Does not seem like he will be successful in ...

[Encryptshun]

I believe that poking is something specifically between a man and a woman. A very frustrated, disappointed woman.

[stebo0728]

I believe that poking is something specifically between a man and a woman. A very frustrated, disappointed woman.

So I take it your are DOMA supporter?

I kid I kid

[Encryptshun]

I believe that poking is something specifically between a man and a woman. A very frustrated, disappointed woman.

So I take it your are DOMA supporter?

I kid I kid

I like dolmeh. Does that count?

[Cold_Zero]

I believe that poking is something specifically between a man and a woman. A very frustrated, disappointed woman.

Isnt that called 'nagging.'

[IBCoupe]

Well, I should correct myself. Certainly, it has been true every time that I have voted since 1984 on (after I became a citizen ... and I have not missed the chance to vote), the answer is "yes". There has been somebody (usually a total unknown) running against the incumbent from the same party. If it changes this next election, I will be surprised.

Can't speak from before 1984, since I don't have personal knowledge of it, but I am sure that the ballots from the past exist in the records somewhere.

"There are five instances in the post-WW2 era of an incumbent president being challenged seriously for his party’s nomination.

1952: Harry Truman was challenged by Estes Kefauver. Kefauver defeated him in New Hampshire and Truman withdrew. Truman and the party bosses retained control of the nominating process, however, and handed the nomination of Adlai Stevenson, who subsequently lost to Eisenhower.

1968: LBJ was challenged by Eugene McCarthy and withdrew when polls showed he would lose in the Wisconsin primary. As in 1952, LBJ was able to engineer the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, who lost to Nixon.

1976: Gerald Ford was challenged by Ronald Reagan. Though Reagan made it close, Ford was able to hold the nomination. He was defeated by Jimmy Carter in the general.

1980: Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy. Like Ford, he held off the challenge, but lost in the general to Reagan.

1992: George H.W. Bush was challenged by Pat Buchanan. He defeated Buchanan, but lost in the general to Bill Clinton."

You're way off when it comes to Presidents. When it comes to Congressmen, it's certainly not the case that there's always a primary challenge. There's not even always a general challenge.

However, the strength of the outrage against Prowell from within the Democratic Party seems premature and unnecessary to me though.

Your link doesn't say anything more than what Prowell reports about conversations he's had over the phone.

My other point would be: what if the Democratic Party leaders don't support or allow anybody to run against her, and then Giffords has to back out for any reason - including ill health or whatever? (Apparently, there are rumors that she is considering not running.) If that happens at the last minute, would that not give the opposing Republican a significant advantage by being better known?

But Republicans have said they won't run anyone against her.

But isn't it his right to run if he wants to? Yeah, he can fail but when has that stopped people for attempting to run for office? Incumbents have been ousted exactly that way before.

This is a bit different. Republicans, except for one, have announced that they're not going to run anyone against Gabby Giffords. It says so in your link.

If he asks for the Party to help, he should get the standard help given to any candidate running for office, I would think. Not a brush-off.

He should get exactly what he's getting. It's stupidity. He's looking bad in the public's eye by doing it, and he's going to lose. The party would be stupid to back him, because then the Democratic Party is tainted in Arizona, and perhaps nationally. I'm surprised you don't realize this. Or maybe you do.

No, look at the candidate - not at his/her party.

You can try to blame policy on President Bush alone, but he required the complicitness of the Republican Party to do anything.

[IBCoupe]

Wait, what? I thought that Gridlock was a good thing. What is the old adage, “Government that governs least governs best?”

I always hated that adage. It's a high school libertarian's cop-out to actual problem solving. "It's just the government, man, it can't do anything right. It shouldn't do anything at all."

I always thought that narrow margins cut down on extremist ideas/legislation from the discussion by forcing people to work closely together and bring things closer to the center. I do have a very cynical view of both parties, for that I don’t apologize.

Narrow margins aren't the problem. It's the composition within the two halves. There's no "center" when there are no moderates. What keeps happening is that the moderate republicans lose their seat to moderate democrats the next year, and then nobody can compromise with the more ideologically-pure Republicans that remain. Then the next year, the moderate democrats lose their seats to Republicans, and nobody can compromise with the Democrats. Nothing gets done, and there are things that the government must absolutely do.

Like pay its armies.
And its debts.
And its employees.

What I can’t seem to reconcile in regards to your view is that if there is no problem under the current state of American politics with regards to the Parties then why have independents become more of an important factor in recent elections? Could it be that the Party politics may be the problem?

First, I didn't say there wasn't any problem with the Parties. I said the concept of political parties is not the problem. Second, independents aren't as big a deal as they're often made out to be - usually they've already made up their mind and they're going to consistently vote one way or the other, they just don't like to announce that they will.

I have been doing a lot of political introspection, since 2006. I don’t think either GW or Obama have been ‘great’ for this country. In 2008 when my father responded with an alarmist, if you don’t vote for McCain you are voting for Obama, rant when I told him I supported neither candidates I pretty much knew there was something wrong with the Republicans. And to be honest, Isaac, I voted for Hillary R. Clinton during the 2008 Indiana Primary. So I guess that makes me a Democrat!

I don't think I've ever voted in a primary. I was a Democrat in Massachusetts, but then went unaffiliated when I got to Connecticut. I don't know that joining either party would be advantageous to me.

I am sure you will be tickled ‘blue’ sic because it would seem helps out ‘your guy.’

I didn't vote for President Obama. Tell me: who's my guy?

The problem is policy appears not being created by the parties but by lobbyists and think tanks.

That's happening to some extent in red states, but I'm not sure it's happening on the federal level.

Remember the infamous, ‘We have to pass the bill to know what is in it”? Why is that? Because the Bill was written behind closed doors by Lobby groups?

Oh, for crying out loud. No. That's not what Rep. Pelosi was saying. "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it" was what she said, and she said it in the same way as your bank teller might tell you, "You'll have to deposit that check to see the cash." It wasn't that people didn't know what was in it. It had been available publicly from day one. That's how we could point out that the "death panels" was a complete lie. That's how we could point out that the "Obama reeducation camps" were falsities.

Oh well, that is what they said about Joe Liebermann.

Lieberman ran against a millionaire. Prowell will be running against a martyr. Want to tell me how they might be seen as comparable?

[AZhitman]

Lots of defensiveness over what is essentially a non-issue, except for the OP.

The point remains: the AZ D Party is behaving ridiculously (no surprise there - they've got Raul Grijalva), and dogma is taking the place of rational thought amongst the Left on this matter (see Howie's knee-jerk post as an example).

[Cold_Zero]

And the thing to remember is, how much does it affect me, if I live in the Indiana 7th Congressional District? Not much. It isnt my district, it isnt my party (AZ Democrats)...

[IBCoupe]

Lots of defensiveness over what is essentially a non-issue, except for the OP.

The point remains: the AZ D Party is behaving ridiculously (no surprise there - they've got Raul Grijalva), and dogma is taking the place of rational thought amongst the Left on this matter (see Howie's knee-jerk post as an example).

See my damned-if-you-______ comment.

[szh]

Well, I should correct myself. Certainly, it has been true every time that I have voted since 1984 on (after I became a citizen ... and I have not missed the chance to vote), the answer is "yes". There has been somebody (usually a total unknown) running against the incumbent from the same party. If it changes this next election, I will be surprised.

Can't speak from before 1984, since I don't have personal knowledge of it, but I am sure that the ballots from the past exist in the records somewhere.

"There are five instances in the post-WW2 era of an incumbent president being challenged seriously for his party’s nomination.

1952: Harry Truman was challenged by Estes Kefauver. Kefauver defeated him in New Hampshire and Truman withdrew. Truman and the party bosses retained control of the nominating process, however, and handed the nomination of Adlai Stevenson, who subsequently lost to Eisenhower.

1968: LBJ was challenged by Eugene McCarthy and withdrew when polls showed he would lose in the Wisconsin primary. As in 1952, LBJ was able to engineer the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, who lost to Nixon.

1976: Gerald Ford was challenged by Ronald Reagan. Though Reagan made it close, Ford was able to hold the nomination. He was defeated by Jimmy Carter in the general.

1980: Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy. Like Ford, he held off the challenge, but lost in the general to Reagan.

1992: George H.W. Bush was challenged by Pat Buchanan. He defeated Buchanan, but lost in the general to Bill Clinton."

You're way off when it comes to Presidents. When it comes to Congressmen, it's certainly not the case that there's always a primary challenge. There's not even always a general challenge.

First, I was not talking about serious pre-Primary challenges. In the cases I am talking about, I have seen names on the Primary ballots that I did not know at all. Many candidates run against the incumbents.

Since I started voting in 1984, I have not seen a Primary ballot that did not have multiple names for the various Congressional and Senatorial positions - certainly not in the states I have voted in (MA, NH and CA - did not live in MS long enough to see an election there).

I am not saying that these [relatively] unknowns won - I am saying that they ran in the Primary and were allowed to do so by their party ... without active opposition.

Second, I was not talking about Presidential candidates - this thread has been about a Congressional candidate. Although I have also seen many names on the ballots (Primary and General election) for President too - albeit from other parties in the General elections - that rarely made it to visibility or much prominence.

Don't forget perennial candidates like Ralph Nader and Lyndon LaRouche who always showed up on the ballots. And other also-rans like Al Sharpton (ran for President) and Jack David (has run for a N.Y Congressional seat - three times as a Democrat and once as an Independent).

However, the strength of the outrage against Prowell from within the Democratic Party seems premature and unnecessary to me though.

Your link doesn't say anything more than what Prowell reports about conversations he's had over the phone.

That is true.

Does not negate what appears to be happening ... according to Prowell and this particular article admittedly.

My other point would be: what if the Democratic Party leaders don't support or allow anybody to run against her, and then Giffords has to back out for any reason - including ill health or whatever? (Apparently, there are rumors that she is considering not running.) If that happens at the last minute, would that not give the opposing Republican a significant advantage by being better known?

But Republicans have said they won't run anyone against her.

I thought there was one Republican candidate considering doing so - if he does gets into the race early enough, and if (admittedly if) Gifford backs out, could it be a problem for the Democratic Party if they don't have any other candidate ready?

If he asks for the Party to help, he should get the standard help given to any candidate running for office, I would think. Not a brush-off.

He should get exactly what he's getting. It's stupidity. He's looking bad in the public's eye by doing it, and he's going to lose. The party would be stupid to back him, because then the Democratic Party is tainted in Arizona, and perhaps nationally. I'm surprised you don't realize this. Or maybe you do.

Really, Isaac? Questioning my motive? You do not know me - please don't speculate.

No, I don't think the Democratic Party would be tainted. In letting Prowell try for the office (his choice), they would be affirming the right of any citizen to try and run - this would not mean that they actively removed support for Gifford in any way.

Most importantly, I did not say that the Democratic Party should back Powell instead, and not support Gifford by implication. I am just surprised that are opposing him as much as they appear to be doing. Like is not done for other "same party" candidates in the Primaries.

No, look at the candidate - not at his/her party.

You can try to blame policy on President Bush alone, but he required the complicitness of the Republican Party to do anything.

Where did President Bush enter the picture in my post? I did not vote for McCain in the last election.

My point (in this other post) was that I believe it is best to vote for whoever will be the better candidate for a position - in the opinion of the voter - regardless of their Party affiliation.

I have done so in the past too - i.e., voted for Democratic and other Party candidates who I felt were better for some positions. As I have said in other threads in the past, I have seen people say "I am going to vote for the [XXX] Party candidate regardless" (or words to that effect), and this, in my opinion, is an incorrect thing to do.

FWIW, I have Republican friends who voted for Obama because they wanted to. That is their choice. I didn't vote for Obama or for McCain. That is my choice too.

Z

[szh]

And the thing to remember is, how much does it affect me, if I live in the Indiana 7th Congressional District? Not much. It isnt my district, it isnt my party (AZ Democrats)...

Yup.

Like I also said: By the way, I have no skin in this game - neither Giffords or Prowell represent me - I don't get the "why" behind the responses to Prowell.

Z

[szh]

Oh well, that is what they said about Joe Liebermann.

Lieberman ran against a millionaire. Prowell will be running against a martyr. Want to tell me how they might be seen as comparable?

Hmmm ... how is Gifford a martyr? She did not get "removed for her cause" here.

I don't see her as a martyr. Yes, she has my absolute sympathy for what happened to her. And, yes, she is recovering well, thank God.

And, if she wants to run for the office again, and is capable of doing the campaigning, winning and working at the position well, she should absolutely Go For It!

Z

[AZhitman]

Now, there was some discussion while she was recovering about her constituents not being adequately represented. And although it was an unpopular position, the critics had a point. They weren't being nasty or unsympathetic, but just like so many things that people get emotional about, "it's just business". I think that hubbub has died down.

FWIW, Giffords is one em I really wish was representing my district. Her voting record and position on issues is solid and in line with my way of thinking. I hope she returns full-force and accomplishes good things.

p.s. "Martyr"? Please.

[Cold_Zero]

If you want to talk about constituents not being served by the Congress member, you come talk to me. Gifford being away for 8 months is nothing. We use to be represented by Julia Carson. There were years, while she was in office where she would drop off the radar because she was so sick.

[IBCoupe]

First, I was not talking about serious pre-Primary challenges. In the cases I am talking about, I have seen names on the Primary ballots that I did not know at all. Many candidates run against the incumbents.

Since I started voting in 1984, I have not seen a Primary ballot that did not have multiple names for the various Congressional and Senatorial positions - certainly not in the states I have voted in (MA, NH and CA - did not live in MS long enough to see an election there).

I am not saying that these [relatively] unknowns won - I am saying that they ran in the Primary and were allowed to do so by their party ... without active opposition.

Second, I was not talking about Presidential candidates - this thread has been about a Congressional candidate. Although I have also seen many names on the ballots (Primary and General election) for President too - albeit from other parties in the General elections - that rarely made it to visibility or much prominence.

Don't forget perennial candidates like Ralph Nader and Lyndon LaRouche who always showed up on the ballots. And other also-rans like Al Sharpton (ran for President) and Jack David (has run for a N.Y Congressional seat - three times as a Democrat and once as an Independent).

Fine. I'm not going to go find Congressional primary elections where an incumbent was unchallenged. It happens every year. If you don't want to believe me, don't. I'm tired of doing the legwork on what should really be common sense: incumbents aren't always challenged by a primary.

That is true.

Does not negate what appears to be happening ... according to Prowell and this particular article admittedly.

Lemme go into a newspaper and tell them all the mean nasty things you've done. Then we can all go on the internet together and talk about what a horrible person you're being.

I thought there was one Republican candidate considering doing so - if he does gets into the race early enough, and if (admittedly if) Gifford backs out, could it be a problem for the Democratic Party if they don't have any other candidate ready?

He's considering. Prowell might have an argument on this one if he announced the day that Republican did.

Really, Isaac? Questioning my motive? You do not know me - please don't speculate.

I'm just saying: the "why" is pretty god-damned apparent. You'd have to be exerting effort not to see it.

No, I don't think the Democratic Party would be tainted. In letting Prowell try for the office (his choice), they would be affirming the right of any citizen to try and run - this would not mean that they actively removed support for Gifford in any way.

And I'm absolutely positive, from having argued with you many times, that you would find some way to beat on the Democratic Party if they supported Prowell's "right" to pariticipate in a party primary. But, since I know you're going to take issue with that comment, forget I said it. Instead: Has the Democratic Party of Arizona issued any public statement regarding Prowell?

Most importantly, I did not say that the Democratic Party should back Powell instead, and not support Gifford by implication. I am just surprised that are opposing him as much as they appear to be doing. Like is not done for other "same party" candidates in the Primaries.

How can you possibly be surprised that a Party would prefer not to have a primary challenge against a woman who was shot in the head while representing her office? How can you possibly be surprised that they would tell Prowell, behind closed doors, not to run? The Democratic Party's job is to win elections for its members, so that the law can be crafted according to its members' ideologies. The job of the Democratic Party is not to ensure that every member is treated fairly. The job of the Democratic Party is not to ensure that anybody who wants to participate in a fight to be the party's nominee can.

Where did President Bush enter the picture in my post? I did not vote for McCain in the last election.

Bud was talking about President Bush. I responded to Bud with the line you quoted. Hope you are less

[IBCoupe]

She did not get "removed for her cause" here.

Question: What was she doing at the time she got shot?

Answer: Her job.

Implication: Election over.

I really don't think I'm exagerating on that point. One campaign ad, and it's over. One campaign ad, and she could win probably any election she wanted from here on out, as she was already a moderate Democrat.

Black background, bold text: "How hard will Gabby Giffords fight for your interests in Washington, D.C.?" Cut to an uplifting musical montage of all of her appearances and speeches, arms raised in triumph. Then a sharp cut off and the music fades in dissonance and cut to camera footage of Gabby Giffords, head still wrapped in bandages as she's re-learning to walk. Blurry-fade to her walking the halls of Congress, with her new short hairdo, and the voiceover says: "As hard as it takes." Fade-out, and cut to Gabby staring into the camera with determination: "I'm Gabby Giffords, and I support this message."

What Republican or Independent is going to win against that? 5-to-1, the Republican never declares and Prowell has relegated himself to City Councilman for the rest of his life.

[AZhitman]

^ Can't disagree with that. I envisioned the very same scenario. You can almost hear "Ride of the Valkyries" playing in the background.

With that said, if the guy wants to throw his hat in the ring and get curbstomped, let him. And if I didn't mention it before, she's one Dem I would vote for all day long (and it has nothing to do with her shooting or recovery).

On a side note, and it's purely morbid speculation and for letting your imagination run wild: Can you imagine being shot, from a close enough range that there are powder burns on your face, with a medium-caliber handgun, and actually surviving it? The whole thing is surreal. I'm pretty certain you'd feel invincible afterwards - "bulletproof", even.

What an awesome gift, to have a second chance.

[szh]

She did not get "removed for her cause" here.

Question: What was she doing at the time she got shot?

Answer: Her job.

Implication: Election over.

I really don't think I'm exagerating on that point. One campaign ad, and it's over. One campaign ad, and she could win probably any election she wanted from here on out, as she was already a moderate Democrat.

Black background, bold text: "How hard will Gabby Giffords fight for your interests in Washington, D.C.?" Cut to an uplifting musical montage of all of her appearances and speeches, arms raised in triumph. Then a sharp cut off and the music fades in dissonance and cut to camera footage of Gabby Giffords, head still wrapped in bandages as she's re-learning to walk. Blurry-fade to her walking the halls of Congress, with her new short hairdo, and the voiceover says: "As hard as it takes." Fade-out, and cut to Gabby staring into the camera with determination: "I'm Gabby Giffords, and I support this message."

What Republican or Independent is going to win against that? 5-to-1, the Republican never declares and Prowell has relegated himself to City Councilman for the rest of his life.

FWIW, I don't disagree with the above. She is, indeed, highly likely to win, assuming she decides to run.

My point was that if Prowell want to run against her, let him. Whether he has any remote chance of winning is not the point ... the AZ Democratic Party should stay above the fray and let it work itself out in the voting, and not oppose his efforts visibly.

That is the only point I have been trying to make - which you would see if you could look past your apparent hatred of all my posts. Sheesh!

Z

[szh]

With that said, if the guy wants to throw his hat in the ring and get curbstomped, let him. And if I didn't mention it before, she's one Dem I would vote for all day long (and it has nothing to do with her shooting or recovery).

The second point is not relevant to me, of course, since I do not live in her district, but the first is the point I have been talking and asking about.

The AZ Democratic Party should simply let him run without opposing him so strongly. If, for whatever reason, Congressperson Gifford is unable to run for the office (and I have absolute no clue whether this will happen or not!), they will at least have a second string in the bow for any last-minute issues.

Else, whichever Republican (or other party) candidate is in the running may be guaranteed a win. Given my experience, there will be somebody else who has entered the ring, and him/her winning by accident/default could end up being bad for the AZ Democratic Party. They need to think with a little less emotion in the matter - why aren't they doing so?

Z

[AZhitman]

They also need to consider that they're not positive that she still has all her mental faculties.

But, party above all, right?

[IBCoupe]

My point was that if Prowell want to run against her, let him. Whether he has any remote chance of winning is not the point ... the AZ Democratic Party should stay above the fray and let it work itself out in the voting, and not oppose his efforts visibly.

That is the only point I have been trying to make - which you would see if you could look past your apparent hatred of all my posts. Sheesh!

Except that it paints Democrats in general in a particular light, whether you're willing to admit it. It doesn't serve any party goal to have him run. He's going to lose, and he's going to look bad doing it, and he might just drag down the party to a certain extent with him.

[IBCoupe]

The AZ Democratic Party should simply let him run without opposing him so strongly.

Am I mistaken in understanding that you have yet to provide an actual public statement from the AZ Democratic Party to that effect? And that all we're getting is private comments to Prowell, as reported by Prowell?

That's consistent with tactical advice versus actual opposition to his candidacy. Which is what I've been saying, which you would see if you could look past... well, I don't know what shortcoming it is that you suffer from that prevents you from actually reading my comments.

[szh]

The AZ Democratic Party should simply let him run without opposing him so strongly.

Am I mistaken in understanding that you have yet to provide an actual public statement from the AZ Democratic Party to that effect? And that all we're getting is private comments to Prowell, as reported by Prowell?

You are not mistaken. Like I already said to you earlier:

That is true.

Does not negate what appears to be happening ... according to Prowell and this particular article admittedly.

If I see more than these comments from him to that newspaper, I will post again.

Z

[carloslebaron]

Right after Gifford was shot, I went to her website and other two additional web placess looking for her accomplishments as a senator, and I found nothing valuable coming from her but as being member here, part of a comitee there and etc. However, not a single iniciative of her own about any regulation or something similar was found.

So, I have no idea why she should keep running again for such a position, when she was just part of a group and never a real leader with strong iniciatives.

Besides, she is recovering, all right, but this doesn't mean that her brain is fully functional as it was before, she must go away and any new candidate will be better qualified for such a position.

I feel sorry for what happened to her, but "sympathy" alone is not a merit to consider her a good candidate for senator again, she is now mentally handicapped, no one knows what the hell could happen to her brain in a sudden emergency where solid concentration could be the key for a solution of a problem.

We must be honest with her and with ourselves, so, thank you very much Gifford for your former services -whatever they were- and hope you enjoy the rest of your days at home...but please let other candidates with better standing than yours to run the place as senator.

[AZhitman]

She's not a Senator. She's a State Representative.

http://giffords.house.gov/legis/sponsor ... tion.shtml

[carloslebaron]

She's not a Senator. She's a State Representative.

http://giffords.house.gov/legis/sponsor ... tion.shtml

You are correct, and even if she was the president of United States, she MUST stay away from such a position.

You see, government rules are clear and apply the same to everyone without exceptions. If you are a carpenter and lost the fingers of one hand and two legs and can't perform 100%, then you can't return to your position as carpenter. If you are a clerck and can't write because a sickness of disease, and you can't perform 100%, then you can't work as a clerck anymore. The government can offer another kind of work or you can go to dissability or retirement.

The brain of Gifford is not working 100% anymore, and her job requires it, so she must do what is the best for everybody...let another one to take her position.

Cheers.

[Encryptshun]

I always figured your avatar was your baby picture. Now I realize you took it the day you started posting here.