Sunday, January 21st, 2007...10:02 am
Republican Establishment to Iraq Vet: Wait Your Turn, Son
Republican mahouts are already working behind the scenes to avoid the divisive primary that they feel cost them Southeastern Arizona’s District 8 seat.
The current rumor is that fundraisers and kingmakers have made up their minds that newly elected Senate President Tim Bee will be the candidate, and have been working Rep. Jonathan Paton, currently on active duty in Iraq, to tell him that this isn’t his time yet.
The folks that told me about this haven’t told me exactly how Paton gets worked over by Jim Click while he’s in the green zone, but this is what they tell me. Lt. Paton, by the way, has sent a Mesopotamian missive to Espresso Pundit that you may want to check out.
Paton would be an interesting candidate. There has been a great deal of buzz over the last year or so about candidates like Tammy Duckworth, Patrick Murphy and Paul Hackett who were Iraq vets. All seemed to be Democrats. Even a political geek like me is hard pressed to think of a Republican Iraq veteran (at least of this more recent conflict) that has run for congress.
Paton has the distinction of running against Gabrielle Giffords once before, in a State House race in what was then District 13. This fact probably isn’t brought up much since he placed fourth behind Giffords, Carol Somers and Ted Downing.
Whether these moves actually result in Bee walking through the primary unmolested is still up in the air. The folks that are apparently trying to clear the field for him are some of the same people who backed Steve Huffman in this last race. They would have little sway over the more conservative elements in the party who feel that Huffman’s backers ruined Randy Graf’s shot at congress. Also, these aren’t people who would have much sway over Ray Carroll, a popular maverick who’s term on the Pima County Board of Supervisors is up in 2008.
CORRECTION: I was mistaken in my assertion that Lt. Paton was in the so-called Green Zone. A correspondent pointed out to me that Paton “isn’t even allowed to sniff the green zone.” I’m assuming that this means he is outside of Baghdad.
17 Comments
January 21st, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Van Taylor was a Republican war vet, who ran against Democratic Congressman Chet Edwards last year in a district that ironically includes President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.
The voters in the district may have respected Taylor’s military service, but they disagreed with him (and Bush) about whether we should continue to fight a fruitless war in Iraq. So Taylor got trounced.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Ted, why do you think Sugar Ray might run in two years? He didn’t run this time because he said he wanted to stay in Tucson while his kids are young; a noble reason if there ever was one. His three young ‘uns won’t be much older in ‘08! Carroll won’t run for that reason and because he can hang on to his safe seat until he decides to take on another race after his kids are older. My money is on him seeking a statewide job rather than trying to go to DC because he just doesn’t strike me as a Washington type…and I mean that as a compliment!
Tim Bee would put Cochise County and eastern Pima County in play big time. He is calm, poised and not prone to gaffes. Money would not be an issue, either.
However, he is almost as conservative as Graf on all issues outside of support for public schools. Gabby could tag him as a stealth version of Randy, which would be accurate and ultimately the clincher for her. My only worry for Gabby in two years is, to be candid, having to run on a ticket headed by Hillary, who will NOT play well in this district.
If she wasn’t considered to be too moderate by the right-wingers calling the tune in today’s GOP, Jennifer Burns would be someone to reckon with face to face with Gabby. Don’t count out Mike Hellon, either. Last, I know there are some on the right who see Frank Antenori as the Sam Brownback of Southern Arizona.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Are any of you Giffords fans at all concerned about the fact that she has not taken a strong position against the occupation of Iraq and her remarks about Iraq so far (as our representative in Congress) sound as though she knows just as little about the invasion and occupation as she did a year ago in Patagonia? I ask this question because so many of you have claimed to be against the occupation.
That Tucson Citizen article about the troop surge was intended to embarrass Giffords, I dare say, especially the part where she said that she would visit Iraq herself and see what needs to be done.
Why do her handlers think that it is not safe for her to take a strong position against the war at this point?
If the Democrats continue to bankroll the war, and they will, they may not be as popular in 2008 as they were in 2006. Voters know that Congress has more options than non-binding resolutions and I think that a lot of people expect the Democrats to actually do something about the war. That sentiment will grow over the next two years as this Bush presidency plays itself out and the debacle in Iraq continues to get worse, which it will. On the other hand, I think we can be sure that Bush will take his party down about as far as it can go by 2008. So, the Democrats may still be the lesser of two evils, but they need to get off their collective arse and do something about Iraq. Otherwise, some of these more local races such as a Giffords/Bee contest may very well go back to the party that has a demographic advantage. It’s way to early to try to predict anything, but I have to commend the Republicans for picking Tim Bee. He represents my legislative district and I can assure you that he’s well liked here.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pm
This is an open letter from James Jordan to Representative Giffords. I received this from the Sonora Progressives a couple of days ago and I think its an excellent letter. If you wish to sign the letter, send email to progalliance@yahoogroups.com.
Here’s the text of the letter:
Dear Rep. Giffords,
On Martin Luther King Day, at Reid Park, and today, on
KUAZ, I heard you make the same assertion, that the US
military had gone into Iraq for the purpose of
“removing a horrible dictator”, and that “our troops
performed heroically”, but that we “then went in to
remove weapons of mass destruction”, but there were no
such weapons. In each case, you went on to express
concerns about the escalation proposed by the
President, and to suggest that there were other,
better ways to deal with this war, although it was
never clear what those ways were. One thing you did
not talk about was the need to withdraw US troops as
quickly as possible from this quagmire. Instead, you
talked about things like bringing more nations on
board (as if they should be brought into a quagmire
that they recognized as such before the war began,
which is why they didn’t get on board in the first
place), having better strategies and defineable goals
and such.
I would like to point out a couple of things. First
of all, when the US military invaded Iraq, the
initial, not the subsequent, reasons given for this
war were the fallacious and much discredited lies that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that it
somehow had something to do with the attacks of
9/11/2001. Our invasion was based on the dangerous,
untenable, and unethical idea that we had the right to
launch a preemptive first strike against an imagined
threat.
So this war was NEVER justified, including the
justification you give it, that we went in to remove a
horrible dictator. Many of us do not believe that the
United States should be, nor deserves the right to be,
the policeman of the world. The fact that someone is
a horrible dictator has never been enough for us to go
in and remove them. If that were true, we would have
removed Pinochet, Suharto, Somoza, Battista, and
countless others–so many examples–if it were not for
the fact that they were all “horrible dictators” who
the US either installed or propped up in power to
serve its own interests–or rather, the interest of
the US power elite (it certainly didn’t serve the
interests of poor and working people in the US or
anywhere).
In regards to the “horrible dictator” Saddam Hussein,
it would be good for you to review your history of the
situation. Saddam Hussein rose to power and was
consolidated in that power on the basis of tremendous
US support. When the US supported Hussein, they knew
he was ruthless, cruel, murderous, and a “horrible
dictator”. But he served US interests by jailing,
torturing, and killing, en masse, the leaders of the
single largest secular democratic movement in the Arab
world. Unfortunately, the democratic will of the
Iraqi people would not have pleased US corporate
leaders, because it was not the will of the people to
turn all their oil, water, and other resources over to
private, US development.
Furthermore, when Iraq did have chemical weapons and
other capabilities for mass destruction, these were
sold and supplied by US government officials. For
instance, Donald Rumsfeld brokered such deals on
behalf of the Reagan/Bush administration. So if we
really wanted to see justice done regarding this
“horrible dictator’s” crimes, we might also want to
indict his co-conspirators. There’s plenty of them
there at your new job site in Washington DC.
You were elected to Congress, just like so many
freshman Democratic officials, because of widespread
dissatisfaction and anger regarding this unjust war,
and the thousands upon thousands of US and civilian
Iraqi casualties. Are the deaths and the maimings our
troops have suffered worth the prosecution of this war
based on lies? No, they are not, and I urge you to
recognize this.
Indeed, you, and all the Democrats, indeed, every
politician in Washington DC has been given a mandate:
End this sham of a war and bring our daughters and
sons and mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers
home before even one more of them dies for these lies,
these political games…before one more of them dies
so Halliburton and this and that oil company can make
more KILLER profits.
Rep. Giffords–we have faith in you to represent us,
and that’s why you were elected. But enough of this
double speak, enough of these unclear messages, enough
of trying to say things that you think will appeal
both to war supporters and war opponents. This war
was not about removing a “horrible dictator”, nor was
it about weapons of mass destruction. This war was
and is about securing profits for a handful of
wealthy, powerful, and corrupt few who simply want to
continue carving up the world and its resources so
that their power and wealth may increase, with no
concern about real democracy, and no concern about the
needs of the rest of us. They think nothing of
sending in 20,000 more trooops, nor of wasting
thousands of more lives for their impure aims..
Rep. Giffords–you are among those that we sent to
Washington DC for an overwhelming purpose: to speak
truth to power, to work to bring our troops home and
to end this murderous war. We must stop this war now.
We must bring our troops home now. We must not
continue to uphold and support this War of Lies.
Sincerely,
James Jordan
January 21st, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Liza,
You are correct. You need reinvent the Green party. People like you should not be held down by working and middle class Americans who are patriots. I love how this “expert” total twists history. The Baath Party and Hussein rose to power how? According to your expert…“Saddam Hussein rose to power and was consolidated in that power on the basis of tremendous
US support. When the US supported Hussein, they knew
he was ruthless, cruel, murderous, and a “horrible
dictator”. But he served US interests by jailing,
torturing, and killing, en masse, the leaders of the
single largest secular democratic movement in the Arab
world.”
This is a bigger lie than the one the President told to get us into the current crises. Where do you on the uniformed left get the facts? From Wikipedia.
You can toss around clichés like “…the US military invaded Iraq” and the drivel quoted above.
The only thing you and your Sheehan, Kucinich and professional protester pals will ever accomplish is to turn the “middle” against the Democrats. (I loved Cindi’s little stunt prior to the Democrats taking power in the Congress)
Your arrogance is staggering, you really believe that you and your uninformed left pals won the elections for the Party? Please, the moderate conservative voters who turned to the Democrats tipped the balance. You and your type of left needs to realize they did not/will not ensure anything for the Dems, except defeat.
I am offended by your United States hating, Anglophile clichés and trash talk about OUR Armed Forces.
AS one who dislikes rep. cream-puff you completely missed the point. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, hippy.
Even a bad Democrat is better that ANY GOPer
January 21st, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Ted,
“The folks that are apparently trying to clear the field for him…” It’s worse for Gabby than you know. The folks that were dead set against Huffman would also like to clear the field for Bee. Tim unites the whole party. All he needs is 50% or better form the independents and Giffords is out.
Rex,
Tim would also do well in NW Tucson. If Gabby wants to attack Bee as a stealth Graf she can go right ahead. She will come of as negative and petty.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:41 pm
All I have to say about Giffords is this:
I have a ten year old daughter who went to the state party meeting with me in Phoenix Saturday.
After Giffords spoke she talked for awhile with my daughter. She listened to what my daughter had to say and was very courteous and respectful towards her.
That is in contrast to a lot of politicians who think kids are good for a quick exchange and move on to an adult.
Class Act.
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 am
Blue Dog,
You might be very surprised by how many sources of information I have. I choose not to respond to you any further because 95% of what you have to say is just an attack on people who do not agree with you. You are the kind of person who should never venture outside your own circle of whatever it is you are because you are so vitriolic.
Anyhow, just to clear up one thing for you. The situation in Iraq is dire and will get worse. Whatever one’s political position, be it Green, Blue Dog, Republican, Leiberman worhsipper, or whatever, we need to end the occupation of Iraq and assure the global community that we are not going to remain there to plunder the oil, which is what we intend to do, by the way.
Also, you may not have noticed, but I didn’t write that letter, but I think that the author has some good points. I certainly agree with the spirit of the letter which is intended to motivate his representative in Congress. And, I also agree with his First Amendment rights to express his opinion. I have no idea whether or not he used Wikipedia for his source.
BTW, I’m not a hippie and never was. I don’t smoke either.
Have a good day.
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 am
Eli Blake,
Class act notwithstanding, Iraq can’t wait.
This is not about being classy. Congress will not act without a mighty shove from below. That is my only point.
You know, 2007 will be the most brutal year in the Mideast without the intervention of the American people.
Americans have turned against the war for different reasons. Whatever your reason, write your representatives in Congress. The sum total of what we all believe may be enough to convince Congress that a populist movement is underway and we are, as a nation, converging on the belief that the military occupation of Iraq must end this year.
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 am
Liza,
Here is a thought. Wish those serving in the uniform of our Republic a nice day. Better yet save the disingenuous platitudes spend some time with the men and women who have been maimed protecting all of our rights. Pick a VA here in the Valley or in Tucson
Your history is revisionist; your posting was insulting in view of the fact that our Service men and women were killed in large numbers today.
Have a great day honey
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 am
Liza, I always enjoy your posts because they are thoughtful and well-written. If you read Gabby’s comments in the Star yesterday, I think you’ll be pleased. She may not be as unequivocal as you are, but she is looking at all aspects of the issue, including cutting funds, and is slamming Bush for how ill-considered his overall policies are. My guess is that you and our new member of Congress are closer than you might think on Iraq. My own position is similar to John Edwards’ and I hope we see the party as a whole moving in that direction.
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:30 am
Blue Dog,
This one’s for you….
My husband is a disabled veteran from the Vietnam era. Let’s see now, there have been about ten or eleven surgeries, I’ve lost count. There have been forty years of pain. He is proud to have been a Marine and to have served his country. He thinks that it changed his whole life for the better. He has managed his disability extremely well. He knows that his sacrifice has been very small compared to what others have sacrificed.
I have immense respect and gratitude for those who put their lives on the line to serve this nation.
What I think is sad is the way that you so viciously attack people you do not even know. You make such outrageous assumptions about their beliefs and then attack them as though you and you alone speak objective truth.
Geez, man, get some Paxil. Do you really think that hating people accomplishes anything?
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 am
Liza,
Using your husbands service is beneath contempt
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:35 am
Hi, Rex,
I read the interview, and I think that Giffords is still very weak with her “public” position on Iraq. However, you make a really good point. She is definitely someone who is worth writing to and worth persuading to take a strong position. I fully understand that anyone in Congress who wants to be re-elected is very reluctant to take strong positions that may be a problem for them in the next election. That is precisely why we, the people, need to continuously apply pressure. I would like to see “lively discussion” on the local blogs about Iraq because the situation is so dire and time is running out. Can Iraq endure this occupation until 2009 or 2010 and, worse yet, will Cheney get his war with Iran?
The local blogs seem to have really diminished since the November election judging from the number of comments. I would hope that they could become an integral part of local politics and provide a forum for all of the voices.
Blue Dog, of course, doesn’t get it, but others do. Anyhow, thanks for reading me, Rex. I enjoy your comments as well.
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:39 am
Blue Dog,
Leave me alone. You do not know sh** from Shinola. Seriously, I will not respond to you ever again and I’m sure that everyone else who reads here will be glad of it.
EVERYONE, I promise not to respond to him ever again.
January 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Lisa,
Being a human I must respect your opinion and your views on the war in Iraq. But being a vet of the first desert storm “Conflict” I will disagree with you on a few points. I’m not sure if you believe the stuff that you posted but if we leave Iraq in the mess it is in we will be a true villain in the eyes of the world. We left the Kurds to fend for them selves after the first desert storm and the republican guard squished them like a bug! Kind of like the Bay of Pigs. Now we have a newly “elected” Iraq gov. begging us to stay and help. So should we just grab all our stuff and leave the entire nation of Iraq to take on the responsibility of fending for them selves? That would be bad. There are already groves of Iraqi innocents being butchered as we speak every day. If we just leave it will be genocide of the Sunni’s or what ever Muslim group that is in the minority.. Now if we would acknowledge that we just don’t care about the Iraqi’s and only care about oil we should just come out and say it! If we were there for the oil only there would be less Deaths! We would create martial law zones and then harvest the oil in mass. The insurgents would have a harder time killing troops and Civilians because everyone would have badges to enter certain zones. But since we as a nation would never conquer and then pillage the resources we instead instill de-Mock-racy in the hope that they will want to be like America. Silly aint it? Anyway my point is that we made a mess of Iraq because we were not honest of our intentions. The military is a pawn that can only function when given marching orders. So let’s not blame the military for being the big, nasty mean, and evil creature that it is meant to be. It is what it is. Tolerance is a must Lisa.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
drive,
I didn’t write the letter I posted, but I do not believe that the author was blaming the military. The military is not responsible for foreign policy. The foreign policy we suffer with today was hatched by Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, and several other former members of the Project for the New American Century who went on to become decision makers in the Bush Administration, as we all know.
Other than that, you’ve identified many of the exact problems that Mideast scholars, military experts, and others warned about prior to the invasion of Iraq. There is no resolution at this time given who is controlling this war, nor are there answers to your questions. The Bush Administration is at odds with the growing public sentiment against the war and the new Democratic Congress, yet they choose to rigidly adhere to a failed agenda. That is where we are.
But, yes, I do believe we need to end the military occupation. It is not sustainable. We will leave, we always do, the questions are when and how.
Leave a Reply