The Data Port: CD-8 Comments

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.

8 comments:

Matt Ortega said...: I agree.

Voter turnout has killed Democrats in the past.; 3:10 PM
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?; 4:27 PM
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.; 10:31 AM
Art Jacobson said...: Emersome...

"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.

'gards,

Art; 7:13 AM
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.; 10:09 PM
x4mr said...: Thanks Emersome!; 9:40 AM
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.; 6:35 PM
Liza said...: Vetdem,
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".; 3:24 PM