If Giffords runs for the Senate, should the GOP let her go unopposed?

[Keystone Phil]

Having the nerve to oppose her would obviously be "very unappetizing!" I'm sure it would somehow be racist, too.

Your take?

[Senator Napoleon]

If anything, it will be a subconscious negative for Giffords in the back of voter's minds, especially with her being a woman.

She wouldn't win.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Absolutely. Even Phil says so.

[Χahar]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Alaska Thunderfvck]

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

lol

She's not going to recover in time to run for Senate though.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Yes.

[Keystone Phil]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Pleas see this...

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

[Alaska Thunderfvck]

I don't care. That doesn't mean you have to stoop to his level and create a meaningless thread. Now kiss and make up, or shut up.

[Landslide Lyndon]

In case anybody cares, Giffords might run without being attacked by her opponent and still lose. It's Arizona after all.

But apparently saying that many people simply won't have the stomach to attack a woman that survived a gunshot wound in the head is a controversial/hackish statement for Phil.

[Invisible Obama]

Over the top, overly dramatic Republican thread alert. My take is this borderline trolling and has no point other than to start arguments.

[Keystone Phil]

In case anybody cares, Giffords might run without being attacked by her opponent and still lose. It's Arizona after all.

But apparently saying that many people simply won't have the stomach to attack a woman that survived a gunshot wound in the head is a controversial/hackish statement for Phil.

And "attack" will eventually mean anything said about her so you're telling us she should simply be unopposed.

Over the top, overly dramatic Republican thread alert. My take is this borderline trolling and has no point other than to start arguments.

Over the top, overly dramatic Dem hack alert: px. Still not banned from the forum for the same points you made above.

[Landslide Lyndon]

In case anybody cares, Giffords might run without being attacked by her opponent and still lose. It's Arizona after all.

But apparently saying that many people simply won't have the stomach to attack a woman that survived a gunshot wound in the head is a controversial/hackish statement for Phil.

And "attack" will eventually mean anything said about her so you're telling us she should simply be unopposed.

No, it isn't. You can do better than that.

[Senator Napoleon]

That one poster countered your argument with a Reagan argument and you called him a hack troll.

You need an attitude change... Not every discussion needs to be clash of the titans.

[Keystone Phil]

In case anybody cares, Giffords might run without being attacked by her opponent and still lose. It's Arizona after all.

But apparently saying that many people simply won't have the stomach to attack a woman that survived a gunshot wound in the head is a controversial/hackish statement for Phil.

And "attack" will eventually mean anything said about her so you're telling us she should simply be unopposed.

No, it isn't. You can do better than that.

As Napoleon pointed out, when a similar example was brought up (this time, mentioning a big, bad Republican!), you called him a hack and a troll.

You're worthless here, px.

[Mexino Vote]

My sympathy for her will not turn into sympathy support...sorry...

Jeff Flake for AZ!

[nclib]

Remember Max Cleland in 2002?

That said, if Giffords would run for Senate (extremely unlikely, at best she'll run for re-election to AZ-8), the GOP would certainly nominate and campaign, but hopefully would focus on her positions, and not attack her personally.

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

Really necessary to start a sarcastic thread reacting to one far-fethced comment in a place where there are hundreds of absurd ones a week?

[Keystone Phil]

one far-fethced comment

It's probably a mainstream thought knowing many of the dumbs that frequent this forum.

[Landslide Lyndon]

In case anybody cares, Giffords might run without being attacked by her opponent and still lose. It's Arizona after all.

But apparently saying that many people simply won't have the stomach to attack a woman that survived a gunshot wound in the head is a controversial/hackish statement for Phil.

And "attack" will eventually mean anything said about her so you're telling us she should simply be unopposed.

No, it isn't. You can do better than that.

As Napoleon pointed out, when a similar example was brought up (this time, mentioning a big, bad Republican!), you called him a hack and a troll.

Because the cases were completely different?
Anyway, I don't intend to stroke your ego anymore. You can have all the fun of the world with yourself and your new-found pal.

[Keystone Phil]

In case anybody cares, Giffords might run without being attacked by her opponent and still lose. It's Arizona after all.

But apparently saying that many people simply won't have the stomach to attack a woman that survived a gunshot wound in the head is a controversial/hackish statement for Phil.

And "attack" will eventually mean anything said about her so you're telling us she should simply be unopposed.

No, it isn't. You can do better than that.

As Napoleon pointed out, when a similar example was brought up (this time, mentioning a big, bad Republican!), you called him a hack and a troll.

Because the cases were completely different?
Anyway, I don't intend to stroke your ego anymore. You can have all the fun of the world with yourself and your new-found pal.

Reagan: shot by a madman and very close to death.

Giffords: shot by a madman and very close to death.

Oh, I know why they were completely different: because of the political parties of the victims. Got it.

[Jayhawker]

No.

First off, I really don't see her running for this. Actually, I'm not even sure if she'll run for reelection. I admire Giffords dearly and respect her, but I still believe many of the positions she supports are not best for this nation, so unless some idiot got the GOP nomination (pretty good chance, actually, of that happening), I'd probably support the GOP candidate.

[krazen1211]

Remember Max Cleland in 2002?

That said, if Giffords would run for Senate (extremely unlikely, at best she'll run for re-election to AZ-8), the GOP would certainly nominate and campaign, but hopefully would focus on her positions, and not attack her personally.

That crazy Giffords might cause a nuclear holocaust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwrlKI1CpQY

[krazen1211]

Reagan: shot by a madman and very close to death.

Giffords: shot by a madman and very close to death.

Oh, I know why they were completely different: because of the political parties of the victims. Got it.

I would have brought up Ford, but that was slightly different. He was shot at by a liberal trying to make a political statement.

[Senator Napoleon]

What the GOP did to Cleland was absolutely despicable and still boils my blood to this day but I don't think it's the right analogy here. I thought the Reagan one was good, as it too was an assassaination attempt.