Wednesday, June 14, 2006

CD 8...Emily's List Endorses Giffords

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- EMILY's List, the nation's largest grassroots political network and financial resource for women running for elective office, today announced its endorsement of Gabrielle Giffords in her bid for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

"Gabrielle Giffords is independent, passionate, and ready to effect change in Washington just as she has in her home state. Gabrielle knows Arizona. She has experienced it from every angle, from small business owner to state senator, and she understands and is willing to fight for what is important to Arizonans," said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY's List. "Support for Gabrielle throughout Southern Arizona is impressive, and EMILY's List sees her campaign as a tremendous opportunity to take back this seat in 2006. This is one of EMILY’s List’s top priority races, and our membership will use its significant strength to ensure a victory for Gabrielle Giffords.”

Full text available here.
The Emily's List home page is here.

69 comments:

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

Roger,

If by "her support being soft" you wonder if her supporters are going to jump ship, or give up the fight, I really doubt it.

It will propably affect her ability to raise money.

Art

FEDUP said...

Roger,

Patty should just drop out then and clear the path for Giffords, huh?

Even you can't possibly believe what you wrote. You knew Emily's list and their Arizona sister, Arizona's List were endorsing Giffords over a month ago. I knew back in early April already how the endorsement was going down after making a couple of phone calls. By mid May it was a done deal.

You are trying to make this more of a story than it is or infer that it some how hurts Weiss. It helps Giffords get more money, which she already has more than all candidates in the race. It doesn't say anything about Weiss' support.

Weiss support soft? You must not be spending any time talking to voters. Some of the key voting precincts she is kicking, Latas is getting some increased support in others. Something else interesting, many voters are telling the Giffords campaign they are supporting her, "just to get them off our backs". Seems not everyone likes those aggressive tactics she has been employing and will vote differently in September. I would be willing to be less than a third who signed Giffords petition will actually vote for her.

Let's face it, Giffords NEEDS all the money or she doesn't stand a chance against Weiss or Latas on the ground. Her ads are what she is relying on to win, and more staff than all the rest combined. What she can't anticipate is what the other campaigns are going to come out with against her. She has more credibility issues to deal with than the other candidates and she might just have to spend all that money fending them off. It is hard to argue facts and they won't be swift boat attacks either. Maybe the other candidates won't use it and will let her win rather than piss off the party insiders. They should put it all out there just when Giffords starts running her ads. Talking truth to power.

Another upset could happen if Latas would team up with Weiss before the September vote. Doesn't sound like he would consider it because he's got more than a healthy ego, but it if he knows near August he can't win, it might be the smartest political move he could make and would secure a lot of support for him in his future political career.

If Giffords is the Democrat nominee you all will lose it in November.

I will be back to rub it in too.

anonymous said...

Didn't Elaine Richardson receive Emily's List endorsement when she ran against Raul Grijalva? Ahhh yes - we saw just how effective Emily's List is. They pumped in hundreds of thousands of dollars and didn't get even close to Raul. Honestly - this means nothing. Just another Special Interest Group trying to buy their way into a potential elected official. Emily's List has been proven once before they are ineffective in Southern Arizona Politics. They are about to waste a whole bunch of money again - guess 2002 didn't teach them to butt out of local politics.

Gabby's campaign is very similar to Elaine Richardson - Had all the mainstream Democratic Party support in the primary, and was the "popular" candidate. Now Emily's List is beiong used as was in 02 as the election is in the bag - Oh how all these Gifford suporters are in for a surprise in September.

I can't wait for Roger to eat crow.
I actually like Giffords just dont think she can win against Graft. Roger and his fanaticalism about Gabby is sickining.

sirocco said...

Certainly the EL endorsement doesn't guarantee any candidate winning in any election. It's still a big endorsement -- with Weiss in the race as well, another pro-abortion female democratic candidate, they could have chosen to endorse her ot not to endorse either candidate in the primary.

Whatever analysis they applied apparently convinced them Giffords was the more viable candidate.

Rex Scott said...

The lame attempts by fedup and anonymous to question Gabby's credibility and electability are an indication of the tactics that will be increasingly employed by Giffords opponents as September approaches. Negative campaigns are always a sign of desperation and foundering. The attacks on Gabby have no basis in fact, especially with regard to her position on Iraq, or supposed GOP-leanings she exhibited in the Legislature.

No one in this race has the record, experience and support that Gabby brings to the table. She is also a vigorous and smart campaigner. If the Republicans are eager for a chance to take her on, they are deluded.

Gabby's support in this primary is coming ffrom all segments of the Democratic Party. The only critics I hear are self-appointed guardians of "progressivism" that demand across the board ideological purity and divisive rhetoric from the candidates they deign to support. If these folks were Republicans, they would be typical Graf supporters.

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

Rex Scott,
You refer to "Gabby's position on Iraq." You mean the one that just came out recently or the lack of one she started her campaign with? Which is it?

Come on, fess up. Tell us everything Giffords ever said about Iraq and when and where she said it. Make sure that your sources can be verified because some of us just might do it.

The worst Giffords fans, and that includes you Rex Scott, seem to think that everyone else should just drop out of the race and worship at the altar of Giffords because you think she is perfect. Guess what, pal? Some of us still believe in democracy. Its just too bad that money seems to always win. I guess the rest of us will just have to keep trying.

You're the lame one. Go back and read what you wrote. Stop trying to intimidate other writers. Maybe they have opinions unlike yours but I don't see where anyone wrote anything that deserves a response like yours. Grow up.

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

Re: Seeing More of The Candidates

Weiss would be a perfect candidate to take on Bob Walkup in the next mayoralty contest.

FEDUP said...

Patty is "pro-abortion"? That is news to me. I thought she was pro-choice. Big difference. Maybe Gabrielle is pro-abortion, but I wouldn't run on that platform.

Deaniac said...

No one is pro-abortion, fedup. I have yet to meet one pro-choice advocate or supporter say they like the idea of abortion. They just feel that women should have a choice. I think we can agree on that, no?

Also, you really need to stop twisting everything against Gabby. Just because you don't like her doesn't mean that you have have to be a schmuck about it. We're all Democrats. Play nice. It makes it easier for the eventual Democratic nominee to win come November.

Deaniac said...

And a Democratic majority in the House is what we after, no?

Liza said...

Kralmajales,
Giffords and her handlers just recently invented her position on Iraq. Last January in Patagonia, her statements about Iraq amounted to absolutely nothing and there was nothing on her website at that time. Her position on Iraq at this time is of no interest to me.
What does it mean when a candidate takes six months to develop a position on an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation?

I think that Rex Scott's post is, in fact, an attempt to intimidate other writers who oppose Giffords as though that cannot be allowed. And, as I've said before, everything that is written that does not support Giffords is labeled "attack."

What I find completely amazing is that you Giffords fans seem to never get tired of writing about Giffords. Doesn't it EVER get boring to you?

Do me a favor. Go to www.democracynow.org and check out the headlines for the past five days or so. Look at what is going on in the world and then ask yourself why Gifford's endorsements, Gifford's petition signatures, and Gifford's whatever is so totally fascinating that it is worth this much effort. Do you even think of anything else?

Giffords fans, here's a news flash for you. Your endless and often trivial discussion about Giffords is boring. No one can offer you another opinion because you reject all other opinions. So what is the point? You don't want to discuss anything. You just want to hawk Giffords.

To quote Art, I'm "blessed" if I can see it any differently.

Adios.

FEDUP said...

I come here to post mostly to play with all of you because it is fun how serious you all get about what boils down to nothing but a game.

Rex, have you graduated from 3rd grade yet? I am wondering, because I have seen a better "defense" from 10-year-olds. Go look up "progressive" in the dictionary. DINOS can read, right?

I have no vested interested in any of the candidates. Gabrielle makes herself an easy target for several reasons. 1) She has proven to lack credibility with her numerous lies 2) She has an entitlement attitude that is a complete turnoff 3) She has some incredibly horrible votes that she can twist and turn in trying to defend, but they are the best indication of how she will conduct herself in Congress 4) Her supporters like to bully everyone else when they point out obvious facts 5) She isn't emotionally mature enough to be a Congresswoman as her own rebuttal letter proved (did she forget to have her communication's director edit??) 6)at her very best, her legislative career has been mediocre. The funniest thing to me is she had no real career in Tucson, decides to move to Houston and get married…until the Kolbe seat opens up then it is “oh, I will have to wait to move to Houston and marry, I have to be a Congresswoman”. You have to admit there is something both hilarious and bizarre in her entire decision-making process. Someone probably dropper her on her head when she was a little kid, poor thing. Is someone with that perspective on priorities and decision-making in their lives someone I want to represent me? Further evidence of her lack of maturity.

She can't beat Graf, and you all know it.

Jay Quick is looking better to me all the time.

FEDUP said...

deaniac, I know that about Patty. I was being sarcastic because of the other person who called her "pro-abortion". That is what a neocon uses to frame. I know Patty's position because I bothered to read her website. The other poster apparently didn't.

FEDUP said...

and Deaniac, I don't follow the 'fall in line' mentality like you. A Democrat is how you conduct yourself, not putting a D behind your name. You candidate has yet to learn that. Maybe you think Zell Miller is someone we should all get behind?

No wonder Democrats are always losers.

I may be an independent for all you know.

FEDUP said...

I'm a little slow to catch on here. Deaniac, is your moniker in honor of Howard Dean? YYYEAARRRGGGHHH! That is beyond hilarious. Somehow I could not see Howard Dean supporting a candidate like Gabrielle Giffords. Dean: "Now, let me endorse the candidate who epitomizes all I ran against in my campaign..."

If she can get Howard Dean to endorse her, then we will know the party has lost all its marbles.

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

Fedup,
I am pleased to see that you are not easily intimidated. Well, so much for Rex Scott, huh?

Kralmajales,
There you go!!! You DO have interests other than Giffords. Okay, now before I get fooled, do you plan to turn this back to Giffords somehow? I'm afraid to take the bait.

Rex Scott said...

The name-calling and juvenile comments directed at me after my last post are prima facie evidence of the kind of nonsense Gabby has had to endure, which I am certain will only get worse for her as people like these folks become more desperate. I will resist the temptation to respond in kind to people who hide behind web aliases. This is my real name and I proudly stand behind my views and my support of Giffords!!!

By the way, which Giffords votes in the Legislature are alleged evidence of her lack of credibility or electabilty? I've read that red herring several times on different blogs, but no one can cite specifics. Nor do I see any evidence cited of her "numerous lies."

Joe McCarthy once employed the tactic of repeating something over and over again with the hope that people would start to believe it. Character assasins are, however, ultimately betrayed by their own shabby tactics. Furthermore, you're not building up your candidates by trashing Gabby.

Francine Schacter has pointed out that she and Gabby are the only declared candidates who have pledged to support the eventual Democratic nominee. I'll make the same promise because the last thing I want is a GOP successor to Kolbe. Will the Giffords-haters on this blog and others avow the same?

sirocco said...

I used the phrase "pro-abortion" and it was, of course, a mis-speak. Pro-choice was meant. Both Gabby and Patty are pro-choice.

Fedup, I dunno where you get your claim Giffords was planning to "move to Houston and get married" prior to the Kolbe seat opened up, but it's incorrect.

She can beat Graf, or, for that matter, Huffman or anyone else the Rebubs run ... and I do know it.
You keep mentioning "lies", horrible votes", etc., but when called on it you don't post them. One specific bill, SB 1065 ... that's it. Until you present data (and a good bit of it), it's simply ... nothing.

You have an opinion Giffords was a "mediocre" legislative career. Obviously I, and a number of others, don't share your opinion. Just as repetition of our opnion doesn't make it true, nor does simple repetition of your position make it any more true.

Liza, I wasn't at the Jan. meeting you refer to, so I don't know what was said. However, I know as far back as last Nov. Giffords' position on Iraq was substantially what it is now. It's shifted some since then, but not substantially.

sirocco said...

I find it both humorour and slightly irritating when people like you two (Fedup and Liza) proceed on the assumption that I (and others) am somehow "blinded" by Giffords and simply consider her to be perfect.

I am perfectly aware she has warts. I consider that ... after taking that into account, and considering her opposition, I simply believe she is the best candidate. The only "perfect" candidate I would ever meet would be myself, if I chose to run (I can't disagree with my own positions, right? :). In this race, Giffords is simply closer to perfect (IMO) than the other candidates.

You have considered things and come to a different opinion -- and that's fine. I can respect that. However, please don't presume to talk down to me as if I were somehow blindly rejecting other views, to paraphrase Liza. Just because I don't reach the same conclusions you do doesn't imply I am considering less information than you.

I spend far more times perusing and posting on other sites (including dailykos) than I do here.

Sorry about the tirade ... it just irritates me when someone presumes I am stupid or closeminded. I may be wrong (it happens), but I am neither of the above.

Liza said...

Rex Scott,
Don't you think you are a little over the top? It was the incredibly condescending and acerbic tone of your first post here that I responded to,without calling you names I might add. Your second post indicates that is all you are capable of.

Rex Scott said...

Liza, anyone can read your first post above. If you think you weren't insulting me in that one and all subsequent posts, then we are using different definitions.

I respect your views and imagine we'll end up voting for most of the same folks, but it seems like you take great umbrage with people who dare to disagree with you. Funny, but that's also what you accuse the Giffords camp of doing!

sirocco said...

Liza, Fedup, et. al.,

and ... having thought about it a little longer ... I just want to make clear I am NOT encouraging you to "post elsewhere" or "leave if you don't like it" ... it's actually important you post here (and Liza, you might look at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion if you haven't yet -- I don't recall seeing you post there at least. Be aware it's another Giffords-supporting site) and challenge our views. If nothing else, by thinking about things you bring up it helps reinforce why I hold the position(s) I do, and who knows - you might raise a new point or thought I didn't know or hadn't considered already, and change my mind.

Stranger things have happened.

Liza said...

Sirocco,
I directed my comments to the Giffords fans, not you specifically. I cannot possibly remember who wrote what. Also, no one is talking down to you or implying that you have considered less information. I don't even know how to "imply." I pretty much just say what I intend to say. Check out my post to Rex Scott above.

You and the other Giffords fans are hardwired on this CD8 race, and I have no problem with that. I'm hardwired too because of how I feel about Iraq.

I mentioned awhile back that the purpose of this blog is to promote Giffords and a number of people said no, absolutely not. Ever since then, almost everything has been about Giffords.

If you Giffords fans are blind to anything, I think its that you don't see how boring it is to dissect every little thing about Giffords.

Entertain your brains and move on to something else. Just a suggestion.

Liza said...

Rex Scott,
Too bad you've lost track of the sequence of events, with your post being the first to "insult" other writers. I have this feeling that you get "insulted" frequently.

You might be surprised by how little time I spend "taking great umbrage with people who disagree with me."

Furthermore, I wish you would use words that I didn't have to look up in the dictionary. Umbrage....

sirocco said...

Liza said:
"Entertain your brains and move on to something else. Just a suggestion."

... and the point I was making was you are presuming this is all I do or talk about. When here, talk tends to be about CD8 (largely, not always from a Giffords perspective). When elsewhere (dailykos for example, or science blogs, or other forums of interest to me) things tend to be about things other than CD8. Suprisingly, I don't discuss CD8 there, and I don't discuss items of interest in cosmololgy or comp sci or the the Lamont/Lieberman debate or whatever else here.

Meaning, thank you for your concern, but my horizons are already much broader than you seem willing to credit. Lack of brain stimulation is not something I am overly worried about right now ... rather the opposite. :)

sirocco said...

Sorry, on re-reading that I think it came out sounding snarky, which wasn't my intent. Please accept my apologies.

Really just trying to say when on a blog, the items being discussed tend to be focused -- here politics, with a focus on CD8 and slant towrd Giffords ... elsewhere on other things. So the trend toward discussion of the primary, especially with the expectation things will begin heating up soon, really isn't surprising.

'Zona Dem said...

Rex Scott, no one can give you specifics about Gabby's lies and lack of credibility?
Spare me...
Of the any number of "dings" to Gabby's credibility, I think the worse one involves my favorite company and yours, Wal-Mart. SB 1065 ring any bells? Gabby killed that bill, which would have required Wal-Mart execs to reimburse Arizona for the costs their under-insured employees are incurring under AHCCCS.
Oh, and as if that's not bad enough... she also took money from the Wal-Mart lobbyist!
This is a matter of public record, feel free to check it out for yourselves... my feeling is that anyone who would (1) support Wal-Mart instead of the "working men and women" she apparently cares so deeply about, (2) act in such a fiscally irresponsible manner, and (3) engage in such blatantly corrupt voting behavior... simply doesn't belong in Congress.

sirocco said...

Hey there Zona Dem,

The SB 1065 vote has been discussed elsewhere, both here and other sites (dailykos for example) so it's nothing new.

What was the grand total campaign donation she received? $350? That wouldn't buy a vote for something innocuous like "lets recognize Mother Teresa is a pretty good person". It's funny that some of those against Giffords complain she is "rich" and "priveleged", and yet others feel she can be bought for $350.

Gabby and everyone else who voted against it (she was teh only Dem who did -- yes, I know that too) killed that bill, so it wasn't a one-woman show.

The bill wasn't as clear cut as you make it -- it wold also have required a number of smaller companies to fork over money they may not have been able to afford. It's not like it affected only Walmart (or only Walmart and Basha's).

Ultimately, do I wish she had voted differently on it? Yeah, I do ... but am I gonna write off a candidate because of one vote over six years? No, don't think so.

Anyhow, when you have something new, please post it.

Dogma said...

Even better than posting new accusations against Giffords would be a well reasoned case on why anyone should support another candidate. All I see on this and other blogs are, I presume, Weiss and Latas supporters heaping insults and unsubstantiated or misleading accusations on Giffords. All the while saying nothing about why anyone should support another candidate save for vague and unsupported claims that Weiss or Latas is the savior of Southern Arizona for reasons unspecified.

Perhaps this is just symptomatic of the fact that neither Weiss nor Latas have any experience and, therefore, have no records to speak of either. Without a record, their supports seem trapped in a cycle of negative attacks on the front-runner, and I mean Giffords, and appear unable to articulate any clear reasons to support their candidate of choice.

Enough with the sophomoric slander and character assassinations…

FEDUP said...

$350 donation from a Wal-Mart lobbyist isn't something to sneeze at for a state race. That is significant money if you check the average donation size for those years.

I suspect you all are wrong about why she did it. She said in the past week it was because she "didn't want to single out Wal-Mart". That confirms what I already knew, it was really about Bashas. That is who she was protecting, Wal-Mart just got a side benefit from it.

She puts personal friends above the residents of Arizona. Wow, when can I rush out and vote for her?

I remember when character used to matter to people.

FEDUP said...

sirocco said...
Keep doing the media spin on the Wal-Mart vote. She didn't reject it because the 100-employee size. She could have negotiated the size threshold with the sponsor and co-sponsors. She rejected it because even if it were 1000 employees her friend Basha would have had to pay his fair share. If she even tries to use that excuse I will have legislator friends of mine go to every appearance of hers and counter her. Since I haven't heard her use that excuse yet, I imagine she won't dare knowing people who actually know how the legislative negotiations occur, will shoot her down.
As they say, denial isn't a river in Egypt.

Something tells me if it came out she was a child molester you all would make excuses for that too. "She didn't really know what she was doing, she has done all these other good things so in balance it is fine, it was only one time, etc." Sounds like what is said about her voting record.

FEDUP said...

Fact: the bill was clear-cut. I read it. One of the most basic bills I have read.
You are comparing Giffords to Mother Theresa?
Giffords IS rich and privileged. Yes she can be bought for $350 because she was too much of a miser to spend her own money but has no problem wasting other people's. Typical republican.
As I said though, he motivation wasn't so much protecting Wal-Mart as protecting Basha I suspect. The Wal-Mart discussion tends to deflect from the more serious issue of nepotism and abuse of power. I wonder if she knows Abramoff?
She voted against all Democrats and with the Republicans. She was the deciding vote.

FEDUP said...

Latas no experience? He had a career, unlike Giffords who just worked for her Daddy. He had a real job, was an engineer, a pilot, and war hero. Did Giffords achieve any of those things? No, she can stand by a plane and look pretty though. I would say he is significantly more experienced than Giffords where it counts. Same with Weiss.

Giffords can't even brag about her legislative career since she didn't accomplish anything of significance in 5 years. In corporate America they call that dead weight. She would have lasted no more than 3 months at my company.

sirocco said...

Fedup,

Since I know you are a bright person, I will do you the favor of assumng you were able to comprehend what I wrote -- meaning you are intentionally misquoting me.

No, I didn't compare Giffords to Mother Teresa. I said $350 wouldn't buy a vote agreeing Mother Teresa wasa good person. Nice try though. Good stab at getting a term like "child-molester" in there too. And "Republican". And "Abramoff". Hitting the trifecta! Oh ... and I missed "miser". None have any application other than Republican, and that's an old, dead horse.

I actually have no idea why she voted against it, and am on record as disagreeing with the vote. I am simply pointing out is is not as clear-cut as you and boohoo and az dem want to make it seem. It must be nice for you, living in the 30s when everything is portrayed in black and white.

There's no question Jeff has great experiences ... how well those experiences will translate into being an effective legislator is the issue. You think they will, I think they won't.

Just to get the name-calling even, it's my opinion that if Latas were a miserly child-molester who devoured the Republican children of Jack Abramoff, you would be vigorously spinning it as "He will eat the Republicans for lunch!"

boohoo said...

He won't eat them, he'll mop the floor with them.

Giffords won't win a general. To much against her now.

Keep up the good work Liz and Fedup. I find this very intertaining and your doing a great job with the truth.

x4mr said...

Wow. Been away and just read this whole exchange. Quite a shoot out.

Bottom line this occurs as folks clutching for material to "assassinate" a front runner, and the supporters of the front runner responding. As someone deeply concerned about the “terror of the situation” in this country, I cannot overstate my feelings about the need for a blue victory in this district. The democrat MUST win. We have a despicable, unconscionable, soulless tyrant in the White House.

Incredible to say, but it truly is THAT BAD, IMHO.

By every sane calculation, Giffords is simply doing what must be done to win this district.

There is nothing in the way of Jeff and Patty doing the same, but they appear to be falling behind, so their supporters are looking for anything to go after the front runner.

Let’s start with Wilson’s donation. Fact is that on 10/1/2004 he gave her $150 for the senate race. He also gave similar amounts to about two dozen candidates. He has a consulting/lobbying firm (SRW) and donates to lots of folks. See for yourself at the link already posted. Fact is that on 12/13/05 he gave her $300 for this race. This is not a big deal. It just isn’t.

Some of the shrill language being used, “horrible votes.” OK, got it about 1065. Jury is out on that one as far as I am concerned and would speculate she will say something about it precisely when she chooses.

“Numerous lies.” Examples, please?

“Worship” and “think she’s perfect”? Just not hearing that from Art, Roger, or anyone supporting Giffords.

Anything not supporting her is an attack? That’s not what I’m reading. However, what would you call “incredibly horrible votes,” “numerous lies,” “owned by Walmart” and the rest?

The remark that had me stand up and emit a strange mixture of gasp, yell, and laugh, was Liza’s remark about how Giffords fans don’t get how boring it is to dissect her.

From my perspective it is Giffords opponents that never seem to get tired of writing about her. If the discourse remains “Bad Gabby” vs. “Good Gabby” this race is hers.

Finally, don’t know how anyone could disagree with Roger about how CD7 with Richardson and Grijalva has NO bearing on this situation. Giffords is not Richardson, and Jeff/Patty are barely same species as Grijalva, and this is CD8.

Not that anyone cares, but I am still undecided except for commitment to democratic victory. I am waiting for someone to tell me something of SUBSTANCE on why the most effective campaigner (so far) is not the best choice in September.

Still waiting.

sirocco said...

You say truth, I say misapprehensions. :)

I hope if Latas wins he does wipe the floor with them in the General. Of course, I have expectation Giffords will win a general, so I can't agree with your initial premise.

boohoo said...

I think the contributions from Wilson, no matter how small or large are important. There are connection to this donation that are much deeper then just $350. Will a candidate give me access or a lobbyist who bought access? How many of good old Rip buddies are envolved in this now. It wasn't just Abramoff, it was all those behind the curtain I'm worried about. Giffords has a stain now and it can't be washed out no matter how much bleach you put on it.

I've also heard she took money from a Diabold lobbyist, I'm looking into this, so I may be wrong. If I am, I fess up quickly. If this is true, I'll hang her with this connection.

Liza said...

Dogma and other Giffords fans,
Months ago, shortly after the CD8 Patagonia candidate forum, I made a decision about which candidate I would support and vote for. That candidate is Jeff Latas.

Unlike most of you, I made a decision to judge these candidates based on what they said about Iraq on that very day in Patagonia. Any candidate who feels as strongly as I do about the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq would have said so on that very day. I had already heard Jeff Latas speak out against the war with the conviction and outrage that I ABSOLUTELY require from a candidate. I was there in Patagonia to hear the other candidates. Latas, Bacal, and Schacter spoke out against the war. Giffords did not. Giffords used her two minutes to say what amounted to nothing. So, I checked her website for clarification. Nothing was there at that time.

What does it take to stand up for the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been slaughtered? What does it take to stand up for those who live in constant fear of men with guns, cluster bombs, death squads, militias, and the rest of it? Sorry, but I hold women to a higher standard when it comes to war. I guess that in a perfect world, we would all be champions for justice and human rights. But we’re not. So, I have one question. If the women of this country do not stand up for an end to this pointless, endless violence that has become our foreign policy, then who in the blazes can we hope will do it?

Senator Barbara Boxer voted against the invasion of Iraq and has since stated that it was the best vote of her life. I’ve seen her in numerous Senate hearings taking on Jeff Skilling, Condileeza Rice, and John Bolton to name a few. She’s tough. When she took on Skilling, she was outraged for her constituency, people who had been robbed by Enron. Senator Boxer exemplifies the kind of representative that needs to replace most of the representatives we currently have in DC. You may not agree with her on every issue, but she will speak truth to power and she’s not afraid to fight. I believe that Jeff Latas is cut from the same cloth as my former senator, Ms. Boxer. The fact that Jeff took a position against the Iraq invasion and occupation as part of his initial campaign speaks volumes to me about his compassion for others, his integrity, and his courage. He will speak truth to power and he’s not afraid to fight.

So, Dogma and other Giffords fans, that is my “well reasoned case on why anyone should support another candidate” that Dogma requested. My position is not about disliking Giffords, who simply does not interest me, it’s about supporting someone who I think is better. So, perhaps you should give some credit to those of us who do not support Giffords. Maybe we really have put some thought into what we want our vote to count for just as you have.

Emersome Biggums said...

Boy, how can I add my $.02 after Liza's comment. Let me just list them.

- Jeff Latas is an engineer with a vast amount of credibility in solving technical issues, which is what this country needs. Maybe Katrina would not have breached the levy system in N.O. if more engineers would have been there in Congress when NOAA presented the facts about what cat 3 storms would do to N.O., but no, they voted on a $250m bridge to nowhere.

- Jeff Latas is a father who took care of a family of two children, one who came down with leukemia in high school. He has dealt with major medical issues and understands the real science of medicine through practical experiences. His relapsed and had a bone marrow transplant, actual a cord blood transplant. How many of you even know what cord blood is?

-Same son is a veteran of Iraq. There are only five members of Congress and the Senate who have children in the military, WTF with that? Maybe if more of our congressmen and women had children, like Latas, in the service, WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN INVADING A COUNTRY WITH UNJUSTIFIABLE REASONS.

- Latas knew from his Pentagon experience that we were being mislead into a war based on misleading and false evidence. He knew that Iraq had no WMD. You should hear his story on that.

- Latas has worked his way to where he is now. No one paid for his education or experience. No one gave him a business and he is the son of lue collar working folks.

- Latas has been married to the same women for 26 years and they are a team.

- He has experience with the PTA (was a PTA president) imagine that, a big mucho guy who cares enough to become active in local issues like kids well being.

- He and his wife were also very active in animal rescue. I believe Salette was in the leadership of a big animal rescue here in Tucson and I know Jeff loves dogs.

- Jeff got the National endorsement of the Progressive Democrats of America and the Democracy of America (Tucson) endorsement.

- Sen. Max Cleland has endorsed Jeff as well as many other Veteran organizations.

- Jeff Latas and his son have seen the real horror of war. No one else on the Dem side can say this. Jeff Latas has many military honors to include the Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism (that higher the Bronze Star, just under the Silver Star)

- He speaks the truth like none of the other candidates; I've heard them all, many times. His is from the soul and not from memorized sound bits.

- I trust this man and like George Tuttle, I would follow him with my life because I trust him. I can not say that about any of the other candidates.

Emersome Biggums said...

Oh yeah,

Latas has had a web site addressing the issues since day one, no other candidate had the guts or convictions to do so.

He has answers to solving our energy crisis and the vision to know what will happen if we don't do it the right way. He knows that building oil refineries and nukes aren't the answer.

Emersome Biggums said...

Oh Yeah,

He also entered the race BEFORE Kolbe announced his retirement. Where were the other candidates and why didn't they feel strong about the direction of the country then?

sirocco said...

Liza, Emersome,

Those are both very good posts ... I never doubted you had good reasons for supporting your candidates of choice, and I am glad you both enunciated them.

I wasn't in Patagonia ... who knows, had I been there my opinion might be different. I fully agree Giffords was very late putting her views on her site. I have heard why that was done (and I disagree with the reasoning, but there was a reason) ... but my experience was different. As I have said before, I was aware of G's position vis-a-vis Iraq as far back as last Nov., before she ever was a candidate.

Further, while I appreciate you feel strongly about the war, I don't give it the same weight apparently. It's certainly a big issue for me, but not to the same degree it appears to be for you. If I weighted it more, I could see leaning towards Latas too.

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

What about the other issues. Iraq is just one of them. Latas did come out from the very beginning, before Murtha and stated clearly he was against the invasion and occupation. Patagonia, Giffords was indifferent. Her quote is on the web in many places and it is quite obvious she had no real answer and I disagree, she wasn't for repositioning until she heard Latas in Patagonia. Neither was Patty. She was all for the "you broke it you fix" it mentality. She even said it would be irresponsible to leave Iraq now. Both changed their tune and it was 180 degree, about face.

You see if I bring up the point that Giffords supports the building of oil refineries and nuke power plants and I think that makes Latas a better environmentalist, because he knows this isn't the right answer. Most know this to be true, but you will claim we are attacking. All you can do is boast some BS statistic, endorsement or award, but you don't have any other record that states other wise. It’s all third party. Okay, she voted on having some special Prius lanes or some BS in Tucson, big deal.

When we pry into your reasoning, you just complain that we are negative. What else do you leave us to do? You don't get it, do you?

Let the debate begin, that's what we've been waiting for but it is you that can only say the same old crap. You don't give us any other reason then to start pointing out the facts that make you candidate look bad and when we do that you complain. You have a candidate with no clothing, wake up. Tell me the bills that make her look good. Tell me the bills she actual wrote and got through the St. Senate or even the house. You can't because she has none.

Jeff Latas is one of us and someone ready to do battle in the toughest political battle ground in this country. He knows what he is getting into, he has been there.

Yes I'm pissed off about the vote that burdened us Arizonan's with tens of millions of dollars of tax burden giving companies like Wal-Mart and Bashas a HUGE welfare check. The two companies alone cost us AZ tax payers $22,000,000.00.. She cast the tie breaking vote and was the only Democrat backing corporate interest and NOT THE PEOPLE.

All I hear from the Gabriots are "that's only one vote" but it was only one vote that gave this current president the ability to now put 2500 Americans to their death in a unjustified war. That one vote tells me that she is not worthy of my support, ever. Her judgment is not in the best interest of the people. The icing on this cake is who gave her donations and how she voted. Bad, bad move.

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

Just checked his website to see if I was right about what I just said. An impressive biography, but I only see "a lifelong democrat". I also see a lot of stances on issues. I see nothing that makes me believe that he has worked for these issues in any capacity within the Democratic party or within progressive circles. He may not have been able to when he was in the military...fair. But why not since?

Anyone out there recall seeing an active Jeff Latas in politics here in Arizona or Pima County?

Just asking...because I want to know if he has strong opinions AND the capacity to work for change.

Kralmajales said...

Before I buy what you all are telling me about his purist progressive stances (not record)...

Kralmajales said...

and for those still bothered by lack of facts...here is some of Gabby's stances, record, and testimonials of that record. Things she actually did or worked on for people.

http://www.giffordsforcongress.com/issues/

FEDUP said...

Boohoo, Patty Weiss came out in her very first statement upon entering the race to say she supported the Murtha plan for a timed withdraw. My girlfriend has it on tape from the forum. No flip flop there. I know the Latas campaign has protrayed that about her but it will backfire on them and I wish they wouldn't. A lot of people taped that entire forum and the discussions afterward.

Latas is stronger when he just sticks to his own platform.

FEDUP said...

"The war was wrong, we were mislead, we were duped and I believe the decision of our leaders to support the strike against Iraq (Democrat and Republican) was both wrong and even evil in many ways."

No one was misled. Only a manipulator claims that or a total idiot. They all knew it was wrong and voted that way because Bush had high approval ratings. My girlfriend told me nearly 8 months before the war that we were going to be fighting in Iraq. If she could figure it out I am sure that seasoned politicians knew exactly what they were doing.

Everyone who claims they were misled is either a lying coward, or too incompetent to be serving in Congress.

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

Roger, you make Giffords sound like she suffers from analysis paralysis. I do notice she likes to say everything is "complex". Not for people with higher reasoning skills.

Just think of all the people who were campaigning to pull out in 2003 already and now it is 2006. How much more time do we need to "analyze" it? The longer we are there, the greater the chance for full on civil war and the more the "terrorists" build their operations because no one is supporting the US. Get out and let the Halliburtons, Chevron's and all the others who profitted pay for rebuilding and throw the criminals in prision.

sirocco, your 8:38 am post was completely incomprehensible in the first 4 paragraphs but the last paragraph was sort of funny so I will give you extra credit for that.

Speaking of child molesters, did you just hear on the news that the campaign manager of a congressional candidate was convicted of having sex with minors?

FEDUP said...

Well now they are saying the person was convicted of having sex with 2 teenage girls. Served 2 months in prison . Randy Graf's campaign manager, Steve Acken (spelling?). He said accusers lied. He was a former police officer.

He only got 2 months for raping two teenage girls? WTF. And did it at Christian camp. Sex with minors is statutory rape, right?

Good move Randy Graf. You just cost yourself the election.

See Sirocco, and you thought I was making this kind of shit up.

FEDUP said...

Maybe we should do background checks on all the campaign managers? We might find more dirt on them than their candidates. That could be a whole new fun game.

Of course, I think Graf's CM would still win the award hands down. What a schmuck.

Why are all the border vigilants sex predators? That Chris Simcox has the same dirty past. Did some shit with his daughter that was picked up by the local media a few months back. It came out in his divorce papers. His response was that his "personal life" was no one's business. So, trying to have sex with your own daughter is your private life, huh?

FEDUP said...

Steve Aiken, corrected spelling.

x4mr said...

I am no "big shot" by any stretch, but I do now and then find myself in the same room with some influential folks. A few weeks ago I was "assured" that there was a snowball's chance in hell of Graf's getting the nomination.

Huffman would be the nominee, I was promised, like metaphysical certitude, and that he had a strategic plan one item of which was "Graf would be handled."

It did affect my posts, and although I can't remember where, I've posted about Huffman and R's planning to insure Graf doesn't win in September.

Haven't a clue, but the confidence of the guy a few weeks ago struck me. He talked like he knew without the slightest doubt.

This latest news has me thinking.

Unfortunately, I don't think our democratic nominee will have the luxury of facing Graf.

By the way, Liza and Emersome, some great and moving remarks. Might say more about that later. It reinforces the sense that we have more in common than we would think at first.

I hope we can be united on 9/13, whoever our nominee is. I promise you can count me in. I wish we could send Jeff, Patty, and Gabby to Washington.

What a team they would make!!

wearetribal said...

Interesting debates here. On the subject of Iraq, let me offer a few comments. Liza, I know where you are coming from here but let me say that it is in fact complicated.

There are several questions for me. First, what are our obligations to Iraq? Second, what actions would lead to the best outcome for all parties from where we are now? Third, how great a cost are we obligated to incur?

We destroyed the Iraqi armed forces and Iraq exists in a dangerous neighborhood. The forces there now would not stand a chance against the Iranians, and given that the two largest parties in Iraq now were formerly headquartered in Tehran, it is unlikely that they would try. We created this situation. We have a duty to Iraq now to keep it from being a puppet of Iran. Whether that is possible is another question.

Now, leaving as things stand seems a sure way for Iraq to descend into chaos and all-out civil war. Staying without any changes in policy only leads to more of the same, no progress at all and more people inspired to be terorists and kill Americans around the world. Eventually staying risks destabilizing our allies such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

As things are, Iran is the clear winner of the war. We fight for their domination of Iraq now. On top of that, we have installed an Islamic regime into power where before there was a secular one. Not exactly progress.

As for cost, well, I think we are obligated to fix what we broke here. Leaving is not the worst of ideas, but it is shirking our responsibilities to the Iraqi people.

There is only one positive option for us, and it is politically basically impossible. But it might be done on the sly. The only way forward is to negotiate with the insurgents, make an agreement. We take their side against the Iranians. We switch sides. Iran was and is a far greater threat than Iraq or al-Qaeda. Spending our money and lives to increase their influence in the region is idiocy. The enemy of our enemy is...the insurgents. In return they give us some group of bad guys and let us claim victory.

Alternately, we explain to the insurgents that we want to leave badly and would not come back any time soon. If they stop attacking us we can claim victory and get the hell out of Iraq. The fastest way to get the US out is to stop attacking. Continued attacks force us to stay.

Now here is the rub, Liza. No candidate could say the above and win an election. Painful truth is sometimes a sucky strategy for a candidate. And I know it can be great to hear a candidate "tell it like it is!" But the candidates here are running in a pretty evenly split district. Victory means getting more independant voters and some Republicans too. In order to do that...well one strategy is to avoid shooting your mouth off and saying things that will alienate the voters you need in the general while trying to win the primary. This seems to be Gabby's chosen path, and I think it is a smart one.

For the record, I predicted this war in 1993 at my Forum "Is the Gulf War Over?" I failed over the next decade to find many people who cared about hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dying from our sanctions, but somehow many more care if kids are blown up than if they die a much more painful lingering death from diarhea or hunger.

It is easy to be "for" peace. It is hard to do the work that makes peace a reality. That work means caring years before the war starts, working to change the conditions that will lead to it. I tried here, but I failed.

It is also nice to be able to point at others, blame them. But Clinton bombed Iraq, on average, every three days for eight years. That is not peace. Clinton resulted in at least as many dead innocent civilians per day as this new phase of the war has.

I volunteer for Gabby. But it does bother me that she drives an SUV. This war may not be about oil, but it is also not unrelated. Moral perfection is elusive, however. I ride my bicycle everywhere, but freely waste coal typing away here on my computer.

Whoever wins the primary, I will work like hell to get them into office. The planet has a critical infection of American Republicans right now. Gabby has the good sense not to go negative and help the Republicans defeat the eventual nominee. It is stated policy at her headquarters to say nothing negative about the other candidates. This kind of sound thinking is another good reason to support Gabby.

sirocco said...

Heya Fedup,

If that 8:38 post of mine was even partially incomprehensible ... well, you can't be 1/10th as bright as I was giving you credit for ... so maybe you weren't intentionally misquoting me, it may have been simply lack of reading ability on your part.

Anyhow, yeah, the Graf campaign manager thing is certainly out there ... I guess I have to give you points for partially predicting it, just getting the candidate wrong.

By the way ... were you posting on Tedski's site under a different name last month?

FEDUP said...

sirocco,
No I use the same name. Could have been someone in my circle of friends though or one of my roommates even. One of my roommies got pissed off and stopped blogging.

Why, did he sound like me? Really dumb as you put it? :)

FEDUP said...

"It is also nice to be able to point at others, blame them. But Clinton bombed Iraq, on average, every three days for eight years. That is not peace. Clinton resulted in at least as many dead innocent civilians per day as this new phase of the war has."

On that we can agree. He doesn't get a free pass nor does GB I.

I disagree with Gabby not going negative. She did it in her rebuttal letter by basically accussing Latas and Weiss and she certainly has not discourage her staff and volunteers from going negative on the other candidates. I know at least one former supporter dropped her after that rebuttal letter she sent out. If she is trying to stay above the fray she isn't doing a good job of it.

sirocco said...

Neither of you is really dumb, but yeah, the person I was thinking of had a similar "tone" I guess. At least, it seems similar enough to me that I was curious.

Dogma said...

Liza:

I very much appreciate your passionate opposition to the War in Iraq. To date, 2,501 Americans have lost their lives in what at best was an unnecessary war. I too watch the cost of this war in American lives grow by the day (http://icasualties.org/oif/) and find the general lack of outrage by our citizenry troubling. The threat, real or manufactured, of an external enemy has been a unifying force in the modern Western political culture, and unfortunately that phenomenon seems to be holding true today and is being used with great success by the GOP. You seem to have made your decision on who to support based on an up close, in person look at the candidates regarding their views on the war, which is more effort than most put into such decisions.

I’m also a former denizen of population bomb to our west, and am a fan of Senator Boxer. I don’t always agree with her positions, but she fearlessly champions a lot of causes that I do believe in and votes her convictions. I’m less crazy about Feinstein, but either would be an improvement over what we Zonie Dems embarrassingly call a congressional delegation. Our absurdly out-of-balance delegation just makes my blood boil. The most recent voter registration figures from our Secretary of State, reported on March 24th of this year, reveal that Democrats comprise 33.94% of registered voters in Arizona compared to 39.72% for Republicans (http://www.azsos.gov/election/voterreg/). However, we democrats only hold 25% of our House seats and 0% of our Senate seats. Meaning we are underrepresented in the U.S. House and have no voice in the U.S. Senate, and don’t get me started on the State Legislature ;-)

I can appreciate that you aren’t “interested” in Giffords the candidate, and have every right to that disinterest; at least until the Republicans destroy the rest of the Bill of Rights! That said, single-issue voters are more the exception than the rule. Because of this tragic war, the assault on civil liberties and decaying separation of church and state (just to name a few); I’m compelled to be what I consider pragmatic in trying to effect change in our representation in Washington. What flows from my brand of pragmatism is the belief that Giffords is the only electable Dem in the field, based on momentum, money, endorsements, voter registration numbers and political history of the region that currently comprises CD8. I know you and others take issue with those of us that believe this way, and feel just as strongly that only your candidate of choice can win in November.

What angers me, and by the way just encourages me to break out my checkbook at make another contribution to Giffords’ campaign, is all the bologna that gets thrown at Giffords by Weiss and Latas supporters. It always seems that folks first take issue with something in Giffords’ record, which quickly devolves into a conspiracy theory of epic proportions. Politics IS compromise, which means you can’t always get what you want. To suggest otherwise is just plain naive. So while I understand some folks take issue with some of Giffords record, others of us don't see it the same way. I even read some slander on another blog suggesting Giffords slept around to get endorsements or signatures or some such juvenile nonsense. I mean, come on folks!

I am, however, always ready to consider fellow dem’s strongly held reasons and beliefs on why someone other than Giffords is a better choice. Thanks for sharing yours!


Emersome:

I hear you, but my experience leads me to different conclusion than you expressed as reasons for supporting Latas. I concede the Iraq War, if that were your paramount issue, would drive Dems towards Latas as opposed to Weiss or Giffords. That said:

Your characterization of engineers is way off in my mind. I work in a building full of engineers, so I know of what I speak (or type in this case). Only a room full of engineers is more inept than a room full of politicians at being able to come to a consensus/decision on any topic. You’re entitled to your opinion, but that opinion doesn’t square with my (engineer) reality.

I thought the story on Jeff’s trials with the health of a child, his family life, being a dog person, his wife and his involvement with the PTA painted more of a picture for me of who he is…

I agree, as I have a stepson in the infantry, that it’s a crime the fat cats who got us into this war risk nothing, all the while telling the rest of us why we should risk our son and daughters and husbands and wives and etc… Concur with your wtf sentiment. But I don’t see how having a son serving in Iraq makes Jeff the better overall choice for the CD8 seat.

Paying your own way through college I think makes the experience more meaningful, but your claim that “No one paid for his education” just isn’t true. The U.S. taxpayer via the ROTC program subsidized his undergraduate work at U of A. That wasn’t money for nothing and he had to do the scholastic work, but he didn’t do it alone. Likewise, as an Air Force Officer, the U.S. taxpayer again, in all likelihood, paid for his master’s degree. The military services reimburse members for tuition and, in the case of officers, also send folks to graduate school fulltime, pay all the costs, and continuing pay them their normal military pay and benefits. It’s unclear if Jeff got the fulltime/free ride while earning his MPA, but he did have to do the work to get this degree. So, good on him! Your praise, however, is a bit overstated.

Who other than Jeff would former Senator and Vietnam veteran Max Cleland endorse? Max is actively campaigning for democrats/veterans across the country. Pointing to this endorsement is as enlightening as saying the sky is blue.

Jeff certainly was in ‘harms way’ and served with honor and distinction during his time driving F-15s in Operation Desert Shield (before and after too). However, to state that he has seen “seen the real horror of war” is a stretch. I haven’t read or heard anything to suggest this is true, but perhaps I’m misinformed. His son maybe (don’t know what he does), but Jeff? Not likely. The primary role of the F-15E Strike Eagle, which is what he flew in Operation Desert Shield, was to drop bombs and other ordinance against ground targets. An important and dangerous job, but done at some attitude/distance. I can well imagine he may bear some burden thinking about what that ordinance did upon detonation and/or just plain thought about the enterprise of war in general, but pilots as a rule seldom see war up close and personal (just the way the military machine is task-organized). None of this is intended to be disparage Jeff's service, but simply to point out this reason of yours for supporting Jeff is based on a flawed and over romanticized perception of his service.

You end with “he speaks the truth” and you “trust” him. Okay, I can dig that! But it’s still just your opinion based on your perceptions of the man as seen through the prism of your life experiences. Meaning what is true and real for you is true and real for you, but doesn’t translate to others who don’t share your perceptions and/or common frame of reference (i.e., experience).

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