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.
15 comments:
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
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.
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.
Re: Seeing More of The Candidates
Weiss would be a perfect candidate to take on Bob Walkup in the next mayoralty contest.
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,
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.
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?
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.
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,
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.
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....
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.
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.
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!!
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.
Post a Comment