3 million down in September or October.

6/19/2007 8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with all that has been said here by X4mr and Sirocco. I would have assumed that Bee would have been doing some fundraising prior to this. He is indeed in a hole and about to be in a much much bigger one. I also agree about Bee (or Paton) facing a seriously strong wind of politics blowing against them.

First of all, they have to satisfy the right wing base which has turned on even Jon Kyl as of late over immigration. It will be very very hard for Bee to run as his feel good, moderate, everyone likes me self in that hornets nest.

I will say it again and again. I would think again and again about facing her. He is the best candidate no doubt, but it won't be enough to beat her...and then what? S. Arizona essentially loses one of its most effective leaders and also its best chance, I think, at having a S. Arizonan as Governor.

6/19/2007 3:59 PM  
Blogger Liza said...

I really shouldn't get into this discussion. I know that I shouldn't.

It is far from certain that Tim Bee would face "a seriously strong wind of politics" blowing against him. He will not be held accountable by voters for the dismal record of George Bush and those in Congress who have supported him. He is much more likely to be perceived as a "fresh" face coming up from the state legislature.

On the other hand, disenchantment with the Democrats and what will inevitably become a total failure to end the US occupation of Iraq may actually hurt some of the incumbents who are already marginal for one reason or another. Follow the oil, roger. There is a better chance that you will win one of those powerball lotteries than of the Democrats ending the US occupation of Iraq.

6/19/2007 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just watched Iraq in Fragments today. Amazing film and highly recommended. I am not sure I agree with you on the Democrats staying in this thing. I will agree with you that they have been timid and, maybe worse from your point of view, that they are waiting in order to do it in such a way that benefits them politically. The mantra...try in September when they can split the Republicans apart and use any failure as a way of electing a new President.

I know you are very disappointed in Democrats on Iraq...even angry...but the Republicans are far more tied to oil and this war. They are our only chance of getting out.

I guess Bee could position himself as an anti-war Republican...and that fresh face...but I doubt it seriously.

6/19/2007 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I would like to ask you a seperate and related question. Are you not at all bothered by what will happen to the Iraqi people when we leave? Is there a way to do this without genocide? Put aside all that ratso Republican rhetoric that we hear on "winning" and the clear occupational interests in oil crap...and frankly the anti-war message on the left which is often about scoring points...but doesn't seem to consider what will happen to human life afterwards.

I do we fix this after we stop viewing it as a war we are winning and all the deception?

I know you read and follow this more closely than most, but you have to care what happens to these people.

I don't know...I can't stand the money we have spent, the deaths of American soldiers, my brother being sent under false pretenses, and I hate what this administration has done...but after seeing Iraq in Fragments, it hurts me to think what will happen to all those people...this is what gives me pause.

What do you think? What is your answer? Is there another way? Multnational peace-keeping force?

6/19/2007 10:32 PM  
Anonymous Garry said...

Roger is right. With Kyl teaming up with Kennedy on the immigration bill things change. Before the senate bill Kyl was the one heavy hitter that could still unite the whole Republican Party. If he had come down here and helped out and raised some money Bee might have pulled it off. Now if Kyl shows up there will be a discussion about amnesty and that will not help Bee.

6/20/2007 6:53 AM  
Blogger Liza said...

Of course I care what happens to the people of Iraq. The Bush Administration has, without justifiable cause, created a humanitarian crisis for these people that is not likely to improve substantially for several generations. And that is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of deaths, the people who are just simply gone forever, the people who counted for absolutely nothing when the Bush Administration launched it's half-baked and ill conceived plan for US military hegemony in the Mideast.

I have read countless opinion pieces over the last several years about ending the US quagmire in Iraq. From proposed military strategies for containing the civil war to "get out now and don't look back" as well as everything inbetween those two extremes. There is no shortage of opinions.

Actually, roger, I have a question for you that I think precedes any meaningful discussion about ending the US occupation of Iraq. How do you solve a humanitarian crisis caused by a war and an occupation that is still being propagandized in the occupier's country? In other words, how do you solve a problem that you refuse to define because if you define the problem you will have to admit that everything you have said is a lie. Such is the position of the Bush Administration.

Another question, not quite as fundamental but equally pertinent, how does an occupying nation alleviate the suffering of the occupied when the original intent of the occupier was to establish permanent military bases and control the occupied nation's economy, most specifically their substantial oil reserves? Given that the oil is the birthright of the indigenous population, and absolutely all they have to rebuild their country with, how does the occupier proceed with the plunder and alleviate the suffering of the people?

6/20/2007 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Liza:

Great great questions. And thanks for commenting. There is no question that I think you and others who want us out of Iraq care about the Iraqi people, but I am just not sure that many think about it much as we discuss our own reasons for getting out.

As to your first question, let me try. How do we solve a problem that we refuse to define and that we continue to propagandize? That is indeed the position of not admit failure, sunk costs, and total BS. I think to solve this we need a new President...this one cannot admit failure or lies or mistakes. I think the only way to solve this is to find the truth, admit our failures, and work on solving the problem with international help. No one trusts this President though and no one trust us because of him. It will take admitting the mistakes and the lies to ever get a start at this humanitarian problem.

The second question is also right on. I agree with the premise of your question. The base and controlling the spiget of oil is absolutely real here and it definitely places us in a position of long term distrust. That said we can move beyond the original intent and try to be a force for productive change...with a new administration and with admissions of the mistakes. We can't continue to plunder, we have to rebuild trust and in the end we owe them something for having done this to them. I fear the exit that everyone talks about will be tantamount to abandonment.

Republicans are going to argue that we have to leave because its expensive and they will ultimately blame the Iraqis for what we have done. Something ****ty like "they don't value their freedom or want it". Demos will leave to stop the war and blame it on our loss of lives and money and the past regime.

Either way the Iraqis seem pretty screwed.

6/21/2007 3:31 AM  
Blogger Liza said...

Here's what Hillary Clinton spewed from her piehole yesterday:

Sen. Hillary Clinton: "The American military has done its job. Look what they accomplished. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They gave the Iraqis a chance for free and fair elections. They gave the Iraqi government the chance to begin to demonstrate that it understood its responsibilities to make the hard political decisions necessary to give the people of Iraq a better future. So the American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions which are important for their own people.”

She sounds kind of like an enlightened Republican, huh?

Regardless of what is being said by Democrats or Republicans, there is no intention to leave Iraq. Bush's recent statements about the "Korea model" are as close as his administration has ever been to saying something close to the truth. The permanent military and economic occupation is right on track. The US corporate media still refers to the "oil law" as "providing an equal distribution of Iraqi oil revenue" without referring to privatization which is the larger and more important issue especially to Exxon Mobil.

Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times Online recently wrote a series of articles from Iraq called "Roving in the Red Zone." He's a journalist, and a really good one, but his pain was evident in everything he wrote. Here's a quotation from one of the last articles in the series when he was flying out of Baghdad:

""Leaving Baghdad at night, past curfew time, is one of the saddest experiences of our time. There are just a few dim lights down on the ground - as if the former pride and splendor of Islam are enveloped in a shroud. The only moving object is - what else - a serpentine US convoy about to go on a search-and-destroy mission in "normal life.""

"The Bush/Cheney half-trillion-dollar (so far) Iraq adventure razed to the ground an entire Arab state. Not just any Arab state; the cradle of civilization as we know it has been hurled back to medieval times (but with mobile phones for everyone; an Iraqna SIM card costs only US$10)."

""Blowback will be perennial: the "sanctions generation" - the angry young men who grew up deprived of everything during the 1990s - will never, ever forget it.""

An entire Arab state........

6/21/2007 6:52 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home