Eggplant in Tucson
Tucson, Arizona.As already noted on other blogs and in a Daniel Scarpinato piece this morning, Eggplant is coming to Tucson for a Tim Bee fund raiser. Of course it will raise some serious Arizona GOP money in amounts TBD, but Daniel appropriately questions the political wisdom of associating with an entity having a head intellectually indistinguishable from that of iceberg lettuce. That the Idiot-in-Chief has popularity that would "take dog food off the shelf" results in odd behavior regarding visits presidential, like the weird one last May when the moron came to Phoenix for McCain. As in May, they’re being strange. Neither the Bee campaign nor the White House will actually "confirm" the event even though the invitations are out and lots of people have them. Daniel describes the invitation in his article, noting date, time, and place.But, hey, nothing is confirmed. Whatever.
A housekeeping note I’ve intended to make for months (keep forgetting) is that this place puts no effort into reporting first what will soon be common knowledge. It is far more inclined to produce commentary or report what will not be common knowledge in years if ever (Lot 175, 7.83 Hz, CCA, Cloth dots).
Speaking of commentary, I question the following assertion Tim Bee made in a recent email as part of his fund raising rush for the 2Q08 FEC report:
With my opponent’s large war chest funded by unions, move-on.org and Washington special interests, she has the resources to distort my record.
What distortions? Tim Bee is in fact a Republican (political equivalent of dog shit) and while his campaign won’t confirm it he is in fact bringing to Tucson something that belongs in a Petri dish for discerning biological factors behind stupidious maximongus in anthropomorphic organisms. Bee caved to knuckle-dragging Neanderthals and lost Kolbe's support that was his for the taking. I don’t think Giffords has to distort any facts. Duly noting all of the hard work of campaigning, with that in place all Zach Wineburg has to do is counter any 527 shenanigans and make sure voters are aware which candidate is in which party.
posted by x4mr at 2:29 PM
35 Comments:
Now that you have raised the subject, I agree that the blogosphere having information earlier than MSM is no big deal. Unless it's the price of a stock, the outcome of a game, or something I can use, what is the use of knowing something Tuesday instead of Thursday? Sure, some information has more power if known before others, but how much?
I recall a republican blog (I want to say AZ 8th) that got angry because x4mr posted something (Bee's announcement? - but I might be mistaken) before they knew about it. I recall saying to myself, "Who cares?"
Since I am already submitting a comment, I will say, x4mr, that I share Liza's lack of enthusiasm for Giffords, and I just don't get yours. What did she do that so impressed you? What am I missing?
I think Giffords is another rich kid (a distinction for which, with the current and confusing exception, you appear to have considerable contempt) who gets to be in Congress because Mommy and Daddy are rolling in mountains of cash.
That said, Giffords has my vote and probably always will when it comes to Arizona and Congress. Like yourself and as you have expressed, I want the republicans hit so hard this November their own children disown them and change their names. I want "Republican" to acquire the same taste, smell, and touch as "Slimy F***ing Rat Bastard from the bowels of Hell Itself." I want being a member of the republican party to be a stigma worse than molesting children, raping puppies, or anal sex with a hog.
Liza (I suspect) will vote for your "quorum queen" as will I, but unlike you, she and I vote against malignancy, not for someone we admire.
I just cannot, and I confess I have invested some time and thought, connect your intellect with admiration for Gabrielle Giffords. I have the same issue with Roger K.
Both of you guys are "over the top" intelligent. Of course she is no eyesore, but she really isn't THAT attractive. Because you blog prolifically, I feel like I know you far better than Roger, but still, with both of you regarding Giffords I am completely baffled. Your election victory blog post to her was almost poetry, and I just cannot see what you see that makes such a send off deserved. What did she do to you two?
Addressing Liza: do you see something I don't? Frankly, I would much prefer x4mr in Congress than Giffords.
Imagine x4mr on CNN or O'Reilly! Think Lot 175 on steroids.
I am not part of the Giffords campaign, but I do support Gabrielle Giffords and very enthusiastically.
I don't see the mystery. Hopefully x4mr will chime in, but I think he very clearly stated that he considers her more intelligent than "most in Congress" and very hard working.
1. Ability
2. Effort
What is hard to understand? It is very easy to contact her office, her campaign, and her staff to get a good idea of how hard she works. Anyone that gives this Congresswoman less than an "A" for effort just does not know the truth.
Giffords is not a genius, and (as far as I know) x4mr and Roger have not said that she is. I agree with x4mr's election night declaration that she is smarter than the Congressional average. Is that hard to agree with?!!!!!!!
Gabrielle Giffords is not perfect, but I think and feel very strongly that she is far superior to any other CD 8 name you can raise, and don't forget your person must have what it takes to win.
I'm in the "I may not always agree with her, but she does work hard, and I agree with her a hell of a lot more than her opponent" camp.
I am somewhat baffled by the whole "pampered rich kid" perspective. Don't get me wrong, her family is certainly well off, far better than most. However, it's not like they have pumped 100s of thousands of dollars into her campaigns, or that she has lived the life of luxury through their backing. She's a product of the public school system, and lives on her own income. When her parents pass away (hopefully some decades down the road) she stands to inherit a fair chunk of change, but not in a Kennedy-esque sort of way.
Certainly, her family background doesn't hurt - her parents unquestionably helped provide some contacts to certain circles when she was starting out. She still had to do the work to develop those contacts into continuing support however, and she has.
Sirocco,
I am surprised that the "pampered rich kid" confuses you. I think it is painfully clear that those born into families free of financial fear or concerns get to play while the rest of us figure out how to pay the bills.
Are you asserting that Giffords has ever actually had to worry about anything? She has it made. Take a sociology course and learn about the reproduction of inequality.
Okay. She's better than Bee, and I will vote for her. Put me in the "Giffords for Congress" column, but still, Roger and x4mr "go too far" in a way that is hard to describe.
Liza knows what I am talking about.
Navigator,
Heh ... I conceded she was born into better financial shape than the vast majority. That doesn't automatically equate to "pampered". She has generally been living on her own income.
I know quite well about the reproduction of inequality, and certainly where you start in life can give you a bid edge (or deficit). However, just as there are some who manage to climb up the ladder from poverty, there are also those who fall in the other direction. A head start is a great benefit, but doesn't guarantee anything.
I completely understand viewing her as "well-off" (she is) or even "rich" (she isn't, in a monetary sense, but likely will be one day) ... but "pampered"? That word, for me, brings to mind an heiress sipping lemonade and dabbling in charity work when she feels like it ... and image which certainly doesn't apply.
With almost no exceptions, rich parents = rich kids, and (correct me if I'm wrong) Nav is talking about a "way of being" not just the number in the account, which I am sure is "plenty."
She is rich no matter how much money she has and always will be and it's a choice just like gender, hair color, and sexual preference (but don't tell the GOP).
Sirocco correctly observes that some born into wealth blow the opportunity in spades. Look at Saddam Hussein's sons or George W. Bush, functionally equivalent except W got to perpetrate far greater crimes.
Nav nails me "spot on" regarding those born wealthy. They are tainted in my eyes in a way that defies full description. No matter what, if a person is born into wealth and privilege, so what?
Doesn't GW Bush, EGGPLANT, prove that ANYTHING CAN BECOME ANYTHING?!
What put him in the White House? Merit? No one can be stupid enough to believe that moron earned a thin red cent during a single breath he took or will ever take.
Nav is right that no accomplishment, achievement, or mission accomplished will ever grant JFK, RFK, or a certain Congresswoman the badge of honor awarded to the likes of Abraham Lincoln or others born into poverty and despair that climbed out.
Forget the money. It's everything else. Nav knows exactly what I am saying.
Regarding the 2008 election, if it's blue, it gets my vote. I will vote for cheese, dog shit, and lobotomized chicken toes.
The GOP has shown the country and the world that the bottom of the bottom of the bottom of human refuse can buy any election. The GOP has no soul. Even Hitler had the decency to respect the popular vote.
Not the GOP, a party utterly devoted to the destruction of everything the USA represents. The greed soaked GOP has turned the land of opportunity into videotaped death on a waiting room floor.
Giffords for Congress. I hope she beats Bee so bad his family leaves the state before asking if he wants to come with.
Navigator,
I have no intention of voting for Giffords.
I would only vote for a Democrat that I dislike (in 2008) if I felt that a Democratic majority in the House or Senate were threatened. Since it isn’t, there is no way that I will vote for anyone who I see as not having the appropriate background, the wisdom, or the life experience to effectively represent the majority of Americans.
If we keep sending tire store people (as well as people of a multitude of other unqualified backgrounds) to Congress when we need constitutional lawyers (or people capable of defending the Constitution) then our situation will just become increasingly dire, and that is exactly what is happening. Anyone out there impressed with the Democratic House of Representatives that we voted for in 2006?
Anyhow, Navigator, your guess is as good as mine as to why X4mr and Roger K think that Giffords is such an outstanding choice for a representative. On her own, she’s just an average person without compensatory attributes that might qualify her to be a representative. Back in 2006, I saw Jeff Latas as a more or less average guy with some outstanding compensatory attributes in his background and life experience as well as very solid strength of character.
The other thing, Navigator, is that I do not support one party rule. However, because of the horrific damage done to this nation and to the Mideast by the Bush/Cheney administration, I have to support a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress, and there is also the matter of the Supreme Court. We cannot afford to allow the GOP to have an opportunity to install even one more arch-conservative 50 year old will be around for the next three decades. And there is also the matter of the lower courts.
If Tim Bee were able to present himself as a young, reform-minded, moderate Republican, he might be interesting. Unfortunately, the GOP is not even close to being on that track, and Tim Bee has to go where the money is or concede the election right now. That’s just timing, and I doubt very much that he can configure a campaign strategy that will provide both big dollars and votes. Those two seem mutually exclusive for the GOP right now.
It seems likely that Tim Bee will benefit from having McCain on the ballot as the GOP presidential nominee, and it also seems likely that Giffords could be hurt by the unremarkable Democratic Congress that decided early on to not confront Bush/Cheney and wait for 2008 to change the agenda. The bad news for Giffords is that the RNC is collecting some serious money and it is apparent at this point that the party is going to get behind Bee.
As voters, we need to get past the idea that we should vote for Democrats because they are less bad than Republicans. We need to force the Democratic party to listen to the voters and we are not going to do that by supporting unqualified candidates, party establishment favorites, and incumbents who lack political courage.
Liza for Congress!!
Seriously, I think Liza captures my current political sentiments better than anything I have seen or read in quite some time. I agree completely and see things in much the same way.
Unfortunately, I don't have a solution, and sorry x4mr, but you have not even come close to supporting your placement of the "Giffords for Congress" banner underneath that of the Democratic nominee for President.
I love it when you get spicy, but your anti-GOP tirade, no matter how exquisite, does not warrant a Giffords banner on your blog template.
Roger only comments, so he can hide if he wants, but as a prolific blogger, you owe us the words for which you are amply equipped. You can and must (my assertion) explain your level of enthusiasm for this woman who occurs to me as little more than an SES potato. I just don't get it. Isn't she just "W light" with two or three fewer zeros?
I have read your entire blog. The whole thing, including Something Else with some repeat reading. I am rather confident that you have not faced real starvation or truly "Capital P" poverty, but you have "been around" and get what the "born rich" do not. You know of what I speak.
I do not get your support for Giffords, and her being a democrat is lame ass BS. You said yourself you would vote for dog shit if it was a democrat.
YOU DON'T HAVE A DOG SHIT BANNER ON YOUR BLOG TEMPLATE!!!!
We vote the same in this race, and I am clear about my reasons and understand my math. I do not understand your calculus. The equations don't fit. I see one and one, add them, and get two. You are getting five. This is the Navigator's best. When it comes to communication, this is as good as I get. I see two. You see five. Where are the other three?
It's your blog, but as a regular reader I request you post two stories and put the time and energy required to make them GOOD.
One story should tell us why we should vote for Obama (a ridiculously easy assignment) and one story should fully clarify your position regarding Giffords (?!).
I have never met Jeff Latas, but I did meet his wife. If Salette is any indication, the man's a genius.
GO NAV GO!!!
You speak for me, Navigator, and very well. I don't know if x4mr gets it or not, but if gambling, I would bet everything that he does, that the template is a BIG DEAL.
I'm one of the geeks that knows all about Web 2.0, blogs, campaign web traffic, "Infoware" and so on.
You see, the blog template gets loaded EVERY time. It is the setting, the backdrop, the context, the foundation, of EVERY blog entry. Someone in Botswana googles some word and gets an x4mr post from December of 2006, what do they see?
The blog template.
It frames every story.
Way to go, Nav! You hold x4mr accountable. He makes a bigger difference than most realize, and I don't care how smart you think he is (he's smarter!!).
Look at the banners carefully. See that the blue's match perfectly? See how his name is PERFECTLY centered over hers? See how the images blend into one just perfect?
PERFECT! Just accidental, I'm sure.
How many see that image every day?
Who in Arizona Congressional District 8 votes for Obama that does not then vote for Gabrielle Giffords?
I cannot confirm whether he gets paid, but make no mistake, x4mr is a political operative.
I MUST!! post anonymously or they would have my ass.
There are the smart and there are the stupid. You may or may not have heard of Blog Net News. They rank political blogs in terms of influence. This week the top AZ are:
Sonoran Alliance
Seeing Red AZ
Suburban League
Rum, Romanism, Rebellion
Politicker AZ
Using x4mr lingo:
They've changed your vote how many times?
x4mr a political operative? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I might share Liza and Nav's views more strongly if the district in question was, say, Dem +10% in registration. It's not, and I tend to be pragmatic.
Having said that, calling Giffords; "W Light" is a low blow, and you well know it Nav. Her background is not nearly as affluent, and her father doesn't have nearly the affluence ... now, you can justify those under your "light banner" ... but ...
Giffords works quite hard to gather information, internalize it, understand it ... you, I and others may disagree with the conclusions she reaches ... but the work is put in. She is also willing to listen to (and be persuaded by) new arguments and information.
I have seen no evidence of eggplant possessing either capability.
Just by themselves, those two traits separate her by several orders of magnitude from a label such as "W light".
Sirocco gets it.
Not meaning to make light of some intense commentary, the "three" you apparently do not see, Nav, can be summed up in two simple words:
SHE WINS.
She puts a check mark in the blue column, and in 2008, unless you have a name that can do the same you have what comes out of a dog's ass.
I have great respect for Liza and can appreciate her support of Latas, but the man could not raise money.
I share Sirocco's pragmatism as well as his commentary.
I am NOT going to write a story on why to vote for Obama. It occurs as no different from standing on the roof and telling people not to shove broken glass up their ass.
Regarding Giffords, I think the g supporter and Sirocco pretty much nail it. She is smart, hard working, and wins. While forever prevented from the worthiness available to those born poor, she is doing her best with the cards she has been dealt. Can anyone ask for more?
I am grateful and thankful for the WINNING democrat Gabrielle Giffords, and while anon gets a little too excited, he is right that her banner on my blog template is a big deal.
I retract nothing.
OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT.
GIFFORDS FOR CONGRESS.
Smart(?)and hardworking? That's all we should ask for?
X4mr, Karl Rove is smart(?)and hardworking.
I won't even get into it, what we should be asking for. It should be as obvious as telling people not to shove broken glass up into their asses.
Good grief.
Navigator, it's a blind spot and it's as big as Dallas. Everyone has them, but not everyone has a blog.
Liza, not even you would argue the positions Giffords holds align with those Rove does. Forgive me, but that's an asinine implication to make.
It's not a blind spot as you claim ... or, perhaps, you are the one with the blind spot.
I will vote for Giffords knowing full well I don't agree with her on every position.
Sirocco,
The obvious point I was making that apparently was not so obvious is that "smart and hardworking" does not qualify a person for Congress. Are you smart and hardworking? Are you capable of defending the Constitution at the legislative level? Are you capable of defending the Constitution at the legislative level right now when we HAVE RUN OUT OF F***ING TIME?
Yes, Sirocco, I have my bling spots. This happens not to be one of them.
Vote for whoever you like, Sirocco, and for whatever reason you choose. We can still do that, as far as I know...
Make that blind spots. I'm not into bling.
I don't think language exists strong enough to express my disappointment in x4mr's pathetic and utterly inane two word response to my inquiry about Giffords.
She wins.
That's why I am to support her? I am more offended than you can grasp. How past pathetic and ignorant. I side entirely with Liza and then some in my repulsion to your (and apparently Sirocco) deference to "she wins" as a reason to support an elected official.
I will vote for Giffrords, but with no enthusiasm, and like her, you produce no substance when called on the carpet. I put my best forward to ask a serious question, and you toss me aside with "she wins"?
PATHETIC, X4MR. Just pathetic. But you are right, the twit will win. Spineless and impotent, your favorite will win and maneuver for the next win, win after win. She'll keep winning, and our pathetic excuse for a country will keep losing, and losing, and losing.
Heh ... I'm not just smart and hard-working, I am ingenious and hard-working. Arrogant. Also true. I make no claims of being unique in possessing such traits among posters on this board, or even simply within this conversation.
If I was interested in running for public office, I wouldn't have any problem defending the Constitution. For whatever reason, public office isn't a problem set which interests me. I also disagree with your apparent contention it is the sole basis for choosing whom to support, or that we have run out of time (although time is definitely being lost).
Regardless, I would never ask you (or anyone) to vote for anyone you didn't support, nor did I imply you should. I simply pointed out some characteristics which differentiated her from being "W light", as Nav phrased it.
There are more, of course. Her positions, in general, are more liberal than you give her credit for, less liberal than I might like, and certainly less liberal than you prefer.
I'd love to be able to vote for someone who's positions aligned with mine across the board. Unfortunately, such an individual would have a chance of winning a CD8 election so small as to be unmeasurable in polling. That's where the pragmatist in me comes out.
Should Giffords win this fall, it certainly will not be a "loss" for our country. Heck, should _Bee_ win this fall I wouldn't call it "a loss for our country". We're not talking about, say, the late, unlamented, Jess Helms here, in either case. The melodrama is as ridiculous as it is unmerited.
Don't tell me, Sirocco, you are also devastatingly handsome and fabulously wealthy.
Even so, I do not think I would vote for you.
Well said, Sirocco. Nav needs to chill. My two word response was not meant as disrespect and should not be read as such.
That she can win CD 8 is in fact huge, something Sirocco and I seem to understand, whether it is as big as Dallas or Houston or whatever.
I am willing to talk tango with Nav regarding Giffords, but objections raised thus far occur as empty. Sirocco is right about the drama, but it's fun. If you want me to swing, Nav, throw something. Hit her so hard the Bee camp creates links.
Sirocco,
Of course anon is nuts when suggesting I am some important operative. Still, you could have laughed a little less hard at the concept.
"Don't tell me, Sirocco, you are also devastatingly handsome and fabulously wealthy."
No on both counts. As for whether you would vote for me or not, I do believe my views are far closer to yours than you seem to think.
Pointless speculation - I have already said the problem set public office presents holds no interest for me.
Well, that does it I suppose. Sirocco is "gifted with genius" (according to him), X4mr is the blog owner, and they agree.
About that blind spot, Navigator, I think we might be talking Texas, not Dallas. In the case of Sirocco, we are, of course, referring to the ego.
Night night, fan boys.
Hmmmm ... I would never deny having an ego. I don't believe I am the only one of the two of us to possess one.
Good night griefer-girl. :)
The problem, as I see it, is that nobody is challenging her in the primaries. I know... money, money, money, or the lack of. However, next time around may be different, I read "something" in my cards.
Lord Almighty. . . the drama llama seems to have a home here.
Liza -- not to defend Sirocco, as he is perfectly able to do so himself, but I do happen to know about his brain and it is outstanding. His ego is also immense, but unfortunately, it truly is commensurate with his ability(ies).
He does not vote strictly with emotion, but instead is one of the most rational, reasonable, logical, (and thus frustrating) human beings on the planet. He weighs the pros and cons of his decisions very carefully.
Mariana,
I agree - the trick to getting more liberal democrats is to find them and run them as primary challengers. Even if the incumbent successfully fends off the challenge, just facing one will tend to swing them a little further away from the middle. It's how Republicans have been getting increasingly conservative candidates.
However, again, one has to be pragmatic about it. There are districts in this country where the voting alignment is sufficiently weighted a dog could run as Democrat and win (the same is true for some Republican districts of course). In such districts, there is no excuse whatsoever to have a "moderate" representative.
AZ CD8 is not such a district, nor is it likely to be any time within the next two decades. We saw what happened when Graf, clearly the most "extreme" of the major Republican candidates, won the Republican nomination in 2006. If Dem's were to select a Graf equivalent as their nominee in the near future, one could confidently predict a similar fate.
Oh, my gosh. It continues.
Texpatriate, thank you for your description of your friend, Sirocco.
Everyone has been quoting song lyrics lately. Here's what Shania Twain said about the smart guys and I do think she makes a valid point:
"I've known a few guys who thought they were pretty smart
But you've got being right down to an art
You think you're a genius, you drive me up the wall
You're a regular original, a "knowitall"
Ohwooh, you think you're special
Ohwooh, you think you're something else
Ok, so you're a rocket scientist...
That don't impress me much!
So you got the brains, but have you got the touch?
(Now) Don't get me wrong, yeah I think you're alright
But that won't keep me warm in the middle of the night
That don't impress me much!"
From "That Don't Impress Me Much"
Mariana,
You are absolutely correct. Giffords campaign strategy in 2006 was entirely based upon her being the "only Democrat who can win." That story about having to rescue the family business was the excuse for her having a good education but no career. The stint in the state legislature was unremarkable because the Republicans were the majority. She has never been required to be anything other than the face of a fundraising machine.
However, these are the kind of people who are going to win elections as long as elections are about who can raise the most money for the most TV ads. The best people and the most qualified people seldom want to play these games or become what one must become to be an elected official.
Aye, please heavily discount Texpatriate's comments, she does have a built-in bias.
I have no need, or desire really, to impress or persuade you. You wouldn't know me if I said hello to you on the street. I wouldn't know you either.
I do confess to finding the lyrical reference both amusing and apt. :)
"The best people and the most qualified people seldom want to play these games or become what one must become to be an elected official."
Sadly, this is a very true comment.
Some of the other implications are not. In particular, the "family business" story was by no means a fable, as Liza seems to insinuate (and others have in the past). I have some understanding of the straits the business was in before her arrival, the state of her father's health at the time, and the condition the company was in (much improved) when they eventually sold.
It's worth noting she completed her Masters in 1996 and came back to take over the business the same year. Kind of hard to have a long, established career in the intervening few months.
Sirocco,
I didn't say it was a fable. It was highly publicized to fend off the questions as to why this particular candidate did not have a career. To be more specific, a career that qualified her or at least gave some credibility to her being a congressional representative.
When you go to Discount Tires, do you see or talk to any employees that strike you as House of Representatives material?
I am curious to hear what, in your mind, is the best background to prepare one to be a Congressional Representative? Do you believe there is one "best" path?
Sirocco,
Right now we desperately need constitutional lawyers in Congress, or the most astute lawyers from other areas who are willing to learn constitutional law and essentially become constitutional lawyers.
Another outstanding qualification would be a very in-depth and unbiased knowledge of American history and/or a very in-depth and unbiased knowledge of American foreign policy. This could be from formal education, career, or personal interest.
There are a multitude of other qualifications that would make a candidate interesting, but most of them point back to a very solid background and a very successful career in some area of government. Someone who at some time has had a leadership role in a major area within a major government. This could include elected officials, public servants, ex-military, etc…
Needless to say, there are numerous other skills that are essential such as negotiation and communication skills. Character is important, obviously, and compassion is probably the most important thing of all.
That’s the best I can do in a nutshell.
I abdicate responsibility for the length of this thread. It's Nav's fault.
He's the one who got all butt-hurt and dramatic with all capital letters regarding said blogger's appreciation for a name that does what it takes to win (failing, naturally, to produce a viable alternative).
I have no idea what the Congresswoman did on July 4th, but I'll bet it was boring and stupid with bad food, and Zach made her smile through the whole thing.
I don't think people quite appreciate the depth, breadth, and darkness of a certain blogger's cynicism and ontological angst. We put effing cheese into the White House, and I am supposed to complain about Gabrielle Giffords?! I ache, yearn, and cry for a reality where we elect the best and brightest, the gifted and extraordinary. There is a weird irony where I completely agree with Liza, yet stare at utter darkness. In principle I want the very candidates Liza describes, but where are the names on the ballots?
For AZ CD-8 I have a name I consider far more a solution than a problem, and frankly, I am grateful. Graf (or Bee) is the alternative I see.
Given its way, the GOP will have diary products run the country. Do I exaggerate? They will no kidding nominate moo cows. They HATE this country. Look at Eggplant. They LIKE Eggplant. You think that's it?
Look at McCain. Seriously, look at him and look hard. That's the GOP nominee. That's who they want to be President. Look at McCain through and through and through, in particular the last eight years while F-head was president.
THINK.
Our ideals are always better than we are, X4mr. But it is important to have them, and to believe that they can be achieved.
Otherwise, we may as well go back to the jungle and swing from the tree limbs. Or become Republicans, which is the same difference.
Just so no one thought I was hiding, I just saw and read and desperately missed this thread.
Sigh. I hate being called out about my support for someone when its my decision and, yes, I have advocated for her and will vote for her.
Gabrielle Giffords is a smart, young Congresswoman, who I think has done a great job. I supported her because I go to know her and the work that she did for our university, education in general, and her support for a host of other things I agree with. When comparing her record and work to that of Graf, it was easy. With Bee...also quite quite easy.
She is not perfectly liberal, but nor am I always. She hasn't gotten us out of Iraq, but neither has Barack Obama. In fact, Barack Obama appears to be doing what he needs to do to get elected also and I dont hear a lot of folks bashing him for it...save for the GOP.
I supported her in the primary though and advocated hard for her candidacy throughout that. I know that got some Latas supporters rather angry and some Weiss supporters. I thought she was a better, more experienced choice, She had a record and I liked it, she also fought for us when we needed it. I didn't have that kind of experience or record with Latas or Weiss.
I predicted she would win far earlier than most people. I remember that a lot of folks even thought she would have a difficult time against Huffman and Graf. I didn't.
I can't and wont defend every issue that she stands for. I know that Liza and I have fought extensively over this issue and that most of what she thinks I am a sell out on, is Iraq.
She and I agree on Iraq. She and I never agreed on Giffords. Liza and I don't agree on everything (smile). But I like her for the most part...and thats enough for me.
Same is true with Giffords.
Post a Comment
<< Home