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

[szh]

... running against Congressperson Giffords. The Arizona Democratic Party are lining up against his plan to run - even though it is not clear that Giffords will run for the office.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/24/arizo ... -giffords/

I have no idea whether Giffords is effective at her job or not - either before or after she was shot. Yes, I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for her, of course - she simply did not deserve the attack on her ... but, does it seem reasonable to oppose somebody else from running so strongly?

For example, President Obama is likely to be the shoe-in Democratic Party candidate for the next POTUS election, but there are always others in the same party, who run against the incumbent and are on the ballot - at least in the early days and even on the final election day.

Z

[telcoman]

Not a team player
Telcoman

[stebo0728]

Telco, you guys expecting an oil spill off the coast up there after the hurricane washes all that hair gel out to sea?

[telcoman]

Not a team player

Thats exactlyu what the tea party is

Both are losers

Telcoman

[szh]

Not a team player
Telcoman

Is he not entitled to run for office because the current holder (of the office) was shot and is hurt?

Would you say the same thing if Congressperson Giffords was not shot? Why not (either way)?

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. You seem to have expressed the same reasoning as some of the other people quoted in the article ... hence my questions.

Z

[AZhitman]

telco doesn't even realize that there's no Tea Party candidates IN that hunt.

He's too clueless to know that "opposition" doesn't always mean "from within one's own party".

WHO isn't a "team player"? Stay outta the thread unless you know wtf you're talking about.

I think it's ignorant and short-sighted that this campaign would be any different from any other.

The Dumbocrats "lining up to oppose" his candidacy are stupid. WHY can't someone run against her? Has she been canonized a saint or something?

[szh]

Not a team player

Thats exactlyu what the tea party is

Both are losers

Telcoman

Uh ... what does the Tea Party have to do with this?

Powell is in the same Democratic Party that Congressperson Giffords is in. And it is the Democratic Party folks opposing his desire to run.

Z

[AZhitman]

Whoops.

Senility is a b****. Let me get you a shawl and some hot tea, Howie.

Then I'll get off your lawn.

[Cold_Zero]

Not a team player
Telcoman

Is he not entitled to run for office because the current holder (of the office) was shot and is hurt?

Would you say the same thing if Congressperson Giffords was not shot? Why not (either way)?

By the way, I have no skin in this game - neither Giffords or Powell represent me - I don't get the "why" behind the responses to Powell. You seem to have expressed the same reasoning as some of the other people quoted in the article ... hence my questions.

Z

No, Howie is under the delusion that what is best for the Party is to win at any cost. Everything must be predicated to help the Party’s bottom line. So if someone challenges Gifford to be the Democratic candidate, then she/they will have to spend more money in the primary. Instead, we here look at it as a positive thing, a chance for new ideas and new conversations to arise in the local/national debate. This is why WE have candidates running against our incumbents.

[IBCoupe]

...but there are always others in the same party, who run against the incumbent and are on the ballot...

Really? Always?

There are any number of reasons why the Party would want to stifle primaries. If the general election is expected to be close, the damage done in the primary to the incumbent might not be worth the risk. In the case of Gabby Giffords, there may be wider political ramifications to the damage done. Further, you all know this was a "damned-if-you-_____" situation, in multiple ways.

First, if there had been no challenge, Conservatives would say, "You're trying to give her a free pass, Democrats. Why no primary?" Kinda like you're doing here.

Second, had there been a primary challenge, and had the Democrats been perceived to support it, the question from the right would be, "Have you no decency?"

Third, had there been a primary challenge, and the Democrats remained idle, Conservatives would be crying, "Get a hold of your party! How can you let this happen?"

Faux poutrage all around.

[Cold_Zero]

IBCoupe,
The Party's ultimate goal is not necessarily what is good for the people, the process or the country, but the consolidation of their power structure. I reckon the thought is, with bigger majorities or the securing of certain branches of the government they can push through ‘changes’ that they want. While wanting change is not a nefarious plot, I think it is when you want huge social changes to reform other peoples’ behaviors. Basically, they want to secure more control to force the other guy to do ‘what is right.’ Both sides and the majority of the political movements in this country engage in this view. And I have to ask, how is that working out? Are you getting what you want? Looking back at 2000-2008, I seriously have to say that as a conservative we DID NOT get what we wanted. We got a bigger police state, huge deficit spending and constant war making…. All of these things that are not conservative principals.

But you are right in saying that the Primaries are a function of the Party. It is theirs do what they want and if this guy Powell is suppressed, he is free to run as an independent. (example Joe Liebermann).

[IBCoupe]

I'm not sure how to respond to that, Bud. I'll do my best.

The Party's ultimate goal is not necessarily what is good for the people, the process or the country, but the consolidation of their power structure.

I disagree. Fundamentally, I don't buy into your cynicism. The party's ultimate goal is to win because you can't get what you want unless you do. That's it. This isn't about stifling up-and-comers, but more about ensuring that the seat stays blue. No Republican is going to challenge Giffords. They've said as much. Anybody want to place bets on the Powell vs. Joe Republican race after he's run and beat her in the primary? Powell is being stupid.

I reckon the thought is, with bigger majorities or the securing of certain branches of the government they can push through ‘changes’ that they want.

This is why political parties are formed, Bud. Of course that's the thought.

Are you getting what you want? Looking back at 2000-2008, I seriously have to say that as a conservative we DID NOT get what we wanted. We got a bigger police state, huge deficit spending and constant war making…. All of these things that are not conservative principals.

I agree: George W. Bush winning the 2000 presidential elections was a bad thing for this country. That's why I didn't vote for his reelection in 2004. I suggest that you look at the party you're voting for next time.

I'm okay with the policies that have appeared since 2008. I don't think parties are the problem. Good policy can be created. Bad policy can be created. No policy can be created without political parties.

he is free to run as an independent.

And against Giffords in the general, I expect he's liable to lose.

[Encryptshun]

No policy can be created without political parties.

And this, my friend, is what is wrong with this country.

[IBCoupe]

There's nothing to be done, Chad; it's the price we pay for operating in a collective with more than five people.

[Encryptshun]

I will never be satisfied with that answer, Isaac, even if it means I live a long and frustrated life. If we can get to the moon, we can figure out a way to make policy without partisanship.

The common denominator I've seen in Washington is people trying to pass "shock and awe" legislature. Stop creating a law that's an effing brick of paper and instead pass smaller, more focused bills designed to compliment each other. Modular law making. It's a theme that is successful everywhere else. You want nimble government that can change with the times? You want to get past this whole line-item-veto p*ssing match? Create laws like production lines create vehicles -- from components that have each been engineered to fit together and interchange with other models. We can't ever hope to build a car when we never agreed on whether to use bolts or rivets.

[IBCoupe]

We can and have created policy without partisanship. The problem is that our primaries are getting more extreme, and people choose ideologues over practical politicians. There's a good reason why you want Senators who serve 25 terms: they know the other people there, see them as people, and work with them. We have nominated crazy people in the interest of hurting the other guy. The problem is us. The TEA Party is bad for America, but we're getting what we deserve.

The problem with partisanship is not political parties, it's electorate attitudes. The economy makes people ornery, they think it's the fault of the party in power, and they vote them out. I hope in 2012 we recognize that the problem with 2010 wasn't Republicans, but crazy Republicans. If we don't, I'm pretty sure we'll just end up with crazy democrats, instead.

[szh]

...but there are always others in the same party, who run against the incumbent and are on the ballot...

Really? Always?

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 any number of reasons why the Party would want to stifle primaries. If the general election is expected to be close, the damage done in the primary to the incumbent might not be worth the risk. In the case of Gabby Giffords, there may be wider political ramifications to the damage done. Further, you all know this was a "damned-if-you-_____" situation, in multiple ways.

First, if there had been no challenge, Conservatives would say, "You're trying to give her a free pass, Democrats. Why no primary?" Kinda like you're doing here.

Second, had there been a primary challenge, and had the Democrats been perceived to support it, the question from the right would be, "Have you no decency?"

Third, had there been a primary challenge, and the Democrats remained idle, Conservatives would be crying, "Get a hold of your party! How can you let this happen?"

Faux poutrage all around.

EDIT: Yes, it could be a "damned-of-you ..." situation.
However, the strength of the outrage against Prowell from within the Democratic Party seems premature and unnecessary to me though.

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?

Z

[szh]

Anybody want to place bets on the Powell vs. Joe Republican race after he's run and beat her in the primary? Powell is being stupid.

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.

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.

Z

[szh]

I agree: George W. Bush winning the 2000 presidential elections was a bad thing for this country. That's why I didn't vote for his reelection in 2004. I suggest that you look at the party you're voting for next time.

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

In my case at least, even though I am a registered Republican voter, I did not vote for McCain in 2008 (although I did vote for him in the primaries - there, I can only select one from all the Republicans running).

But I didn't vote for Obama either - he was not the correct choice for me.

Z

[Cold_Zero]

The Party's ultimate goal is not necessarily what is good for the people, the process or the country, but the consolidation of their power structure.

I disagree. Fundamentally, I don't buy into your cynicism. The party's ultimate goal is to win because you can't get what you want unless you do. That's it. This isn't about stifling up-and-comers, but more about ensuring that the seat stays blue. No Republican is going to challenge Giffords. They've said as much. Anybody want to place bets on the Powell vs. Joe Republican race after he's run and beat her in the primary? Powell is being stupid.

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

I reckon the thought is, with bigger majorities or the securing of certain branches of the government they can push through ‘changes’ that they want.

This is why political parties are formed, Bud. Of course that's the thought.

I guess they are a necessarily evil.

Are you getting what you want? Looking back at 2000-2008, I seriously have to say that as a conservative we DID NOT get what we wanted. We got a bigger police state, huge deficit spending and constant war making…. All of these things that are not conservative principals.

I agree: George W. Bush winning the 2000 presidential elections was a bad thing for this country. That's why I didn't vote for his reelection in 2004. I suggest that you look at the party you're voting for next time.

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'm okay with the policies that have appeared since 2008. I don't think parties are the problem. Good policy can be created. Bad policy can be created. No policy can be created without political parties.

I am not ok with the policies and the course of this country since 2008. Which is why I support neither ‘More of the Same.’ Either GW or Obama. I am sure you will be tickled ‘blue’ sic because it would seem helps out ‘your guy.’ The problem is policy appears not being created by the parties but by lobbyists and think tanks. 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? And this anti union legislation sweeping Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky… is cookie cutter legislation handed out by the Coke brothers to the Republicans. I am not ok with this approach. If your job is the Legislate, it is to write, read and debate Legislation. Not take a back seat.

he is free to run as an independent.

And against Giffords in the general, I expect he's liable to lose.

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

[stebo0728]

First glance would have me think you were arguing with yourself there Cold, but if you look up you see those are IB's arguments.

[szh]

First glance would have me think you were arguing with yourself there Cold, but if you look up you see those are IB's arguments.

Fixed it for him.

Z

[Cold_Zero]

Sorry, I wrote this in between running some cycles on the mainframe.
Thank you Z
and Stebo, it would be the first time people see me walking around arguing with myself.

bud

[Encryptshun]

I prefer to always argue with myself -- that way I know I'm going to win.

[Cold_Zero]

This forum needs a 'Like' function so I can click 'Like' on that comment.

[mattblancarte]

sudo rm -r * What mainframe?

[Cold_Zero]

sudo rm -r * What mainframe?

It is that big iron thing your server wishes it was.

[mattblancarte]

Yeah my servers aren't badass enough to call a mainframe... I'll admit that.

Edit: Regarding the like function... would probably be relatively easy to add. Adding the button to each looped post, adding a field in the posts table (or whatever they call it with this forum software), doing an ajax POST to a helper file on click event...

That would be kinda fun if there was both the upvoting and downvoting like reddit.com. "Like" and "unlike."

[stebo0728]

Lets make it so we can poke each other too while we're at it.

[Cold_Zero]

Stebo,
That is exactly what we DO NOT NEED on NICO. Can you imagine Howie or Greg poking people on the forums?