We’re hearing rumblings that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is close to releasing her second-quarter fundraising results, which will show that she’s collected more than one million dollars after six months in office.
If true, that’s a whole new kind of impressive for a Southern Arizona congressperson. And it’s an important show of strength for a Democrat who represents a GOP district and is sure to be targeted in 2008.
Does it affect Arizona Senate President Tim Bee’s decision to challenge Giffords? Wait and see.
This article appears in Jul 12-18, 2007.
Well, it isn’t as if Gabby is a liberal Democrat. She’s a flunky of the Democratic Leadership Committee, which brought us such non-liberals as Bill Clinton and the 2000 model of Al Gore, who was virtually indistinguishable from the 2000 incarnation of George Dubya Bush. Of course, Dubya quickly catapulted himself to the Genghis Khan side of his party, while Gore has wisely shifted to the left. Giffords, meanwhile, is in the appeasement camp, which is a perfect place to be if you want to get elected without actually standing for anything progressive.
James, should one automatically assume “Democrat” = “liberal”? In today’s America, it seems people are more and more hung up on polarizing the duopoly (a fancy way of saying Dems “need” to go hard left; GOP “needs” to go hard right).
No love for the party centrists?
Well, yes, in this stupid two-party system of ours, one should be able to assume that Democrat = liberal and Republican = conservative, with the understanding that there are many nuances on each side. Centrists should have their own party, because in the middle, what’s the point of being either a Democrat or a Republican other than to take advantage of the party machine? The Democrat/Republican distinction becomes meaningless when you’re sitting with a fencepost up your back end. In a relevant-to-reality system, the Democrats would be moderate leftists, the Republicans would be moderate rightists, there’d be a group in the middle, extremists at either end, and a couple of unclassifiable special-ideology parties (Greens, Libertarians) that people wouldn’t roll their eyes at. That’s how it would be if I were emperor. But then, if I were emperor, we wouldn’t need political parties, would we?
You went on a different route than where I was going (although Emperor James sounds pretty cool).
I read your complaint of “non-liberal” Democrats like Clinton, Giffords, and others as a statement that Democrats must be leftist liberals. That a Democrat automatically will do all the stereotypical Democratic things.
The polarization harms everyone, because it leaves a lot of people saying “well, do I take Evil #1 or Evil #2 ?” i.e. “Well, the Democrat wants to legalize abortion, but he’ll also harm my business interests. Grrrrr!” or “the Republican agrees with me on most things, but he’s also pro-war and I just can’t vote for that. Damn it!”
With polarization, there’s less of a chance of a perfect match.
In a perfect world, centrists would have their own party. It would be a moderate version of Libertarianism, but not to the extremities that the LP takes it.
MW: I agree with you that polarization is not good, but it’s inevitable with our system: two parties, two poles. Each party really should stand for something distinct–otherwise, what’s the point of the parties? And look what happens when one party, currently the Republicans, decides to go chasing after extremist voters: The Democrats move way over to the center to pick up the rational Republicans “left behind,” and that leaves the “Mother Jones” crowd, among others, without a mainstream home or even a voice in the respectable political discourse.
Here’s an analogy. Back around 1955-60, Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo made fabulous audio recordings using three separate channels: left, right, center. With the advent of Super Audio Compact Discs, many of those old recordings are finally being issued in three-track, rather than two-track, and they sound sensational, full and rich and every individual instrument precisely positioned within the continuum. Left, right, center; separate but equal. It could work in poliics, too, but right now all we have is center, and overbearing right-rear-channel ambient noise.
Why Tim Bee should not run for Congress…
I am a Giffords supporter…but think a lot of Bee. He has helped with University funding, taking on the “rightees” in his party, and has been a fairly pragmatic voice on policy. However, he is also quite conservative on social issues. He is a nice fit for Arizona and fits Arizona issues. Nationally, there is trouble for him and there are forces blowing against him that make a win very difficult. Finally, a loss against Giffords will not endear him to his party and will certainly hurt his political career…for state office…seriously.
My reasons why he should not run or will not win. He will be the toughest customer to go up against Giffords. but he is behind in funds by a million. He has a lot of money to raise. At this rate, Giffords will have 2 million by year end without spending much of a dime…and without the excitement of a real election to run in…which will lead to more funds.
His own party is a snake-pit of implosion. He will have to face some very difficult masters in the conservatives in this district and it will drive him too far to the right. This implosion is deep and is affecting those who fund the party and its candidates. The national doldrums facing Republicans makes fundraising tough and getting voters excited to vote, even tougher.
She is an incumbent. The past tells us that 95% of Congressional incumbents win re-election. While he can make a lot of noise fighting for the interests of S. Arizona as Senate President. It pales into comparison to what a sitting congresswoman can bring a district in pork and in ability to constantly visit a district and be in touch with voters. He can’t pull that off as easily and will undoubtably have fights with the right in his party as he tries to be reasonable and compromise….so see point #2 above…again.
The political winds are nationally not in the favor of Republicans. It has hurt vote turnout in the last election, incumbents are overwhelmingly leaning Democrat, funds are going to the Dems and not Republicans. The RNCC and RNC will have many seats to protect let alone win back and less money than ever to do it with. He will have to deal with an angry electorate that sees GOP as a dirty word.
Finally, Giffords has a very very well organized campaign and legions of supporters. While some say she has angered some on the left, the right says she is too liberal. In this district…that means she fits. In the end, Republicans will have tall order arguing that Bee is better and that we need to shift horses midstream.
In the end, I don’t see him being one of the 5% that upsets an incumbent. None of these things serve him well and will ultimately lead to his defeat. A defeat will be a serious damage to him when I think he could be Governor or win another statewide office. Some say he couldn’t win a Maricopa primary because he is not from Maricopa and not conservative enough. Just how could he win in a Republican primary if he loses to Giffords? Look at Volgy, Sultan, and a host of others that challenged Kolbe and lost…where are they now?
My two cents.
By the way, my impression is that the possibility of Bee running has helped her fundraising immeasurably and will continue to until and after he announces. He is a tough customer and nothing like a challenge to bring out the donors.