Tuesday, April 18, 2006

CD-8 Comments

Old Anonymous posts the following :

Why would a bunch of Latas progressives want to support Gabby?

To which it seems to me we might well reply with the following questions:
Why should we throw good money after bad by supporting a progressive candidate with no demonstrated ability to raise enough money to win the district?

Why should we support an ex TV reporter whose main claim to electoral victory is that we all remember who she used to be?

Get a grip, Anonymous. The whole point of the CD-8 election is not just to control CD-8, which of course would be nice, but to try to regain control of Congress. Each Democratic victory in the 15 crucial races brings us closer to that goal.

That's why all CD-8 Democrats should come out growling and snapping in support of whoever wins the primary, even if it's just a Yellow Dog.


vetdem said...

Well said, Art!

Matt O. said...

I agree.

Voter turnout has killed Democrats in the past.

anonymous said...

Bring on Gabby's voting record and her positions!

We need to know her better than the superficial image that dumbs her down.

She is classier and smarter than her advisors allow the public to know.

She should be able to post her record, and her positions.

She does not need handlers. She needs the guts to state her record and positions.

She should not run from her past.

Geo said...

I think we have to be careful of going with someone out on the liberal fringe. Remember, we need to win the General Election. So someone who has not only progressive cred, but also appeals to centrist Indies is going to be needed.

I agree with Art. We're 15 seats in the House away from having a Dem majority. If that happens, then Dems fill all the chairperson positions on all of the committees and at least one part of one branch of Congress can act as a check and balance against Executive and Senate excess. That's a goal worth getting serious about.

Giffords has both progressive cred and centrist appeal, plus broad name recognition and sound financial backing. Most of her detractors even admit that, while she may not be their preference, she's the best Dem chance to go all the way and win the General.

I appreciate the efforts of all the candidates. But I don't JUST want a candidate who is charismatic or agrees with me on my pet issues or leans way, way left and passes some "party purity test". I actually want us to WIN this race in November.

I guess the question for Dems boils down to: How serious are you about winning AZ-8?

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Art has a point here. Yellow Dogs and Pinto Democrats are usually the best we can hope for in Arizona.

Gabby's mistake is to think that you have to run to the right to win on election day. Raul Grijalva and some of the current Tucson council members disprove this hypothesis.

Gabby would be a Republican to this day, if not for the hard right positions that penalize women.

She could courageously state her positions and distribute her voting record online for all to see.

This is considered 'courageous' among the current democrats, and it would stop this thread complaining about her lack of transparency.

George Tuttle said...

Geo-what exactly is a "liberal fringe?"

By my intpretation of your writing, you are asying that everyone else should just give up because Gabby is X, Y and Z.

I'm sorry, but I don't see her that way. In fact, my good friends in the Republican Party are salivating to get ahold of Gabby in the general. If you think her appeal to the centrist indies is important, they will scare the hell out of them to vote against her.

In short, I don't believe she has what it takes.

I do believe that Jeff Latas has the credentials militarily and idealistically to handle a Republican whether it is Huffman or Graf, or even Hellon.

He is far from a fringe candidate and can appeal across the board.

I was impressed the first time I met him and still think he is the future of our Party.

He just earned PDA's endorsement.

anonymous said...

Gabby has more negatives than we can safely catalog.

Its the entire style of her ephemeral campaign that avoids issues and changes the subject.

Everything from the Cactus Growing in DC, to the ice cream social makes me blanche with the frivolity involved.

Bring it on with the flighty suit and the long distance astronaut, I mean boyfriend.

It all spells lack of substance.

Working Joe said...

Anonymous, I don't like that she doesn't talk to the issues either but you can look up her voting record yourself on the state website.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

All of us Arizona Democrats are so starved for a win that we end up supporting everything and everyone:

Mafiosi, pinto democrats, yellow dog democrats, conservative democrats, centrists, pro-business, big money millionaires, and even now and then a liberal fringe guy like Raul Grijalva.

Lets all get a grip and hold on to a victory. We don't have to support Mafiosi, pinto democrats, yellow dog democrats, conservative democrats, centrists, pro-business, big money millionaires this time.

We have some good candidates, and one that might win the general election.

Working Joe said...

Geo said...

Geo, you mean the way moving to the middle helped Gore and Kerry and the Congress? I think that strategy has proved wrong time and time again. Clinton would not even have won if it hadn't been for Perot pulling away republican votes.

Working Joe said...

I do not agree with Latas or Weiss on all their issues, but I do respect they have the courage to make a stand. I am what you all refer to as a moderate or centrist and I am looking to support a progressive this time around. At least my definition of progressive. I am that swing voter that the pollsters always like callig.

I have had enough of the bull. I also liked Howard Dean in the last election even though I was not a Democrat. He knew how to manage money and had family values. That is something that attracts voters of all parties.

Working Joe said...

What is a pinto democrat and a yellow democrat? Sorry those are terms I am not familar with. What is PDA? Is it a union?

Geo I think you analysis is way off. You keep talking about people like me yet you get it all wrong on why we vote the way we do. Maybe that is why Democrats here keep losing.

Working Joe said...

Self appointed, Gabby was a Republican for most of her life as were her parents. I don't use that against her. I was a republican too. Her changing her registration card right before she decided to run as a democrat might be suspect but others do it too. That really is not my issue with her. Hillary Clinton was a republican too. I know you might be thinking she still is. The problem is not republicans against democrats it is they both are against the people and for the big money corporations. How many democrats voted for that corrupt bankruptcy bill that benefits the rich? Most of them did.

Working Joe said...

George, can you confirm what some of my repbublican friends have said that their internal polling shows Giffords as the easiest to beat? I wrote something on a different comment stream here that it sounds like they are trying to make out like she is the one they are scared of getting the nomination because inside they know they can beat her the easiest. It will be interesting who they end up with in their primary. Probably whoever Jim Click is behind. I don't remember if it is Hellon or that other guy but I know it is not Graf.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Pinto democrat is an old term for AZ democrats who voted with the conservatives. Pinto ponies are multicolored, usually brown and white.

Yellow Dog Democrat is a modern, southern variant for the same kind of voter.

Pro-business democrat is a quasi-oxymoron, generally meaning to bend for business before people, and profits before community.

I believe PDA is an acronym for Progressives Democrats of America.

Working Joe said...

I should have clarified. Easiest to beat out of the top three democrats Giffords, Latas and Weiss.

Has Giffords done her own polling like Weiss has made public? I don't put all stock in polls but I know all candidates do them and would be curious to know what they are finding.

Working Joe said...

Thanks, self appointed. I was beginning to think I was alone here. I wonder if I am considered that pinto term?

Why do I always have to type that word verification for eat comment I write? That is so very aggravating. Once I sign in it should be enough.

Working Joe said...

Since I am showing myself not to be as into the political terms as all of you, what is a Mafiosi? Is that a party or a mafia person? I know I look stupid but I have not heard these terms and my typing really sucks tonight too. That word verfiy drives me nuts. I cannot even read it sometimes.

Self Appointed Opinion Leader said...

Mafiosi are people that tend to invest lots of money in malls and real estate... for and from their family. They tend to become corporate over time. Most have a genesis dating back to prohibition bootlegging, but not confined to drugs, gambling and other rackets.

They tend to be better at politics than the conservatives. Many, if not most have migrated to the Republicans in the last twenty years, but we have great traditions here in Arizona.

I never thought that the old family organized crime interests of Arizona would be considered quaint compared to the criminal enterprises of the Bush era.

But I digress. I'm with Art at the end of the day. We have to vote partyline, for both the good and bad democrats. Arizona has been run into the ground by the Republican Revolution and we have to take the power back.

Even if it means voting for the menagerie of Democrats that makes Arizona so much perplexing fun.

anonymous said...

Art is right about beggars not being choosers.

I'm begging for a victory in November that brings in another Arizona Democrat to CD8.

SonoranDesertRat said...

I do not see Latas as "throwing good money after bad." Nor do I see Weiss as saying "vote for me, becasue I used to be on TV." This campaign has months yet to shake out, and nobody knows what it's going to hold. I'm sure Gabby will start the media onslaught anytime soon now, and Weiss won't be far behind. Latas is going to have to pick his spots, but if he goes down, he'll go down fighting. I actually see him as having a better chance in the general than Gabby does. Talk about money all you want; whoever wins this primary is going to have some for the general. You think the DNC is going to let this seat go without a fight?
Talk to Jeff sometime. See how quick on his feet he is, and how well he understands the issues. There's a learning curve on this, and it's hard to just come out of nowhere and raise money for an election. Weiss had an easier time of it, with her name recognition, but she still had to go out there and bust a** to get the money. Gabby has a network built up; of course she's going to raise a bunch of money and do so quickly.
You know what we need to win the general election? Someone who is not going to wither or provide a wishy-washy defense - or even worse, no response - when attacked. Someone who is not going to let the consultants control the message. The Repubs are going to get nasty. They are going to paint anyone that comes out of the Demo primary as "too liberal", "tax and spend" (oh, by the way, when you have a voting record, that's gonna be an easy target for that), "soft" and "weak on national security." That's their M.O. That will be coming. Too many Demo candidates over the last several years lost because they decided to "stay positive" and not fight back when attacked. We need someone who will fight back, and in a way that shames the Republican candidate for even trying to go down that road. (In the words of Sean Connery in The Untouchables, "They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue.") We need someone who people will be clear on where they stand on the issues. Someone who the public knows will not take any BS and will give you the straight dope. Someone who has a clear answer NOW, not a long speech to dodge the question.
I am waiting to see how Weiss impresses me in these areas. Latas looks to be extremely strong in all of these areas. Gabby, on the other hand, does not strike me as the type who can win that kind of slugfest.

SonoranDesertRat said...

Oh, working joe, that word verification may be annoying, but it's here for a very good reason: it keeps the spammers from setting up Blogger accounts and bombing us with offers for cheap Viagra, refinance scams, and extenders for certian parts of the anatomy. It's certainly a lot less annoying than having to sift through spam to find posts. (And yes, spammers do hit comment threads heavily when they get the chance.)

sirocco said...

Switching subjects a little bit, what are people's opinion r.e. fundraising on the Republican side?

I have to admit the fact Huffman has raised so much more than Graf is a concern -- Huffman will be much harder to beat in the general, IMO. With Graf, you can count on getting a fair bit of support from centrist Republicans. Huffman will keep most of those voters I think.


anonymous said...

Huffman has a problem, and that is the 40+% that Graf brings to the table. He must get one percentage point over Graf to win.

With Mike Hellon in the race, all of that big cash is less so against Graf.

Kind of like the problems Gabrielle has. Lots of money to get name recognition against a well known candidate, but no certainty that money will win the day over ideologies and positions.

And when it comes to popularity, we know Raul Grijalva better than Elaine Richardson. And it was the case four years ago, too.

SonoranDesertRat said...

Long post here... bear with me. A repsonse to sirocco's post:
Graf has a ton of support in Cochise county. He will win overwhelmingly there, no matter how much the other Republican candidates raise. He's been campaigning there for years, and for better or for worse he's got major cred with the voters there on illegal immigration. He also plays well to the social conservatives. I would be surprised if he didn't take at least 60 percent of the Cochise primary, even with such a crowded field.
Cochise, however, is not a major portion of District 8's voters. There's another wild-card in play for Graf, though, and that's Green Valley. He represented District 30 for many years, and always found strong support there. One thing that Green Valley residents do is vote, so there will be very strong turnout. They know him and like him there. Now that he doesn't have Kolbe to deal with, he may do much better there in the primary this time around. I don't know if the GOP candidates' fundraising will be enough to make up this ground there.
Take these two areas, and Graf has a lot of votes already built up. The question now becomes whether or not Huffman or Hellon can get enough votes in the rest of the district to overcome this advantage from those areas. If one of them (at this point presumably Hellon) doesn't drop out of the race, then they'll split the non-Graf vote. Graf will also get support from those in the district that want the borders shut down tight. Graf pulled 43% against Kolbe last time around. This is despite being outspent better than 6 to 1 by Kolbe. It's very easily conceivable that he could pull at least that much this time. The immigration issue has gotten even hotter since 2004, and given that the primaries tend to be driven by the conservative edge of the party, I have a hard time seeing him lose the nomination this time around.

AZYouLikeIt said...

"...whose main claim to electoral victory is that we all remember who she used to be?"

There's a straw man if I've ever seen one. Patty's never claimed that her name recognition will win her the election. It gives her a head start for sure, but Gabby's been plenty proud to tout her fundraising head start.

At least Patty has taken a stand on the issues. I'm still hoping Gabby will spend some of that 500 grand on a ghostwriter and a few position papers.

What's her main claim to electoral victory? Raising money without believing in anything? Oooh, sign me up.

vetdem said...

Gabby has a voting record that tells you what she believes in. Listen to her speak and you'll hear her values. She's articulate, smart and hardworking. I don't think there is a better candidate in all of Arizona.

anonymous said...

Out in the land without blogs, only one name is even known. The rest of the Democrats have next to zero press to introduce them.

Gabby will have to become an even bigger TV celebrity than the current frontrunner.

sirocco said...

Anon, I get the impression that you keep repeating the mantra "Patty Weiss, frontrunner" to yourself in the hopes you may one day come to believe it.

Thanks for the info on Huffman-Graf. I know Graf did well in the last primary, but he did ultimately lose. It seems that percentage he got before is rock-solid though (i.e., he may do better this year but can't do worse).

anonymous said...

Check out the latest internal polls.

They will tell you the same. Patty is ahead of all of the rest.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymous said...

Lots of independents signed Patty Weiss's petition.

Many Republicans donated to her campaign.

She has built a level of trust over time that is nonpartisan, hence the incredible sniping by the establishment Democrats.

Gabby is perceived by the Rs and Is as more establishment,more party oriented. Patty can be an underdog and still be the frontrunner because of this lack of status quo support.

sirocco said...

Anon, you keep harping on "internal polls". If you have some info, post it. Otherwise, you are conjuring out of thin air.

I would expect, without much money spent on advertising yet, Weiss to do fairly well in initial polling. That's just a guess though -- I have no figures to support it.

Giffords has money to get her name and face out there when she decides the time is right. Weiss has money to get her message out there when she decides the time is right.

anonymous said...

I think we should all donate $10,000 to get a public poll about CD 8.

That way Gabby can better spend her money, and target her likely support.

It could save her a fortune, and it could convince the donor base to support the frontrunner.

Yo Se Quien Soy said...


I am tired of people comparing this race to AZCD7 in 2002 - first of all, YOU had two candidates with an extensive track and voting record in the community - these were the two folks that were considered the front runners -

Now, looking at 2006, an "off" year - and you got ONE candidate with a voting record, one that read the news and another that served our country but has not lived in the district long enough - then you got a young politician hoping to gather some kind of hispanic support - they all have contributed to society somehow - but let's face it - they are not either Raul Grijalva or Elaine Richardson - and the closets and BEST chance to win CD 8 is Gabrielle Giffords - on track record, community involvement, Money (yes, the greens help a LOT).

So please, I do love Raul Grijalva and do not make comparisons with him and Jeff Latas - they are two different persons!

Emersome Biggums said...

No one is saying Latas is a Grijalva. The comparison is funding the campaign and the grass roots.

By the way, Latas came to AZ in the late 70's.

2002 was also an "off" year.

Glad this is your opinion and not reality.

Liza said...

I'm already sick of hearing of about Giffords and her 570K. I heard her speak in Patagonia at a candidates' forum last January and I was not impressed. She does not seem to know diddly-squat about US foreign policy and she was definitely not willing to take a position on Iraq. Anyone who cannot condemn the US invasion and occupation of Iraq at this point should not be running for Congress. Yes, folks, its that simple. I admit that we've got a lot to be concerned about here at home and the Republicans have made a real mess of things. But number one on the agenda is energy independence which also means cease and desist in the Mideast. Its already a failed foreign policy for which we are paying dearly. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who says we need to "stabilize" Iraq supports permanent occupation. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE and its time for the voters to start connecting the dots unless they want the US to look like a third world country (lacking a middle class) in about 20 years or less.

vetdem said...

Liza - I concur with some of what you're saying. And certainly agree that Iraq is the 'most important issue." However, I think you should listen again to what Giffords is saying about Iraq. I think that you might have misunderstood her position on the issue.

Emersome Biggums said...


You should listen to what Liza is saying. Giffords said exactly what is being mentioned. I was there, too. I remember that she stated we should stay until stability is reached, something that. I take that as staying and letting more of our Americans to die for what, her pro-biz buddies like Rip Wilson, Walmart lobbyists?

Art Jacobson said...


"Something (like?) that"?
Get the quote right or take a pass.

Don't you think we owe the Iraqis something for having invaded their country? A little stability, for instance? Sorry, but I think a cut and run strategy will do us more harm than good in the long run.



Emersome Biggums said...


Do you have any kids/grandkids? If so send them to do your dirty work.

Okay, Here is the quote, since you don't "like" my paraphrase.

Giffords, "There are two solutions that are being put forward and that you hear about in the mainstream, and I think both of them are not appropriate."

Okay, what is the best solution?

Giffords, "The problem, of course, with withdrawing immediately, is that we are there."

Duhhh. Glad she keeps up with current events.

Giffords, "We are there today, and it is irresponsible to just pull out immediately."

So I guess stay the course is her solution. However, have heard the Latas response and the public go wild with acceptance, she changed her tune. Glad to see Latas making these changes in this race. Conviction is what I keep seeing and I saw that in Patagonia and have seen it even more recently.

Kralmajales said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Emersome Biggums said...

Suprise , suprise, I was at the Douglas forum yesterday and guess what came out of Giffords mouth, "We must get out of Iraq ASAP."

So I am thinking your voting Repug now?

Emersome Biggums said...

Sorry Art, another typo, I should have written, "You're" voting repug now. :)

x4mr said...

May have some semantics stuff going on here. What, for example, does "ASAP" mean? Does it mean as quickly as we can load them into planes, as quickly as we can without a civil war, as quickly as we can after establishing democracy.........

I would assert that all the candidates have certain criteria about what they consider appropriate withdrawal. This isn't like turning off the kitchen faucet.

Emersome, if you were there in Douglas, willing to offer any other remarks? Well attended? Did kids really boo Randy? Did Latas really flip flop on Iraq as asserted in a posting at Daily Kos, or is this more semantics?

I wanted to go but couldn't and can't resist asking.

Emersome Biggums said...

The event was standing room only, maybe a couple seats empty. Very well attended. The Republicans look pretty bad in my opinion. Randy was laughed at and it was an embaresing moment for him when he said Al Queida was in Sadams pocket before 9/11 then he insisted this is documented.

Latas is pretty clear that we need to get out of Iraq now. He did a pretty good job of explaining the Murtha plan in one minute. I don't know what the kos guy is talking about. I did check and Latas made a response to that comment and clarified he thinks we must leave as soon as possible (ASAP). I don't precive a "flip-flop" but given the threat his campiagn presents to the others, I'm sure they will start gunning at him.

I thought the Dems did pretty good over all. Alex may have ccoked his goose with his anti-gay marrage and anti-gay adoption position. I think he should hang it up now. Francine acually did pretty good and got a couple a funny's in.

I will say that Latas was the only one that came out swing. The very first thing he did was call Graf out. Graf said that this was the first time all had this opportunity and Latas said in his into, "Mr Graf you had an opportunity to participate in the Tucson DFA forum and YOU refused."

Latas also stumped him and a forrestry issue when Graf said now one is cutting in the national forrest, Latas had the goods and called him out on this untruth. Latas looked pretty good against the two repugs and I think he will have no problems in a general.

Take a look at the http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/25/18237/0921/79#c79 for the comment and the response of Latas.

SonoranDesertRat said...

For those of you decrying the Murtha plan - do you actually understand it? It is not a matter of getting all of our soldiers out of there right away. It is a phased withdrawal and redeployment of our troops. We create a force of troops in the region ready to get to a trouble spot at a moment's notice. We also create an "over-the-horizon presence of Marines." This is also to be done in accordance with putting the Iraqi government on notice that we are going to be turning their country over to them.
What are we accomplishing militarily in Iraq right now? We haven't put down the insurgency. The country is teetering on (and in, depending on who you ask) civil war. Our soldiers are doing the work that the Iraqi army was supposed to be able to do by now. There really is no end in sight to that. And this is far different from Bosnia. We're spending billions per week to spin our wheels.
Anyone who accuses Latas of flip-flopping on Iraq should remember that he knows more about this subject than Gabby ever will. This is not the type of knowledge that you can just take some class on. If you bring those kinds of accusations, you'd better be armed better than that.

x4mr said...

Thanks Emersome!

anonymous said...

Patty Weiss pretty well won the Douglas debate. It was taped and comments will be available in about a week.

Jeff Lata's people heckled Graf mercilessly, and it did Jeff little good.

Jeff was better prepared than he was in Sierra Vista, Alex Rodriguez came off as a conservative quasi-pro choice Democrat, Francine was humorous but not compelling, and Gabby either had a cold or something that made her seem slightly off.

Jeff's people would do well to keep the heckling down. It diminishes their candidate.

Emersome Biggums said...

Funny, I didn't notice many of Jeff's people there. Maybe he made a few new fans and supporters. Obviously something must be working for him.

Liza said...

Over three months has passed since I heard the Democratic CD8 candidates speak in Patagonia so it does not surprise me that some of them are changing what they say about Iraq. When I heard Giffords speak in Patagonia, I did not misunderstand her position on Iraq as "vetdem" suggested above. I distinctly remember her comment about it being "irresponsible" to leave Iraq. Also, Weiss made a statement about "stabilizing" Iraq and invoked the much overused "you broke it, you fix it" quote from whoever. When I left Patagonia, I was almost certain I would be voting for Jeff Latas.

As far as Giffords and Weiss are concerned, I think that what they said about Iraq in Patagonia is more important than what they say three months later. My feeling is that any Democratic candidate who could not take a strong position against the invasion and occupation of Iraq by January, 2006, should not be running for a seat in the House. I do not think its important for a candidate to speak to a specific exit strategy for leaving Iraq. That would be an unreasonable expectation given how little we outsiders know about what is really happening over there. However, what I do think is important is that there is consensus among all Democrats that we have to end the occupation of a sovereign nation that we had no right to invade in the first place. Obviously, this will not happen overnight, but it won't happen at all until we agree that US foreign policy in the Mideast must change. We cannot invade and bomb our way to energy independence.

You know, its time to wake up and face north. We better start getting used to the idea that there is no future in an oil based economy when you're a major oil importer. Try to get your mind around what could have been done with all those hundreds of billions of dollars that we will end up spending on "Operation Iraqi Freedom". When I was in college in the 70's, everyone seemed to understand that we needed to be using alternative energy sources by the end of the century at the latest. So what happened? Its 2006 and we're just starting to think that SUVs getting 15 mpg are not so good. We have only a few cities with fully developed mass transit systems and we burn non renewable energy resources like there's no tomorrow.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is about sweet crude oil and strategic locations for US military bases. At this time, with our current administration and current representatives, there is no end in sight to the occupation. Any Democrat who cannot speak out against this with strength and conviction should be a Republican.

Its really hard for us to fight the Republicans who want to focus elections on a single issue because they are so successful at doing this. This time, of course, its immigration. If we're all immigrant bashing, then we can't be too worried about what party is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis. Democrats need to get a lot better at promoting our issues and this is why I can only support a CD8 candidate who started out with a strong position against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I think its the most important issue in this election.

vetdem said...


"Democrats need to get a lot better at promoting our issues and this is why I can only support a CD8 candidate who started out with a strong position against the invasion and occupation of Iraq."

I think all of the candidates started out with a strong position on Iraq.

I also think it is important for candidates to be open minded and willing to adjust there stands on issues as a they learn more and events unfold.

I think what we don't need is someone who is inflexible and not able to work well with others.

Just a thought.

Liza said...

In Patagonia, the candidates and other potential candidates who started out with a strong position against the invasion and occupation of Iraq were Jeff Latas, Francine Schacter, Eva Bacal, and Richard Roth. The other candidates were not willing to unequivocally state that they opposed the invasion and that the US must leave. None of these candidates spoke in favor of the invasion, but they managed to speak around it without saying much of anything.

Being open minded is very different from failing to take a position on a major issue until you and your handlers have a better understanding of what voters want to hear. As I've said, anyone who could not strongly denounce this invasion and occupation by January, 2006, does not belong in Congress. By that time anyone who was not living under a rock knew that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not justified by any rule of law and that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead because of it. Isn't that enough right there?

So, I can't support Giffords or Weiss because they gave wrong answers when asked about Iraq, as far as I'm concerned. Either one would be better than Jim Kolbe, to be sure, but I think we need to populate Congress with people who already understand the last several decades of US foreign policy and can hit the ground running. The right person for this job is Jeff Latas.

Also, I don't know who you are referring to who is "inflexible and not able to work with others".

vetdem said...


I respect your opinion but I think it is more important to have a candidate with some experience in elected office. Being effective in Congress is a difficult task. I flew airplanes in the military. I don't think that makes me, or Jeff Latas for that matter, particulary qualified. I feel that someone like Latas will need a lot of time to figure out how things work on Capital Hill. I feel that Giffords will be able to immediately go to work for the people of CD-8. I am willing to continue to listen to your argument and will certainly consider Latas. He's going to be a hard sell though. He hasn't raised much money and isn't running a very effective campaign. I would bet that he has very low name recognition in the district. I do respect the fact that he is running for office and if he does win in September I will certainly support him 100%.