Kyl to retire

[Brittain33]

I wonder if Gabrielle Giffords would do it if she's recovered enough down the road. She'd certainly be unstoppable now.

Democrats always try to pull sentimental stunts like that (widows, disabled people, victims of violence),

I can think of at least two Republican widows in Congress (Emerson, Bono Mack) right now, and the one Democratic widow which seemed to get Republicans the angriest, Jean Carnahan, happened because there was like 10 days left before Election Day and no good alternative. Saying "Democrats always try to do that" is as fair as "Republican in a sex scandal? shocking!" about Chris Lee. I think singling out disabled people as candidates as a sentimentality ploy is particularly unfair to people who already struggle to be treated as equals--James Langevin would be surprised to learn that he has a career in Congress because Democrats were doing him a favor or playing a trick.

[Brittain33]

And yet you leftists attack Ronald Reagan all the time.

Reagan fully recovered from his shot, which was not as damaging as what Giffords suffered, and is criticized for his policies that were unrelated to that. For example, it didn't take Reagan five weeks (?) to recover to actually speaking a single word, as was recently notable for Giffords. Not to mention that Reagan likely was politically untouchable immediately after the attack.

I don't expect Giffords to run because she won't be up for a full campaign because she will be in recovery. Republicans who are very angry at the potential of her running on a sympathy campaign should consider that the assassin did eliminate the strongest potential Democratic candidate for the Senate seat Kyl is vacating. She'd certainly be running if she hadn't been shot. So it's doubly vicious to attack Democrats for hypotheticals when, hey, we have likely lost a very competent and talented rising star to an assassin's bullet, even if she survives. And she's a human being, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

krazen, why would you say something like this when it's not true? Giffords is not a "Pelosi liberal." The only reason to use language like that is to whip up partisan anger against an incumbent. That has its place, but it's not what we're about here on this forum.

[Brittain33]

I doubt a D running in Arizona has a good chance at winning in anything but a strong D environment, although Giffords was a skilled politician who won in a district as close to marginal as it gets in Arizona. But this discussion has gotten enmeshed in an unlikely hypothetical which I wasn't engaged in, and my comments shouldn't be taken in the context of a hypothetical race where Giffords runs and Republicans decline to criticize her, both parts of which I find unlikely, and which was largely raised by Phil as a straw man so he could bash the hell out of it and all those nasty Democrats. (Yes, Phil, I know px made a comment about how Republicans would have a hard time criticizing her, which was then turned into "conceding the race.")

The distinction between Giffords and everyone else you mentioned is that she was seriously injured by a bullet passing through her brain and will require likely years of therapy. It wasn't the fact that she was the target of an assassin that would make her harder to attack; it's the fact that she was severely wounded by the attack. Any comparison with a politician who was grazed and made a quick recovery is problematic. But I don't get where you're coming from, because this same distinction means that unlike Reagan and Ford, she's not going to be back to normal and carrying out a normal political campaign.

[Brittain33]

What's minor about the distinction between being fully recovered quickly and being handicapped for life?

I reacted badly because in our non-hypothetical world, the biggest victim here is Giffords for being shot through the brain. If there is a political dimension to the loss, it's to Democrats whose strongest statewide candidate is now likely sidelined and incapable of serving. So you'll understand why I react badly to Republicans styling themselves as victims here based on a weak hypothetical or "people attacked Reagan and someone shot at him." I don't react well to that whining when in the real world Democrats have to cope with losing our senate candidate to a madman's gun.

[Brittain33]

[Brittain33]

Will you break out the popcorn if Arpaio decides to enter the race and perhaps win, b33? 

It's one of those inside-the-tent-pissing-out things vs. on-the-outside-pissing-in things. He's the most powerful guy in the state so maybe we should just be honest about it.

[Brittain33]

Will you break out the popcorn if Arpaio decides to enter the race and perhaps win, b33? 

It's one of those inside-the-tent-pissing-out things vs. on-the-outside-pissing-in things. He's the most powerful guy in the state so maybe we should just be honest about it.

It was a sincere question, sort of.  If he runs, in my view, he's unstoppable.  Kyl's departure has opened the door for him........so we'll see.  Eat the popcorn quick before Sheriff Joe pisses on it. 

Oh, I do take him seriously.

[Brittain33]

Based on what I heard about Giffords' condition on NPR this morning, there's no chance they should be considering a Senate run for her. She has made great progress but her speaking ability is severely hindered. Her brain works but she can't retrieve words easily. I hope and believe she will recover a great deal in the future and is working toward that, but a major statewide race is not realistic.