Kyl to retire

[krazen1211]

/sarcasm

Ben Quayle for Senate!

[krazen1211]

Jeff Flake is already declaring, practically. Should be an easy hold.

[krazen1211]

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), so yeah she will be recruited as long as she has a pulse. And voters are often dumb enough to base their vote on pathos, but "unstoppable" is stretching it.

It's more than stretching it. It's pretty much pure fiction. Giffords has a leftist voting record.

[krazen1211]

Kurt Warner would be great, but I think Jeff Flake will be the nominee. I'm looking forward to a future political career for Peyton Manning.

Tom Brady knocks off John Kerry in 2014.

[krazen1211]

Kurt Warner would be great, but I think Jeff Flake will be the nominee. I'm looking forward to a future political career for Peyton Manning.

Tom Brady knocks off John Kerry in 2014.

And now that the GOP is tigtightening the definition of rape, maybe Roethlisberg is viaable against Casey.  Unless he's fallen out of favor for that Super Bowl interception.

I didn't think he'd be old enough, but he is. But there's no hint AFAIK that Big Ben is a Republican.

[krazen1211]

Not gonna give her enough time to learn how to get her life together first, huh?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49393_Page2.html

If she decides to enter the race, she will be a difficult target for Republicans. Attacking an assassination survivor sounds very unappetizing to me.

And yet you leftists attack Ronald Reagan all the time.

A Pelosi liberal is not winning Arizona.

[krazen1211]

Yeah, you tell him, px! Reagan being shot and close to death is a vastly inferior situation. Plus, he ran unopposed in the 1984 General election anyway!

Didn't you know? Reagan's popularity ballooned after March 1981, in fact, 2 years later he was at a whopping 35% approval rating!

I'm sure he didn't have the name recognition of a back benching Congresswoman.

[krazen1211]

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.

First, a few things.

1. Giffords has a  leftwinged voting record in a rightwinged state. Her voting record in the last congress is mostly indistinguishable from a generic Bay Area congressperson.

2. She's not an incumbent for the office we're discussing, and of course, the election is some 90 or so weeks away.


Ah, so this dubious 'politicians who are shot get a free pass theory' depends on where the target got shot?

The hypothetical here, as you put it, is whether Giffords runs. The statement made after that, about whether she would be a difficult target in this seat, is completely baseless and stupid.

Such a theory didn't work for Reagan, who actually was attacked (fairly, on the issues) by Tip Oneill and House Democrats less than 2 months later. There are probably more examples out there if you choose to look for them.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/02/us/democrats-step-up-attack-on-budget-and-reagan-tactics.html

Such a theory didn't work for Ford, who found himself down 33 points in the 1976 election cycle a year after 2 different women tried to shoot him.

Such a theory didn't work for Humphrey 6/8 months after Kennedy and MLK were gunned down. And all 3 of these men were much better known than a relatively anonymous congresswoman. 2 of them were incumbents for offices they already held.

I'm not angry about her running on whatever the heck she wants to run on. Flake will beat her by 10+ points either way. Forgive me for believing that anyone advancing such a not quite 'hypothetical' or whatever you want to call it, should have a shred of proof backing it up.

[krazen1211]

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.

See the last sentence. I don't care much for baseless hypothetical, and certainly not baseless hypothetical conditioned on other baseless hypothetical.

If you're (this is not you specifically, but a general you) going to provide a theory, well provide your own examples to back it up, since you don't like mine for whatever reason. I personally don't see why most people would care about your minor distinction. I find it more likely that the race manifests in accordance with traditional politics and she either sinks or swims based on the record and the time at hand.

[krazen1211]

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.

Giffords is an anonymous Congresswoman. Your average American barely knows her name, and only because of this incident. Only a small percentage of political junkies is even interested in her day to day or week to week medical prognosis, and a year from now it'll mostly be off the news like all things go. And even of those politicians who have been 'severely wounded', I don't know of any cases where this sheerly speculative theory you're advancing has been shown to be true.

Nobody made themselves out as a victim. Someone made a stupid statement, and I provided a counterexample. You don't have to agree, and that's fine, but others do.

[krazen1211]

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.

Giffords is an anonymous Congresswoman. Your average American barely knows her name, and only because of this incident. Only a small percentage of political junkies is even interested in her day to day or week to week medical prognosis, and a year from now it'll mostly be off the news like all things go.

LOL! Apparently only well-known politicians deserve our sympathy when they are incapacitated because somebody tried to assassinate them.
And some people wonder why I call him a troll.

I think you missed 2nd grade reading class.