Skip to content

Why, He’s As Busy As a…Naw, I Won’t Go There

Tim BeeI’ve received a couple of e-mails from folks asking me when Tim Bee was going to resign. It didn’t occur to me that such a thing would be imminent, but he may need to sooner rather than later.

There are two things Bee has to do before he tries to take down Gabrielle Giffords in the next election. First, he wants to avoid a primary like the one that happened last year. Second, he needs to make sure he can raise money to be competitive with Giffords.

Bee and his friends in the Republican establishment have already done a good job of keeping other candidates out. Bruce Ash, who would have been a strong contender, now has a seat on the Republican National Committee. The field seems to be clear for the guy, barring a strong challenger from the right.

The money issue becomes even more important than usual since national Republicans are probably going to look at early fundraising to decide where they will commit their scarcer than usual resources. Raising a great deal of money early will also keep other candidates out of the race.

His trouble is he isn’t allowed to raise money right now. Raising more than a few thousand dollars means our state’s resign to run law kicks in. Giffords already has $415,000 in cash on hand, people around Bee will be asking him if he can really wait until December and then catch up.

Bee has been getting a great deal of good press lately, since he seems to have come out on top in the budget fight. Heck, he did this cooperating with a Democratic governor. “He’s a bridgebuilder” those press releases will say. He’s about as on top of the world as a Baja Arizona legislator can be, he could get out now and ride the wave of good press. However, I don’t expect him to do so until after an expected special session on the English Language Learner issue. It wouldn’t say much about his motives if he left the Senate before this important issue is handled. Of course, it can be said that he didn’t do much about it during the session…

49 Comments

  1. Rex wrote:

    Anyone in education has to applaud Tim for his steadfast advocacy of kids and public schools since he has been in the Legislature. Moreover, had he not run, we would have had Senator Bill McGibbon! He has also demonstrated skill in how he has managed and lead a diverse Senate GOP caucus. Tim and his brother (who held the seat before him) are well-known and well-liked in a portion of CD8 that has high voter turnout. This will be a tight race, much more so than 2006, and both national parties have to already see that.

    When you look at Tim’s voting record in areas other than education, he is as conservative as his former District 30 colleague, Randy Graf. Giffords is clearly more capable of representing the varied factions and concerns of CD8. Draw Tim out on ALL the issues and ask him to defend his votes in Phoenix and the ones he would cast in DC. The same voters that saw Giffords as the sensible alternative to the policies touted by today’s GOP will ultimately draw the same conclusion next year if that is done.

    Friday, June 22, 2007 at 7:58 am | Permalink
  2. SonoranSam wrote:

    Props to Tim Bee. He acted like a statesman and actually did what many politicians only pretend to do. He ignored partisan politics to sit down with Democrats and negotiate a reasonable budget.

    Now the bill is coming due. He’s getting heat from those who think he’s not sufficiently conservative or pro-business.

    Today’s Arizona Republic quotes him as saying that he doesn’t plan to resign, but does plan to be sitting in the President’s chair when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

    Hmmm. Is this why Jonathan Paton has been touring Republic district meetings to tout his experience as a soldier in Iraq?

    Friday, June 22, 2007 at 8:13 am | Permalink
  3. x4mr wrote:

    No way the GOP will allow a bloody primary in this one. No way. Bee has to make a decision and soon. If it is yes, he will have all the support GOP can muster, and those bitching that he is not conservative enough are idiots the GOP will have to handle.

    If he says no, look to Paton and no primary opposition. If Paton says no, it’s over.

    I have an idea. Let Al Melvin take Giffords on. Of course, he lost to Charlene, but hey, you know what they say about persistence.

    Friday, June 22, 2007 at 10:24 am | Permalink
  4. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    It’s Bee or die, because Paton is a lightweight, and most people know this. However, his ego is one of the biggest in the legislature (and that’s saying a lot), so I’m sure he thinks he can beat Giffords handily.

    If he runs he’s too much of a dolt to not fall into the same traps that Graf fell into last time.

    Friday, June 22, 2007 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
  5. kralmajales wrote:

    I’ve blabbed a lot about Bee and most know my opinions. To say a few things positive, he has made deals to pass a solid budget bill. He took on the right and frankly won, getting a more moderate than usual budget for the state. Our state universities, for the first time in awhile, got off pretty well. Another thing in his favor is his strong strong support with Toni Hellon behind extended the half cent sales tax that benefits Rio Nuevo. His support for downtown won’t be forgotten by many a developer and Rio Nuevo supporter in city government. He will be a strong competitor AND because he has such a strong conservative record for his party.

    All that said, everything said above is true. He truly risks his political career by facing Giffords. If she has even close to $700K on hand, he has to be wondering if he can catch up, how much the RNC wants this one back (as opposed to other races around the country) to fund it, and how it will look to have him leave the Senate only to be beaten by an incumbent. As I have said before, any hope of becoming a statewide candidate is drained away in a loss to Giffords. AND…unlike the Kolbe/McNulty days, Bee did not face Giffords in the first race like Kolbe did. Kolbe had two safe shots at winning….Bee will have this one…and that is it.

    Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 1:10 am | Permalink
  6. Joe Pyritz wrote:

    Found of Craig’s List on Saturday:

    I am looking for a person with a political science background who would be interested in being a campaign manager for an Independent candidate. Would be working towards the District 8 seat in Arizona primarily comprised of Pima and Cochise counties. If you are looking for a resume builder and would like to start big in your political ambitions please respond ASAP.

    Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 12:36 pm | Permalink
  7. Eli_Blake wrote:

    My own feeling (not living in CD 8 but knowing folks who do) is that Giffords has done what she needs to to make the district safe for her. Barring any unforseen events or controversies, I suspect that who the GOP runs against her won’t matter, because like Jim Kolbe, she has worked hard to represent the district and people down there seem to genuinely like her.

    Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 4:31 pm | Permalink
  8. George Tuttle wrote:

    She’s done what she needs to make the district safe for her??

    I think she’s done a great deal to upset both Democrats and Republicans by her questionable vote on the Iraq debacle spending mess and her stand on immigration.

    I’m supposing there is a faction out there who are praying that she gets a primary opponent just to show her that she isn’t that loved out here.

    By the way, what happened to “Change can’t wait”? It’s more like more of the same under Kolbe-light.

    Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 6:38 pm | Permalink
  9. x4mr wrote:

    Have another stout, George.

    CD 8 has no primary on either side. Any blue challenger is DOA, and the GOP will do whatever it takes to lock in behind one name, and SOON. By soon and imminent I mean this summer, not Christmas.

    If they wait until Christmas, they might as well nominate Jorgensen, run on gay marriage /abortion takeover of the country, and for sake of entertainment, start a gambling pool on how badly he loses.

    Bee can wait a month or two. He cannot wait six. I agree with Eli and Roger and will add that she gets stronger, not weaker, with time.

    If by 9/1, nothing substantive has occurred, I’m ready to call it, barring those out of the blue “caught with puppies” scenarios.

    Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 11:47 pm | Permalink
  10. kralmajales wrote:

    Great points all. I think that both Giffords and her staff are going to place her in a position to be in great shape to hold the seat. Georges points are understandable and well taken. She has only be in office now 6 months. She has time to listen on all issues and do the right thing on Iraq. No, she has not made friends by not immediately voting to get out of Iraq, but what if she does it during the new session in September…and with over a year left in her term.

    On immigration…the nutsos in the Republican party on this issue are strong and are tearing their party apart…as we watch. Read the Sonoran Alliance and even Framer’s blog comments on this. Any action at all on immigration by Giffords, and there has been some, will look remarkably like she is trying to do the right thing and will make the republicans look simply obstructionist. THAT fact will also harm whomever their nominee is.

    Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 9:28 am | Permalink
  11. Liza wrote:

    Giffords has alienated Progressives, who didn’t like her a great deal to begin with but were willing to give her a chance. Well, chance given, chance blown. Giffords handlers must think that Progressives have no real choice because their alternative will be to vote for a Republican or throw their vote away.

    Personally, I won’t vote for a Blue Dog. If we are trying to reform the Democratic Party, then Blue Dog’s have no place in it, in my opinion. I’m looking at the next election as a national election where we need to focus on getting Progressives or just more liberal Democrats elected to Congress in WHATEVER district or state that might be. In other words, we can’t be overly concerned about our own district or state when there might be better opportunities elsewhere. That is the way to affect foreign policy.

    Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 9:52 am | Permalink
  12. Bee did show his radical right-wing side recently with his anti-environmental pandering to the gun lobby.

    See: http://dpatterson.blogspot.com/2007/06/bee-serves-gun-lobby-not-safety-or.html

    Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 10:48 am | Permalink
  13. Walt S wrote:

    Are you forgetting Ray Carroll? He is always under estimated but he always seems to win. Very strong pro invironmental agenda and well liked among Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

    If the election were being held in down town Tucson Mr. Patterson would be right but I’ve been told by political strategists the NRA has a very substantial foothold in CD-8 and can swing a close election. Giffords got a lot of Republican votes and was especially strong among Republican women. This won’t happen with Bee or Carroll.

    Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 2:44 pm | Permalink
  14. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    Giffords is actually a member of the House’s Progressive Caucus. She’s not a blue dog. The only vote she strayed from was the Iraq vote (yes, of course, by far the most important one).

    She’s voted with us on everything else. From what I heard, she was torn on the Iraq vote (two bases in district) and Rahm Emanuel guided her into what her vote was eventually. But that dangerous. If she keeps Rahm as her mentor, then she will NEVER EVER be a true-blue progressive of the people. Rahm is the epitome of corpocrat, DLC centrism. Rahm’s job, it seems, is to block or water down every progressive idea in the House….from within the caucus.

    Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 3:24 pm | Permalink
  15. I support Rep. Giffords, but she is now an official Blue Dog Dem.

    See: http://dpatterson.blogspot.com/2007/06/rep-giffords-joins-conservative-blue.html

    Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
  16. Rex wrote:

    I was proud of Gabby for her vote on the war funding bill. She did the right thing when we still have troops on the ground in Iraq, as did the House leadership. Clinton and Obama stuck their fingers in the wind and waited until the last minute to vote against the bill, petrified that they would be vilified by the Left. Joe Biden was alone among the presidential contenders in making the conscientious choice to vote for the bill.

    Biden was also correct when he chided the other candidates for their lack of realism and their inclination to pander. Until more Republicans agree to abandon Bush and vote with the Democrats, the only people hurt by the “no” votes so-called “progressives” want to see from insightful leaders like Giffords are the troops on the ground. There is a right way to end our involvement in Iraq, but that will require us to continue to work to build coalitions with Republicans such as Warner and Lugar, who are starting to see the writing on the wall.

    Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
  17. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    Well, I am done with her, then, if she’s a blue dog. It’s not appropriate to throw contributions one’s made back into people’s faces, but I gave her five hundred bucks last time. If I knew she was going to be a damn blue dog, I would have saved my $ and gave to someone else.

    I do not. I simply do not ever support blue dogs. They sometimes do more damage from the inside of our party than ever the Republicans can accomplish from the outside.

    He CD is NOT in rural Georgia. There’s no reason for her to be a blue dog. None. Look at Yarmuth in Kentucky. Dollars to donuts he wins re-election easily in 2008. I’ll give him my money instead. Thanks for the heads-up Daniel Patterson.

    Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 8:05 pm | Permalink
  18. Liza wrote:

    netrootsdemocrat,
    Giffords is a new member of the Blue Dog coalition. So, what is that? A Blue Puppy?

    Is she really a member of the House Progressive Caucus? I checked the House member list on their website just now and her name was not there. Maybe she defected? It’s an alphabetical list, so I definitely didn’t miss her name.

    At the risk of stating the obvious, the Iraq vote is the most important of all votes, if one really is a progressive. Too bad she didn’t listen to Dennis Kucinich instead of Rahm Emanuel, huh?

    Rex,
    There will always be troops (military and contractor) on the ground in Iraq, at least in your lifetime. That is the plan and its still on very much on track. Follow the oil.

    Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 8:26 pm | Permalink
  19. Walt — NRA strongly backed Graf against Giffords in 06, and it didn’t help him.

    Bee recently pushed a reckless wildcat shooting position, not a straight forward 2nd Amendment measure.

    I’m not a big Blue Dog fan, but I support Giffords and say give her more of a chance. She has only been in congress 6 months. She could be a moderating influence on the Blue Dogs?

    Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 8:27 pm | Permalink
  20. Liza wrote:

    netrootsdemocrat,
    I didn’t see your last comment before I posted.

    Welcome to reality, my friend.

    Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 8:33 pm | Permalink
  21. Rex wrote:

    Doesn’t the Democratic Party need both “Blue Dogs” and progressives? Can’t we accommodate both Kucinich and Emanuel? Aren’t we a party in which EVERYONE should have applauded when right-of-center Democrat Heath Shuler took down a multi-term hard-right conservative in North Carolina?

    Which litmus tests does Gabby have to pass to meet your rigid definition of a Democrat? American political history is replete with examples of one of its two major parties falling into minority status when it becomes too elitist and exclusive. The Republicans are busily purging long-time loyalists who could very easily start voting Democratic. Isn’t that what we all want?

    Before you start pontificating about values and core beliefs, let me repeat what I said in 2006: I would have voted for and campaigned for any of the Democrats who sought the CD8 nomination, except for GOP stalking horse Bill Johnson. Why can’t some of you on the Left recognize the essential fact that Giffords is with you on virtually every issue of consequence, even if she isn’t with you all of the time? Do you demand absolute loyalty, or do you recognize that politics is the art of the possible?

    Monday, June 25, 2007 at 6:40 am | Permalink
  22. Liza wrote:

    Iraq is not an issue of consequence? It is THE issue, but I won’t “pontificate”, at least not here and now.

    Follow the oil, Rex. It’s worth repeating because the Iraqi people are running out of time. Have you read the May 23 floor speech that Dennis Kucinich gave before the House?

    Start here with the first two paragraphs. I hope you decide to look it up and read the rest of it.

    “Mr. Speaker, there is an issue of critical importance facing this Congress, and that issue relates to whether or not this Congress should pass legislation to continue to fund the war in Iraq.”

    “The legislation contains a particular provision that would lead to the privatization of Iraq’s oil, a provision that I’m quite concerned about, because I think that if we take that position, it will make it very difficult for us to ever be able to end the war.”

    Monday, June 25, 2007 at 8:11 am | Permalink
  23. Joe wrote:

    Wait, I’m sorry, I thought Gabby Giffords was one member in a 535-member body; you people complaining about the Iraq war are acting like she’s President, and she’s refusing to bring the troops home.

    Here’s the truth, kiddos: until Bush is no longer the President, there’s no chance of the troops leaving Iraq. Even if the war was defunded, he’d probably leave them in Iraq, without money, food, water, medical supplies, or ammunition, just to try to make a point.

    Whining about this issue makes you sound really childish. Yes, it sucks that we can’t end the war, but we’re effectively stuck at a 51% majority. With those kinds of numbers, you shouldn’t expect to get everything you want. You also seem to be completely ignoring that for the first time in 12 years there’s oversight in the legislative branch– but apparently getting proof of scandals which could keep Republicans out of power for the next decade just isn’t good enough for you, I guess.

    Monday, June 25, 2007 at 9:34 am | Permalink
  24. Liza wrote:

    Have you even read H.R. 2237, “kiddo?”

    Nevermind. I know the answer.

    Monday, June 25, 2007 at 10:00 am | Permalink
  25. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    I never said that I didn’t want Gabby to win re-election. However, I am only one person and without a unlimited income. I’d vote for her in a general of course. However, with things other than just voting, like money and time, sorry, but no.

    Let the corporations give her her money this cycle. Afterall, that’s why they are bluedogs. My money will go to the ones who are trueblue (instead of dogblue) progressives. And she ain’t on the list.

    Liza, you are 100% correct and I agree with every single post I’ve read of yours. We need more of you. :) Btw, Kos had said she was a member of the prog caucus and had a link and I read it. Perhaps they haven’t updated for freshman? Or else she dropped it and then joined the dogs? I know that Yarmuth is definitely a freshman member. And so are the two from IOWA who are freshmen.

    Monday, June 25, 2007 at 12:08 pm | Permalink
  26. Billy Barue wrote:

    I am enjoying reading these dispatches from Crazytown. Yeah, keep pushing Gabby to the left. See how long she lasts on that cliff. Rex, the reason Democrats on this blog seem so obtuse and stubborn in attacking their own is that fundamentally the base of the Democrat Party is just as crazy as the Party you left. They prize purity over pragmatism in all things. To those who laugh about the Republican party self-destructing over immigration, keep it up, but you all do the same things over Iraq.

    I think it would be dumb for Bee to resign. How could he possibly get better press than he has gotten from virtually every media outlet for doing such a good job as Sen. President? That’s free media. He doesn’t have to pay the Star or the Citizen or anyone else for the positive stories (like the series they’re doing on him now in the Star) he has been getting lately. I think in the long run it is smarter to stay out. He will get the full backing of the party when he announces and they will help him raise money. Graf managed to get over a million and he was on the outs with the Republican Party, surely Bee will do better.

    Monday, June 25, 2007 at 1:21 pm | Permalink
  27. boredinaz wrote:

    They prize purity over pragmatism in all things.

    You are indeed a wise putter, Billy Barue.

    For the rest of you, what is the difference between a “progressive” and a “liberal?”

    Monday, June 25, 2007 at 3:25 pm | Permalink
  28. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    nothing, bored. nothing at all. I am a liberal and am as liberal as most people get.

    However, the rightwing nutcase noise machine and the rightwing “mainstream” media have made the word into something dirty. rather than fight yet ANOTHER battle to reclaim the name, people like me just use progressive. The corporate-controlled media succeeded in making the word liberal as something akin to “socialist”. But dumb Republicans (most are rubes) cannot even give the proper definition of “socialist” which is the government OWNERSHIP of the means of production. I am NOT a socialist.

    Monday, June 25, 2007 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
  29. Sirocco wrote:

    Giffords did join the blue-dog caucus, and it’s likely good she did. No matter what we might want, the simple fact is the district itself is pretty evenly split. By joining the blue dogs, she insulates herself a little from the inevitable claims next year that she is a “radical liberal” or “Pelosi clone” or whatever supposedly perjorative terms the R’s fling at her.

    Monday, June 25, 2007 at 6:53 pm | Permalink
  30. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    No it doesn’t, Sirocco.

    That’s spin. Pure spin. Can you tell me what % of CD-08 voters even know what the hell a bluedog is?

    It won’t resonate at all. Some people here don’t even know what the hell it is. But, what it really accomplishes is that it sends a signal to the corporate PACs that she’s “available.” THAT’S the problem.

    Just like when someone joins the prog caucus they are sending a signal they are NOT a corpocrat and that they care about the common person, environment, and that they are with us on gays, abortion, and this war bullshit.

    Raul Grijalva is the perfect example. He’s the man! She ought to listen to him more.

    Monday, June 25, 2007 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
  31. Zelph wrote:

    No matter how moderate a Dem may actually be, the Repubs will label him or her as an “far-left liberal” (unless, of course, you are a complete sellout like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller). That’s just how Republicans run campaigns.

    Monday, June 25, 2007 at 9:31 pm | Permalink
  32. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    ITA, Zelph. They did it to Bill Clinton, for crying out loud. And we all know he was center-right on a lot of things.

    They’ll swiftboat anyone who’s the nominee in 2008 as well. That’s why the anti-Hillary people (I support Edwards, btw) are foolish to say that it’s only her that the rightwing with froth at the mouth over and go after. By the summer of 08, whomever our nom is, will be hated by 45% of the country as a Maoist, arsonist, bedwetting, pablum-puking commie pinko, pro-terrorist liberal.

    But I don’t care what they do. Our guy/woman just needs to run a good campaign and hit them back hard, unlike what Kerry did.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 7:53 am | Permalink
  33. Billy Barue wrote:

    Well, NTD, that’s because judging by your field at the moment your nominee will be a “a Maoist, arsonist, bedwetting, pablum-puking commie pinko, pro-terrorist liberal.”

    I hope by “hit back hard, unlike what Kerry did” you mean someone who will go to the left. Every election you hear that: “we didn’t win because we weren’t liberal enough”. We hear it on the right too: “we didn’t win because we weren’t conservative enough”. What that means usually is that “our nominee lost because he stopped kissing the asses of the base after the primary and went to the center.”

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 8:54 am | Permalink
  34. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    Mr. Barue, no, it means to hammer your side like they deserve.

    Though I am for Edwards, the only potential nominee who is tough enought to eat GOP children and spit them out (figuratively, of course) is Hillary. Because she’s proven she’s tough and her campaign team with scorch whomever is unlucky enough to be the bloodthirsty, war-loving, fascist, civil-rights trampling, middle-class hating Republican nominee.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
  35. kralmajales wrote:

    Interesting, I don’t know how you can support and be excited about Hillary, but yet condemn Giffords for being a blue dog and her vote on Iraq. Take a look at the story in Hillary in the New York Times Magazine about two-three weeks back.

    What I want to ask is once you see her positions on Iraq and how they have changed for the better, how can you still be so disasatified with Giffords for one vote and at a time when it would have done not one bit of good and would have arguably endangered her seat (given the possible challenge of Bee).

    Let me re-pose a question I posed earlier. If Giffords votes to get us out of Iraq at the next available opportunity, will that be enough to support her? If not, then I wonder how anyone hear who calls themselves a progressive could EVER support Hillary and not Giffords.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 7:07 pm | Permalink
  36. George Tuttle wrote:

    The Giffords apologists are out in force on this issue.

    The blatant fact that all of you fail to mention is that the Democrats were elected on the platform to get us out of Iraq. They bent over to Bush on the issue and now their approval numbers are in the tank.

    Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    The true insult to our troops by Giffords and those who voted to extend the funding, is that the TROOPS ARE NOT FULLY FUNDED TO BEGIN WITH!

    So there was no logic whatsoever (and my call to Randi Rhodes did indeed stump her on this), to say that you are voting to fund the troops when they do not have the body armor, the ied detectors and armored vehicles. The funding is going to the massive amount of contractors that are slurping our tax dollars away. (Giffords won’t tell you that, will she?)

    The Democrats had Bush by the short ones, but their desire to come home before the Memorial day holiday began shows us that the real priority with our elected officials is the chase for the almighty election dollar. If they say they support our troops then they are lying-if they did indeed care about care about our troops, they would have brought this Administration to the table to begin to talk about a timeline to get them out. If they would have at least drove Bush to a timeline for the removal of our troops and voted for the funding, I could have lived with that.

    Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 7:50 pm | Permalink
  37. sonorandesertrat wrote:

    OK. Wait a minute here, kraj. Had she voted to get the troops out of there, it could have endangered her seat in Congress?

    Why are you being such an apologist for this? This smacks more of “my party, right or wrong” than anything. Stop ignoring this basic fact: Giffords (or any other legislator) was not sent to Washington to win re-election.

    She was elected to get things done. Did you vote for her so that she could run her re-election campaign from Day 1 of her first session? Priority one on the list of things to get done was to get us extricated from Iraq. This war is costing lives, it is costing us a ton of money that our great-grandchildren will struggle to pay back, it is costing us our military readiness, and it is also costing us a great deal of our stature in the world. She had a chance to stand up and make a clear statement on this historical mistake. Instead, she chose to muddy the waters, and try to reach a politically balanced “safe” middle ground. You do that kind of thing during budget negotiations, not when there are life-and-death issues at stake.

    Politicians making “safe” decisions, in an attempt to make sure they get re-elected, got us into this mess in Iraq in the first place.

    Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 12:48 am | Permalink
  38. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    That’s just it, desertrat.

    How many Democrats lost re-election to ANYTHING in November 2006?

    None. And it was chiefly Iraq (with a little Katrina tossed in for good measure). With over 60% of not only the Dem side, but the entire nation wanting OUT of Iraq, the politically smart thing for her to do was vote to get us out. But, she’s trying to have it BOTH was and will be too clever by half.

    Gabby, stop listening to the namby pamby Rahm, et. al. If you think you won your seat because you are so special and that Iraq didn’t play a part in your victory, then you aren’t as bright and effective as people thought in November.

    Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 10:09 am | Permalink
  39. kralmajales wrote:

    You say that getting re-elected is of no consequence to getting things done Sonoran, but that is flat out wrong…as is Tuttle and Liza. The votes you speak of would have been tantamount to short term protest that would have not brought anyone home. She can explain her vote better than I but I have to disagree with each of you on your stance of short term principal over long term ability to govern.

    Yes, re-election is important and in a district like this one that is Republican. The vote you speak of was not politically palatable and we would lose her and any other good or great things she could do for this district and end up instead with a Republican…for the long term.

    I am not happy about the progress on getting out of Iraq. I want to see another vote and soon. It is fair to criticize. I hope it will empower her to vote to remove our troops when the next possible reasonable bill can come up.

    I am no apologist…I am realist. If you want Tim Bee as your Congressman or some other conservative nightmare, then by all means take her out.

    Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 10:09 am | Permalink
  40. kralmajales wrote:

    Netroots,

    You state:

    How many Democrats lost re-election to ANYTHING in November 2006?

    She can speak better on her vote than I can, but how many of those you speak of live in what is a military district, with a strong Republican advantage, and with a series of likely opponents that could have painted that one vote (which again, would have accomplished nothing) into a series of 30 second ads that say she voted to defund troops while in battle. There were not enough votes, period, to pass the legislation, let alone override a Presidential veto. There is also the question on how best to exit in what is a remarkable “cluster f**k” of a problem. For whatever reason, this may have not been the bill for her, the right way, or the right time. It would not have brought a single soldier home and it would have endangered our ability to have a person who is by far the better than having any Republican in this office.

    I voted for her and supported her and hoped like hell she would get out Iraq and if she is reading this, I am disappointed and want us out at the next available opportunity…or now…if possible.

    However, I also voted for her because I wanted a Congress that would investigate and not rubber stamp all this President does. I wanted tough questions and I wanted a host of other policy decisions that a Republican would be a strong detriment to (environment, spending, labor, immigration, choice, and a host of others).

    I think she should vote to get us out, but many of the detractors here (maybe not Netroots) never supported her, which is fine.

    Getting out of Iraq is going to be hard. It is the Republicans fault…period…but it is going to take Republicans like Lugar, Voinovich, and Hagel…and a Democrat President, and a stronger majority to make any dent at all in getting us out of Iraq.

    Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 10:51 am | Permalink
  41. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    I agree with you Kralmajales.

    I support Gabby. I voted for her. And I hope she’s re-elected in 2008. However, now that she’s a bluedog, she can look elsewhere for money. Bluedogs are pro-corporate, so let the corporate PACs give her her money. I do not ever give one dime to any Dem who is a member of the bluedog caucus.

    As you can probably tell, I am WAY WAY WAY more pissed at her for joining the bluedogs than I am about any vote regarding Iraq. Afterall, I think the growing corporate influence in this country is a much more dangerous issue than any middle east conflagration.

    I think my Arizona money this time is going to go to Ellen Simon.

    Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 2:09 pm | Permalink
  42. kralmajales wrote:

    Is Simon running against Renzi, then Netroots?

    I had not heard.

    Best!

    Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 6:39 pm | Permalink
  43. Eli_Blake wrote:

    Simon briefly announced (oddly enough annoucing via a blog comment on Arizona Congress Watch) that she was running again against Renzi but then she withdrew a few days later.

    I had been working early on for Allan Affeldt myself, but he also has now withdrawn from the race.

    Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 7:35 pm | Permalink
  44. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    um, so who the hell is running up there in CD-01?

    I’m not a big fan of that Fitzpatrick person.

    Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
  45. Joe Pyritz wrote:

    Tuttle makes some very salient points here.

    The troops are underfunded.

    Why was there no negotiation?

    I did indeed forget about the timeline about the pre-Memorial Day vote.

    There are some serious questions posed for which no one has failed to explain. I guess that means there is something there.

    Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
  46. Eli_Blake wrote:

    ‘Fitzpatrick?’

    Do you mean the prosecutor in the Scooter Libby case? Or do you mean state rep Anne Kirkpatrick?

    Right now there are about a half dozen candidates who if things work out their way could win, but Kirkpatrick is probably ahead of any of them.

    Saturday, June 30, 2007 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
  47. netrootsdemocrat wrote:

    Yeah, Eli, I really meant Patrick. I hear he likes the Sedona area so much, he thought he’d run up there in 08 and make it Fitzmas every day of the year for northern Arizonans, lol.

    Hey, sorry, for the sarcastic snark, but, hey, I really couldn’t resist.

    The things I have heard about Ann Kirkpatrick haven’t been good. Mind you, these are people’s opinions, but they originate from attorney’s who have worked with her extensively. Some fellow lawyers have questioned her competence and judgment as a lawyer. That ain’t good when you have to make decisions that a US Rep. has to make. But, these are only what I have heard and for all I know she’s the best atty in the world. But Flagstaff/Coco County is very tightnit, especially in the legal community. So the negative comments being so freely offered is somewhat surprising.

    On a personal political level, my perception of her is that she wouldn’t be much of a ‘change’ politician and would be beholden to polls and too cautious. But, hey, I’d go balls to the wall for her if she’s the nominee, in order to get rig of the odious criminal, Rick Renzi.

    Can someone tell me what happened to Ellen Simon? Why did she throw in the towel? I’ve called some friends in Sedona and they have no clue as to why she decided not to run. I’m not even sure if it’s true that she’s no longer interested in running.

    Sunday, July 1, 2007 at 2:02 pm | Permalink
  48. kralmajales wrote:

    http://azreport.blogspot.com/2007/06/bee-leaves-post-to-prepare-for-2010.html

    Uh…is this the truth? 2010???? I can see leaving his post after 2007 to run in 2008 vs. Giffords (although he would then be 4 quarters behind in fundraising), but running in 2010 against her? Who is advising him? He needs to give me a call (smile).

    If this is true, it makes me wonder if he is really thinking Governor.

    Monday, July 2, 2007 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
  49. kralmajales wrote:

    The Arizona Report is all satire apparently. No wonder I was confused (grin).,

    Monday, July 2, 2007 at 4:01 pm | Permalink